Narrative:

I am bringing this up as a safety issue. While everything was legal; it may not have been the safest way to operate. The aircraft had been struck by lightning and had the left hand elevator replaced for associated damage. Mechanics turned the originating airplane over to me and explained the maintenance note and work done. Maintenance note stated; 'functional check flight required due to left/H elevator change within 10 days.' I voiced concern that we were going to fly a revenue flight on an aircraft that needed a functional check flight. I had not seen this done in the past. Additionally; the fom states that a check airman is required for this functional check flight. Mechanics assured me it was deferred correctly. I called dispatch and conferenced with maintenance control to voice my concerns and make sure we were doing the right thing. Maintenance control said that 4-5 months ago the FAA granted relief for this type of functional check flight to be delayed for up to 10 days while the aircraft flew normal service. After further discussion with my first officer; I decided that I wanted to make sure flight operations management agreed with this; so I called the chief pilot on call. I explained the situation to him and he concurred that it didn't sound right; so he conferenced with dispatch and maintenance control. I could not conference to their discussion as another dispatcher said that the system was not capable of adding me to the mix. About 10 minutes later; my dispatcher called the gate and said that we were good to go as the chief pilot had an email in hand from maintenance and the FAA that granted relief for the functional check flight delay. I decided that since dispatch; maintenance; and flight operations management all agreed on the legality of this that I would accept the airplane for the flight. I believe that although this was legal and that the airplane was safe; that this might not be the best practice. I am unsure why a check airman is required for an functional check flight if it is ok for a line pilot to fly the airplane for 10 days prior to that functional check flight. I am unsure why we would want to use an airplane requiring a test flight for revenue operations for 10 days without that test flight. I would suggest that even if the exemption exists to delay a functional check flight that we should do the functional check flight before revenue passengers are carried.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-700 CAPTAIN BELIEVES NEW POLICY ALLOWING REVENUE FLT FOR UP TO TEN DAYS PRIOR TO A 'FUNCTIONAL CHECK FLIGHT' FOLLOWING A FLT CTL SURFACE REPLACEMENT IS UNWISE. QUESTIONS WHY IT IS SAFE TO FLY REVENUE PAX FOR TEN DAYS PRIOR TO REQUIRING A SPECIALLY CERTIFIED CHECK PLT TO FLY THE ACFT TO DETERMINE ITS AIRWORTHINESS.

Narrative: I AM BRINGING THIS UP AS A SAFETY ISSUE. WHILE EVERYTHING WAS LEGAL; IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE SAFEST WAY TO OPERATE. THE AIRCRAFT HAD BEEN STRUCK BY LIGHTNING AND HAD THE LEFT HAND ELEVATOR REPLACED FOR ASSOCIATED DAMAGE. MECHANICS TURNED THE ORIGINATING AIRPLANE OVER TO ME AND EXPLAINED THE MAINT NOTE AND WORK DONE. MAINT NOTE STATED; 'FUNCTIONAL CHK FLIGHT REQUIRED DUE TO L/H ELEVATOR CHANGE WITHIN 10 DAYS.' I VOICED CONCERN THAT WE WERE GOING TO FLY A REVENUE FLIGHT ON AN AIRCRAFT THAT NEEDED A FUNCTIONAL CHK FLT. I HAD NOT SEEN THIS DONE IN THE PAST. ADDITIONALLY; THE FOM STATES THAT A CHECK AIRMAN IS REQUIRED FOR THIS FUNCTIONAL CHK FLT. MECHANICS ASSURED ME IT WAS DEFERRED CORRECTLY. I CALLED DISPATCH AND CONFERENCED WITH MAINT CONTROL TO VOICE MY CONCERNS AND MAKE SURE WE WERE DOING THE RIGHT THING. MAINT CONTROL SAID THAT 4-5 MONTHS AGO THE FAA GRANTED RELIEF FOR THIS TYPE OF FUNCTIONAL CHK FLT TO BE DELAYED FOR UP TO 10 DAYS WHILE THE AIRCRAFT FLEW NORMAL SERVICE. AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH MY FO; I DECIDED THAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE FLIGHT OPS MANAGEMENT AGREED WITH THIS; SO I CALLED THE CHIEF PILOT ON CALL. I EXPLAINED THE SITUATION TO HIM AND HE CONCURRED THAT IT DIDN'T SOUND RIGHT; SO HE CONFERENCED WITH DISPATCH AND MAINT CONTROL. I COULD NOT CONFERENCE TO THEIR DISCUSSION AS ANOTHER DISPATCHER SAID THAT THE SYSTEM WAS NOT CAPABLE OF ADDING ME TO THE MIX. ABOUT 10 MINUTES LATER; MY DISPATCHER CALLED THE GATE AND SAID THAT WE WERE GOOD TO GO AS THE CHIEF PILOT HAD AN EMAIL IN HAND FROM MAINT AND THE FAA THAT GRANTED RELIEF FOR THE FUNCTIONAL CHK FLT DELAY. I DECIDED THAT SINCE DISPATCH; MAINT; AND FLIGHT OPS MANAGEMENT ALL AGREED ON THE LEGALITY OF THIS THAT I WOULD ACCEPT THE AIRPLANE FOR THE FLIGHT. I BELIEVE THAT ALTHOUGH THIS WAS LEGAL AND THAT THE AIRPLANE WAS SAFE; THAT THIS MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST PRACTICE. I AM UNSURE WHY A CHECK AIRMAN IS REQUIRED FOR AN FUNCTIONAL CHK FLT IF IT IS OK FOR A LINE PILOT TO FLY THE AIRPLANE FOR 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THAT FUNCTIONAL CHK FLT. I AM UNSURE WHY WE WOULD WANT TO USE AN AIRPLANE REQUIRING A TEST FLIGHT FOR REVENUE OPERATIONS FOR 10 DAYS WITHOUT THAT TEST FLIGHT. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT EVEN IF THE EXEMPTION EXISTS TO DELAY A FUNCTIONAL CHK FLT THAT WE SHOULD DO THE FUNCTIONAL CHK FLT BEFORE REVENUE PASSENGERS ARE CARRIED.

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.