Narrative:

Arrival at gate. Logbook stated that there had been 2 left engine oil strainer clogging light incidents. Maintenance advised that after one of the oil strainer clogging light incidents that particulate matter had been found in the oil. Maintenance had replaced the filter; run the engine for 10 mins at high power setting; checked the filter and were not able to find solid matter in the oil or duplicate the oil filter clogging light coming on. Maintenance then signed the aircraft as good for service. I was not comfortable flying the aircraft after evaluating this information and refused the aircraft. I don't think it is appropriate to put an aircraft back in service after 1 engine shut down; followed by another incident where the engine was only able to be run at idle and what I believe to be very minimum maintenance action. Supplemental information from acn 785434: during preflight; I spoke with the mechanic that brought the aircraft from the hangar. He advised me that the aircraft had twice experienced an oil strainer clogging event; that metal particulate was found in the oil and the source of the particulate had not been determined. He also stated that the aircraft was scheduled to be ferried for an engine change and then later it was decided to 'revenue ferry.' I advised the captain and stated that I was not convinced of the airworthiness of the aircraft. The captain refused the aircraft.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MD80 FLT CREW REFUSED AN AIRCRAFT THAT MAINTENANCE RELEASED FOR A FLT BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE MAINTENANCE PERFORMED.

Narrative: ARR AT GATE. LOGBOOK STATED THAT THERE HAD BEEN 2 L ENG OIL STRAINER CLOGGING LIGHT INCIDENTS. MAINT ADVISED THAT AFTER ONE OF THE OIL STRAINER CLOGGING LIGHT INCIDENTS THAT PARTICULATE MATTER HAD BEEN FOUND IN THE OIL. MAINT HAD REPLACED THE FILTER; RUN THE ENG FOR 10 MINS AT HIGH PWR SETTING; CHKED THE FILTER AND WERE NOT ABLE TO FIND SOLID MATTER IN THE OIL OR DUPLICATE THE OIL FILTER CLOGGING LIGHT COMING ON. MAINT THEN SIGNED THE ACFT AS GOOD FOR SVC. I WAS NOT COMFORTABLE FLYING THE ACFT AFTER EVALUATING THIS INFO AND REFUSED THE ACFT. I DON'T THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE TO PUT AN ACFT BACK IN SVC AFTER 1 ENG SHUT DOWN; FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER INCIDENT WHERE THE ENG WAS ONLY ABLE TO BE RUN AT IDLE AND WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE VERY MINIMUM MAINT ACTION. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 785434: DURING PREFLT; I SPOKE WITH THE MECH THAT BROUGHT THE ACFT FROM THE HANGAR. HE ADVISED ME THAT THE ACFT HAD TWICE EXPERIENCED AN OIL STRAINER CLOGGING EVENT; THAT METAL PARTICULATE WAS FOUND IN THE OIL AND THE SOURCE OF THE PARTICULATE HAD NOT BEEN DETERMINED. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE ACFT WAS SCHEDULED TO BE FERRIED FOR AN ENG CHANGE AND THEN LATER IT WAS DECIDED TO 'REVENUE FERRY.' I ADVISED THE CAPT AND STATED THAT I WAS NOT CONVINCED OF THE AIRWORTHINESS OF THE ACFT. THE CAPT REFUSED THE ACFT.

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.