Narrative:

After door closed and engine started, the bleed air was turned on. The aircraft began to pressurize (this is not normal). The outflow valve should be open so the air can be run on the ground. I tried both pressurization modes automatic/manual and the dump feature but could not get the valve to open to relieve the pressure. I then shut down both engines and called company maintenance who called a contract mechanic to fix the valve. I stayed inside operations to talk to dispatch, maintenance control and order more fuel. The mechanic was working on the aircraft. My first officer was inside the aircraft getting a rerte clearance for 10000 ft from bdl to iad. I then walked out to check on the work being done, the mechanic said the valves had been wired open as instructed by company. The mechanic and I needed to go inside and call maintenance control. Once inside we called maintenance control and both mechanics completed the paper work and verified that all maintenance procedures had been completed. Note: the contract mechanic was also verifying with the MEL. I also complied with the operations procedures. On arrival in iad we were ramp checked. The inspector checked the logbook. He then asked if I observed the maintenance work being done. I said that when I went out to check on the mechanic I observed him at the rear bulkhead looking at what I believe were the outflow valves, the mechanic said he was finished. The inspector then showed the MEL to me and asked if I saw the maintenance procedure being done. I said that I did not. I was told that everything was done and I was good to go by both mechanics. In the corrective action column the maintenance procedure was not listed as having been done (that notation is frequently left out) but the pressurization system was shown as having been deferred under the correct MEL number and was signed by the contract mechanic. At this time the inspector is not sure if wiring the outflow valves open is acceptable, he is also not sure if the maintenance procedure was completed. The maintenance department says that this is an acceptable repair and that the maintenance procedure was done. The inspector stated that I could be in trouble because I flew the aircraft with a questionable repair which may make the aircraft not airworthy. He said he would let me know in about a month if any action was going to be taken against me. I feel that this is mainly a maintenance problem. This is an area where I have a limited knowledge. When maintenance clears a write-up and I comply with the operations procedures in the MEL, the aircraft should be good to fly. In this instance this may not be the case. Without being required to have an a&P license to fly, I don't know how I can be held responsible for a questionable maintenance procedure. I flew back unpressurized and had an uneventful flight back -- everything worked ok. But I still have to worry about a possible violation for the next several months for something that I, my chief pilot and the director of maintenance believe that I had no control over.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACI ALLEGES FLC MAY HAVE FLOWN AN UNAIRWORTHY ACFT.

Narrative: AFTER DOOR CLOSED AND ENG STARTED, THE BLEED AIR WAS TURNED ON. THE ACFT BEGAN TO PRESSURIZE (THIS IS NOT NORMAL). THE OUTFLOW VALVE SHOULD BE OPEN SO THE AIR CAN BE RUN ON THE GND. I TRIED BOTH PRESSURIZATION MODES AUTO/MANUAL AND THE DUMP FEATURE BUT COULD NOT GET THE VALVE TO OPEN TO RELIEVE THE PRESSURE. I THEN SHUT DOWN BOTH ENGS AND CALLED COMPANY MAINT WHO CALLED A CONTRACT MECH TO FIX THE VALVE. I STAYED INSIDE OPS TO TALK TO DISPATCH, MAINT CTL AND ORDER MORE FUEL. THE MECH WAS WORKING ON THE ACFT. MY FO WAS INSIDE THE ACFT GETTING A RERTE CLRNC FOR 10000 FT FROM BDL TO IAD. I THEN WALKED OUT TO CHK ON THE WORK BEING DONE, THE MECH SAID THE VALVES HAD BEEN WIRED OPEN AS INSTRUCTED BY COMPANY. THE MECH AND I NEEDED TO GO INSIDE AND CALL MAINT CTL. ONCE INSIDE WE CALLED MAINT CTL AND BOTH MECHS COMPLETED THE PAPER WORK AND VERIFIED THAT ALL MAINT PROCS HAD BEEN COMPLETED. NOTE: THE CONTRACT MECH WAS ALSO VERIFYING WITH THE MEL. I ALSO COMPLIED WITH THE OPS PROCS. ON ARR IN IAD WE WERE RAMP CHKED. THE INSPECTOR CHKED THE LOGBOOK. HE THEN ASKED IF I OBSERVED THE MAINT WORK BEING DONE. I SAID THAT WHEN I WENT OUT TO CHK ON THE MECH I OBSERVED HIM AT THE REAR BULKHEAD LOOKING AT WHAT I BELIEVE WERE THE OUTFLOW VALVES, THE MECH SAID HE WAS FINISHED. THE INSPECTOR THEN SHOWED THE MEL TO ME AND ASKED IF I SAW THE MAINT PROC BEING DONE. I SAID THAT I DID NOT. I WAS TOLD THAT EVERYTHING WAS DONE AND I WAS GOOD TO GO BY BOTH MECHS. IN THE CORRECTIVE ACTION COLUMN THE MAINT PROC WAS NOT LISTED AS HAVING BEEN DONE (THAT NOTATION IS FREQUENTLY LEFT OUT) BUT THE PRESSURIZATION SYS WAS SHOWN AS HAVING BEEN DEFERRED UNDER THE CORRECT MEL NUMBER AND WAS SIGNED BY THE CONTRACT MECH. AT THIS TIME THE INSPECTOR IS NOT SURE IF WIRING THE OUTFLOW VALVES OPEN IS ACCEPTABLE, HE IS ALSO NOT SURE IF THE MAINT PROC WAS COMPLETED. THE MAINT DEPT SAYS THAT THIS IS AN ACCEPTABLE REPAIR AND THAT THE MAINT PROC WAS DONE. THE INSPECTOR STATED THAT I COULD BE IN TROUBLE BECAUSE I FLEW THE ACFT WITH A QUESTIONABLE REPAIR WHICH MAY MAKE THE ACFT NOT AIRWORTHY. HE SAID HE WOULD LET ME KNOW IN ABOUT A MONTH IF ANY ACTION WAS GOING TO BE TAKEN AGAINST ME. I FEEL THAT THIS IS MAINLY A MAINT PROB. THIS IS AN AREA WHERE I HAVE A LIMITED KNOWLEDGE. WHEN MAINT CLRS A WRITE-UP AND I COMPLY WITH THE OPS PROCS IN THE MEL, THE ACFT SHOULD BE GOOD TO FLY. IN THIS INSTANCE THIS MAY NOT BE THE CASE. WITHOUT BEING REQUIRED TO HAVE AN A&P LICENSE TO FLY, I DON'T KNOW HOW I CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR A QUESTIONABLE MAINT PROC. I FLEW BACK UNPRESSURIZED AND HAD AN UNEVENTFUL FLT BACK -- EVERYTHING WORKED OK. BUT I STILL HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT A POSSIBLE VIOLATION FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS FOR SOMETHING THAT I, MY CHIEF PLT AND THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT BELIEVE THAT I HAD NO CTL OVER.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.