Narrative:

At departure time severe wind reportedly blew the air-conditioning hose off of the aircraft. Upon investigation I found the duct damaged between the attach point and the check valve. I contacted maintenance control to see if I could get an MEL or cdl and was told by the tech that I could put it on a non-critical list. So I closed the access panel and also speed-taped it for extra security and to prevent usage. The captain was right there and was satisfied with the procedure. The aircraft was released for service. I intended to complete my paperwork on maintenance entry after the aircraft pushed off the gate. I then realized that the deferral should be a on a time-critical list; not a non-critical list. I recalled maintenance control and talked to a different tech. Unfortunately I didn't get his name. He conferred with engineering while I waited on the phone. I had given him the ipc reference and part number of the damaged part. They decided that since the aircraft had already pushed that we should wait for it to get to destination to complete any deferral. In hindsight I realize that I should have objected and done a maintenance entry anyway; but I went along with the decision. I did however immediately notify my supervisor about what transpired. My mistake was to let the aircraft arrive at its destination without proper documentation in spite of what maintenance control and engineering decided. Engineering did write an engineering authority/authorized and the item was put on time-critical maintenance tracking. As stated above; engineering wrote an engineering authority/authorized to temporarily let aircraft fly for up to 2 days on time-critical maintenance deferral. I was trying to get the flight out as quickly and safely as possible. I determined that the damage was minimal and caused no safety of flight issue. Our maintenance computer system allows us to complete paperwork on maintenance entry after departure as long as it's done before aircraft arrival at destination. I was given an incorrect deferral by maintenance control and decided to call them back to clarify. By then the aircraft was off the gate. For some reason maintenance decided we should let the flight get to destination and then do a maintenance entry. I shouldn't have allowed that to happen. Even if it means longer flight delays; be sure to follow procedures manual for proper documentation and deferrals. Don't necessarily take the maintenance tech as final word. Document everything.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A LEAD MECHANIC REPORTS HE SHOULD HAVE MADE A MAINT ENTRY FOR A DAMAGED DUCT BETWEEN THE EXTERNAL AIR CONDITIONING HOSE AND THE AIRBUS A321 CHECK VALVE; EVEN THOUGH MAINT CTL AND ENGINEERING THOUGHT OTHERWISE.

Narrative: AT DEP TIME SEVERE WIND REPORTEDLY BLEW THE AIR-CONDITIONING HOSE OFF OF THE ACFT. UPON INVESTIGATION I FOUND THE DUCT DAMAGED BTWN THE ATTACH POINT AND THE CHK VALVE. I CONTACTED MAINT CTL TO SEE IF I COULD GET AN MEL OR CDL AND WAS TOLD BY THE TECH THAT I COULD PUT IT ON A NON-CRITICAL LIST. SO I CLOSED THE ACCESS PANEL AND ALSO SPD-TAPED IT FOR EXTRA SECURITY AND TO PREVENT USAGE. THE CAPT WAS RIGHT THERE AND WAS SATISFIED WITH THE PROC. THE ACFT WAS RELEASED FOR SVC. I INTENDED TO COMPLETE MY PAPERWORK ON MAINT ENTRY AFTER THE ACFT PUSHED OFF THE GATE. I THEN REALIZED THAT THE DEFERRAL SHOULD BE A ON A TIME-CRITICAL LIST; NOT A NON-CRITICAL LIST. I RECALLED MAINT CTL AND TALKED TO A DIFFERENT TECH. UNFORTUNATELY I DIDN'T GET HIS NAME. HE CONFERRED WITH ENGINEERING WHILE I WAITED ON THE PHONE. I HAD GIVEN HIM THE IPC REF AND PART NUMBER OF THE DAMAGED PART. THEY DECIDED THAT SINCE THE ACFT HAD ALREADY PUSHED THAT WE SHOULD WAIT FOR IT TO GET TO DEST TO COMPLETE ANY DEFERRAL. IN HINDSIGHT I REALIZE THAT I SHOULD HAVE OBJECTED AND DONE A MAINT ENTRY ANYWAY; BUT I WENT ALONG WITH THE DECISION. I DID HOWEVER IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY MY SUPVR ABOUT WHAT TRANSPIRED. MY MISTAKE WAS TO LET THE ACFT ARRIVE AT ITS DEST WITHOUT PROPER DOCUMENTATION IN SPITE OF WHAT MAINT CTL AND ENGINEERING DECIDED. ENGINEERING DID WRITE AN ENGINEERING AUTH AND THE ITEM WAS PUT ON TIME-CRITICAL MAINT TRACKING. AS STATED ABOVE; ENGINEERING WROTE AN ENGINEERING AUTH TO TEMPORARILY LET ACFT FLY FOR UP TO 2 DAYS ON TIME-CRITICAL MAINT DEFERRAL. I WAS TRYING TO GET THE FLT OUT AS QUICKLY AND SAFELY AS POSSIBLE. I DETERMINED THAT THE DAMAGE WAS MINIMAL AND CAUSED NO SAFETY OF FLT ISSUE. OUR MAINT COMPUTER SYS ALLOWS US TO COMPLETE PAPERWORK ON MAINT ENTRY AFTER DEP AS LONG AS IT'S DONE BEFORE ACFT ARR AT DEST. I WAS GIVEN AN INCORRECT DEFERRAL BY MAINT CTL AND DECIDED TO CALL THEM BACK TO CLARIFY. BY THEN THE ACFT WAS OFF THE GATE. FOR SOME REASON MAINT DECIDED WE SHOULD LET THE FLT GET TO DEST AND THEN DO A MAINT ENTRY. I SHOULDN'T HAVE ALLOWED THAT TO HAPPEN. EVEN IF IT MEANS LONGER FLT DELAYS; BE SURE TO FOLLOW PROCS MANUAL FOR PROPER DOCUMENTATION AND DEFERRALS. DON'T NECESSARILY TAKE THE MAINT TECH AS FINAL WORD. DOCUMENT EVERYTHING.

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.