Narrative:

While reviewing the log history for the flight; we noticed some previous write-ups having to do with a hydraulic leak. Part of the write-up read 'extensive history of fluid transfer between systems'. It appeared that maintenance had done some work on a brake metering valve. There was a later write-up about some fluid found on the lower aft fuselage. During the walk around; the first officer noticed fluid dripping from the right side of the tail and flowing down to the belly of the aircraft. While we called maintenance to take a look at it the first officer pulled up the hydraulic page and noted the right hydraulic quantity at .86. After rereading the log history he noted the quantity had dropped to .84. Shortly thereafter maintenance informed us that they couldn't find a leak. The mechanic went on to explain all of the items that were not leaking. I asked the mechanic if he was implying that we could take the airplane; to which he responded; 'yes; but if [we] wanted to reject it; that was [our] decision'. I was very much under the impression that maintenance was more than willing; even desirous; that we take this airplane in its present state. I asked him 'again' to confirm that there was a leak somewhere but that they weren't able to find it; to which he replied; 'yes'. I decided that; given the history of the aircraft and the fact that maintenance was concurring that there was fluid present but didn't know exactly where it was coming from; that it was not in the interest of safety to take this airplane to ZZZ2. While in the cockpit trying to get in touch with dispatch to let them know of my decision; the mechanic came to the cockpit and told us that there was fluid underneath the elevator feel computer but that there was no active leak after a static test. The mechanic confirmed to me that they did not locate the leak but they did not feel that the elevator feel computer was the cause. Again; it seemed as if maintenance was more interested in explaining to me the items that weren't leaking in hopes that I would accept the aircraft; even though they were not able to find the leak itself. I have never; in my entire career at this company; felt as if maintenance was trying to coerce me or another captain into taking an aircraft; but I absolutely felt as if they were trying to coerce me into taking this aircraft to ZZZ2 even though there was a history having to do with hydraulic fluid and even though they were unable to identify where the fluid was coming from. I advised dispatch we were refusing the airplane because it had a verified hydraulic leak somewhere but maintenance couldn't seem to find it and we didn't think it was safe. During my conversation with dispatch he advised there were no replacement aircraft on the field. I was appalled by this. If I was refusing the airplane for safety reasons whether or not there was a replacement airplane on the field was irrelevant. Again; I felt like I was being coerced to take the airplane by dispatch. The dispatcher gave me the duty manager's phone number and requested that I call him. I called the duty manager and explained what was going on. The duty manager wholeheartedly agreed with my decision. I am not writing this report because we had an airplane with a hydraulic issue. I am writing this because I am shocked by the feeling of coercion that I received from both maintenance and dispatch. I seriously think the company needs to revisit these priorities.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B757-200 Captain refused an aircraft with hydraulic fluid detected on the aft fuselage exterior during preflight and a history of unresolved hydraulic leaks in the log book. The reporter stressed what he felt were attempts by Maintenance and Dispatch to coerce him into accepting the aircraft despite the acknowledged but unresolved leak.

Narrative: While reviewing the log history for the flight; we noticed some previous write-ups having to do with a hydraulic leak. Part of the write-up read 'extensive history of fluid transfer between systems'. It appeared that Maintenance had done some work on a brake metering valve. There was a later write-up about some fluid found on the lower aft fuselage. During the walk around; the First Officer noticed fluid dripping from the right side of the tail and flowing down to the belly of the aircraft. While we called Maintenance to take a look at it the First officer pulled up the hydraulic page and noted the right hydraulic quantity at .86. After rereading the log history he noted the quantity had dropped to .84. Shortly thereafter Maintenance informed us that they couldn't find a leak. The Mechanic went on to explain all of the items that were not leaking. I asked the Mechanic if he was implying that we could take the airplane; to which he responded; 'YES; but if [we] wanted to reject it; that was [our] decision'. I was very much under the impression that Maintenance was more than willing; even desirous; that we take this airplane in its present state. I asked him 'again' to confirm that there was a leak somewhere but that they weren't able to find it; to which he replied; 'yes'. I decided that; given the history of the aircraft and the fact that Maintenance was concurring that there was fluid present but didn't know exactly where it was coming from; that it was not in the interest of safety to take this airplane to ZZZ2. While in the cockpit trying to get in touch with Dispatch to let them know of my decision; the Mechanic came to the cockpit and told us that there was fluid underneath the elevator feel computer but that there was no active leak after a static test. The Mechanic confirmed to me that they did not locate the leak but they did not feel that the elevator feel computer was the cause. Again; it seemed as if Maintenance was more interested in explaining to me the items that weren't leaking in hopes that I would accept the aircraft; even though they were not able to find the leak itself. I have never; in my entire career at this company; felt as if Maintenance was trying to coerce me or another Captain into taking an aircraft; but I ABSOLUTELY FELT AS IF THEY WERE TRYING TO COERCE ME into taking this aircraft to ZZZ2 even though there was a history having to do with hydraulic fluid and even though they were unable to identify where the fluid was coming from. I advised Dispatch we were refusing the airplane because it had a verified hydraulic leak somewhere but Maintenance couldn't seem to find it and we didn't think it was safe. During my conversation with Dispatch he advised there were no replacement aircraft on the field. I was appalled by this. If I was refusing the airplane for safety reasons whether or not there was a replacement airplane on the field was irrelevant. Again; I FELT LIKE I WAS BEING COERCED TO TAKE THE AIRPLANE BY DISPATCH. The Dispatcher gave me the Duty Manager's phone number and requested that I call him. I called the Duty Manager and explained what was going on. The Duty Manager wholeheartedly agreed with my decision. I am not writing this report because we had an airplane with a hydraulic issue. I am writing this because I am shocked by the feeling of coercion that I received from both Maintenance and Dispatch. I seriously think the company needs to revisit these priorities.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.