Narrative:

Inappropriate window deferral. The captain's windshield (L1) had a deferred item for a 6 inch delamination. Upon arriving at the aircraft; the maintenance supervisor met with me to discuss the window. He wanted to know if I was ok with it. I examined the window and found the damage to be more extensive than was reported in the open deferral item. In fact; the windshield had delamination extending along 75% of the entire periphery of the window; along the entire right and left sides; and approximately 75% of the top edge. Also; there was major heat damage (heat crackling) of approximately 6 inches by 1 inch at the upper right corner near the window heat terminal; evidence of arcing along the right edge; and 3 small cracks at the upper left corner. I told the supervisor of my concerns. The supervisor told me that he had emailed a picture to maintenance control. I called maintenance control through the dispatcher via satcom to discuss the window. I told him of my concern that it appeared to be moisture ingress evidenced by an extensive white and yellowish milky film in the delaminated area along the entire right edge of the window; in addition to the other defects. Maintenance control told me that he could not make a determination based upon the picture; and said he had to rely on the on-scene mechanic. I specifically asked maintenance control what would cause the milky white/yellowish appearance besides moisture. He did not respond. I felt that maintenance control was being evasive. I asked the mechanic and he; too; could not say. The mechanic asserted that the milky white/yellowish delamination was caused by heat damage alone and there was no moisture ingress. Having been extensively involved with this problem as an union safety volunteer; I strongly disagreed. I had a copy of MM 56-11 in hand. According to 56-11 this window should have been replaced. The damage closely resembled the examples shown in 56-11. The description regarding moisture ingress was exactly what we were seeing. After coordinating with my crew; I told maintenance control that we would accept the item if the deferral would specifically note that there was no moisture ingress. That was done and we departed. I was trying my best to help this airport's crews get this flight out on time; having had many mechanical delays there in recent months. Someone had just informed me that I have a poor reputation in this station because of my safety consciousness. As a result of this disturbing information; just before this flight; I had discussions with the air carrier's safety representative and the customer service representatives; apologizing for any past misunderstandings. In an effort to improve the situation using good CRM; I extended an invitation to them to come to the cockpit and be involved in the decision-making process in the event of any future maintenance delays. All this unfortunately contributed to my reluctance to reject the window. Enroute; I entered a new maintenance log item detailing the window damage and also contacted maintenance control to express my concerns. In thoughtful retrospect; this window should have been replaced prior to this flight. I should not have accepted it because the window clearly exhibited defects that required replacement before flight and the write-up did not accurately characterize the extent of the damage. My concerns for the station notwithstanding; I should have respected my own judgment and knowledge. In the future; I will not allow the pressure of an on-time departure affect my sound judgment regarding maintenance items such as this or any other issues relating to the safety of flight.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B747 Captain accepted an aircraft with a Captain's forward window damaged by heat and moisture. He accepted the aircraft but in retrospect believed he succumbed to company pressure to get the flight out of a foreign airport.

Narrative: Inappropriate window deferral. The captain's windshield (L1) had a deferred item for a 6 inch delamination. Upon arriving at the aircraft; the Maintenance Supervisor met with me to discuss the window. He wanted to know if I was OK with it. I examined the window and found the damage to be more extensive than was reported in the open Deferral item. In fact; the windshield had delamination extending along 75% of the entire periphery of the window; along the entire right and left sides; and approximately 75% of the top edge. Also; there was major heat damage (heat crackling) of approximately 6 inches by 1 inch at the upper right corner near the window heat terminal; evidence of arcing along the right edge; and 3 small cracks at the upper left corner. I told the supervisor of my concerns. The Supervisor told me that he had emailed a picture to Maintenance Control. I called Maintenance Control through the Dispatcher via SATCOM to discuss the window. I told him of my concern that it appeared to be moisture ingress evidenced by an extensive white and yellowish milky film in the delaminated area along the entire right edge of the window; in addition to the other defects. Maintenance Control told me that he could not make a determination based upon the picture; and said he had to rely on the on-scene Mechanic. I specifically asked Maintenance Control what would cause the milky white/yellowish appearance besides moisture. He did not respond. I felt that Maintenance Control was being evasive. I asked the Mechanic and he; too; could not say. The Mechanic asserted that the milky white/yellowish delamination was caused by heat damage alone and there was no moisture ingress. Having been extensively involved with this problem as an Union safety volunteer; I strongly disagreed. I had a copy of MM 56-11 in hand. According to 56-11 this window should have been replaced. The damage closely resembled the examples shown in 56-11. The description regarding moisture ingress was exactly what we were seeing. After coordinating with my crew; I told Maintenance Control that we would accept the item if the deferral would specifically note that there was no moisture ingress. That was done and we departed. I was trying my best to help this airport's crews get this flight out on time; having had many mechanical delays there in recent months. Someone had just informed me that I have a poor reputation in this station because of my safety consciousness. As a result of this disturbing information; just before this flight; I had discussions with the Air Carrier's Safety Representative and the Customer Service Representatives; apologizing for any past misunderstandings. In an effort to improve the situation using good CRM; I extended an invitation to them to come to the cockpit and be involved in the decision-making process in the event of any future maintenance delays. All this unfortunately contributed to my reluctance to reject the window. Enroute; I entered a new maintenance log item detailing the window damage and also contacted Maintenance Control to express my concerns. In thoughtful retrospect; this window should have been replaced prior to this flight. I should not have accepted it because the window clearly exhibited defects that required replacement before flight and the write-up did not accurately characterize the extent of the damage. My concerns for the station notwithstanding; I should have respected my own judgment and knowledge. In the future; I will not allow the pressure of an on-time departure affect my sound judgment regarding maintenance items such as this or any other issues relating to the safety of flight.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.