|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||0601 To 1200|
|Locale Reference||airport : zzz.airport|
|Altitude||agl single value : 0|
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||A319|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 121|
|Flight Phase||ground : parked|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 210|
flight time total : 10000
flight time type : 2000
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||maintenance : technician|
|Anomaly||aircraft equipment problem : less severe|
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : unable|
|Maintenance||performance deficiency : repair|
Maintenance Human Performance
Chart Or Publication
After takeoff it became evident that the captain's sliding window had 2 large areas of scratching that appeared to be deliberate from possible repair attempts. The scratching was in straight lines both vertically and horizontally similar to the way the product 'micro-mesh' would be used to sand off a scratch or mark. The areas were separate and were about 4 inches in diameter each. The window was opaque in and around these 2 areas. It became obvious during the flight that the visibility through this window was not adequate to scan for traffic and it was actually quite distracting as the distortions made it hard on my eyes to look through the window. I sent a maintenance code requesting window replacement before we landed. Upon arrival at the gate; a mechanic met the aircraft. He stated to me that a supervisor was coming and I needed to wait to speak to him. I explained to the mechanic that I would show him the damaged areas and that I would not be waiting beyond that discussion. I showed the mechanic the areas and despite my description; he immediately explained that they were not in the pilot's field of vision. He made this assessment while standing in the back of the cockpit; not seated as a pilot in flight would see it. I also explained that the jetway was shielding the light and that the distortion and scratches were much more visible in different lighting such as during flight. I explained to him that I was done for the day; but if I was assigned to fly the aircraft further; I would have refused it until the window was replaced. There was no more information that I could provide the mechanic so I started to leave. He asked me to stay so the supervisor could 'try to talk me into changing the write-up to the less ominous version that does not request a window change.' I stated I would not subject myself to this and I left. I felt that the action that was going to be taken (which was basically to pencil-whip it) was pre-determined before the aircraft even arrived at the gate. I noticed later in the day that the mechanic or supervisor had signed off the window as serviceable and as far as I know; the aircraft is flying around with a nearly opaque captain's sliding window as you read this. I believe that the issue with this window was summarily dismissed by the mechanic or supervisor. While there may be some latitude in the maintenance manual for window damage; I do not feel this issue was resolved with the highest level of integrity or safety. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated this aircraft flew for at least a week without any window replacement. He believes someone in maintenance changed the code he entered into their logbook reporting system that states 'window requires replacement before next flight' to a lesser code that states 'defect meets maintenance specifications.' reporter added his sliding window visibility was seriously impaired and was most surprised to find the window not changed.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: AN AIRBUS A319 CAPTAIN REPORTS OF HIS SLIDING WINDOW HAVING SCRATCHES; BEING OPAQUE AND VISIBILITY THROUGH THIS WINDOW WAS NOT ADEQUATE.
Narrative: AFTER TKOF IT BECAME EVIDENT THAT THE CAPT'S SLIDING WINDOW HAD 2 LARGE AREAS OF SCRATCHING THAT APPEARED TO BE DELIBERATE FROM POSSIBLE REPAIR ATTEMPTS. THE SCRATCHING WAS IN STRAIGHT LINES BOTH VERTICALLY AND HORIZONTALLY SIMILAR TO THE WAY THE PRODUCT 'MICRO-MESH' WOULD BE USED TO SAND OFF A SCRATCH OR MARK. THE AREAS WERE SEPARATE AND WERE ABOUT 4 INCHES IN DIAMETER EACH. THE WINDOW WAS OPAQUE IN AND AROUND THESE 2 AREAS. IT BECAME OBVIOUS DURING THE FLT THAT THE VISIBILITY THROUGH THIS WINDOW WAS NOT ADEQUATE TO SCAN FOR TFC AND IT WAS ACTUALLY QUITE DISTRACTING AS THE DISTORTIONS MADE IT HARD ON MY EYES TO LOOK THROUGH THE WINDOW. I SENT A MAINT CODE REQUESTING WINDOW REPLACEMENT BEFORE WE LANDED. UPON ARR AT THE GATE; A MECH MET THE ACFT. HE STATED TO ME THAT A SUPVR WAS COMING AND I NEEDED TO WAIT TO SPEAK TO HIM. I EXPLAINED TO THE MECH THAT I WOULD SHOW HIM THE DAMAGED AREAS AND THAT I WOULD NOT BE WAITING BEYOND THAT DISCUSSION. I SHOWED THE MECH THE AREAS AND DESPITE MY DESCRIPTION; HE IMMEDIATELY EXPLAINED THAT THEY WERE NOT IN THE PLT'S FIELD OF VISION. HE MADE THIS ASSESSMENT WHILE STANDING IN THE BACK OF THE COCKPIT; NOT SEATED AS A PLT IN FLT WOULD SEE IT. I ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE JETWAY WAS SHIELDING THE LIGHT AND THAT THE DISTORTION AND SCRATCHES WERE MUCH MORE VISIBLE IN DIFFERENT LIGHTING SUCH AS DURING FLT. I EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT I WAS DONE FOR THE DAY; BUT IF I WAS ASSIGNED TO FLY THE ACFT FURTHER; I WOULD HAVE REFUSED IT UNTIL THE WINDOW WAS REPLACED. THERE WAS NO MORE INFO THAT I COULD PROVIDE THE MECH SO I STARTED TO LEAVE. HE ASKED ME TO STAY SO THE SUPVR COULD 'TRY TO TALK ME INTO CHANGING THE WRITE-UP TO THE LESS OMINOUS VERSION THAT DOES NOT REQUEST A WINDOW CHANGE.' I STATED I WOULD NOT SUBJECT MYSELF TO THIS AND I LEFT. I FELT THAT THE ACTION THAT WAS GOING TO BE TAKEN (WHICH WAS BASICALLY TO PENCIL-WHIP IT) WAS PRE-DETERMINED BEFORE THE ACFT EVEN ARRIVED AT THE GATE. I NOTICED LATER IN THE DAY THAT THE MECH OR SUPVR HAD SIGNED OFF THE WINDOW AS SERVICEABLE AND AS FAR AS I KNOW; THE ACFT IS FLYING AROUND WITH A NEARLY OPAQUE CAPT'S SLIDING WINDOW AS YOU READ THIS. I BELIEVE THAT THE ISSUE WITH THIS WINDOW WAS SUMMARILY DISMISSED BY THE MECH OR SUPVR. WHILE THERE MAY BE SOME LATITUDE IN THE MAINT MANUAL FOR WINDOW DAMAGE; I DO NOT FEEL THIS ISSUE WAS RESOLVED WITH THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF INTEGRITY OR SAFETY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: REPORTER STATED THIS ACFT FLEW FOR AT LEAST A WEEK WITHOUT ANY WINDOW REPLACEMENT. HE BELIEVES SOMEONE IN MAINT CHANGED THE CODE HE ENTERED INTO THEIR LOGBOOK REPORTING SYSTEM THAT STATES 'WINDOW REQUIRES REPLACEMENT BEFORE NEXT FLIGHT' TO A LESSER CODE THAT STATES 'DEFECT MEETS MAINT SPECS.' REPORTER ADDED HIS SLIDING WINDOW VISIBILITY WAS SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED AND WAS MOST SURPRISED TO FIND THE WINDOW NOT CHANGED.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.