Page:CAB Accident Report, Pacific Air Lines Flight 308.pdf/5

- 5 - an item written in the log was "Oil leak left engine." The explanation of the corrective action was written as follows: "Checked for Oil, washed down left engine and replaced gasket and rocker box gaskets." These items were initialed by the mechanic doing the work and according to International Flight Service the aircraft in each instance was considered to be airworthy.

On October 26, 1959, Mr. Glen Smith, the owner of International Flight Service, had the following teletype message sent to the company's San Francisco office; "Maint. Boller req that shp 110 be used on Flt. 308/DTE in order to get it back to SFC. Has oil leak in left engine which we have been unable to stop LAX-RR/ IFS/ RAB/2680B."

At 1252, October 26, 1959, the following message was received from Pacific Air Lines flight control. "LAX—K—W'L Plan 110 on Flt 308 X 1252/26H." Accordingly ship 110 was scheduled as directed.

Mr. Smith testified that his organization had done everything it could to find and stop the oil leaks under the limitations of their contract. He said that the night before the flight was scheduled the engine was washed down and the above corrective action taken; the cowling was then left off overnight in order to be able to see any oil which may have leaked during the night. None was found the next morning and the engine was then run until it was hot to see if oil might leak under this condition. Again no leak was found and accordingly the cowling was put on and the aircraft made ready for flight. Mr. Smith further said that he considered the engine to be airworthy.

Maintenance facilities of the company in San Fransisco were very good, the shops were well equipped and manned by trained personnel, and an adequate supply of parts was stocked. In Los Angeles this was not the case; proper records were not kept (no recent daily inspection forms were found for this aircraft after the accident) and pilots complained that an inadequate supply of parts was maintained. Mr. Smith testified that although the company did not always furnish them the required inspection forms, all inspections were made as required and all work was performed by capable certificated mechanics in the same manner it would have been done if they had the forms.

Analysis.

The question arises, should N 67589 have been dispatched as a scheduled flight the day of the accident in the light of its history of oil leaks?

The company had knowledge of the trouble with this engine from two sources i.e., engine and aircraft records that are maintained in San Fransisco and which should be kept up-to-date daily, and from the message sent by International Flight Service to the company from Los Angeles which clearly requested that the aircraft be returned to the main base because of an oil leak that could not be stopped. Knowing that oil leaks are often the forerunner of serious engine trouble, the Board believes that both the Service company and the Airline should have taken definite steps to determine that the engine was airworthy before allowing the aircraft to be used on a scheduled flight.

Since this was not done, the Board believes that when the crew found the oil leak at Santa Maria to be of a magnitude sufficient to cause the concern of a fellow company employee, the aircraft should have been delayed until the source of the trouble was determined.