Narrative:

Communication is very rarely black and white. After departure flight attendant reported air noise at aft cabin tail cone hatch door, as maintenance had been working in tail cone we were reasonably sure the plug door was out of alignment. We were not too worried since it was a plug door, aircraft was pressurizing normally. First officer went to cabin to confirm problem. It was air leak at aforementioned hatch. First officer described it as 'like cockpit window that is not sealing properly until aircraft is pressurized.' conferred with dispatch, maintenance and flight attendants and we decided to return to departure airport. CRM works. However, the following day all 3 flight attendants filed on-job-injury reports for possible hearing loss. Big surprise to cockpit crew. Although we probably would not have done much different, it does seem that we somehow miscommunicated the cockpit and the flight attendants perception of the noise level. In fact, flight attendants made 3 visits to cockpit before final decision to return was made (decision to return was primarily made by lead flight attendant as we (cockpit) were not at the noise site). We on occasion have cabin door air leaks and most always continue as long as door is secured and cabin pressurizes.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT EQUIP PROB. PRESSURE LEAK FROM AFT CABIN PLUG DOOR. NOISE LEVEL UNACCEPTABLE TO FLT ATTENDANTS, THOUGH ACFT WAS PRESSURIZING NORMALLY. ACFT RETURNED TO DEP ARPT.

Narrative: COM IS VERY RARELY BLACK AND WHITE. AFTER DEP FLT ATTENDANT RPTED AIR NOISE AT AFT CABIN TAIL CONE HATCH DOOR, AS MAINT HAD BEEN WORKING IN TAIL CONE WE WERE REASONABLY SURE THE PLUG DOOR WAS OUT OF ALIGNMENT. WE WERE NOT TOO WORRIED SINCE IT WAS A PLUG DOOR, ACFT WAS PRESSURIZING NORMALLY. FO WENT TO CABIN TO CONFIRM PROB. IT WAS AIR LEAK AT AFOREMENTIONED HATCH. FO DESCRIBED IT AS 'LIKE COCKPIT WINDOW THAT IS NOT SEALING PROPERLY UNTIL ACFT IS PRESSURIZED.' CONFERRED WITH DISPATCH, MAINT AND FLT ATTENDANTS AND WE DECIDED TO RETURN TO DEP ARPT. CRM WORKS. HOWEVER, THE FOLLOWING DAY ALL 3 FLT ATTENDANTS FILED ON-JOB-INJURY RPTS FOR POSSIBLE HEARING LOSS. BIG SURPRISE TO COCKPIT CREW. ALTHOUGH WE PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE DONE MUCH DIFFERENT, IT DOES SEEM THAT WE SOMEHOW MISCOMMUNICATED THE COCKPIT AND THE FLT ATTENDANTS PERCEPTION OF THE NOISE LEVEL. IN FACT, FLT ATTENDANTS MADE 3 VISITS TO COCKPIT BEFORE FINAL DECISION TO RETURN WAS MADE (DECISION TO RETURN WAS PRIMARILY MADE BY LEAD FLT ATTENDANT AS WE (COCKPIT) WERE NOT AT THE NOISE SITE). WE ON OCCASION HAVE CABIN DOOR AIR LEAKS AND MOST ALWAYS CONTINUE AS LONG AS DOOR IS SECURED AND CABIN PRESSURIZES.

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.