Narrative:

First officer found attrition plate damaged/missing on right engine (36 square inches of attrition liner were missing at 5 O'clock position below fan blades). Aircraft was on 13TH cycle after this damage was initially found on write-up #X then #Z. Mechanic attempted to convince me that procedures manual said the damaged/missing plate was within tolerance. Since I have never seen such a large missing section; I found it difficult to imagine that this was acceptable and I queried maintenance control and concluded that I should read it after hearing their explanation. After reading the procedures manual and discussing the interpretation with the mechanic; both my first officer and myself agreed that maintenance control was interping the procedures manual incorrectly and that the plane should not have been in service. The procedures manual provided an exception to the limitations in section 2 but maintenance control was using that exception to keep the airplane in service for the tolerances that were listed in section 1. I will not speculate as to the motivation for interping the procedures manual as it was by maintenance control but; clearly; both my first officer and I read it as being significantly out of tolerance according to the procedures manual. One other significant issue is that this was an ETOPS flight over the pacific; so such a long flight over the pacific ocean made it even more unacceptable. The document that maintenance was using was procedures manual xxy. Captain refused the aircraft. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated he and other pilots believe their maintenance control is incorrectly applying an exception to the limits allowed; for the engine inlet with the missing attrition liner section. Reporter stated this is a safety of flight issue.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A PILOT REPORTS ON MAINT CONTROL DEFERRING AND CONTINUING TO RELEASE FOR SERVICE; A B757-200 WITH A 36-SQUARE INCH SECTION MISSING FROM THE #2 ENG INLET ATTRITION PLATE (LINER) BELOW FAN BLADES. PILOT REFUSED ACFT.

Narrative: FO FOUND ATTRITION PLATE DAMAGED/MISSING ON R ENG (36 SQUARE INCHES OF ATTRITION LINER WERE MISSING AT 5 O'CLOCK POS BELOW FAN BLADES). ACFT WAS ON 13TH CYCLE AFTER THIS DAMAGE WAS INITIALLY FOUND ON WRITE-UP #X THEN #Z. MECH ATTEMPTED TO CONVINCE ME THAT PROCS MANUAL SAID THE DAMAGED/MISSING PLATE WAS WITHIN TOLERANCE. SINCE I HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH A LARGE MISSING SECTION; I FOUND IT DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE THAT THIS WAS ACCEPTABLE AND I QUERIED MAINT CTL AND CONCLUDED THAT I SHOULD READ IT AFTER HEARING THEIR EXPLANATION. AFTER READING THE PROCS MANUAL AND DISCUSSING THE INTERP WITH THE MECH; BOTH MY FO AND MYSELF AGREED THAT MAINT CTL WAS INTERPING THE PROCS MANUAL INCORRECTLY AND THAT THE PLANE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN SVC. THE PROCS MANUAL PROVIDED AN EXCEPTION TO THE LIMITATIONS IN SECTION 2 BUT MAINT CTL WAS USING THAT EXCEPTION TO KEEP THE AIRPLANE IN SVC FOR THE TOLERANCES THAT WERE LISTED IN SECTION 1. I WILL NOT SPECULATE AS TO THE MOTIVATION FOR INTERPING THE PROCS MANUAL AS IT WAS BY MAINT CTL BUT; CLRLY; BOTH MY FO AND I READ IT AS BEING SIGNIFICANTLY OUT OF TOLERANCE ACCORDING TO THE PROCS MANUAL. ONE OTHER SIGNIFICANT ISSUE IS THAT THIS WAS AN ETOPS FLT OVER THE PACIFIC; SO SUCH A LONG FLT OVER THE PACIFIC OCEAN MADE IT EVEN MORE UNACCEPTABLE. THE DOCUMENT THAT MAINT WAS USING WAS PROCS MANUAL XXY. CAPT REFUSED THE ACFT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: REPORTER STATED HE AND OTHER PILOTS BELIEVE THEIR MAINT CONTROL IS INCORRECTLY APPLYING AN EXCEPTION TO THE LIMITS ALLOWED; FOR THE ENGINE INLET WITH THE MISSING ATTRITION LINER SECTION. REPORTER STATED THIS IS A SAFETY OF FLIGHT 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.