Narrative:

Upon arriving we were told they would be taking our aircraft and using it for a different flight and we would be getting a new aircraft. This aircraft had been sitting overnight with an electrical issue with generator #2 and multiple failures associated with it. We were told by flight operations the odds of it being fixed were pretty low as they were being told maintenance was still unable to ascertain what the issue with the aircraft was and that our now delayed flight would most likely cancel. After more than an hour; our flight was canceled. We were later told that the generator control cables were replaced on the aircraft due to possible chaffing (see current operations bulletin for airbus electrical issues that might apply to this); however this was relayed to us and not verified. We dead headed back to base and did our flight planning on arrival for our next leg. The maintenance history; in a 6 day period; of the aircraft assigned showed 4 fwc (flight warning computer faults; to include one that day). The fix for 3 of the write-ups were to reset circuit breakers; which obviously did not fix the maintenance issue; simply reset the system. The system repeatedly failed. I asked for the system to get fixed before I took the aircraft (especially since we were presently in a maintenance base). Maintenance and the dispatcher agreed and maintenance control suggested I refuse the aircraft as this was the fastest way to get maintenance preformed. I do understand that it is policy that we do not have to refuse a aircraft to get maintenance performed; however in the interest of an on time departure and to negate any further delay in trying to get maintenance accomplished I agreed and refused the aircraft.the mechanics came in and out of the cockpit a few times (we were standing out side as they needed to sit in our seats) and left saying they could not find a part. At about the same time we were given a gate change and new aircraft. The log history had multiple write ups regarding class 2 flight control status; multiple write ups for IR3 faults and navigation air 3 faults. In addition; it had a flight warning condenser fault write up. I again called dispatch and maintenance control. I asked him about the aircraft and all the write-ups to make sure we were not overlooking a bigger picture issue with all these faults and questioned if they were all related in a way we needed to look at. Status write ups was nothing he was concerned about; but it did indicated that there was an issue going on that they would need to look into. I asked him if the aircraft was coming inbound clean; and he said yes. I asked the first officer if he was good with everything and the explanations; he said yes. I told dispatch and maintenance control that it sounded good to us and that we would take the aircraft. We were at the gate when the aircraft came in and met the crew. IR3 and adr 3 faulted again; inbound. They also received a triple chime for navigation downgrade from CAT3 to CAT1 on the approach and then back up to CAT3 status. I called dispatch and let him know the aircraft just took another hit on IR3. He asked if it was deferrable (and he was not even sure they would defer it) would we take it. I said no due to the fact it just failed yet again and the extensive history with the failure of the system. I also had concern that this had been switched back and forth from IR2 to IR3 with both having failures in the history. The same 3 mechanics came to the aircraft and worked for over an hour. They informed us they could not fix the aircraft and they stated they were not sure why the replacement part was failing. We ran out of duty time while they were still working on the aircraft.turning down aircraft is not something I want to do; nor should I have to refuse aircraft with histories of system failures to get maintenance accomplished. Shouldn't this be a function of fight operations and maintenance? It would seem to me that part of the morning briefings inwhich there is a overview of the aircraft routings and the current deferrals would include looking at the maintenance history of the aircraft to see a trend in the failures; and what is likely to continue failing. Due to how these failures are written up and what maintenance chapters they are recorded in; a truly chronic issue may not been seen as chronic due to the recording of the failures. However; reading the maintenance history can clearly illuminate these failures/issues.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A320 Captain describes refusing two aircraft due to their extensive log histories of repeat failures. Maintenance is unable to repair the aircraft prior to the crew running out of duty time.

Narrative: Upon arriving we were told they would be taking our aircraft and using it for a different flight and we would be getting a new aircraft. This aircraft had been sitting overnight with an electrical issue with generator #2 and multiple failures associated with it. We were told by Flight Operations the odds of it being fixed were pretty low as they were being told Maintenance was still unable to ascertain what the issue with the aircraft was and that our now delayed flight would most likely cancel. After more than an hour; our flight was canceled. We were later told that the generator control cables were replaced on the aircraft due to possible chaffing (see current operations bulletin for airbus electrical issues that might apply to this); however this was relayed to us and not verified. We dead headed back to base and did our flight planning on arrival for our next leg. The maintenance history; in a 6 day period; of the aircraft assigned showed 4 FWC (Flight Warning Computer faults; to include one that day). The fix for 3 of the write-ups were to reset Circuit Breakers; which obviously did not fix the maintenance issue; simply reset the system. The system repeatedly failed. I asked for the system to get fixed before I took the aircraft (especially since we were presently in a Maintenance Base). Maintenance and the Dispatcher agreed and Maintenance Control suggested I refuse the aircraft as this was the fastest way to get maintenance preformed. I do understand that it is policy that we do not have to refuse a aircraft to get maintenance performed; however in the interest of an on time departure and to negate any further delay in trying to get maintenance accomplished I agreed and refused the aircraft.The mechanics came in and out of the cockpit a few times (we were standing out side as they needed to sit in our seats) and left saying they could not find a part. At about the same time we were given a gate change and new aircraft. The log history had multiple write ups regarding class 2 flight control status; multiple write ups for IR3 faults and NAV AIR 3 faults. In addition; it had a flight warning condenser fault write up. I again called Dispatch and Maintenance Control. I asked him about the aircraft and all the write-ups to make sure we were not overlooking a bigger picture issue with all these faults and questioned if they were all related in a way we needed to look at. Status write ups was nothing he was concerned about; but it did indicated that there was an issue going on that they would need to look into. I asked him if the aircraft was coming inbound clean; and he said yes. I asked the First Officer if he was good with everything and the explanations; he said yes. I told Dispatch and Maintenance Control that it sounded good to us and that we would take the aircraft. We were at the gate when the aircraft came in and met the crew. IR3 and ADR 3 faulted again; inbound. They also received a triple chime for NAV downgrade from CAT3 to CAT1 on the approach and then back up to CAT3 status. I called Dispatch and let him know the aircraft just took another hit on IR3. He asked if it was deferrable (and he was not even sure they would defer it) would we take it. I said no due to the fact it just failed yet again and the extensive history with the failure of the system. I also had concern that this had been switched back and forth from IR2 to IR3 with both having failures in the history. The same 3 mechanics came to the aircraft and worked for over an hour. They informed us they could not fix the aircraft and they stated they were not sure why the replacement part was failing. We ran out of duty time while they were still working on the aircraft.Turning down aircraft is not something I want to do; nor should I have to refuse aircraft with histories of system failures to get maintenance accomplished. Shouldn't this be a function of Fight Operations and Maintenance? It would seem to me that part of the morning briefings inwhich there is a overview of the aircraft routings and the current deferrals would include looking at the maintenance history of the aircraft to see a trend in the failures; and what is likely to continue failing. Due to how these failures are written up and what maintenance chapters they are recorded in; a truly chronic issue may not been seen as chronic due to the recording of the failures. However; reading the maintenance history can clearly illuminate these failures/issues.

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.