Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Routine Inspection
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon arrival the inbound crew advised us that the nose strut might possibly be low. I advised them that we would look at it on the walk around and that we would write it up if necessary after doing the walk around. Prior to boarding with the only occupants on board being the two flight attendants and myself;  my FO (First Officer) went out and did the walk around; he motioned for me to come down and look at the strut which was nearly fully collapsed and not showing any chrome. Not having a ruler or protractor available we took an informal measurement. The distance between the top and bottom was two fingers or less; which was certainly less than two inches.  At this point; I contacted Dispatch and Maintenance Control to advised them of the situation; at which point Contract Maintenance was dispatched. I made an entry into the logbook stating that the nose strut was nearly compressed and needed to be serviced.   Once Contract Maintenance arrived; he originally rolled out the tanks; as if he were going to inflate the cylinders; he attempted to open a valve in the nose wheel strut area and then after some difficulty stopped. He then made a phone call to Maintenance Control. After this phone call; he said that per the AMM (aircraft maintenance manual) the measurements that he took indicated that the strut was showing 2 inches and was legal for dispatch as outlined in the AMM as is and that he was to sign it off as instructed by Maintenance Control. At this point we boarded; and just prior to closing the door; under all prudence and caution; I decided to do another inspection of the nose wheel strut to find it fully collapsed and actively leaking foamy fluid. I contacted Maintenance Control and advised them that the strut was compressed and leaking foamy fluid; which I then entered into the logbook. We deplaned and Contract Maintenance then added nitrogen to the strut and signed it off again. At this point; the on duty pilot; Name 1 called me to gather more information on the situation. I informed him of all the events that had occurred up to this point. He then asked me why I would do a preflight walk around with passengers onboard and he stated because we aren't really sure of what the strut compression should look like after passengers had boarded and additionally why would I need to do that after I had a legal sign off. I informed him that in the interest of safety that I felt it was OK to do a walk around after a maintenance procedure and; as well as to comply with the CFM (company flight manual) guidance for exterior inspection; which is to ensure that gear struts aren't fully compressed and that there are no fluid leaks. I also added that we should still be able to see some chrome on the strut and that there shouldn't be any leaking fluid. After the Contract Maintenance inflated the strut we then began to board again as we waited for the book to be signed off. As the FO and I were briefing; the Contract Maintenance asked me to step outside. After stepping outside; the Contract Maintenance guy pointed out the strut which may have been inflated to the legally required two inches and but was leaking a solid stream of foamy liquid and not just a couple bubbles as Maintenance Control contends. I then contacted my Dispatcher Name 2 and Maintenance Control. They then advised me that they would remove the aircraft from service and schedule us to take the RON aircraft that was coming around XA:15pm.   I also sent pictures of the compressed strut and leak to Maintenance Control. I attempted to send the video too but was unable to do so because of the file size. The following morning; I was contacted by Chief Pilot Name 3; who asked if I was OK with how everything turned out and to get my side of the issue. He also said that I was scheduled to fly the airplane several more times the following day and would I be OK with taking the aircraft. I told Name 3; that I'm perfectly fine flying the aircraft as long as it's legal and safe; which in this case would mean the strut would be showing a normal amount of chrome and not streaming foamy liquid from the cylinder.  He also shared an email outlining the events from Name 2 which directly contradict several key facts from the evening. 1. The inbound crew didn't write up the aircraft. I wrote up the aircraft three times. 2. When Maintenance came back there was foaming bubbling liquid coming from the strut which can be be seen in the pictures and videos that I took or are visible on the ground which appears wet from the leaking fluid. Name 2's email incorrectly characterized this leak as a couple small bubbles. The cause narrative for this series of events is pretty straight forward. I feel like my Dispatcher was very accommodating and I feel that the real issue here lays with how Contract Maintenance; Maintenance Control; On Duty Pilot and indirectly Name 2; Maintenance Control; Maintenance Director interact with the pilots after the fact. Contract Maintenance from the very beginning expressed his hesitation with the situation once he saw the foamy liquid coming from the cylinder. Finally; his insistence that I look at the leaking cylinder after we boarded and he once again expressed his hesitation and ultimate concern about the issue thus giving me a moment of pause. I had the opportunity to speak to Maintenance Control several times and they didn't really seem to understand why we wouldn't go because in their opinion; because they signed off on it that it was good to go; even though it was leaking. The On Duty Pilot questioned why I would do a walk around after Maintenance was performed; expressing that we didn't know what the nose strut would look like after boarding and why would I do that even though I had a legal sign off; as if I was supposed to accept the sign-off carte blanche. I expressed to him that I needed to be not only legal but safe and that I could do a walk around whenever I felt it was needed on confirm to expectations set forth in the manuals. I didn't see that email from Name 1; until Chief Pilot contacted me to inquire if I was OK with flying the aircraft on my next trip. I told him that I was was fine with flying the aircraft in the future; as long as it was in serviceable condition; which would mean showing a normal amount of chrome on the strut and not leaking fluid. The concerning part of Name 2's email is where he ends with 'This is bad when Maintenance is using appropriate AMM references for the checking of proper servicing being refused with a legal sign off; but we are taking the delays for no reason at this point.' This sentence is challenging because it assumes that I'm making a refusal for no good reason and that the sign off were legal to begin with. If it had only a couple bubbles as his email suggests then I would have certainly taken the sign off but upon receiving the sign off and seeing the stream of foamy fluid still coming from the cylinder; along with input from the Contract Maintenance and my First Officer we needed to again assert our concern with the aircraft.  Fortunately Name 2 wasn't there; he doesn't know the extent of the issue and his comments are a direct challenge to the safety reporting culture that the Company has developed.




Synopsis: Captain reported refusing the aircraft after discovering that the nose strut was leaking after service due to strut extertion not within limits.