Narrative:

I have been flying for 20 plus yrs, then I came to alaska and worked for a carrier that comes from the old school before regulation. The company I work for discourages pilots from making maintenance discrepancies unless it's a major problem due to the FARS that require 'everything working.' this company wants the pilots to get the aircraft back to the hub (jnu) where the maintenance is performed, if at all possible. I had grounded an aircraft for a poorly operating fuel pump. The owner (an a&P) said the pump was fine and was openly unhappy with me for grounding it. Thus when I picked up an aircraft at a satellite airport and noticed the brakes were poor (required pumping to stop), I had to reluctantly alter my idea of what was airworthy in order to fit into the employer's system. When I arrived in jnu the aircraft performed as expected, ie, minimal braking achieved by use of pumping and shutting down the engine well before I wanted to stop. After deplaning my passenger, I taxied to maintenance, once again shutting down the engine and pumping the brakes. As I rolled towards the hangars the pumping had almost no effect and circumstances dictated a straight course towards the hangar door. I managed to reduce the speed to approximately 3-4 mph and hit the thin plywood door squarely with the spinner. I then wrote up a discrepancy for the brakes and the spinner impact. The mechanics found no brake fluid in the reservoir and very little in the lines during the inspection. No leaks were detected after bleeding and the aircraft had received a 100 hour inspection approximately 45 hours prior to the incident. The spinner was also checked and deemed fit. A flaw that I see in the FARS is that an employer must ignore minor maintenance problems until they become big ones. This develops into a system where apathy and neglect abound. It would be beneficial to provide some maintenance flexibility to the operator while still keeping them in line. For example, if I was able to note that: 'engine idled rough with electrical fuel pump off' and that could be addressed during the next inspection rather than grounding the aircraft, it might allow for problems to be eventually checked, rather than completely ignored until it becomes a big one. Certainly the root of this problem was improper maintenance during the 100 hour inspection.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AIR TAXI SMA HAS BRAKE FAILURE, ROLLS INTO HANGAR DOOR. ACFT EQUIP PROB BRAKES.

Narrative: I HAVE BEEN FLYING FOR 20 PLUS YRS, THEN I CAME TO ALASKA AND WORKED FOR A CARRIER THAT COMES FROM THE OLD SCHOOL BEFORE REG. THE COMPANY I WORK FOR DISCOURAGES PLTS FROM MAKING MAINT DISCREPANCIES UNLESS IT'S A MAJOR PROB DUE TO THE FARS THAT REQUIRE 'EVERYTHING WORKING.' THIS COMPANY WANTS THE PLTS TO GET THE ACFT BACK TO THE HUB (JNU) WHERE THE MAINT IS PERFORMED, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. I HAD GNDED AN ACFT FOR A POORLY OPERATING FUEL PUMP. THE OWNER (AN A&P) SAID THE PUMP WAS FINE AND WAS OPENLY UNHAPPY WITH ME FOR GNDING IT. THUS WHEN I PICKED UP AN ACFT AT A SATELLITE ARPT AND NOTICED THE BRAKES WERE POOR (REQUIRED PUMPING TO STOP), I HAD TO RELUCTANTLY ALTER MY IDEA OF WHAT WAS AIRWORTHY IN ORDER TO FIT INTO THE EMPLOYER'S SYS. WHEN I ARRIVED IN JNU THE ACFT PERFORMED AS EXPECTED, IE, MINIMAL BRAKING ACHIEVED BY USE OF PUMPING AND SHUTTING DOWN THE ENG WELL BEFORE I WANTED TO STOP. AFTER DEPLANING MY PAX, I TAXIED TO MAINT, ONCE AGAIN SHUTTING DOWN THE ENG AND PUMPING THE BRAKES. AS I ROLLED TOWARDS THE HANGARS THE PUMPING HAD ALMOST NO EFFECT AND CIRCUMSTANCES DICTATED A STRAIGHT COURSE TOWARDS THE HANGAR DOOR. I MANAGED TO REDUCE THE SPD TO APPROX 3-4 MPH AND HIT THE THIN PLYWOOD DOOR SQUARELY WITH THE SPINNER. I THEN WROTE UP A DISCREPANCY FOR THE BRAKES AND THE SPINNER IMPACT. THE MECHS FOUND NO BRAKE FLUID IN THE RESERVOIR AND VERY LITTLE IN THE LINES DURING THE INSPECTION. NO LEAKS WERE DETECTED AFTER BLEEDING AND THE ACFT HAD RECEIVED A 100 HR INSPECTION APPROX 45 HRS PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT. THE SPINNER WAS ALSO CHKED AND DEEMED FIT. A FLAW THAT I SEE IN THE FARS IS THAT AN EMPLOYER MUST IGNORE MINOR MAINT PROBS UNTIL THEY BECOME BIG ONES. THIS DEVELOPS INTO A SYS WHERE APATHY AND NEGLECT ABOUND. IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO PROVIDE SOME MAINT FLEXIBILITY TO THE OPERATOR WHILE STILL KEEPING THEM IN LINE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF I WAS ABLE TO NOTE THAT: 'ENG IDLED ROUGH WITH ELECTRICAL FUEL PUMP OFF' AND THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED DURING THE NEXT INSPECTION RATHER THAN GNDING THE ACFT, IT MIGHT ALLOW FOR PROBS TO BE EVENTUALLY CHKED, RATHER THAN COMPLETELY IGNORED UNTIL IT BECOMES A BIG ONE. CERTAINLY THE ROOT OF THIS PROB WAS IMPROPER MAINT DURING THE 100 HR INSPECTION.

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.