Narrative:

During pushback; flight crew informed of difficulty securing main cabin entry door (L1) slide girt bar to floor latch. Aircraft returned to gate and maintenance called. I arrived at gate within 5 mins of call and was met by captain and flight attendant. Flight attendant stated he was unable to get girt bar to positive-lock in forward latch. Pilot stated that there was a prior logbook entry of similar problem and was resolved by 'cleaning latch.' visual inspection of latch revealed moderate amount of debris (dirt/oily residue/small paper fragments (napkin residue?) and also 1 hard object lodged in pivoting-latch mechanism. Effected cleaning of dirt debris with small probe; but was unable to dislodge hard object. Loosing 2 screws on top of latch cover-plate permitted removal of hard object. Object was discovered to be a small rock; approximately 3 MM in length/5 MM in width. This was preventing girt bar from sliding completely into latch assembly; therefore; latching mechanism would not engage. Wiped down all visible surfaces of latch; re-secured the 2 screws; and functional checked operation of latch. No defects noted and flight attendant was also able to insert and release girt bar without difficulty. Logbook entry was performed and aircraft released for continued service. The escape slide; cover; or girt bar were never affected and the latch assembly is not adjustable. (The base unit of the assembly may have shims installed to adjust ht; but only the top cover plate was loosened -- the base was not affected). I felt that a repair; or adjustment; or installation was not performed to a required inspection item component; but that a cleaning and testing was the action taken; therefore; no rii signoff needed. Upon consultation with maintenance control; the need for this rii signoff was unclear. Maintenance controller discussed situation with supervisors and felt due to specific wording used in the signoff (removed; cleaned; installed latch cover assembly) an rii would be appropriate. The aircraft had departed the gate and was beginning takeoff roll. Rii inspection was scheduled to be accomplished upon arrival at destination station. Reviewing general maintenance procedure shows that a conservative approach should have been taken regarding the need for rii signatures; and a review of the policies for logbook signoffs and rii categories have been accomplished to preclude a recurrence of this issue.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A REQUIRED RII INSPECTION OF AN MD80 ACFT MAIN ENTRY DOOR (1-LEFT) SLIDE GIRT BAR TO FLOOR LATCH; WAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED PRIOR TO DISPATCH.

Narrative: DURING PUSHBACK; FLT CREW INFORMED OF DIFFICULTY SECURING MAIN CABIN ENTRY DOOR (L1) SLIDE GIRT BAR TO FLOOR LATCH. ACFT RETURNED TO GATE AND MAINT CALLED. I ARRIVED AT GATE WITHIN 5 MINS OF CALL AND WAS MET BY CAPT AND FLT ATTENDANT. FLT ATTENDANT STATED HE WAS UNABLE TO GET GIRT BAR TO POSITIVE-LOCK IN FORWARD LATCH. PLT STATED THAT THERE WAS A PRIOR LOGBOOK ENTRY OF SIMILAR PROB AND WAS RESOLVED BY 'CLEANING LATCH.' VISUAL INSPECTION OF LATCH REVEALED MODERATE AMOUNT OF DEBRIS (DIRT/OILY RESIDUE/SMALL PAPER FRAGMENTS (NAPKIN RESIDUE?) AND ALSO 1 HARD OBJECT LODGED IN PIVOTING-LATCH MECHANISM. EFFECTED CLEANING OF DIRT DEBRIS WITH SMALL PROBE; BUT WAS UNABLE TO DISLODGE HARD OBJECT. LOOSING 2 SCREWS ON TOP OF LATCH COVER-PLATE PERMITTED REMOVAL OF HARD OBJECT. OBJECT WAS DISCOVERED TO BE A SMALL ROCK; APPROX 3 MM IN LENGTH/5 MM IN WIDTH. THIS WAS PREVENTING GIRT BAR FROM SLIDING COMPLETELY INTO LATCH ASSEMBLY; THEREFORE; LATCHING MECHANISM WOULD NOT ENGAGE. WIPED DOWN ALL VISIBLE SURFACES OF LATCH; RE-SECURED THE 2 SCREWS; AND FUNCTIONAL CHKED OP OF LATCH. NO DEFECTS NOTED AND FLT ATTENDANT WAS ALSO ABLE TO INSERT AND RELEASE GIRT BAR WITHOUT DIFFICULTY. LOGBOOK ENTRY WAS PERFORMED AND ACFT RELEASED FOR CONTINUED SVC. THE ESCAPE SLIDE; COVER; OR GIRT BAR WERE NEVER AFFECTED AND THE LATCH ASSEMBLY IS NOT ADJUSTABLE. (THE BASE UNIT OF THE ASSEMBLY MAY HAVE SHIMS INSTALLED TO ADJUST HT; BUT ONLY THE TOP COVER PLATE WAS LOOSENED -- THE BASE WAS NOT AFFECTED). I FELT THAT A REPAIR; OR ADJUSTMENT; OR INSTALLATION WAS NOT PERFORMED TO A REQUIRED INSPECTION ITEM COMPONENT; BUT THAT A CLEANING AND TESTING WAS THE ACTION TAKEN; THEREFORE; NO RII SIGNOFF NEEDED. UPON CONSULTATION WITH MAINT CTL; THE NEED FOR THIS RII SIGNOFF WAS UNCLEAR. MAINT CTLR DISCUSSED SITUATION WITH SUPVRS AND FELT DUE TO SPECIFIC WORDING USED IN THE SIGNOFF (REMOVED; CLEANED; INSTALLED LATCH COVER ASSEMBLY) AN RII WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. THE ACFT HAD DEPARTED THE GATE AND WAS BEGINNING TKOF ROLL. RII INSPECTION WAS SCHEDULED TO BE ACCOMPLISHED UPON ARR AT DEST STATION. REVIEWING GENERAL MAINT PROC SHOWS THAT A CONSERVATIVE APCH SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN REGARDING THE NEED FOR RII SIGNATURES; AND A REVIEW OF THE POLICIES FOR LOGBOOK SIGNOFFS AND RII CATEGORIES HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED TO PRECLUDE A RECURRENCE OF THIS ISSUE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.