Narrative:

An A320 aircraft had a deferred write-up on the air conditioning extract valve. The write-up indicated that the extract valve system/synoptic page showed amber where the system should show the valve position. The deferral procedure was to manually open the extract valve and leave the valve 'open.' our constraint was that we needed deicing leaving ZZZ and the valve had to be 'closed' for deicing. The airplane was enroute to ZZZ after flying; ZZZ; ZZZ1; ZZZ. The airplane had been deiced leaving ZZZ. A mechanic went to the deicing pad and closed the valve for deicing; then opened the valve after deicing so the aircraft was correctly dispatched. We were to take the airplane from ZZZ to ZZZ2 to ZZZ and then to ZZZ1. The airplane deferral required that the extract valve operation be checked for valve position before each flight and then issued a release. When the mechanic confirmed the valve position during our preflight; I arranged for him to follow us to the deice pad in ZZZ. During our preflight we saw the extract valve still had amber on the system/synoptic page and the deferral indicated that we would see amber indications and valve position on the synoptic page. We discussed the conflict but the original write up was exactly what was on the page; a mechanic had just checked the same page and cleared the write-up and the airplane had just completed two flights with the same deferral. I assumed that the airplane was correctly deferred. We departed the gate; went to the deice pad; had the extract valve 'closed'; had the valve 'opened'; ran the rest of the preflight checklist and departed ZZZ for ZZZ2. After takeoff we got a vent skin valve fault message. We knew the valve was closed so I directed the first officer (first officer) to clear the message and we continued to ZZZ2. In ZZZ2 I watched the mechanic test the valves and clear the deferral. The test was correct; so we continued the trip back to ZZZ. The same fault message appeared leaving ZZZ2. After our landing in ZZZ and during our preflight in ZZZ; we specifically asked the mechanic if he knew if the valve synoptic page was not indicating valve position because of the original write-up; or if there was something else wrong. All he could tell us was what we already knew; the valves tested correctly using his procedure. We continued the trip and left for ZZZ1. Same process same result; we got the same fault message [vent skin valve fault] leaving ZZZ. I contacted maintenance control to see if what we were experiencing was normal. The answer appears to be there was probably something else wrong. We were probably dispatched on the wrong deferral. I do not know if the previous flights were dispatched in the same manner as ours; or if there was another failure after those flights and before our flight. The system operated as expected and we knew the extract valve was closed. Yet; my experience has been that when a fault message is generated by a deferral then the maintenance release usually mentions the expected fault message. This situation just felt wrong. I needed to insure that the crew that got the airplane from me was not getting an unknown problem; so; we just kept asking questions. If wishes were horses then beggars would ride; I wish I had asked the correct question to the correct person the first time I asked.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Captain reports about an A320 that had a deferred Write-up for the air conditioning Avionics ventilation Extract valve with an expected indication on the ECAM System/Synoptic Page showing an amber VENT and Extract valve position. The valve position would not display; instead a VENT SKIN VALVE FAULT message kept recurring after Takeoff.

Narrative: An A320 aircraft had a deferred Write-up on the air conditioning Extract valve. The Write-up indicated that the Extract valve System/Synoptic Page showed amber where the System should show the valve position. The deferral procedure was to manually open the Extract valve and leave the valve 'Open.' Our constraint was that we needed deicing leaving ZZZ and the valve had to be 'Closed' for deicing. The airplane was enroute to ZZZ after flying; ZZZ; ZZZ1; ZZZ. The airplane had been deiced leaving ZZZ. A Mechanic went to the deicing pad and closed the valve for deicing; then opened the valve after deicing so the aircraft was correctly dispatched. We were to take the airplane from ZZZ to ZZZ2 to ZZZ and then to ZZZ1. The airplane deferral required that the Extract valve operation be checked for valve position before each flight and then issued a Release. When the Mechanic confirmed the valve position during our preflight; I arranged for him to follow us to the deice pad in ZZZ. During our preflight we saw the Extract valve still had amber on the System/Synoptic Page and the deferral indicated that we would see amber indications and valve position on the Synoptic Page. We discussed the conflict but the original write up was exactly what was on the Page; a Mechanic had just checked the same Page and cleared the Write-up and the airplane had just completed two flights with the same deferral. I assumed that the airplane was correctly deferred. We departed the gate; went to the deice pad; had the Extract valve 'Closed'; had the valve 'Opened'; ran the rest of the preflight checklist and departed ZZZ for ZZZ2. After takeoff we got a VENT SKIN VALVE FAULT message. We knew the valve was closed so I directed the First Officer (F/O) to clear the message and we continued to ZZZ2. In ZZZ2 I watched the Mechanic test the valves and clear the deferral. The test was correct; so we continued the trip back to ZZZ. The same fault message appeared leaving ZZZ2. After our landing in ZZZ and during our preflight in ZZZ; we specifically asked the Mechanic if he knew if the valve Synoptic page was not indicating valve position because of the original Write-up; or if there was something else wrong. All he could tell us was what we already knew; the valves tested correctly using his procedure. We continued the trip and left for ZZZ1. Same process same result; we got the same fault message [VENT SKIN VALVE FAULT] leaving ZZZ. I contacted Maintenance Control to see if what we were experiencing was normal. The answer appears to be there was probably something else wrong. We were probably Dispatched on the wrong deferral. I do not know if the previous flights were dispatched in the same manner as ours; or if there was another failure after those flights and before our flight. The system operated as expected and we knew the Extract valve was closed. Yet; my experience has been that when a fault message is generated by a deferral then the Maintenance Release usually mentions the expected fault message. This situation just felt wrong. I needed to insure that the Crew that got the airplane from me was not getting an unknown problem; so; we just kept asking questions. If wishes were horses then beggars would ride; I wish I had asked the correct question to the correct person the first time I asked.

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.