Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Workload; Troubleshooting; Distraction; Confusion
Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
I had two flights within 2 days with the same problem. The drain tube for the left pack in the tailcone area are getting frayed and accumulating water and/or spraying water on the electronic components. The problem manifested itself on an earlier flight; The aircraft was pulled from service due to a fuel panel leak discovered by Maintenance while they were fixing the drain tube issue. The water was actually creating a rain forest in the tail cone area. Everything on the left side of the aircraft's tail cone was saturated with water. It was spraying water similar to a mister all over everything! Note: An industrial vacuum was brought in remove the moisture. On a different flight; the following day; we had to call Contract Maintenance (30 minute response time); to fix the issue. When accessing the APU Fire Control Panel; the door was filled with water and the panel was very moist. A lot of water on the ground was evident. This flight that was already delayed inbound and we incurred almost an hour waiting for the fix. I am not criticizing the Contract Maintenance; just the problem this small drain tube created. The discovery of this issue is relatively simple. Water on the ground near the left; aft area of the plane and when opening the access panel; you get wet. My concern is the mixture of water and electronic devices together. A false alarm could occur in-flight with a soaked APU Fire Control unit. The tailcone on a long flight could have problems with cables; electronics; and other components freezing in this area. We all know the fleet is getting older; however; I am concerned about this drain tube and the possible consequences.
Maintenance action during the diversion simply addressed the obvious indications but did not attempt to find the root cause. After their arrival at the originally filed destination; the First Officer conducted a walk around and found water in the aft; external APU Fire Control panel. That finding began an investigation into the water's source and ultimately the tail compartment was opened where was a rain forest type mist was seen. Maintenance then found the leak and it was corrected. The reporter is concerned about aging aircraft and the fact that tail compartment inspection may be overlooked. Flight crews do not look in the tail compartment as part of their preflight; and Maintenance may not either leaving that area un-inspected for long periods of time. The reporter mentioned that there was so much water that the possibility of frozen flight control cables crossed his mind.
During climbout after the aircraft checklist had been accomplished through cleanup; a Battery Charger light annunciated. It was subsequently observed that several additional circuit breakers had opened to include two windshield anti ice circuit breakers. Over the next eight minutes; the cabin crew communicated during three separate calls to the flight deck that there had been water discharged onto an aft cabin flight attendant jump seat; the cabin and lavatory lighting was not working; and the lavatories were not flushing. The QRH procedure for the Battery Charger did not indicate abnormal volts or amps but based on a review of all of the reported malfunctions; a decision was made to land at a divert airport.Maintenance met the aircraft during our divert on the previous leg and investigated the inbound write up which described all of the aircraft events observed during the climbout. They opened overhead panels and the aircraft E&E compartment and found no evidence of a water leak. They then began focusing on the electrical issues in the write up and decided to change the battery charger. The cause of the malfunctions that required the divert was unknown so all of the events observed on the flight deck and described from the cabin crew were included in a single write up. Maintenance described their corrective actions and procedures but did not address the water leak that was described by the flight attendants in the aft jump seats. Since their corrective actions only addressed the electrical malfunctions as no water leak was evident after their investigation; it would have been appropriate to divide the observed and described events into two write-ups - one for the water; one for the electrical. We departed without correct documentation related to the water leak described by the cabin crew.
A MD-83 diverted because of electrical anomalies but continued after maintenance action only to discover later that a tail compartment airconditioning leak was spraying water on electrical components in that area which was not examined by Maintenance.