Narrative:

We departed ZZZ after a maintenance delay for an APU deferral. Aircraft also was minus pack #2 and capped to a maximum altitude of FL310. During our climb passing FL255 at 300 KIAS; we began to feel a light to moderate airframe vibration in the cockpit. We continued our climb and reduced our speed to stop the vibrations. 30 seconds into the event the aft cabin called and said the aft galley had a moderate vibration and the carts were shaking rather strongly and that the flight attendants and passenger were alarmed. The vibrations were strong enough that I could hear the carts over the intercom. We slowed to .71 mach at FL310 to stop the vibrations. This was the second airframe vibration event in 2 days. We phone patched with dispatch and maintenance. Advised them of the problem and the flight parameters and asked for suggestions. Maintenance wanted us to see if we could stop the vibrations by any flight control movement. We advised we would try to do some troubleshooting on the descent. We agreed to continue to ZZZ1 at a reduced speed since we had plenty of fuel and the vibrations had stopped. It was our understanding that we would make a decision at ZZZ1 as to what to do about our return to ZZZ (scheduled for the same aircraft). On the descent we tried to duplicate the vibrations and were unsuccessful and advised maintenance. At this point we believed this to be an elevator problem as described on the A320 flight airframe vibration page. On descent; we ACARS'ed dispatch to find out about the plan for the aircraft and were advised that we had a plane change and that our aircraft was going with a different crew to ZZZ2. This was surprising given that we had not formally refused the aircraft yet. We were given no reason for the swap. The first officer and I had already decided to refuse the aircraft and chalked it up to dispatch's crystal ball. We were concerned about the other crew so to make sure they had the complete picture; we sent a message per the fom that stated the following; 'aircraft refused for second hit on airframe vibration. Vibrations intense enough to scare the passenger and flight attendants.' I did not leave my name and domicile due to space. I was given no reason for the aircraft swap nor did we have time to ask. After arriving at ZZZ1; contract maintenance did a quick inspection/debrief and signed off the aircraft. I became concerned that the outbound didn't have the full picture. I found them and was able to debrief the captain. They were not aware of the write-up. As I was in the cockpit collecting my crew meal; I saw the new maintenance release on the ACARS printer. It did not have the message write-up and made no mention of the concerns/refusal. I called maintenance and got mr X who advised me that he had removed my message since he considered it a duplicate write-up and it was incorporated into the original write-up. I asked him where in the original write-up he had put the information about the refusal and the scared passenger and he changed his story to that of my write-up being an improper write-up and unnecessary. He told me that aircraft refusals go through dispatch; with which I agreed; but that the message was also required in accordance with the fom maintenance section. He said it was not and that it was inappropriate. The conversation then became intense and mr X said that I was not following procedure and that I had not sent him a vibration report over ACARS. I told him that the vibration report had in fact been done and was in the logbook per the instruction on the report and that we had briefed all of the parameters over the phone patch. He continued to make up one excuse after another for his actions. At this point I advised mr X that I would be pursuing this further as his deleting a write-up was not proper and in my opinion jeopardized safety. I contacted dispatch and operations and will be contacting the flight office. Mr X's actions in covering up an aircraft refusal seriously jeopardizes the credibility of the electronic logbook. As a line captain; I have to be able to trust that the log histories I get have not been doctored and accurately reflect what the maintenance history is not what maintenance wants us to believe. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated this kind of behavior cannot be tolerated when changing or deleting flight crew reports as in this case becomes a serious situation. The reporter suspects the problem may be in the elevator power unit.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN A320 EXPERIENCED MODERATE VIBRATION IN COCKPIT. AFT CABIN RPTS MODERATE VIBRATION SHAKING SERVING CARTS. CREW SENT ACARS CODE TO DISPATCH AND MAINT CTL ADVISING 'ACFT REFUSED FOR SECOND HIT ON AIRFRAME VIBRATION.' ON ARR FOUND NO WRITE-UP ON VIBRATIONS AND ACFT WAS REROUTED.

Narrative: WE DEPARTED ZZZ AFTER A MAINT DELAY FOR AN APU DEFERRAL. ACFT ALSO WAS MINUS PACK #2 AND CAPPED TO A MAX ALT OF FL310. DURING OUR CLB PASSING FL255 AT 300 KIAS; WE BEGAN TO FEEL A LIGHT TO MODERATE AIRFRAME VIBRATION IN THE COCKPIT. WE CONTINUED OUR CLB AND REDUCED OUR SPD TO STOP THE VIBRATIONS. 30 SECONDS INTO THE EVENT THE AFT CABIN CALLED AND SAID THE AFT GALLEY HAD A MODERATE VIBRATION AND THE CARTS WERE SHAKING RATHER STRONGLY AND THAT THE FLT ATTENDANTS AND PAX WERE ALARMED. THE VIBRATIONS WERE STRONG ENOUGH THAT I COULD HEAR THE CARTS OVER THE INTERCOM. WE SLOWED TO .71 MACH AT FL310 TO STOP THE VIBRATIONS. THIS WAS THE SECOND AIRFRAME VIBRATION EVENT IN 2 DAYS. WE PHONE PATCHED WITH DISPATCH AND MAINT. ADVISED THEM OF THE PROB AND THE FLT PARAMETERS AND ASKED FOR SUGGESTIONS. MAINT WANTED US TO SEE IF WE COULD STOP THE VIBRATIONS BY ANY FLT CTL MOVEMENT. WE ADVISED WE WOULD TRY TO DO SOME TROUBLESHOOTING ON THE DSCNT. WE AGREED TO CONTINUE TO ZZZ1 AT A REDUCED SPD SINCE WE HAD PLENTY OF FUEL AND THE VIBRATIONS HAD STOPPED. IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WOULD MAKE A DECISION AT ZZZ1 AS TO WHAT TO DO ABOUT OUR RETURN TO ZZZ (SCHEDULED FOR THE SAME ACFT). ON THE DSCNT WE TRIED TO DUPLICATE THE VIBRATIONS AND WERE UNSUCCESSFUL AND ADVISED MAINT. AT THIS POINT WE BELIEVED THIS TO BE AN ELEVATOR PROB AS DESCRIBED ON THE A320 FLT AIRFRAME VIBRATION PAGE. ON DSCNT; WE ACARS'ED DISPATCH TO FIND OUT ABOUT THE PLAN FOR THE ACFT AND WERE ADVISED THAT WE HAD A PLANE CHANGE AND THAT OUR ACFT WAS GOING WITH A DIFFERENT CREW TO ZZZ2. THIS WAS SURPRISING GIVEN THAT WE HAD NOT FORMALLY REFUSED THE ACFT YET. WE WERE GIVEN NO REASON FOR THE SWAP. THE FO AND I HAD ALREADY DECIDED TO REFUSE THE ACFT AND CHALKED IT UP TO DISPATCH'S CRYSTAL BALL. WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE OTHER CREW SO TO MAKE SURE THEY HAD THE COMPLETE PICTURE; WE SENT A MESSAGE PER THE FOM THAT STATED THE FOLLOWING; 'ACFT REFUSED FOR SECOND HIT ON AIRFRAME VIBRATION. VIBRATIONS INTENSE ENOUGH TO SCARE THE PAX AND FLT ATTENDANTS.' I DID NOT LEAVE MY NAME AND DOMICILE DUE TO SPACE. I WAS GIVEN NO REASON FOR THE ACFT SWAP NOR DID WE HAVE TIME TO ASK. AFTER ARRIVING AT ZZZ1; CONTRACT MAINT DID A QUICK INSPECTION/DEBRIEF AND SIGNED OFF THE ACFT. I BECAME CONCERNED THAT THE OUTBOUND DIDN'T HAVE THE FULL PICTURE. I FOUND THEM AND WAS ABLE TO DEBRIEF THE CAPT. THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF THE WRITE-UP. AS I WAS IN THE COCKPIT COLLECTING MY CREW MEAL; I SAW THE NEW MAINT RELEASE ON THE ACARS PRINTER. IT DID NOT HAVE THE MESSAGE WRITE-UP AND MADE NO MENTION OF THE CONCERNS/REFUSAL. I CALLED MAINT AND GOT MR X WHO ADVISED ME THAT HE HAD REMOVED MY MESSAGE SINCE HE CONSIDERED IT A DUPLICATE WRITE-UP AND IT WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE ORIGINAL WRITE-UP. I ASKED HIM WHERE IN THE ORIGINAL WRITE-UP HE HAD PUT THE INFO ABOUT THE REFUSAL AND THE SCARED PAX AND HE CHANGED HIS STORY TO THAT OF MY WRITE-UP BEING AN IMPROPER WRITE-UP AND UNNECESSARY. HE TOLD ME THAT ACFT REFUSALS GO THROUGH DISPATCH; WITH WHICH I AGREED; BUT THAT THE MESSAGE WAS ALSO REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOM MAINT SECTION. HE SAID IT WAS NOT AND THAT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE. THE CONVERSATION THEN BECAME INTENSE AND MR X SAID THAT I WAS NOT FOLLOWING PROC AND THAT I HAD NOT SENT HIM A VIBRATION RPT OVER ACARS. I TOLD HIM THAT THE VIBRATION RPT HAD IN FACT BEEN DONE AND WAS IN THE LOGBOOK PER THE INSTRUCTION ON THE RPT AND THAT WE HAD BRIEFED ALL OF THE PARAMETERS OVER THE PHONE PATCH. HE CONTINUED TO MAKE UP ONE EXCUSE AFTER ANOTHER FOR HIS ACTIONS. AT THIS POINT I ADVISED MR X THAT I WOULD BE PURSUING THIS FURTHER AS HIS DELETING A WRITE-UP WAS NOT PROPER AND IN MY OPINION JEOPARDIZED SAFETY. I CONTACTED DISPATCH AND OPS AND WILL BE CONTACTING THE FLT OFFICE. MR X'S ACTIONS IN COVERING UP AN ACFT REFUSAL SERIOUSLY JEOPARDIZES THE CREDIBILITY OF THE ELECTRONIC LOGBOOK. AS A LINE CAPT; I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TRUST THAT THE LOG HISTORIES I GET HAVE NOT BEEN DOCTORED AND ACCURATELY REFLECT WHAT THE MAINT HISTORY IS NOT WHAT MAINT WANTS US TO BELIEVE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR CANNOT BE TOLERATED WHEN CHANGING OR DELETING FLT CREW RPTS AS IN THIS CASE BECOMES A SERIOUS SITUATION. THE RPTR SUSPECTS THE PROB MAY BE IN THE ELEVATOR PWR UNIT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.