An A320 pilot suggests a second 1 fault MEL should be a maintenance fr item not a pilot fr because p...

Attributes
ACN	777492
Time
Date	200803
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : zzz.airport
State Reference	US
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : zzz.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	A320
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground : takeoff roll
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time type : 4000
ASRS Report	777492
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : critical maintenance problem : non compliance with mel maintenance problem : improper documentation
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Maintenance Human Performance Company Aircraft
Primary Problem	Company

Narrative:

After gate departure we received a second 1 fault ECAM. I elected to taxi to the 'a' deice pad to attempt a reset coordination with maintenance. All reset attempts were unsuccessful and we returned to another gate to have maintenance MEL the item. The MEL is fragmented; poorly written and requires follow-up procedures before each flight but is not published as an 'fr.' follow-up procedures include: 1) checking both side stick transducers operating before each flight (our training never covered exactly what a side stick transducer is). 2) pressurizing and depressurizing various hydraulic system by use of the overhead maintenance panel (although not an official company policy; our training was; 'that's a maintenance panel; you guys should never touch that panel'). 3) no use of speed brakes in flight. 4) checking electrical system normality including thrust reverser operation. 5) assuring all performance penalties have been applied (this is my biggest problem). After maintenance completed the MEL procedures; we received an amended release for MEL added and new release time. The release stated as an 'fr' should be a maintenance and not an operations procedure and the maximum thrust requirement should be published in the proviso section. The MEL should be published as an 'fr.' should be a maintenance and not an operations procedures. Maximum thrust requirement should be published in the proviso section.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN A320 PILOT SUGGESTS A SEC 1 FAULT MEL SHOULD BE A MAINT FR ITEM NOT A PILOT FR BECAUSE PILOTS ARE NOT TRAINED FOR THE SYSTEM MANIPULATIONS REQUIRED.

Narrative: AFTER GATE DEP WE RECEIVED A SEC 1 FAULT ECAM. I ELECTED TO TAXI TO THE 'A' DEICE PAD TO ATTEMPT A RESET COORD WITH MAINT. ALL RESET ATTEMPTS WERE UNSUCCESSFUL AND WE RETURNED TO ANOTHER GATE TO HAVE MAINT MEL THE ITEM. THE MEL IS FRAGMENTED; POORLY WRITTEN AND REQUIRES FOLLOW-UP PROCS BEFORE EACH FLT BUT IS NOT PUBLISHED AS AN 'FR.' FOLLOW-UP PROCS INCLUDE: 1) CHKING BOTH SIDE STICK TRANSDUCERS OPERATING BEFORE EACH FLT (OUR TRAINING NEVER COVERED EXACTLY WHAT A SIDE STICK TRANSDUCER IS). 2) PRESSURIZING AND DEPRESSURIZING VARIOUS HYD SYS BY USE OF THE OVERHEAD MAINT PANEL (ALTHOUGH NOT AN OFFICIAL COMPANY POLICY; OUR TRAINING WAS; 'THAT'S A MAINT PANEL; YOU GUYS SHOULD NEVER TOUCH THAT PANEL'). 3) NO USE OF SPEED BRAKES IN FLT. 4) CHKING ELECTRICAL SYS NORMALITY INCLUDING THRUST REVERSER OP. 5) ASSURING ALL PERFORMANCE PENALTIES HAVE BEEN APPLIED (THIS IS MY BIGGEST PROB). AFTER MAINT COMPLETED THE MEL PROCS; WE RECEIVED AN AMENDED RELEASE FOR MEL ADDED AND NEW RELEASE TIME. THE RELEASE STATED AS AN 'FR' SHOULD BE A MAINT AND NOT AN OPS PROC AND THE MAX THRUST REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE PUBLISHED IN THE PROVISO SECTION. THE MEL SHOULD BE PUBLISHED AS AN 'FR.' SHOULD BE A MAINT AND NOT AN OPS PROCS. MAX THRUST REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE PUBLISHED IN THE PROVISO SECTION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.

An A320 pilot suggests a second 1 fault MEL should be a maintenance fr item not a pilot fr because pilots are not trained for the system manipulations required.