Narrative:

When flight planning; we discovered a deferred item in the maintenance log. Spoilers #6 and #7 were locked out and deferred inoperative because there was not enough time for previous maintenance to clear the item. There are many flight restrs involved with the deferral; takeoff and landing weight penalties; maximum altitude of FL300; no faster than 270 KTS/mach .70; etc. We were concerned. We spoke with dispatch about the wording of the deferral. We were not sure if the requirements of the deferral; namely a maintenance inspection had been accomplished. ZZZ is a non-company maintenance station. If anything were to be fixed or inspected contract maintenance would have to be called and paid for. The part of the deferral involving the inspection reads as: 'east ground spoiler and remaining flight spoilers must be verified by maintenance to operate normally once each flight day.' the dispatcher and I spoke with line maintenance control about what this means. Maintenance control said the inspection had been accomplished the night before in ZZZ3 and was not required before departure on a new day. Just that sometime that day the inspection would be required. The copilot and I discussed this in-depth and were still concerned about the spoiler system. Accomplishing the inspection after flight did not make much sense to either of us. If there were an additional problem; we wanted to find it before we flew the plane. Maintenance's position was that it was legal to fly as is. We requested that the inspection be done before we left ZZZ. I was interrupted again because maintenance control was refusing to call contract maintenance to do the inspection. I went to the passenger gate podium to call maintenance control and confirm our intention to require the inspection before we took the plane. When I called; the airbus controller answered for the B757 person. We had a short discussion; and he agreed to call out the inspection. The contract mechanic was there the whole time; waiting for the procedure and authority/authorized to do the spoiler check. Their service was outstanding. My preflight was again interrupted by word that maintenance control had again changed their mind and was refusing to authority/authorized the spoiler check. The passenger were on board and frustrated by the lack of information to me; to pass on to them. I left the plane and walked down to ZZZ operations to talk to the maintenance controller. I started the conversation with; 'let me be perfectly clear; we will not take the plane until the spoiler deferral inspection is accomplished.' maintenance control was a bit annoyed; and stated that the plane was legal to go and he would not authority/authorized the inspection. Unless we refused the aircraft; he would not do anything. Well that made it simple. I refused the aircraft. I sent the following ACARS message to line maintenance. 'Aircraft refused for flight until spoiler deferral check accomplished.' at that point; maintenance control said; 'fine; we will cancel the flight and send a mechanic team over from ZZZ1 to fix the plane.' I asked if the contract mechanic could do the check; then we could leave; late; but not cancel. Maintenance control said; no the ZZZ1 team would do the work. At this point the ZZZ station manager got directly involved. I have to say that both our dispatcher and the ZZZ station manager were both fantastic in handling the problem with us. They did a great job. The station manager called operations in ZZZ2; to see if they could work with maintenance control on an alternate solution. Maintenance control finally relented; sent the check procedure; and authority/authorized contract maintenance. It was a 15 min procedure rather than a 3-4 hour episode and cancellation. Sorry for the length of this report; but a lot of things went wrong on this departure and a lot of bad communication happened. Our customers took the brunt of the episode. We eventually left almost 2 hours late. We idented our concerns up to 45 mins prior to departure and if dealt with in a timely manner; we could have still departed on time. As a crew we had a safety concern with airworthiness of our aircraft. We requested an additional inspection be accomplished on the deferred spoiler system. That should have been it. Maintenance control did not ever detail to us what the inspection entailed; or how long it would take to accomplish. Lack of effective communication. I said on 4 different occasions that we required the inspection prior to flight. The message did not get through until the 4TH effort. It appeared that maintenance control was satisfied about the legality of flight; but we were not satisfied with safety of flight. Maintenance control was reluctant at best to authority/authorized the expense. I felt I was quite clear in my communication; but I don't know if this was a result of company policy; or just cost control; but if we as a flight crew; have a concern; we should not have to refuse an aircraft to get work done to satisfy safety of flight.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B757-200 INCURRED A 2 HR DELAY DUE TO SPOILERS #6 & #7 LOCKED OUT AND DEFERRED PER MEL. CAPT WANTED INSPECTION OF SPOILERS PRIOR TO FLT. CONFLICT WITH MAINT CTLR OVER INSPECTION REQUIREMENT.

Narrative: WHEN FLT PLANNING; WE DISCOVERED A DEFERRED ITEM IN THE MAINT LOG. SPOILERS #6 AND #7 WERE LOCKED OUT AND DEFERRED INOP BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR PREVIOUS MAINT TO CLR THE ITEM. THERE ARE MANY FLT RESTRS INVOLVED WITH THE DEFERRAL; TKOF AND LNDG WT PENALTIES; MAX ALT OF FL300; NO FASTER THAN 270 KTS/MACH .70; ETC. WE WERE CONCERNED. WE SPOKE WITH DISPATCH ABOUT THE WORDING OF THE DEFERRAL. WE WERE NOT SURE IF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEFERRAL; NAMELY A MAINT INSPECTION HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. ZZZ IS A NON-COMPANY MAINT STATION. IF ANYTHING WERE TO BE FIXED OR INSPECTED CONTRACT MAINT WOULD HAVE TO BE CALLED AND PAID FOR. THE PART OF THE DEFERRAL INVOLVING THE INSPECTION READS AS: 'E GND SPOILER AND REMAINING FLT SPOILERS MUST BE VERIFIED BY MAINT TO OPERATE NORMALLY ONCE EACH FLT DAY.' THE DISPATCHER AND I SPOKE WITH LINE MAINT CTL ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS. MAINT CTL SAID THE INSPECTION HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED THE NIGHT BEFORE IN ZZZ3 AND WAS NOT REQUIRED BEFORE DEP ON A NEW DAY. JUST THAT SOMETIME THAT DAY THE INSPECTION WOULD BE REQUIRED. THE COPLT AND I DISCUSSED THIS IN-DEPTH AND WERE STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THE SPOILER SYS. ACCOMPLISHING THE INSPECTION AFTER FLT DID NOT MAKE MUCH SENSE TO EITHER OF US. IF THERE WERE AN ADDITIONAL PROB; WE WANTED TO FIND IT BEFORE WE FLEW THE PLANE. MAINT'S POS WAS THAT IT WAS LEGAL TO FLY AS IS. WE REQUESTED THAT THE INSPECTION BE DONE BEFORE WE LEFT ZZZ. I WAS INTERRUPTED AGAIN BECAUSE MAINT CTL WAS REFUSING TO CALL CONTRACT MAINT TO DO THE INSPECTION. I WENT TO THE PAX GATE PODIUM TO CALL MAINT CTL AND CONFIRM OUR INTENTION TO REQUIRE THE INSPECTION BEFORE WE TOOK THE PLANE. WHEN I CALLED; THE AIRBUS CTLR ANSWERED FOR THE B757 PERSON. WE HAD A SHORT DISCUSSION; AND HE AGREED TO CALL OUT THE INSPECTION. THE CONTRACT MECH WAS THERE THE WHOLE TIME; WAITING FOR THE PROC AND AUTH TO DO THE SPOILER CHK. THEIR SVC WAS OUTSTANDING. MY PREFLT WAS AGAIN INTERRUPTED BY WORD THAT MAINT CTL HAD AGAIN CHANGED THEIR MIND AND WAS REFUSING TO AUTH THE SPOILER CHK. THE PAX WERE ON BOARD AND FRUSTRATED BY THE LACK OF INFO TO ME; TO PASS ON TO THEM. I LEFT THE PLANE AND WALKED DOWN TO ZZZ OPS TO TALK TO THE MAINT CTLR. I STARTED THE CONVERSATION WITH; 'LET ME BE PERFECTLY CLR; WE WILL NOT TAKE THE PLANE UNTIL THE SPOILER DEFERRAL INSPECTION IS ACCOMPLISHED.' MAINT CTL WAS A BIT ANNOYED; AND STATED THAT THE PLANE WAS LEGAL TO GO AND HE WOULD NOT AUTH THE INSPECTION. UNLESS WE REFUSED THE ACFT; HE WOULD NOT DO ANYTHING. WELL THAT MADE IT SIMPLE. I REFUSED THE ACFT. I SENT THE FOLLOWING ACARS MESSAGE TO LINE MAINT. 'ACFT REFUSED FOR FLT UNTIL SPOILER DEFERRAL CHK ACCOMPLISHED.' AT THAT POINT; MAINT CTL SAID; 'FINE; WE WILL CANCEL THE FLT AND SEND A MECH TEAM OVER FROM ZZZ1 TO FIX THE PLANE.' I ASKED IF THE CONTRACT MECH COULD DO THE CHK; THEN WE COULD LEAVE; LATE; BUT NOT CANCEL. MAINT CTL SAID; NO THE ZZZ1 TEAM WOULD DO THE WORK. AT THIS POINT THE ZZZ STATION MGR GOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED. I HAVE TO SAY THAT BOTH OUR DISPATCHER AND THE ZZZ STATION MGR WERE BOTH FANTASTIC IN HANDLING THE PROB WITH US. THEY DID A GREAT JOB. THE STATION MGR CALLED OPS IN ZZZ2; TO SEE IF THEY COULD WORK WITH MAINT CTL ON AN ALTERNATE SOLUTION. MAINT CTL FINALLY RELENTED; SENT THE CHK PROC; AND AUTH CONTRACT MAINT. IT WAS A 15 MIN PROC RATHER THAN A 3-4 HR EPISODE AND CANCELLATION. SORRY FOR THE LENGTH OF THIS RPT; BUT A LOT OF THINGS WENT WRONG ON THIS DEP AND A LOT OF BAD COM HAPPENED. OUR CUSTOMERS TOOK THE BRUNT OF THE EPISODE. WE EVENTUALLY LEFT ALMOST 2 HRS LATE. WE IDENTED OUR CONCERNS UP TO 45 MINS PRIOR TO DEP AND IF DEALT WITH IN A TIMELY MANNER; WE COULD HAVE STILL DEPARTED ON TIME. AS A CREW WE HAD A SAFETY CONCERN WITH AIRWORTHINESS OF OUR ACFT. WE REQUESTED AN ADDITIONAL INSPECTION BE ACCOMPLISHED ON THE DEFERRED SPOILER SYS. THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IT. MAINT CTL DID NOT EVER DETAIL TO US WHAT THE INSPECTION ENTAILED; OR HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE TO ACCOMPLISH. LACK OF EFFECTIVE COM. I SAID ON 4 DIFFERENT OCCASIONS THAT WE REQUIRED THE INSPECTION PRIOR TO FLT. THE MESSAGE DID NOT GET THROUGH UNTIL THE 4TH EFFORT. IT APPEARED THAT MAINT CTL WAS SATISFIED ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF FLT; BUT WE WERE NOT SATISFIED WITH SAFETY OF FLT. MAINT CTL WAS RELUCTANT AT BEST TO AUTH THE EXPENSE. I FELT I WAS QUITE CLR IN MY COM; BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WAS A RESULT OF COMPANY POLICY; OR JUST COST CTL; BUT IF WE AS A FLT CREW; HAVE A CONCERN; WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO REFUSE AN ACFT TO GET WORK DONE TO SATISFY SAFETY OF FLT.

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.