Narrative:

After starting engines the right generator failed to come online automatically in accordance with the flight manual. The right generator control switch was pushed in accordance with the flight manual. An maintenance code was sent reporting the malfunction. We taxied to a holding position and called maintenance. They asked us if it was ok to just 'put the write-up in history' and continue. The captain asked me if that was ok; and I said no. Maintenance then said we would have to return to the gate. Where in our flight operations manual; or in any governing maintenance documents is a valid write-up of a known aircraft malfunction allowed to be cleared by 'entered into history.' the fom is very clear to pilots that an item must be deferred or carried forward or fixed. 'Entered into history' is not an option. This aircraft is experiencing generator problems identical to one I had last month that had the generator replaced after improper maintenance handling of the recurring system failure. It is my belief that maintenance is trying to fly malfunctioning parts of system to failure instead of replacing them when write-ups call for it by masking the problem previously as an unsafe 'carry forward' and now as an equally unsafe 'entered into history.' why would a maintenance controller ask if it was ok to do something that was not allowed by our flight operations manual or that safety says is unsafe? Where is it allowed in any company documents; operations or maintenance; to clear a valid malfunction of a major aircraft system with 'entered into history?'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757-200 RIGHT GENERATOR FAILED TO COME ON LINE AUTOMATICALLY AFTER ENG START. MAINT WAS CONTACTED AND ASKED THE FLT CREW TO 'PUT THE WRITE-UP IN HISTORY' AND CONTINUE.

Narrative: AFTER STARTING ENGS THE R GENERATOR FAILED TO COME ONLINE AUTOMATICALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLT MANUAL. THE R GENERATOR CTL SWITCH WAS PUSHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLT MANUAL. AN MAINT CODE WAS SENT RPTING THE MALFUNCTION. WE TAXIED TO A HOLDING POS AND CALLED MAINT. THEY ASKED US IF IT WAS OK TO JUST 'PUT THE WRITE-UP IN HISTORY' AND CONTINUE. THE CAPT ASKED ME IF THAT WAS OK; AND I SAID NO. MAINT THEN SAID WE WOULD HAVE TO RETURN TO THE GATE. WHERE IN OUR FLT OPS MANUAL; OR IN ANY GOVERNING MAINT DOCUMENTS IS A VALID WRITE-UP OF A KNOWN ACFT MALFUNCTION ALLOWED TO BE CLRED BY 'ENTERED INTO HISTORY.' THE FOM IS VERY CLR TO PLTS THAT AN ITEM MUST BE DEFERRED OR CARRIED FORWARD OR FIXED. 'ENTERED INTO HISTORY' IS NOT AN OPTION. THIS ACFT IS EXPERIENCING GENERATOR PROBS IDENTICAL TO ONE I HAD LAST MONTH THAT HAD THE GENERATOR REPLACED AFTER IMPROPER MAINT HANDLING OF THE RECURRING SYS FAILURE. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT MAINT IS TRYING TO FLY MALFUNCTIONING PARTS OF SYS TO FAILURE INSTEAD OF REPLACING THEM WHEN WRITE-UPS CALL FOR IT BY MASKING THE PROB PREVIOUSLY AS AN UNSAFE 'CARRY FORWARD' AND NOW AS AN EQUALLY UNSAFE 'ENTERED INTO HISTORY.' WHY WOULD A MAINT CTLR ASK IF IT WAS OK TO DO SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT ALLOWED BY OUR FLT OPS MANUAL OR THAT SAFETY SAYS IS UNSAFE? WHERE IS IT ALLOWED IN ANY COMPANY DOCUMENTS; OPS OR MAINT; TO CLR A VALID MALFUNCTION OF A MAJOR ACFT SYS WITH 'ENTERED INTO HISTORY?'

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.