A CRJ200 crew flew an aircraft with a popped hydraulic cooling fan circuit breaker which maintenance did not collar and made no attempt to fix prior to flight.
Synopsis
A CRJ200 crew flew an aircraft with a popped hydraulic cooling fan circuit breaker which maintenance did not collar and made no attempt to fix prior to flight.
Narrative
It was the first flight of the day for the flight crew. The aircraft had two MEL's: 29-11-03 HYD HEAT EXCHGR COOL FAN & 29-32-01 EICAS HYD RESERVOIR QTY. During the preflight duties/boarding process; we noticed that the circuit breaker on panel 1; row A; number 8 was pulled and NOT collared. Since this circuit breaker was associated with the hydraulic cooling fan; we double checked MEL 29-11-03. The MEL did not say anything about pulling circuit breakers; so we called Maintenance Control to see if we were reading it incorrectly. At XA:30 the Captain talked to Maintenance Control and learned that the mechanics had intentionally left the circuit breaker out and we were to do the same. Since this was not part of the MEL; the Captain and I felt that we needed further clarification from Flight Management on this matter. At XA:35; the Captain talked with Regional Chief Pilot about the situation. He said that this was permissible and the flight proceeded without any problems. Later on I began thinking about what occurred with aircraft that day; and realized that as a flight crew; we may have made a mistake. According to page 27 of the 'Normal Procedures' section of the CL-65 (CRJ-200) Flight Crew Manual; 'All breakers not in (closed) should be collared.' Clearly the flight operated in a matter that went against this policy in the FCM. This occurrence was a classic case of trying to get our customers to their destination on time; and failing to recognize the airline's desire to get the flight crew to deviate from the FAA approved manuals in order to protect completion factor/on-time performance. Although we took time to bring this to the attention of Flight Management; I'm afraid we still operated against approved policy. I've learned that no matter what the situation is; and regardless of who you have spoken with at the company; it is still the flight crew's responsibility to ensure that the aircraft is airworthy; and operated in compliance with approved manuals. Because of this event; I'm better prepared to deal with similar situations and now know that it is necessary to stand your ground when you feel like something isn't quite right. I have learned that I WILL NEVER BE PRESSURED BY MANAGEMENT TO DO ANYTHING THAT FALLS OUTSIDE THE GUIDELINES OF OUR MANUALS EVER AGAIN; and because of this; the passengers and equipment that I fly will be even safer.
Second reporter narrative
On the first flight for this crew in the aircraft; the First Officer noticed a circuit breaker popped Panel 1 A8. This was the Hydraulic Cooling Fan. I looked up the write up in the logbook; then in the MEL. There was no collar on the circuit breaker. In the MEL there was no call for a collar; but just a placard. Called Maintenance to discuss if this was normal and what to do since it was popped and no collar. Stated that every time they reset it in the hanger in the morning it kept popping. So they just left it out. There was no mention of this in the remarks on the release; and goes against normal operation. Maintenance asked me to collar it; so I did; but still felt uncomfortable with this action. Felt the fan should have been deactivated by maintenance to ensure safety. There was no written material for the circuit breaker to be pulled; and it was just left out. After talking with maintenance; I did not want to leave the gate without clarification from my direct supervisor; so called scheduling to talk with Flight Manager on duty. He reassured me that the aircraft was airworthy; and since the maintenance log stated that the circuit breaker was popped causing the fan to be MEL'ed. With his assurance the aircraft was airworthy the First Officer and I continued the flight. The flight was not delayed in anyway for this verification due to delay program. I feel the plane should have not been in service due to another MEL on the quantity level indicator. The two MELs together are a recipe for a problem. Which lead to a High Temp on the ground with a gate return; but that is better than an air shutdown and air divert. The circuit breaker was just a small problem with aircraft. I shut the number two engine down in line to bring the Temp down; with no other way cool it. After running QRH any line at air field longer than 25 minutes would have caused this action. I should have denied the pressure from the company to complete the flights and refused aircraft. At no time did we feel in danger just knew it was going to fail.
More incidents for this aircraft family →
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.