Narrative:

The captain performed the preflight and noticed that the left outboard wing vent panel which had drainage holes was installed backwards as compared to the right side wing. The panel number was 534AB. The captain wrote the panel number down and went back to the cockpit. When airborne; the captain thought through the reason for the drainage holes and their position and came to the conclusion that the drainage holes should be on the low side of the wing versus the high side and submitted the writeup via ACARS. Although this is not a required preflight item; the captain decided to write the issue up rather than remain silent and the captain explained to the first officer what the captain saw and why the captain wrote it up. The flight conditions were cavu with no known icing conditions and were forecast as such throughout the flight. Between flights; the captain received a phone message from flight operations; and was told that mechanic X was writing me [the captain] up and filing a report. The captain attempted to get in touch with mechanic X through local maintenance; through local maintenance frequencies; phone numbers and even tried to find someone in an office near the gate; but was not able to. Once the captain reached the cockpit for the next flight; the first officer said that after the captain left the cockpit; a person entered the cockpit in non-maintenance attire and spoke with her about the writeup. Then the first officer; of all things; told the captain that she found the very same issue on her preflight for this aircraft. The captain went outside and visually checked both wings with the first officer and confirmed that the left wing vent panel seemed to have been installed backwards. We both decided to contact maintenance before writing it up because now we weren't sure if this was systemic or just a non-issue. Moreover; we thought it best to get a mechanic's opinion before proceeding. Back in the cockpit; the captain contacted maintenance control and explained the issue to them and that we wanted someone from maintenance to come out to the aircraft and look at the vent panels and make a determination before we wrote the mismatch up. A mechanic entered the cockpit and we explained the issue and the first officer accompanied the mechanic outside and showed the mechanic the discrepancy. The first officer returned to the cockpit and informed the captain that the mechanic advised us to write it up and that they would research it and either fix it or defer it. The captain submitted the maintenance code in ACARS. After a few minutes the gate agent asked if we were ready and that she was informed by operations that everything was good to go. The captain elected to visually inspect the panel. The panel had been repositioned and we received a new maintenance release. The flight departed from the gate two minutes late because we had yet to perform the before start checklist. The new maintenance release action for the log item stated 'panel 534AB was installed backwards removed panel and reinstalled in correct position'. Further notes: on the ground; the captain was fully aware that the flight would be flying into no known icing conditions and was aware that the forecast for the route of flight was clear. The captain wrote the discrepancy up while airborne after taking some time to think about the issue; and fully aware that it was a pre-flight discrepancy; the captain believes that after the issue was thought through it would be best to submit a maintenance report enroute versus after block-in. The captain did not write this up to increase the workload of company maintenance. The captain did not write this up because of union-management contract issues. The captain's intent for the write-up; once the low side/high side vent hole discrepancy was thought through; was solely for safety. Additionally; upon airborne reflection regarding the discrepancy and the subsequent decision to input the write-up; the captain felt that it was the right thing to do. The captain confirmed this feeling when the subsequent aircraft had the exact same discrepancy and the panel was shown to be installed backwards. The captain can attest that all of the above facts are stated truthfully and accurately.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Captain and First Officer describe why a left outboard wing vent panel #534AB on their A320 aircraft had been installed backwards. It was written-up up in-flight; instead of prior to departure when Captain noticed the discrepancy during a pre-flight walkaround.

Narrative: The Captain performed the preflight and noticed that the left outboard wing vent panel which had drainage holes was installed backwards as compared to the right side wing. The panel number was 534AB. The Captain wrote the panel number down and went back to the cockpit. When airborne; the Captain thought through the reason for the drainage holes and their position and came to the conclusion that the drainage holes should be on the low side of the wing versus the high side and submitted the writeup via ACARS. Although this is not a required preflight item; the Captain decided to write the issue up rather than remain silent and the Captain explained to the First Officer what the Captain saw and why the Captain wrote it up. The flight conditions were CAVU with no known icing conditions and were forecast as such throughout the flight. Between flights; the Captain received a phone message from Flight Operations; and was told that Mechanic X was writing me [the Captain] up and filing a report. The Captain attempted to get in touch with Mechanic X through local Maintenance; through local Maintenance frequencies; phone numbers and even tried to find someone in an office near the gate; but was not able to. Once the Captain reached the cockpit for the next flight; the First Officer said that after the Captain left the cockpit; a person entered the cockpit in non-maintenance attire and spoke with her about the writeup. Then the First Officer; of all things; told the Captain that she found the very same issue on her preflight for this aircraft. The Captain went outside and visually checked both wings with the First Officer and confirmed that the left wing vent panel seemed to have been installed backwards. We both decided to contact Maintenance before writing it up because now we weren't sure if this was systemic or just a non-issue. Moreover; we thought it best to get a Mechanic's opinion before proceeding. Back in the cockpit; the Captain contacted Maintenance Control and explained the issue to them and that we wanted someone from Maintenance to come out to the aircraft and look at the vent panels and make a determination before we wrote the mismatch up. A Mechanic entered the cockpit and we explained the issue and the First Officer accompanied the Mechanic outside and showed the Mechanic the discrepancy. The First Officer returned to the cockpit and informed the Captain that the Mechanic advised us to write it up and that they would research it and either fix it or defer it. The Captain submitted the Maintenance Code in ACARS. After a few minutes the Gate Agent asked if we were ready and that she was informed by Operations that everything was good to go. The Captain elected to visually inspect the panel. The panel had been repositioned and we received a new maintenance release. The flight departed from the gate two minutes late because we had yet to perform the Before Start Checklist. The new maintenance release ACTION for the log item stated 'Panel 534AB was installed backwards removed panel and reinstalled in correct position'. Further notes: on the ground; the Captain was fully aware that the flight would be flying into no known icing conditions and was aware that the forecast for the route of flight was clear. The Captain wrote the discrepancy up while airborne after taking some time to think about the issue; and fully aware that it was a pre-flight discrepancy; the Captain believes that after the issue was thought through it would be best to submit a Maintenance Report enroute versus after block-in. The Captain did not write this up to increase the workload of company Maintenance. The Captain did not write this up because of Union-Management contract issues. The Captain's intent for the write-up; once the low side/high side vent hole discrepancy was thought through; was solely for safety. Additionally; upon airborne reflection regarding the discrepancy and the subsequent decision to input the write-up; the Captain felt that it was the right thing to do. The Captain confirmed this feeling when the subsequent aircraft had the exact same discrepancy and the panel was shown to be installed backwards. The Captain can attest that all of the above facts are stated truthfully and accurately.

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.