|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1201 To 1800|
|Locale Reference||airport : smf.airport|
|Altitude||agl single value : 0|
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||B737-300|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 121|
|Flight Phase||ground : preflight|
ground : taxi
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 200|
flight time total : 7000
flight time type : 5000
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : first officer|
|Anomaly||aircraft equipment problem : less severe|
|Independent Detector||other other : 5|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : anomaly accepted|
|Problem Areas||Passenger Human Performance|
|Primary Problem||Passenger Human Performance|
After leaving the gate, en route to the runway for takeoff, we were informed by operations that a passenger that had ridden on the aircraft 2 legs prior to this thought he noticed a fatigue fracture on the #1 engine nacelle. As we continued to taxi, we weighed our options. Operations then called back and stated that dispatch recommended we continue to pdx and have maintenance check it there. As the captain, I normally try to give any concerns voiced by our customers as having at least enough credibility to check it out. As it turned out, I had done the walkaround on this aircraft myself and hadn't noticed anything about the engine nacelle, housing or cowling. We opted to continue to pdx. The flight was uneventful. We had contract maintenance check the #1 engine housing for any fractures. Other than paint cracks, none were noted and the logbook was signed off with company maintenance and dispatch in the loop. All turned out ok this time. But in retrospect, since we were still on the ground when we were made aware of the possible problem, I feel that I should have taxied back to the gate and had the appropriate checks accomplished there rather than continuing on to pdx. Even though we were running late, I'm sure that the passenger would have understood and appreciated the fact that we take their observations seriously.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A B733 CAPT RPTED THAT HE CONTINUED TO PDX AFTER FINDING OUT THAT A PAX ON A PREVIOUS FLT RPTED SEEING A FATIGUE FRACTURE ON THE #1 ENG NACELLE.
Narrative: AFTER LEAVING THE GATE, ENRTE TO THE RWY FOR TKOF, WE WERE INFORMED BY OPS THAT A PAX THAT HAD RIDDEN ON THE ACFT 2 LEGS PRIOR TO THIS THOUGHT HE NOTICED A FATIGUE FRACTURE ON THE #1 ENG NACELLE. AS WE CONTINUED TO TAXI, WE WEIGHED OUR OPTIONS. OPS THEN CALLED BACK AND STATED THAT DISPATCH RECOMMENDED WE CONTINUE TO PDX AND HAVE MAINT CHK IT THERE. AS THE CAPT, I NORMALLY TRY TO GIVE ANY CONCERNS VOICED BY OUR CUSTOMERS AS HAVING AT LEAST ENOUGH CREDIBILITY TO CHK IT OUT. AS IT TURNED OUT, I HAD DONE THE WALKAROUND ON THIS ACFT MYSELF AND HADN'T NOTICED ANYTHING ABOUT THE ENG NACELLE, HOUSING OR COWLING. WE OPTED TO CONTINUE TO PDX. THE FLT WAS UNEVENTFUL. WE HAD CONTRACT MAINT CHK THE #1 ENG HOUSING FOR ANY FRACTURES. OTHER THAN PAINT CRACKS, NONE WERE NOTED AND THE LOGBOOK WAS SIGNED OFF WITH COMPANY MAINT AND DISPATCH IN THE LOOP. ALL TURNED OUT OK THIS TIME. BUT IN RETROSPECT, SINCE WE WERE STILL ON THE GND WHEN WE WERE MADE AWARE OF THE POSSIBLE PROB, I FEEL THAT I SHOULD HAVE TAXIED BACK TO THE GATE AND HAD THE APPROPRIATE CHKS ACCOMPLISHED THERE RATHER THAN CONTINUING ON TO PDX. EVEN THOUGH WE WERE RUNNING LATE, I'M SURE THAT THE PAX WOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD AND APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT WE TAKE THEIR OBSERVATIONS SERIOUSLY.
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.