Narrative:

Approaching our destination we got the weather report and found winds were out of the northeast; overcast ceilings around 500-700 AGL; and temperature below freezing. We planned the ILS to runway 30. Center relayed a PIREP from a company aircraft that reported moderate icing on the approach to another airport close to our destination.as we started our descent the first officer noticed that the left hand windshield heat power source circuit breaker had popped. After the appropriate checklist was completed; it was determined to not reset the breaker and continue the arrival to our destination since our fuel remaining was at the minimum required for alternate and IFR reserves. As we descended through 6;000 MSL; we encountered moderate icing (approximately one inch accumulation) that impaired visibility through the left windshield but we were able to land the flight safely.when we got on the ground the discrepancy was logged. When the contract maintenance technician arrived; he told me he was informed by our maintenance controller to check wire connections and then reset the breaker. With only one test of the system on the ground; the discrepancy was signed off and deemed airworthy. However; after a thorough review of the maintenance logs from previous days; we refused the aircraft.according to the logs; the left windshield heat power source circuit breaker had been written up for popping two additional times in the previous three days. This brings the total to three write ups in four days for the same issue. [Despite those maintenance opportunities; the circuit breaker popped again for us during conditions that required the system to be functional.]at the time of the refusal; the weather was IMC at both our departure and destination airports with the forecast indicating IMC conditions conducive to icing conditions along a majority of the flight path. Having already seen the icing potential during our inbound flight we decided the risks were not worth it. There was also the potential fire hazard as well because no one had successfully diagnosed the problem. If the breaker was tripping because of a short in the system and it failed to do so during the next occurrence; an electrical fire could result. Considering all this; the determination was made to refuse the aircraft until further corrective action was taken.our maintenance procedures need to be changed; in particular maintenance control. In this situation; a reoccurring problem was either neglected or unrecognized. Either way; the corrective action for our discrepancy was completely unsatisfactory. 'Ops check good' is not acceptable for any reoccurring discrepancy let alone a circuit breaker that continues to trip. The potential for fire hazard is greatly increased when a circuit breaker is neglected.additionally; the fact that maintenance refused to look into the matter further after multiple repeat write-ups is; in my view; unacceptable. One noteworthy statement by the contract maintenance technician worth mentioning is the fact that he felt 'uncomfortable' with diagnosing the problem further than opening the circuit breaker panel and checking connections. If contract maintenance technicians at these outstations are 'uncomfortable' with diagnosing problems further than just panel inspections; then maybe contract maintenance is not a viable option for maintenance.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Following the loss of the Captain's windshield heat during icing conditions and despite attention by contract maintenance; a BE1900 Flight Crew refused to take the aircraft on the subsequent leg in comparable icing conditions. The refusal was based on the chronic nature of the fault and the failure of two previous maintenance attempts to resolve the issue.

Narrative: Approaching our destination we got the weather report and found winds were out of the northeast; overcast ceilings around 500-700 AGL; and temperature below freezing. We planned the ILS to Runway 30. Center relayed a PIREP from a company aircraft that reported moderate icing on the approach to another airport close to our destination.As we started our descent the First Officer noticed that the left hand windshield heat power source circuit breaker had popped. After the appropriate checklist was completed; it was determined to not reset the breaker and continue the arrival to our destination since our fuel remaining was at the minimum required for alternate and IFR reserves. As we descended through 6;000 MSL; we encountered moderate icing (approximately one inch accumulation) that impaired visibility through the left windshield but we were able to land the flight safely.When we got on the ground the discrepancy was logged. When the Contract Maintenance Technician arrived; he told me he was informed by our Maintenance Controller to check wire connections and then reset the breaker. With only one test of the system on the ground; the discrepancy was signed off and deemed airworthy. However; after a thorough review of the maintenance logs from previous days; we refused the aircraft.According to the logs; the left windshield heat power source circuit breaker had been written up for popping two additional times in the previous three days. This brings the total to three write ups in four days for the same issue. [Despite those maintenance opportunities; the circuit breaker popped again for us during conditions that required the system to be functional.]At the time of the refusal; the weather was IMC at both our departure and destination airports with the forecast indicating IMC conditions conducive to icing conditions along a majority of the flight path. Having already seen the icing potential during our inbound flight we decided the risks were not worth it. There was also the potential fire hazard as well because no one had successfully diagnosed the problem. If the breaker was tripping because of a short in the system and it failed to do so during the next occurrence; an electrical fire could result. Considering all this; the determination was made to refuse the aircraft until further corrective action was taken.Our maintenance procedures need to be changed; in particular Maintenance Control. In this situation; a reoccurring problem was either neglected or unrecognized. Either way; the corrective action for our discrepancy was completely unsatisfactory. 'Ops check good' is not acceptable for any reoccurring discrepancy let alone a circuit breaker that continues to trip. The potential for fire hazard is greatly increased when a circuit breaker is neglected.Additionally; the fact that Maintenance refused to look into the matter further after multiple repeat write-ups is; in my view; unacceptable. One noteworthy statement by the Contract Maintenance technician worth mentioning is the fact that he felt 'uncomfortable' with diagnosing the problem further than opening the circuit breaker panel and checking connections. If Contract Maintenance Technicians at these outstations are 'uncomfortable' with diagnosing problems further than just panel inspections; then maybe Contract Maintenance is not a viable option for maintenance.

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.