Narrative:

While flying a revenue flight from bwi to ewn at 16000' (IFR flight plan, VMC conditions, smooth flight), a loud pop noise was heard, with a simultaneous cracking of the captain's windshield. (It was later determined that only the outer layer had cracked and that the 2 inner structural panels were not affected.) power was reduced and a request to begin a des was radioed to wash center with vectors to nearest available airfield. Center replied with a vector to an unfamiliar airfield and we requested richmond, va, and were given vectors to ric. We continued des and landed at ric west/O further complications. To my best knowledge this is the 13TH or 14TH failure of windshields (cracking like what I saw) with this company while flying the mdt aircraft. Contributing factor: a poor design by manufacturer. Corrective action: I have been told by the chief of air carrier operations that all 'original' windshields have been changed and 'hopefully' no other problems will occur. Other comments: 1 other captain (senior to me) was severely criticized by the owner of this company for refusing to fly his aircraft with a totally similar problem as mine. I agreed to ferry my aircraft to salisbury, md, only after a second mechanic agreed to sign it off as structurally sound to fly at 180 KTS maximum, press below .25, windshield heat off, no ice. There are a number of other problems involved with this report that at this time I feel would not solve the basic problem: the captain must have and make the final decision--will I go or not?!

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT DIVERTED WHEN OUTER PANE OF WINDSHIELD CRACKED.

Narrative: WHILE FLYING A REVENUE FLT FROM BWI TO EWN AT 16000' (IFR FLT PLAN, VMC CONDITIONS, SMOOTH FLT), A LOUD POP NOISE WAS HEARD, WITH A SIMULTANEOUS CRACKING OF THE CAPT'S WINDSHIELD. (IT WAS LATER DETERMINED THAT ONLY THE OUTER LAYER HAD CRACKED AND THAT THE 2 INNER STRUCTURAL PANELS WERE NOT AFFECTED.) PWR WAS REDUCED AND A REQUEST TO BEGIN A DES WAS RADIOED TO WASH CENTER WITH VECTORS TO NEAREST AVAILABLE AIRFIELD. CENTER REPLIED WITH A VECTOR TO AN UNFAMILIAR AIRFIELD AND WE REQUESTED RICHMOND, VA, AND WERE GIVEN VECTORS TO RIC. WE CONTINUED DES AND LANDED AT RIC W/O FURTHER COMPLICATIONS. TO MY BEST KNOWLEDGE THIS IS THE 13TH OR 14TH FAILURE OF WINDSHIELDS (CRACKING LIKE WHAT I SAW) WITH THIS COMPANY WHILE FLYING THE MDT ACFT. CONTRIBUTING FACTOR: A POOR DESIGN BY MANUFACTURER. CORRECTIVE ACTION: I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY THE CHIEF OF AIR CARRIER OPS THAT ALL 'ORIGINAL' WINDSHIELDS HAVE BEEN CHANGED AND 'HOPEFULLY' NO OTHER PROBS WILL OCCUR. OTHER COMMENTS: 1 OTHER CAPT (SENIOR TO ME) WAS SEVERELY CRITICIZED BY THE OWNER OF THIS COMPANY FOR REFUSING TO FLY HIS ACFT WITH A TOTALLY SIMILAR PROB AS MINE. I AGREED TO FERRY MY ACFT TO SALISBURY, MD, ONLY AFTER A SECOND MECH AGREED TO SIGN IT OFF AS STRUCTURALLY SOUND TO FLY AT 180 KTS MAX, PRESS BELOW .25, WINDSHIELD HEAT OFF, NO ICE. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER PROBS INVOLVED WITH THIS RPT THAT AT THIS TIME I FEEL WOULD NOT SOLVE THE BASIC PROB: THE CAPT MUST HAVE AND MAKE THE FINAL DECISION--WILL I GO OR NOT?!

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.