Narrative:

November 2009; after the ZZZ layover of approximately 13 hours; we were scheduled to fly a B757-200 from ZZZ to ZZZ1 and then ZZZ1-ZZZ2. Both flights were using the same B757. In ZZZ2 the aircraft was suppose to return to ZZZ1 after our arrival. The following morning we noticed the same B757 was still in ZZZ2 and the first officer (first officer) and I started questioning why. On the flight segment ZZZ1 to ZZZ2; we had a suspected bird strike on takeoff (T/O) roll and wrote it up. In ZZZ2 the contract mechanic inspected the aircraft for the bird strike; and also noted the snubber deferral from ZZZ. The last line of the deferral states; 'suspect part on the airplane is wrong part.' I do not consciously recall reading that; or if I did; it did not sink in that I may be accepting an aircraft with a potential illegal deferral. The ZZZ mechanic apparently added that comment when he had tried to put new snubbers on the aircraft the night before; but did not have the tools to countersink holes in the new parts. The aircraft may have been flying around for months with improper snubbers. If the mechanic suspected improper parts on the aircraft; why did he not investigate further? Did maintenance control see the deferral; and was it acceptable to him written that way? Did maintenance control write the deferral? Ultimately it comes down to me; the captain. I did not catch the deferral comment. Had that comment been on the first line on the deferral; I am sure I would have noticed it and taken other action. As it was; it was just another snubber deferral. Read the whole writeup! Understand what you are accepting!

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B757-200 Captain and a First Officer report not noticing language on a Maintenance Control deferral that stated a Nose Wheel Brake Snubber pad may be an incorrect part.

Narrative: November 2009; after the ZZZ layover of approximately 13 hours; we were scheduled to fly a B757-200 from ZZZ to ZZZ1 and then ZZZ1-ZZZ2. Both flights were using the same B757. In ZZZ2 the aircraft was suppose to return to ZZZ1 after our arrival. The following morning we noticed the same B757 was still in ZZZ2 and the First Officer (F/O) and I started questioning why. On the flight segment ZZZ1 to ZZZ2; we had a suspected bird strike on Takeoff (T/O) roll and wrote it up. In ZZZ2 the Contract Mechanic inspected the aircraft for the bird strike; and also noted the Snubber deferral from ZZZ. The last line of the deferral states; 'Suspect part on the airplane is wrong part.' I do not consciously recall reading that; or if I did; it did not sink in that I may be accepting an aircraft with a potential illegal deferral. The ZZZ Mechanic apparently added that comment when he had tried to put new Snubbers on the aircraft the night before; but did not have the tools to countersink holes in the new parts. The aircraft MAY have been flying around for months with improper Snubbers. If the Mechanic suspected improper parts on the aircraft; why did he not investigate further? Did Maintenance Control see the deferral; and was it acceptable to him written that way? Did Maintenance Control write the deferral? Ultimately it comes down to me; the Captain. I did not catch the deferral comment. Had that comment been on the first line on the deferral; I am sure I would have noticed it and taken other action. As it was; it was just another Snubber deferral. Read the whole writeup! Understand what you are accepting!

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.