Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure
I was sic on this flight. We discovered a maintenance discrepancy during our preflight.  After discussions with maintenance (which will be another report) we were asked yesterday for a crew member report asking why it took so long to discover the maintenance issue.  The email stated 'Note: Please give the details on your aircraft preflight and why it took 2.5 hours to ground the aircraft for 'rusty screws'. I was unaware there is a specific window where it is acceptable to find grounding items.  The email from operations infers this.  I find it intimidating and an erosion of safety.  There are many factors involved into when an item is discovered; when it is submitted and when it is processed by maintenance.  If crew members are going to be challenged if they discover a maintenance item just prior to departure - some will end up continuing the trip in violation of the FARs.  Crew member reports are often used in disciplinary proceedings.  If the company wants information about a maintenance item - they need a mechanism that is not associated with discipline.  This phone conversation was more intimidating than anything and mostly inappropriate. The controller knew corrosion was a no go item; but wanted the original write-up to say only paint was missing; because in turn this would allow for a maintenance deferral; making the aircraft available for a passenger trip even though he was aware of the corrosion item. I offered to send in pictures with the original write-up showing the corrosion and the controller declined. After the inappropriate back and forth about the controller saying 'it's the paint missing that caused the corrosion so we should have written it up as paint missing' I explained; that if the item could not be deferred; as my original discrepancy write-up indicated corrosion; then we should not change the write-up since corrosion to me was my true concern about airworthiness of the aircraft. I specifically remember reading somewhere that no more than 20 percent of fasteners could not be corroded in a 12 inch radius at some point. I did not think it was a good idea from many angles to change my original write-up in order to circumnavigate a no go item that the controller was obviously trying to avoid so that aircraft availability could be maintained for a passenger trip. Almost every single fastener had corrosion on it on the left hand panelOnce the controller knew I was not going to change the write-up and that I did not agree with his approach that paint was the main concern he petulantly carried on and then abruptly hung up the phone on me as I tried to assure him we were not trying to make things so difficult on him. This is more of the same issues with controllers hassling crews when write-ups occur. This is creating a real problem where crews can and will be intimidated from calling in certain aircraft discrepancies due to the hostile nature of the interactions with company personnel; when legit maintenance issues exist (corrosion in this instance). Items like corrosion could lead to bigger airworthiness issues once the plane is inspected. I believe we had an aircraft with this same type of corrosion issue as of late that led to a bigger item concerning aircraft wing corrosion.Is there a limitation on fasteners being corroded? If so; why would any controller knowing there is corrosion not want the aircraft inspected for airworthiness? Why are we still being hassled on the phone when write-ups occur? Should we be changing log entries once they are written-up to something else without the original entry being signed off?Can an aircraft be written up and then have an MEL applied to it when the controller has not even inspected the aircraft? Is the maintenance controller certified to do so? Even if I were to describe the problem; it certainly leads to a problem since my description holds very little authority. I am not certified to inspect maintenance issues and certainly not authorizedto describe items through a phone call for someone hundreds of miles away to make an airworthiness call. There are many variables when inspecting aircraft; some of which lead to bigger problems once the mechanic gets a closer look. Why are we carrying over maintenance without proper inspections when applying MELs. Should we be doing this?Requests for Crewmember reports are problematic from a couple different perspectives. Crew reports have been used in the past for discipline and crew reports requested concerning any maintenance will deter crews from addressing legit aircraft maintenance issues when it could impact or potentially impact passenger trips. There should not be a crewmember report requests or the potential for discipline where a maintenance items impacts or potentially impacts a passenger trip. Planes break and they break when they break. Items are found in passing when they were first missed on preflight; sometimes things are found by another crewmember; there are also times where a crewmember must weigh whether a write-up exists or not all of which are not convenient but they do happen. Most times all these items happen one at a time; but sometimes; all these things impact at the same time or on the same preflight. This is the nature of our business.While passengers being inconvenienced is a concern; it should not be the primary concern of crews from the standpoint of fearing repercussions from writing an aircraft up. Passengers not only pay for getting from A to B they also are paying for safety and ensuring the plane is airworthy before leaving for their destinations.
A CE680 Captain reports writing up an aircraft for rusty aft cockpit window trim retaining screws. Maintenance wants the Captain to change the write up to 'screws missing paint' since the corrosion write up is grounding. The Captain does not agree to the change.