Narrative:

When the first officer came back from the preflight walk around inspection prior to departure; he reported that the aft cargo door 'would not stay open'. The belt loader (baggage loader) had rails on either side and the door had drooped to the point of almost touching the rails; which is how the ramp [employees] first noticed it. They had continued to load bags; but would periodically use the electric door opener switch to lift the door again when it drooped too low. I told the first officer to have ramp stop loading bags before someone got hurt and called maintenance. They said they would contact a mechanic to come check the door. The mechanic looked at the door and then came up to the cockpit and called maintenance control in front of both pilots. Mechanic explained to maintenance that there was a 'slow leak' in the [cargo door] actuator and that the door was falling rapidly to a point and then drifting more slowly down from that point. We heard mechanic tell maintenance control that this did not seem to be a safety issue (both the first officer and I thought mechanic was going to sign it off as within limits). They opted to place it on MEL; and as mechanic was writing up the MEL per maintenance control instructions; mechanic told me that per maintenance control and the MEL; we would have to completely empty the cargo bin. This was MEL 52-30-04A. At that point; I realized that the ramp had already loaded 80 bags in the aft bin and closed and latched the door. I questioned the safety and reasonableness of reopening the door and unloading the bags; I asked if there was some legal way; since they were already loaded and the door was closed; for us to just unload the bin [at our destination]. Besides my concern for the safety of the ramp personnel and the door itself; the 80 bags would not have physically fit in the forward cargo compartment (bulked out) and we also would have been outside of center of gravity (cg) limits (we tried multiple solutions in the weight performance calculations). I explained this to the mechanic and maintenance control; at which point they opted to use a different MEL: MEL 52-30-01A for the door actuator. I was confused by this since I thought that was what was wrong all along; and wondered why they hadn't opted to use that MEL in the first place. The mechanic changed the MEL sign-off in the logbook. I asked mechanic if needed to placard anything on the cargo door and mechanic replied that 'they never placard the outside' (which I know to be incorrect). We obtained an amended release for the MEL addition and readied to leave. When I checked the logbook sign-off and corresponding MEL I saw that there was a placard required for the cargo door and more importantly; that there were several pages of maintenance items to be completed as part of the MEL that I was certain had not been accomplished. The mechanic had never left the cockpit nor referenced the MEL itself. Mechanic completed the logbook MEL sign-off and then left immediately. I called maintenance control to inquire about the work not being accomplished and got the impression that they were very irritated at being questioned. I was told 'fine; if that's how you want it; we'll go back to the original MEL and you'll have to empty the bags from the bin'. The impression was that I was somehow being punished for questioning them on the MEL. Interestingly enough; the 'original' MEL 52-30-04A was for the electric door opener; which appeared to be working fine. I asked what to expect and what to do with the passengers and was told that they would have to get all kinds of additional heavy equipment out to the airplane and call a mechanic back; he [maintenance control] said he didn't care about the passengers. After a considerable additional delay; a new mechanic showed up; said he was waiting for maintenance control to fax him the appropriate portions of the maintenance manual; and then went down to look at the cargo door. He came back up to the cockpit and commented 'it would have been nice to know this airplane just came out of heavy maintenance'. When I apologized and inquired why that mattered; he said that maintenance control had mentioned that in passing; and that he figured the problem might just be air in the hydraulic lines for the door. He said that getting pressure on the line and 'exercising' the door would likely flush any air out of the line and probably solve the issue. 15-20 minutes later he had done that and it worked (with witnesses). I'm confused and concerned about the way this was handled. Maintenance control first tried to apply MEL chapter 52-30-04A; which doesn't seem to be the correct item and required some risk to ramp personnel and the door itself. It still would have been incorrect; but why didn't they apply MEL # 52-30-34B which didn't require opening the door and unloading the cargo bin? Then MEL 52-30-01A was applied; but the required maintenance items were not accomplished. When challenged; maintenance control went back to requiring the original (and incorrect) MEL 52-30-04A and all of a sudden needed heavy equipment to allow for the bags to be unloaded (that they didn't require initially). Luckily; the second mechanic figured out what was actually wrong with the cargo door and quickly fixed the problem. I'm not a mechanic and cannot (and should not have to) question whether MEL required maintenance is actually completed when I accept an aircraft. In this case; I was present the entire time and am 100% sure that none of the maintenance items had been accomplished. If the door had fallen and hurt someone; or drooped low enough to hit the belt loader rails and gotten damaged; would I be liable or complicit by accepting an aircraft with an MEL that didn't apply or where I was certain that the required maintenance items had not been accomplished? I cannot comment as to how or why this happened or how to prevent it. I have no way to know whether applying the wrong MEL and then not accomplishing the required maintenance items was intentional or accidental. The attitude that I perceived from maintenance control when I questioned them made me very uncomfortable and suspicious. The original mechanic never referenced the actual MEL. Certainly time and schedule pressures existed; but that shouldn't have taken precedence over proper handling of the problem. The three hour delay could have been avoided entirely with some basic troubleshooting to come up with the actual reason for the cargo door malfunctioning. [We] attempted to contact on call duty manager.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Captain addresses multiple issues with Maintenance Control surrounding incorrect MELs being applied to an A319 aircraft's Aft Cargo Door that continued to drop down on Ramp personnel and belt loader equipment during loading operations. Concerns also raised that original MEL required maintenance items for the Aft Cargo door had not been accomplished.

Narrative: When the First Officer came back from the preflight walk around inspection prior to departure; he reported that the Aft Cargo Door 'would not stay open'. The Belt Loader (Baggage Loader) had rails on either side and the door had drooped to the point of almost touching the rails; which is how the Ramp [employees] first noticed it. They had continued to load bags; but would periodically use the electric door opener switch to lift the door again when it drooped too low. I told the First Officer to have Ramp stop loading bags before someone got hurt and called Maintenance. They said they would contact a Mechanic to come check the door. The Mechanic looked at the door and then came up to the cockpit and called Maintenance Control in front of both pilots. Mechanic explained to Maintenance that there was a 'slow leak' in the [cargo door] actuator and that the door was falling rapidly to a point and then drifting more slowly down from that point. We heard Mechanic tell Maintenance Control that this did not seem to be a safety issue (both the First Officer and I thought Mechanic was going to sign it off as within limits). They opted to place it on MEL; and as Mechanic was writing up the MEL per Maintenance Control instructions; Mechanic told me that per Maintenance Control and the MEL; we would have to completely empty the cargo bin. This was MEL 52-30-04A. At that point; I realized that the Ramp had already loaded 80 bags in the aft bin and closed and latched the door. I questioned the safety and reasonableness of reopening the door and unloading the bags; I asked if there was some legal way; since they were already loaded and the door was closed; for us to just unload the bin [at our destination]. Besides my concern for the safety of the Ramp personnel AND the door itself; the 80 bags would not have physically fit in the forward cargo compartment (bulked out) and we also would have been outside of Center of Gravity (CG) limits (we tried multiple solutions in the Weight Performance calculations). I explained this to the Mechanic and Maintenance Control; at which point they opted to use a different MEL: MEL 52-30-01A for the door actuator. I was confused by this since I thought that was what was wrong all along; and wondered why they hadn't opted to use that MEL in the first place. The Mechanic changed the MEL sign-off in the logbook. I asked Mechanic if needed to placard anything on the cargo door and Mechanic replied that 'they never placard the outside' (which I know to be incorrect). We obtained an Amended Release for the MEL addition and readied to leave. When I checked the logbook sign-off and corresponding MEL I saw that there was a placard required for the cargo door and more importantly; that there were several pages of maintenance items to be completed as part of the MEL that I was CERTAIN had not been accomplished. The Mechanic had never left the cockpit nor referenced the MEL itself. Mechanic completed the logbook MEL sign-off and then left immediately. I called Maintenance Control to inquire about the work not being accomplished and got the impression that they were very irritated at being questioned. I was told 'FINE; if that's how you want it; we'll go back to the original MEL and you'll have to empty the bags from the bin'. The impression was that I was somehow being punished for questioning them on the MEL. Interestingly enough; the 'original' MEL 52-30-04A was for the electric door opener; which appeared to be working fine. I asked what to expect and what to do with the passengers and was told that they would have to get all kinds of additional heavy equipment out to the airplane and call a Mechanic back; he [Maintenance Control] said he didn't care about the passengers. After a considerable additional delay; a new Mechanic showed up; said he was waiting for Maintenance Control to fax him the appropriate portions of the Maintenance Manual; and then went down to look at the cargo door. He came back up to the cockpit and commented 'It would have been nice to know this airplane just came out of Heavy Maintenance'. When I apologized and inquired why that mattered; he said that Maintenance Control had mentioned that in passing; and that he figured the problem might just be air in the hydraulic lines for the door. He said that getting pressure on the line and 'exercising' the door would likely flush any air out of the line and probably solve the issue. 15-20 minutes later he had done that and it worked (with witnesses). I'm confused and concerned about the way this was handled. Maintenance Control first tried to apply MEL Chapter 52-30-04A; which doesn't seem to be the correct item and required some risk to Ramp personnel and the door itself. It still would have been incorrect; but why didn't they apply MEL # 52-30-34B which didn't require opening the door and unloading the cargo bin? Then MEL 52-30-01A was applied; but the required maintenance items were not accomplished. When challenged; Maintenance Control went back to requiring the original (and incorrect) MEL 52-30-04A and all of a sudden needed heavy equipment to allow for the bags to be unloaded (that they didn't require initially). Luckily; the second Mechanic figured out what was actually wrong with the cargo door and quickly fixed the problem. I'm not a mechanic and cannot (and should not have to) question whether MEL required maintenance is actually completed when I accept an aircraft. In this case; I was present the entire time and am 100% sure that none of the maintenance items had been accomplished. If the door had fallen and hurt someone; or drooped low enough to hit the belt loader rails and gotten damaged; would I be liable or complicit by accepting an aircraft with an MEL that didn't apply or where I was certain that the required maintenance items had not been accomplished? I cannot comment as to how or why this happened or how to prevent it. I have no way to know whether applying the wrong MEL and then not accomplishing the required maintenance items was intentional or accidental. The attitude that I perceived from Maintenance Control when I questioned them made me very uncomfortable and suspicious. The original Mechanic never referenced the actual MEL. Certainly time and schedule pressures existed; but that shouldn't have taken precedence over proper handling of the problem. The three hour delay could have been avoided entirely with some basic troubleshooting to come up with the actual reason for the cargo door malfunctioning. [We] attempted to contact on call Duty Manager.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.