Narrative:

After departure atl I was put on a 360 degree heading and told to climb to 14000' by atl departure control. The aural warning of the altitude alerter went off at 14300' and I abruptly leveled off at 14500' and then descended to 14000'. At that time departure handed us off to atl center who immediately cleared us to FL230. When the aircraft was nearing 14000', the captain was complaining bitterly to the first officer about a disagreement he'd had with maintenance re: the aircraft's problem and status. The disagreement had to be ended to push back the aircraft on schedule. While descending 30 mi south of wilmington, oh, for landing at clinton county airport, the aircraft crossed 10000' at approximately 330 KTS indicated airspeed. The excessive airspeed was brought to the flying captain's attention by a motion of the non flying first officer. I leveled off the aircraft abruptly at 9100' and decelerated to 250 KTS indicated airspeed before continuing the descent. While crossing 10000' the captain was once again complaining about his earlier disagreement with maintenance people. Contributors, cause, prevention: 45 mins prior to departing atl, the captain had a disagreement with maintenance personnel re: broken items on the aircraft and the aircraft's category ii status. The disagreement lasted until pushback and the captain never discarded it from his mind and put his mind to the task of flying. He was preoccupied by this argument and was talking about it when both the altitude excursion and the overspd occurred. The disagreement was with contractors, not employees of the carrier. When the carrier's maintenance people dealt with the captain, understanding and agreement was reached by all involved, largely because they knew and understood the carrier's manuals, practices and procedures. The contractor is not familiar with any of these. The cause was the flying captain's failure to concentrate on the task at hand and the first officer's failure to give timely warnings of the upcoming errors. A big contributor was the argument prior to departure. Prevention could be to disallow carriers from using maintenance contractors who are not familiar with the carrier's procedures and policies. Education stressing the dangers of letting outside events influence a pilot's concentration, as well as education stressing the need to maintain cockpit discipline to prevent these types of occurrences, could help prevent recurrences.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR MLG OVERSHOT ALT ON DEP AND THEN EXCEEDED SPEED LIMIT ON ARR DESCENT.

Narrative: AFTER DEP ATL I WAS PUT ON A 360 DEG HDG AND TOLD TO CLB TO 14000' BY ATL DEP CTL. THE AURAL WARNING OF THE ALT ALERTER WENT OFF AT 14300' AND I ABRUPTLY LEVELED OFF AT 14500' AND THEN DSNDED TO 14000'. AT THAT TIME DEP HANDED US OFF TO ATL CENTER WHO IMMEDIATELY CLRED US TO FL230. WHEN THE ACFT WAS NEARING 14000', THE CAPT WAS COMPLAINING BITTERLY TO THE F/O ABOUT A DISAGREEMENT HE'D HAD WITH MAINT RE: THE ACFT'S PROB AND STATUS. THE DISAGREEMENT HAD TO BE ENDED TO PUSH BACK THE ACFT ON SCHEDULE. WHILE DSNDING 30 MI S OF WILMINGTON, OH, FOR LNDG AT CLINTON COUNTY ARPT, THE ACFT CROSSED 10000' AT APPROX 330 KTS INDICATED AIRSPD. THE EXCESSIVE AIRSPD WAS BROUGHT TO THE FLYING CAPT'S ATTN BY A MOTION OF THE NON FLYING F/O. I LEVELED OFF THE ACFT ABRUPTLY AT 9100' AND DECELERATED TO 250 KTS INDICATED AIRSPD BEFORE CONTINUING THE DSCNT. WHILE XING 10000' THE CAPT WAS ONCE AGAIN COMPLAINING ABOUT HIS EARLIER DISAGREEMENT WITH MAINT PEOPLE. CONTRIBUTORS, CAUSE, PREVENTION: 45 MINS PRIOR TO DEPARTING ATL, THE CAPT HAD A DISAGREEMENT WITH MAINT PERSONNEL RE: BROKEN ITEMS ON THE ACFT AND THE ACFT'S CATEGORY II STATUS. THE DISAGREEMENT LASTED UNTIL PUSHBACK AND THE CAPT NEVER DISCARDED IT FROM HIS MIND AND PUT HIS MIND TO THE TASK OF FLYING. HE WAS PREOCCUPIED BY THIS ARGUMENT AND WAS TALKING ABOUT IT WHEN BOTH THE ALT EXCURSION AND THE OVERSPD OCCURRED. THE DISAGREEMENT WAS WITH CONTRACTORS, NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE CARRIER. WHEN THE CARRIER'S MAINT PEOPLE DEALT WITH THE CAPT, UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT WAS REACHED BY ALL INVOLVED, LARGELY BECAUSE THEY KNEW AND UNDERSTOOD THE CARRIER'S MANUALS, PRACTICES AND PROCS. THE CONTRACTOR IS NOT FAMILIAR WITH ANY OF THESE. THE CAUSE WAS THE FLYING CAPT'S FAILURE TO CONCENTRATE ON THE TASK AT HAND AND THE F/O'S FAILURE TO GIVE TIMELY WARNINGS OF THE UPCOMING ERRORS. A BIG CONTRIBUTOR WAS THE ARGUMENT PRIOR TO DEP. PREVENTION COULD BE TO DISALLOW CARRIERS FROM USING MAINT CONTRACTORS WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE CARRIER'S PROCS AND POLICIES. EDUCATION STRESSING THE DANGERS OF LETTING OUTSIDE EVENTS INFLUENCE A PLT'S CONCENTRATION, AS WELL AS EDUCATION STRESSING THE NEED TO MAINTAIN COCKPIT DISCIPLINE TO PREVENT THESE TYPES OF OCCURRENCES, COULD HELP PREVENT RECURRENCES.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.