Narrative:

This report concerns proper maintenance release and defect recording issues. It also addresses procedures used in assessing the aircraft for flight/refusal. During paperwork review; we were concerned that the APU was deferred. We looked at aircraft maintenance history; and also called ZZZ dispatch. The APU was deferred for lack of time; and had some prior issues; but no definitive determination of the actual problem with the APU. After ZZZ dispatch coordination; we went down to the operations center at ZZZ and talked to maintenance. We asked for a determination of the issue; and whether the APU deferral could be lifted if ZZZ maintenance could get it to start. Operations agreed with the course of action taken and agreed to have ZZZ maintenance meet us at the gate. We arrived at the gate; and maintenance met us. They said they had determined that the ignition and fuel control systems were bad; and had a printout to verify this. We were also told these would be ordered and replaced after the aircraft had gone to ZZZZ and back (this didn't happen; as of a day later). All this occurred about 20-minutes prior to departure; and we were ready to take the aircraft on time with the deferral. On the walk around; I noticed the APU inlet door was open; and I know from experience that the inlet door 'open' deferral for the APU is different than a simple deferral. I inquired with ZZZ maintenance on this issue; and they stated; though not confirmed; that this must have happened when they tried to start the APU; which I never saw or heard. ZZZ maintenance could also not confirm whether the [APU] door had been closed prior to attempting to start the APU. Attempting to close the APU inlet door was time consuming and took us past departure time. Additionally; one of the mechanic's stated that perhaps the 'out of sequence' door opening and lack of closing interrupted the start sequence igniter and fuel sequencing. So; after 25-minutes the door was closed; another APU start was attempted. However; it took another 20-minutes to get the [APU] door closed again; with an unusual sequence of power cycling; breaker pulling and abnormal configurations. Finally; the [APU] door was closed and we were to depart with the APU deferred. We waited for a new maintenance release to be issued; and called ZZZ maintenance control on the radio for a new one. They stated that the new maintenance release wouldn't say anything new; as the door defect happened while the APU was deferred. I thought that work on the aircraft; especially work on a deferred item; and determination of the actual problem; rather than a time deferral; would require a new maintenance release to be issued. I requested a new maintenance release to reflect this; and figured it would be forthcoming. ZZZ maintenance sent me the previously issued maintenance release; with no update to reflect work done on the aircraft. We pushed back expecting a new and updated release. When the new maintenance release was not issued; we reviewed the fom so that proper diligence would be given which reflected the aircraft's maintenance status and work performed. ZZZ maintenance had not determined there was a defect beyond the deferral (DF) description; and thus did not update it. However; they had worked on the aircraft and ordered parts. Further fom review determined that an engineering note would reflect the abnormal procedures used to close the APU door. We wrote this; and maintenance control issued the maintenance release; all happening after pushback and prior to taxi. My concern on this is on a few different levels. First: I am unsure whether this process should have been properly reflected with a maintenance code; and done at the gate; which would make an engineering note illegal; as it had been done off the gate; with the presumption that ZZZs maintenance work would be reflected in a newly issued maintenance release. Second: if maintenance is allowed to work on theaircraft and not document it; should that be better stated in the fom? Third: does work on the aircraft; regardless of actual success; require documentation? And finally; this flight was given a crew delay; when all procedures were followed per fom; and ZZZ maintenance had assessed the aircraft 20-minutes prior to departure; and the remainder of the time was spent trying to get the [APU] inlet door to close. The highly unusual process here; and subsequent assessment of responsibility seem very misguided. This should get the attention of the responsible parties to review and assess for proper and legal procedures; and also assess the guidance provided by the fom. This was a simple process which became convoluted by the inability of the APU inlet door to be closed per the deferral; and then failure to properly document all the elements.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An Airbus A-319 Pilot reports his concerns about improper Maintenance Release and defect recording issues that were not being entered on the MEL Maintenance Release deferrals.

Narrative: This report concerns proper maintenance release and defect recording issues. It also addresses procedures used in assessing the aircraft for flight/refusal. During paperwork review; we were concerned that the APU was deferred. We looked at aircraft maintenance history; and also called ZZZ Dispatch. The APU was deferred for lack of time; and had some prior issues; but no definitive determination of the actual problem with the APU. After ZZZ Dispatch coordination; we went down to the Operations Center at ZZZ and talked to Maintenance. We asked for a determination of the issue; and whether the APU deferral could be lifted if ZZZ Maintenance could get it to start. Operations agreed with the course of action taken and agreed to have ZZZ Maintenance meet us at the gate. We arrived at the gate; and Maintenance met us. They said they had determined that the Ignition and Fuel Control Systems were bad; and had a printout to verify this. We were also told these would be ordered and replaced after the aircraft had gone to ZZZZ and back (this didn't happen; as of a day later). All this occurred about 20-minutes prior to departure; and we were ready to take the aircraft on time with the deferral. On the walk around; I noticed the APU Inlet Door was open; and I know from experience that the inlet door 'Open' deferral for the APU is different than a simple deferral. I inquired with ZZZ Maintenance on this issue; and they stated; though not confirmed; that this must have happened when they tried to start the APU; which I never saw or heard. ZZZ Maintenance could also not confirm whether the [APU] door had been closed prior to attempting to start the APU. Attempting to close the APU inlet door was time consuming and took us past departure time. Additionally; one of the Mechanic's stated that perhaps the 'out of sequence' door opening and lack of closing interrupted the start sequence igniter and fuel sequencing. So; after 25-minutes the door was closed; another APU start was attempted. However; it took another 20-minutes to get the [APU] door closed again; with an unusual sequence of power cycling; breaker pulling and abnormal configurations. Finally; the [APU] door was closed and we were to depart with the APU deferred. We waited for a new Maintenance Release to be issued; and called ZZZ Maintenance Control on the radio for a new one. They stated that the new Maintenance Release wouldn't say anything new; as the door defect happened while the APU was deferred. I thought that work on the aircraft; especially work on a deferred item; and determination of the actual problem; rather than a Time Deferral; would require a new Maintenance Release to be issued. I requested a new Maintenance Release to reflect this; and figured it would be forthcoming. ZZZ Maintenance sent me the previously issued Maintenance Release; with no update to reflect work done on the aircraft. We pushed back expecting a new and updated Release. When the new Maintenance Release was not issued; we reviewed the FOM so that proper diligence would be given which reflected the aircraft's maintenance status and work performed. ZZZ Maintenance had not determined there was a defect beyond the Deferral (DF) description; and thus did not update it. However; they had worked on the aircraft and ordered parts. Further FOM review determined that an Engineering Note would reflect the abnormal procedures used to close the APU door. We wrote this; and Maintenance Control issued the Maintenance Release; all happening after pushback and prior to taxi. My concern on this is on a few different levels. First: I am unsure whether this process should have been properly reflected with a maintenance code; and done at the gate; which would make an engineering note illegal; as it had been done off the gate; with the presumption that ZZZs maintenance work would be reflected in a newly issued Maintenance Release. Second: If Maintenance is allowed to work on theaircraft and not document it; should that be better stated in the FOM? Third: Does work on the aircraft; regardless of actual success; require documentation? And finally; this flight was given a Crew delay; when all procedures were followed per FOM; and ZZZ Maintenance had assessed the aircraft 20-minutes prior to departure; and the remainder of the time was spent trying to get the [APU] Inlet Door to close. The highly unusual process here; and subsequent assessment of responsibility seem very misguided. This should get the attention of the responsible parties to review and assess for proper and legal procedures; and also assess the guidance provided by the FOM. This was a simple process which became convoluted by the inability of the APU Inlet Door to be closed per the deferral; and then failure to properly document all the elements.

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.