Narrative:

At termination of flight, captain reported verbally passenger complaint of window at seat xx loose and moisture visible to maintenance personnel. Inspection done during scheduled normal overnight maintenance. No faults noted, except a very small amount of condensation. Window was found to be secure, no further action required/taken. Logbook entry or any type of paperwork not completed at the time. After further review, a logbook entry (via computer) made 6 days later. Contributing factors: verbal reports to maintenance by flcs can easily be overlooked or not taken seriously. Initial reaction to this verbal report was considered to be suspect as it originated with a passenger and reported verbally to maintenance and not written in the aircraft log. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the aircraft was a B757-200 and the window was checked and found to be ok for service. The reporter said the passenger observed moisture on the loose scratch guard and not in the window assembly. The reporter stated the FAA received a report from the passenger and requested details of the fix or inspection from the air carrier. The reporter stated no log entry was made that night but a computer entry was made in the aircraft maintenance history 6 days later.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NO LOGBOOK ENTRY WAS MADE OF A CAPT'S VERBAL RPT TO A MECH REGARDING A PAX COMPLAINT OF A DEFECTIVE WINDOW.

Narrative: AT TERMINATION OF FLT, CAPT RPTED VERBALLY PAX COMPLAINT OF WINDOW AT SEAT XX LOOSE AND MOISTURE VISIBLE TO MAINT PERSONNEL. INSPECTION DONE DURING SCHEDULED NORMAL OVERNIGHT MAINT. NO FAULTS NOTED, EXCEPT A VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF CONDENSATION. WINDOW WAS FOUND TO BE SECURE, NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED/TAKEN. LOGBOOK ENTRY OR ANY TYPE OF PAPERWORK NOT COMPLETED AT THE TIME. AFTER FURTHER REVIEW, A LOGBOOK ENTRY (VIA COMPUTER) MADE 6 DAYS LATER. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: VERBAL RPTS TO MAINT BY FLCS CAN EASILY BE OVERLOOKED OR NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY. INITIAL REACTION TO THIS VERBAL RPT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE SUSPECT AS IT ORIGINATED WITH A PAX AND RPTED VERBALLY TO MAINT AND NOT WRITTEN IN THE ACFT LOG. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE ACFT WAS A B757-200 AND THE WINDOW WAS CHKED AND FOUND TO BE OK FOR SVC. THE RPTR SAID THE PAX OBSERVED MOISTURE ON THE LOOSE SCRATCH GUARD AND NOT IN THE WINDOW ASSEMBLY. THE RPTR STATED THE FAA RECEIVED A RPT FROM THE PAX AND REQUESTED DETAILS OF THE FIX OR INSPECTION FROM THE ACR. THE RPTR STATED NO LOG ENTRY WAS MADE THAT NIGHT BUT A COMPUTER ENTRY WAS MADE IN THE ACFT MAINT HISTORY 6 DAYS LATER.

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.