Narrative:

The reason for this report is due to maintenance [control] deferring an item before they had done the check to verify they could indeed do so. The A319 aircraft came to the gate with a write-up stating the left-hand (lh) fuel transfer valve was not closed. The valve; enroute; was amber and neither in the full 'open' or 'closed' position. Before the item can be deferred; the aircraft is required to have the fueling complete. The mechanic on the flight deck was in communication with someone on his radio. He was; in my opinion; being pushed to get it done (we had an aircraft change and were getting close to the scheduled departure time due to the late arrival of this aircraft). The mechanic told this person that he could not do the procedure until the aircraft was completely fueled. At this time he also noted and told company the transfer valve was in it's 'normal' position with no apparent faults; but he wanted an avionic's mechanic to come up and make sure. While the person on the radio was confirming the transfer valve position; a new maintenance release printed in the cockpit with the transfer valve already deferred. The item was deferred; signed-off before the procedure was done and the work completed. I don't believe it is legal to defer an item before step-one of the deferral checklist is completed. The person doing the deferral was not the mechanic that was about to do the work (due to the fact he was on the flight deck with me this whole time; nor did he tell them to defer the item). Once the person on the radio heard that all was ok; and no deferral was needed; we received another maintenance release with the item cleared (again with the mechanic still standing on the flight deck). If I look at a maintenance release and see an item is deferred; I am to assume all the maintenance checklist items are done. If this is the normal practice of ZZZ maintenance (or any station for that matter) how can I be sure all the items have been done correctly or at all? We seem to be in such a hurry to get the aircraft out on time; that we appear to be forgetting safety of the operation is supposed to be number one. Mistakes happen enough; but when we are pushed (like this mechanic was); we have a greater opportunity to make them. This particular mechanic did not let anyone push him faster than he was able. He did a professional job. I have had it happen (several years ago) when a mechanic was working on an item. He had his partner go sign-off the item. Even though he was just putting things back together he apparently lost a screw. We had a new maintenance release saying all was done correctly when in fact it was not. Just before takeoff we received a message to 'not takeoff;' as there was an open log item due to the lost screw. I obviously did a report; but this is the potential danger. On this particular flight we were cleared into position and about to takeoff.we seem to be so concerned about on time (which is important); that we forget making sure we are safe to depart; which is more important. So basically; what led to the event was a maintenance (supervisor in my opinion) was pushing a mechanic to get work done before it could be. He; or someone else; sent an maintenance release to the airplane when neither the procedure or work was completed. I called the maintenance phone number from the jetway. I told the person who answered the phone; the situation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An A319 Captain raised concerns about a maintenance practice of deferring an item before mechanics had done their checks to verify. Also raised were premature issuance of Maintenance Releases to the aircraft; before the actual deferral checklist was completed and Mechanic pushing by Maintenance Management.

Narrative: The reason for this report is due to Maintenance [Control] deferring an item before they had done the check to verify they could indeed do so. The A319 aircraft came to the gate with a write-up stating the Left-Hand (LH) fuel transfer valve was not closed. The valve; enroute; was amber and neither in the full 'open' or 'closed' position. Before the item can be deferred; the aircraft is required to have the fueling complete. The Mechanic on the flight deck was in communication with someone on his radio. He was; in my opinion; being pushed to get it done (we had an aircraft change and were getting close to the scheduled departure time due to the late arrival of this aircraft). The Mechanic told this person that he could not do the procedure until the aircraft was completely fueled. At this time he also noted and told company the transfer valve was in it's 'normal' position with no apparent faults; but he wanted an Avionic's Mechanic to come up and make sure. While the person on the radio was confirming the transfer valve position; a new Maintenance Release printed in the cockpit with the transfer valve already deferred. The item was deferred; signed-off before the procedure was done and the work completed. I don't believe it is legal to defer an item before step-one of the Deferral Checklist is completed. The person doing the deferral was not the Mechanic that was about to do the work (due to the fact he was on the flight deck with me this whole time; nor did he tell them to defer the item). Once the person on the radio heard that all was OK; and no deferral was needed; we received another Maintenance Release with the item cleared (again with the Mechanic still standing on the flight deck). If I look at a Maintenance Release and see an item is deferred; I am to assume all the maintenance checklist items are done. If this is the normal practice of ZZZ Maintenance (or any station for that matter) how can I be sure all the items have been done correctly or at all? We seem to be in such a hurry to get the aircraft out on time; that we appear to be forgetting safety of the operation is supposed to be number one. Mistakes happen enough; but when we are pushed (like this Mechanic was); we have a greater opportunity to make them. This particular Mechanic did not let anyone push him faster than he was able. He did a professional job. I have had it happen (several years ago) when a Mechanic was working on an item. He had his partner go sign-off the item. Even though he was just putting things back together he apparently lost a screw. We had a new Maintenance Release saying all was done correctly when in fact it was not. Just before takeoff we received a message to 'not takeoff;' as there was an open Log item due to the lost screw. I obviously did a report; but this is the potential danger. On this particular flight we were cleared into position and about to takeoff.We seem to be so concerned about on time (which is important); that we forget making sure we are safe to depart; which is more important. So basically; what led to the event was a Maintenance (Supervisor in my opinion) was pushing a Mechanic to get work done before it could be. He; or someone else; sent an Maintenance Release to the airplane when neither the procedure or work was completed. I called the Maintenance phone number from the jetway. I told the person who answered the phone; the situation.

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.