A B777 Flight Crew reported refusing the aircraft due to non compliance with a dual CDL procedure that would have two wing access panels removed for flight.
Synopsis
A B777 Flight Crew reported refusing the aircraft due to non compliance with a dual CDL procedure that would have two wing access panels removed for flight.
Narrative
Tech contacted me to add a dual CDL (Configuration Deviation List) prior to calculation of the flight plan. The CDL 57-XX-Y was considered and approved based on the very minor (comparatively) weight and fuel penalties. diagrams on the following page of the CDL; in retrospect; did not properly convey the size of the panels in question; nor what the end result would look like. an hour later the captain called me asking about the CDL and offered to share a photo of the missing panels. After viewing said photo; we elected to call maintenance and get a better idea of how to proceed. we were told that the approximately 5 by 5 foot hole in the bottom of the wing; aft of the leading edge; is okay to fly with under the CDL. The Captain was unwilling to take the aircraft; and I was not willing to Dispatch the aircraft in this state. The Captain refused the flight; and stated so; and why; in the aircraft AML. I revoked my Dispatch authorization for the CDL after contacting the ops coordinator for the 777; and ZZZ operations. Understanding that; according to the CDL manual for the 777 that this was a legal placard; I feel that the diagrams used did not fully show what the state of the aircraft would be after the panels in question were removed. The photo I have attached looks very different than what I imagined from the diagrams provided. I feel that based on the position and size of the opening in the wing; that there should be more penalties involved then what is required to date. I would like to see this CDL re-examined to confirm the penalties involved are enough. I have never seen a CDL allow for this much of an opening anywhere on the aircraft. I have trouble believing there are no consequences for operating in icing conditions; or that revenue is allowed on the aircraft when it is in this state. I also question our ability to send an aircraft in this state of repair over any ocean; with or with out revenue on board.
Second reporter narrative
After First Officer (FO) walk around the aircraft he saw Maintenance finishing up working under the wing removing panels and repairing panels and was told by them that they were adding a two CDLs for missing panels. The FO looked at the hole and took a few pictures to show me. After I saw the pictures and looked at the hole that they wanted us to accept we decide to call dispatch and Maintenance Control. There was wiring that was small; single strand in bundles that where unprotected from any flying debris; including any bird strike that could cut and/ or damaged the wires. You could climb into the hole it was that deep and large; which there was no ice protection that to us looked like it could fill with ice; stressing earlier mentioned wires and wing structure and could leave the aircraft as a block of ice weighing many hundreds of pounds. The CDL was 57-XX wing fixed leading edge lower panel - for two panels missing. It is one thing to fly the plane this way over the states with many close by airports or to fly it somewhere to get it fixed over land and many airports; but to fly 8 plus hours ZZZ to ZZZ1 in weather and ETOPS seemed not the intent of the CDL; and unsafe and too risky for me and my crew. The Maintenance personal working on the wing agreed and they could not believe they were sending this airplane to ZZZZ; they thought it was going to the hanger till they got new panels or fixed the old ones. When we called our first Dispatcher and he brought into the call Maintenance Control we sent the pictures of the wing to them; and they both are on the recorded line said they never seen anything like that before and would not send it out flying or release it that way. The process to fix the problem was started at that point. I wrote in the logbook as requested that the captain refused the flight with the CDL on it. After much time and many phone calls and taping and reinstalling cracked panels; they final gave up and could not fix it in a way they felt legally and canceled the flight. The second Dispatcher that came on duty or was replacing the first dispatcher that would not sign off on this flight with the CDL on it - as seem in the added photo I have included in this report also refused to sign off or dispatch this fight with that hole it the wing. We need to always error on safety side and not add to the risk people on the plane and if the ice fell off hurt property and people on the ground. The whole crew was legal and willing to fly this trip with this airplane panels installed or any other aircraft they could have put us in.
More incidents for this aircraft family →
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.