Narrative:

I arrived at aircraft and realized that aircraft was same aircraft that I had refused on jul/xa/08 and filed previous safety report on. I verified previous write-up; inspected right engine; noticed plane had been flown several times in the past 48 hours. I stopped boarding; informed operations that I would need another aircraft; called dispatcher informing him of the problem. Maintenance personnel were present so we showed them and went down to talk to supervisor. We discussed with the mechanics. When the supervisor X arrived; he made no attempt to discuss the issue with us. When we left the maintenance room; the supervisor made the comment 'we will find someplace else to send the airplane.' in no way did I get an attitude from any of the other mechanics; rather they were all respectful and interested in my concerns. When we left the maintenance office; the supervisor X thought we had not signed off the logbook as having refused the aircraft and we attempted to engage him in some discussion on the issue; but he had zero interest in discussing anything with us. I informed him that I had already signed the logbook specifically stating I 'refused the aircraft.' this is the second first officer that has been part of the analysis and conclusion to refuse the aircraft; and both of them have read the amm and drawn the same conclusion that the company is flying this airplane with the damaged attrition plate significantly out of tolerance. I and both first officer's have never seen a plane fly with this much damage to this part of the engine. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the air carrier erc advised the reporter that the discrepancy fell within deferrable limits.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757-200 CAPTAIN REFUSES ACFT WITH MISSING SECTIONS OF ATTRITION LINING OF RIGHT ENGINE. HAD REJECTED THE SAME ACFT 48 HOURS EARLIER FOR THE SAME REASON.

Narrative: I ARRIVED AT ACFT AND REALIZED THAT ACFT WAS SAME ACFT THAT I HAD REFUSED ON JUL/XA/08 AND FILED PREVIOUS SAFETY RPT ON. I VERIFIED PREVIOUS WRITE-UP; INSPECTED R ENG; NOTICED PLANE HAD BEEN FLOWN SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST 48 HRS. I STOPPED BOARDING; INFORMED OPS THAT I WOULD NEED ANOTHER ACFT; CALLED DISPATCHER INFORMING HIM OF THE PROB. MAINT PERSONNEL WERE PRESENT SO WE SHOWED THEM AND WENT DOWN TO TALK TO SUPVR. WE DISCUSSED WITH THE MECHS. WHEN THE SUPVR X ARRIVED; HE MADE NO ATTEMPT TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE WITH US. WHEN WE LEFT THE MAINT ROOM; THE SUPVR MADE THE COMMENT 'WE WILL FIND SOMEPLACE ELSE TO SEND THE AIRPLANE.' IN NO WAY DID I GET AN ATTITUDE FROM ANY OF THE OTHER MECHS; RATHER THEY WERE ALL RESPECTFUL AND INTERESTED IN MY CONCERNS. WHEN WE LEFT THE MAINT OFFICE; THE SUPVR X THOUGHT WE HAD NOT SIGNED OFF THE LOGBOOK AS HAVING REFUSED THE ACFT AND WE ATTEMPTED TO ENGAGE HIM IN SOME DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE; BUT HE HAD ZERO INTEREST IN DISCUSSING ANYTHING WITH US. I INFORMED HIM THAT I HAD ALREADY SIGNED THE LOGBOOK SPECIFICALLY STATING I 'REFUSED THE ACFT.' THIS IS THE SECOND FO THAT HAS BEEN PART OF THE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION TO REFUSE THE ACFT; AND BOTH OF THEM HAVE READ THE AMM AND DRAWN THE SAME CONCLUSION THAT THE COMPANY IS FLYING THIS AIRPLANE WITH THE DAMAGED ATTRITION PLATE SIGNIFICANTLY OUT OF TOLERANCE. I AND BOTH FO'S HAVE NEVER SEEN A PLANE FLY WITH THIS MUCH DAMAGE TO THIS PART OF THE ENG. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE ACR ERC ADVISED THE REPORTER THAT THE DISCREPANCY FELL WITHIN DEFERRABLE LIMITS.

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.