Narrative:

Waiting for takeoff; we received a flight control second 3 fault ECAM. We contacted maintenance control and per maintenance direction; selected second 3 on/off; cycled the second supply circuit breakers; shut down and restarted both engines; but were unable to recover second 3. Maintenance control told us that second 3 was deferrable; but we would have to shut down both engines and run an MEL checklist prior to departure. We received MEL 2794A via ACARS. It required an involved 13 step maintenance procedure; included using cfds; and contained operations placard restrs with runway limit weight restrs. We taxied back to the gate to have maintenance comply with the MEL. Sed 3 was recovered after complete system shutdown and reset. I'm writing this report because it was inappropriate to ask the crew to comply with this MEL. The MEL clearly delineates maintenance; not flight crew; actions. We were already very late due to a prior maintenance problem and lengthy takeoff delays associated with the WX. Suggesting the crew comply with the procedure is an insidious form of pilot pushing; though probably unintentional. Also; the gate mechanic said the second is almost always recovered with a full system reset. Takeoff with the second deferred (loss of 2 pair of spoilers) when it was recoverable by returning to the gate was not the safest course of action. Too many maintenance responsibilities are being shifted to the flight crew without adequate direction or training to accompany that responsibility. Is air carrier developing specific guidance for the flight crews regarding responsibility and appropriate action for MEL compliance?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN A320 CAPT RPTS MEL DEFERRALS SPECIAL PROCS ARE BEING SHIFTED TO FLT CREWS THAT CLRLY REQUIRE MAINT PERSONNEL TO PERFORM.

Narrative: WAITING FOR TKOF; WE RECEIVED A FLT CTL SEC 3 FAULT ECAM. WE CONTACTED MAINT CTL AND PER MAINT DIRECTION; SELECTED SEC 3 ON/OFF; CYCLED THE SEC SUPPLY CIRCUIT BREAKERS; SHUT DOWN AND RESTARTED BOTH ENGS; BUT WERE UNABLE TO RECOVER SEC 3. MAINT CTL TOLD US THAT SEC 3 WAS DEFERRABLE; BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO SHUT DOWN BOTH ENGS AND RUN AN MEL CHKLIST PRIOR TO DEP. WE RECEIVED MEL 2794A VIA ACARS. IT REQUIRED AN INVOLVED 13 STEP MAINT PROC; INCLUDED USING CFDS; AND CONTAINED OPS PLACARD RESTRS WITH RWY LIMIT WT RESTRS. WE TAXIED BACK TO THE GATE TO HAVE MAINT COMPLY WITH THE MEL. SED 3 WAS RECOVERED AFTER COMPLETE SYS SHUTDOWN AND RESET. I'M WRITING THIS RPT BECAUSE IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE TO ASK THE CREW TO COMPLY WITH THIS MEL. THE MEL CLRLY DELINEATES MAINT; NOT FLT CREW; ACTIONS. WE WERE ALREADY VERY LATE DUE TO A PRIOR MAINT PROB AND LENGTHY TKOF DELAYS ASSOCIATED WITH THE WX. SUGGESTING THE CREW COMPLY WITH THE PROC IS AN INSIDIOUS FORM OF PLT PUSHING; THOUGH PROBABLY UNINTENTIONAL. ALSO; THE GATE MECH SAID THE SEC IS ALMOST ALWAYS RECOVERED WITH A FULL SYS RESET. TKOF WITH THE SEC DEFERRED (LOSS OF 2 PAIR OF SPOILERS) WHEN IT WAS RECOVERABLE BY RETURNING TO THE GATE WAS NOT THE SAFEST COURSE OF ACTION. TOO MANY MAINT RESPONSIBILITIES ARE BEING SHIFTED TO THE FLT CREW WITHOUT ADEQUATE DIRECTION OR TRAINING TO ACCOMPANY THAT RESPONSIBILITY. IS ACR DEVELOPING SPECIFIC GUIDANCE FOR THE FLT CREWS REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY AND APPROPRIATE ACTION FOR MEL COMPLIANCE?

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.