Narrative:

Requested flight papers for flight X (ZZZ-ZZZ1) during flight Y (ZZZ2-ZZZ). Deferred items for flight X showed an apparent discrepancy between MEL; stating the #1 observer seat would not slide over. Action: seat is locked in stowed position; seat deferred inoperative per MEL; and the follow-on flight crew requirement (B); stating the seat must be able to slide to gain access to the circuit breaker panel behind the seat. Sent an ACARS message to maintenance control questioning this; and received a response stating 'we're on it.' arriving at ZZZ; found contract maintenance had performed maintenance work and had replaced a screw that had fallen out to free the seat but did not clear the MEL. The maintenance release now had another inbound defect report; apparently written by maintenance control; stating that the seat needed to be able to slide out. This had an action: screw on release mechanism found loose and re-secured; seat slides normally. After flight crew discussion about the confusing maintenance release which still carried MEL requiring the 'seat to be locked in the stowed position' and placarded; neither of which had been accomplished; I called dispatch and got patch to maintenance control via cell phone and requested clarification. Dispatch stated it was not a flight release item and offered no other input. I was told that the seat had been fixed but contract maintenance had not accomplished the 'operations checks' required and this MEL would be cleared on our return to ZZZ1. When asked to remove the MEL prior to our departure; maintenance control assured me that the aircraft was already legal for dispatch and that he would not send the contract ZZZ maintenance back to accomplish the operations check as he was busy working another airplane. Following further questioning of the legality of our maintenance release and again being adamantly reassured by maintenance control; we placarded the seat as previously required/not accomplished and flew to ZZZ1. After departure; which had been delayed approximately 15 minutes due to this ongoing discussion with maintenance control; we again tried to make sense of the wording of the maintenance release and again with some confusion in the maintenance release interpretation of maintenance control; informed him via ACARS that we would be filing safety reports. Questions: how did this aircraft leave ZZZ1 with the original maintenance release deferral? Why wasn't it actually fixed to include removal of MEL item in ZZZ? I feel we did everything possible as a flight crew to take care of this problem; including a late departure due to the extended maintenance control discussion; the aircraft was safe to fly but in retrospect the current maintenance section of the maintenance release was incorrect. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated after contract maintenance had fixed the seat; so that it would slide for the flight crew to gain access to the circuit breakers; the issue centered around the maintenance release; because the aircraft's status and the paperwork didn't match up. Reporter stated he knew the A320 was safe to fly; but their maintenance control would not clear the conflicting MEL references and provide a proper maintenance release that reflected the true status of the aircraft; until he arrived at the next station.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Captain and First Officer report on the apparent discrepancy between the MEL deferral of the #1 Observer's seat to be locked in the stowed position and the crew requirement for the seat to slide to gain access to the circuit breakers behind the seat.

Narrative: Requested flight papers for Flight X (ZZZ-ZZZ1) during Flight Y (ZZZ2-ZZZ). Deferred items for Flight X showed an apparent discrepancy between MEL; stating the #1 observer seat would not slide over. Action: Seat is locked in stowed position; seat deferred inoperative per MEL; and the follow-on flight crew requirement (B); stating the seat must be able to slide to gain access to the CB panel behind the seat. Sent an ACARS message to Maintenance Control questioning this; and received a response stating 'We're on it.' Arriving at ZZZ; found Contract Maintenance had performed maintenance work and had replaced a screw that had fallen out to free the seat but did not clear the MEL. The Maintenance Release now had another Inbound Defect Report; apparently written by Maintenance Control; stating that the seat needed to be able to slide out. This had an Action: Screw on release mechanism found loose and re-secured; seat slides normally. After flight crew discussion about the confusing Maintenance Release which still carried MEL requiring the 'seat to be locked in the stowed position' and placarded; neither of which had been accomplished; I called Dispatch and got patch to Maintenance Control via cell phone and requested clarification. Dispatch stated it was not a Flight Release item and offered no other input. I was told that the seat had been fixed but Contract Maintenance had not accomplished the 'OPS checks' required and this MEL would be cleared on our return to ZZZ1. When asked to remove the MEL prior to our departure; Maintenance Control assured me that the aircraft was already legal for dispatch and that he would not send the Contract ZZZ Maintenance back to accomplish the operations check as he was busy working another airplane. Following further questioning of the legality of our Maintenance Release and again being adamantly reassured by Maintenance Control; we placarded the seat as previously required/not accomplished and flew to ZZZ1. After departure; which had been delayed approximately 15 minutes due to this ongoing discussion with Maintenance Control; we again tried to make sense of the wording of the Maintenance Release and again with some confusion in the Maintenance Release interpretation of Maintenance Control; informed him via ACARS that we would be filing safety reports. Questions: How did this aircraft leave ZZZ1 with the original Maintenance Release deferral? Why wasn't it actually fixed to include removal of MEL item in ZZZ? I feel we did everything possible as a flight crew to take care of this problem; including a late departure due to the extended Maintenance Control discussion; the aircraft was safe to fly but in retrospect the CURRENT MAINTENANCE SECTION of the Maintenance Release was incorrect. Callback conversation with Reporter revealed the following information: Reporter stated after Contract Maintenance had fixed the seat; so that it would slide for the flight crew to gain access to the circuit breakers; the issue centered around the Maintenance Release; because the aircraft's status and the paperwork didn't match up. Reporter stated he knew the A320 was safe to fly; but their Maintenance Control would not clear the conflicting MEL references and provide a proper Maintenance Release that reflected the true status of the aircraft; until he arrived at the next station.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.