Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Both the Captain and I were rerouted to operate this flight which would be the first flight we have operated together as a Crew. I had more time than the Captain who was operating another inbound leg with little to no ground time before our scheduled departure. I wanted to setup the aircraft to ensure an expeditious process once the Captain arrived so I arrived at the aircraft which was powered down and began making preparations for departure. I reviewed the Maintenance log first ensuring the usual items were in order. There were no MELs and the second to last page on the logbook had an Airworthiness Release. I noted that the last page had a rather detailed pilot entry noting a severe mountain wave encounter into ZZZ1 but nothing grabbed my attention in my haste to begin my multitude of tasks ahead of me. I had completed my preflight duties and the aircraft was set for departure with a fully boarded aircraft.The Captain arrived at the adjacent gate and made his way to our flight where we introduced ourselves and began departure preparations. The environment was one of haste as we were already 30 minutes behind schedule and both of us had connecting deadheads to catch at destination. The Captain retrieved the Maintenance logbook and discovered the last entry regarding severe mountain wave page. He observed that the defect stated 'Encountered severe mountain wave turbulence at FL340. Excursions in both airspeed and altitude resulted in an overspeed of red line airspeed and continuous clacker for approximately four to five seconds. Max airspeed encountered was approximately 285 knots. Info Only-contacted XXX XXXX.' The Captain expressed concern that 'severe mountain wave turbulence' was essentially reporting severe turbulence which required a thorough Maintenance inspection; which was not conducted. I took another look at the defect entry and agreed completely. It appeared that this aircraft had operated at least one leg or more since this write-up and we were concerned that proper corrective action was not taken. I suggested that the Captain contact Maintenance Control/Dispatch.This being was the only time I had spent with this Captain; I appreciated his conduct; demeanor and ability to bring a calm relaxed tone to the flight deck. I knew I would work well with this Captain as he conducted himself in a professional manner. I was impressed that he had caught my oversight of this significant Maintenance log discrepancy despite the time conscious environment we were put in. The Captain contacted Dispatch and briefed our Dispatcher of the situation who consulted with Maintenance Control. I was not involved in the phone conversation but what I gathered was a plan to contact the pilot who wrote the discrepancy; and query them if they intended on stating severe turbulence or mountain wave only. The Captain stated he would be 'okay' if the pilot was willing to correct their account of the mountain wave encounter to omit the portion that stated 'turbulence.' Again; I want to emphasize the rather chaotic environment in the flight deck. The Captain was on the phone with two different people; we had an aircraft full of anxious delayed passengers. Two different [Gate Agents] frequented the flight deck requesting updates; FAs (flight attendants) were asking what the hold-up was; and Operations was [on] the radio asking how long we are going to hold up the gate; and finally our ground crew on were on the headset asking the same. I began to feel uncomfortable with the direction the situation was heading.When I had a quiet moment with the Captain; I expressed my concerns. I explained that it looked to me that we were being boxed into a corner. Not only were we asking a fellow pilot to retract his account of his own written discrepancy; and then at the direction of Maintenance Control have another pilot redact those statements in an official capacity in the interest of expediting departure. I believed we were in a position where uponfurther outside analysis that it could potentially be perceived that the airline discounted critical pilot airworthiness concerns in favor of avoiding lengthy mechanical inspections/delays. I explained that we were operating in an era of increased scrutiny and that we would not want to put ourselves in a position of exposure should such concerns arise. I wasn't convinced that we even had the authority to correct another pilot's defect entry regardless of Maintenance Control direction. I had worked for another airline prior to [the current] company and cannot imagine a similar situation such as this occurring.The Captain immediately understood my concerns and shared my synopsis. On the following call with Maintenance Control he asserted these concerns about our ability to enact change on logbook defect entries of another pilot. We were assured by Maintenance Control that this is a 'common' occurrence and not out of the ordinary. So the original plan of getting the original pilot to retract the portion of the discrepancy proceeded. This pilot was currently operating another flight and was apparently contacted by Dispatch to confirm the discrepancy. I have no idea what was asked of the pilot who was flying one of our flights; but I can only image their surprise to receive any message inflight regarding a maintenance log entry made by them regarding severe turbulence. I would expect a pilot to be concerned by such a contact (as I would) and may interpret such as highly irregular and as a result could react in a variety of ways. In the end we received an ACARS message from Dispatch stating that this pilot had entered the defect entry regarding severe turbulence in error and we 'were good to go.'Maintenance Control issued the Captain the necessary steps to redact the portions of the original discrepancy with regards to the severe turbulence and issued Maintenance Controller identifying information. The doors of the aircraft were quickly closed and the jet way retracted in haste. The ground crew had arrived and another aircraft was on the ground for our gate. The Captain wanted to begin running checklists when I expressed my discomfort with the whole situation. I stated that I still didn't feel comfortable with how we addressed the issue and that we should use all available resources to cover our bases. I wanted a Chief Pilot to provide their input just as an additional measure of a check and balance. Again I want to stress just how well the Captain received this. He was very receptive to my concern and wanted to ensure we were compliant with all company safety measures. The Captain contacted the Chief Pilot at the Operations Center; and briefed the situation. The Chief put him on a brief hold and returned with agreement that we were okay to continue flight operation. Having agreement from Maintenance Control; Flight Dispatch; Chief Pilot and the Pilot in Command; I felt we had exhausted all our available resources regarding the matter and we conducted the flight. After the tempo had settled and while in cruise; the Captain took another look at the Maintenance logbook. While reviewing it with him; I noticed that certain portions of the log page were incorrect or omitted. The aircraft N-registration was blank and the date was incorrectly labeled by ten days later than actual. After all that had ensured I suggested that we write a report to identify any possible safety oversights.Prior to working for [the current] company; I worked for another airline. When I had a maintenance discrepancy (especially at an outstation) I would contact Maintenance Control to inform them of the situation. We worked to ensure that the discrepancy was noted word for word exactly as it was in the aircraft logbook. This would provide an exact match between what the Maintenance Controller and the pilot had recorded in the aircraft logbook. In this situation I believe there was a communication breakdown between the Maintenance Controller and pilot regarding the recording of this logbook entry. This entire situation could have been avoided if more robust measures were taken to ensure what the Maintenance Controller has documented from the pilot detailed defect logbook entry word for word. I do not believe the Maintenance Controller would have allowed continued operation of this aircraft with the original discrepancy the pilot had detailed without further clarification. Vigilance is crucial when it comes to Pilot-Maintenance exchanges over the phone. Additionally in terms of broad picture here; I am concerned about the conclusion of this event. Although we exhausted all external resources regarding this matter; I believe we could do better. Asking a pilot to clarify their maintenance logbook defect entries that they documented in detail to include clarification after the aircraft has flown is highly unorthodox. In addition; contacting this pilot while they are operating another Company flight is even more egress. Having a fellow pilot redact/alter another pilot defect entry (at the direction Maintenance Control) that fundamentally change or alter the Airworthiness outcome of the aircraft; may expose the airline to undesired outcomes.




Synopsis: B737NG First Officer reported concerns on having to operate an aircraft with a logbook write up without any corrective actions.