Narrative:

The MEL card in hand indicated for the avionics fault deferral 'both packs must operate normally'. The key word being normally. In the responders text below he indicates a class 2 maintenance message is a 'faults detected by the system' that do not affect dispatch. Or as stated in the flight manual 'failure within a system'. I completely agree with the stand alone definitions of the class 2 maintenance message but tie that same definition 'failure/fault within a system' with the MEL cards mandate of 'both packs must operate normally' and there I have an issue. The definition states 'failure/fault' and the MEL cards says operate normally. Again I would have a difficult time explaining to a FAA lawyer how a system definition of 'failure/fault' can coexist in the same system mandating 'operate normally'.I disagree with the responder's text in that he said the two MEL's are not in conflict with each other yet his own definition of a class 2 message states;these are faults detected by the systems and which do not have any operational consequences (safety aspects) on the current flight or on the following flight(s) but which may have consequences if a second fault occurs. These faults are indicated to the cockpit crew on ground by a maintenance status on the ECAM status page after the engines shut down. Original report follows below:notice the responder states 'if a second fault occurs'; thus there had to be an initial fault. Again I have an issue with explaining the initial fault/failure associated with 'must operate normally' because there is no way of knowing if that initial fault still existed at time of dispatch; or even what the cause of it was.second; pilot pushing. It is my understanding that this person has agreed that during aircraft refusals captains will be asked the following questions.1.are you ok?2.is there anything I can do to help?as this refusal played out there was much more coercion from the company than what was agreed to by this person. That issue was not specifically addressed. I hope that it is being addressed behind the scenes.the original report and response follow for reference.we were scheduled to fly this airplane with the following four deferrals. 1. Aft cargo heat deferred 2. Center tank fuel pump deferred 3. Avionics system fault (asf) MEL 21XXX 4. Outboard flap rub stripi arrived at the cockpit to find a mechanic performing the needed tests for the avionics system fault (asf) deferral. I sat in my seat and started my preflight. While performing his tests we got a class 2 maintenance message 'pack 2'. I assumed the mechanic would fix that issue since it directly related to our asf deferral. He left without saying anything. After a long delay and it appeared maintenance was not going to work that issue so we wrote it up. The same mechanic came back with a deferral sticker in his hand and deferred the class 2 message. I said that was there when you left and I assumed you would fix it. He said 'yea I saw it'; but I assumed from his actions he chose not to work it. I found it somewhat disturbing that in performing his required test a class 2 message came up; he saw it but did not to work it. In referencing MEL for the asf it says under flight crew 'both packs must operate normally'. I asked the mechanic who was deferring the class 2 maintenance message what was wrong with pack 2. He said 'I don't know'. I asked him how can I take the airplane with a class 2 maintenance message for pack 2 in conjunction with MEL that specifically stated 'both packs must operate normally' if no one can tell me what is wrong; if anything with pack 2. He said 'it's deferrable'. I disagreed and refused the plane. I phoned dispatch; told them of the refusal and why I was refusing the aircraft. The dispatcher immediately phoned maintenance control (mc) and put him on the line. Mc said this was a legal deferral. I asked how it could be if MEL said 'both packs must operate normally' and I had a class 2 maintenance message for pack 2 and nobody knew what was wrong with pack 2 causing the message. Mc said it doesn't make a difference class 2 messages could be for many things and we don't know what is causing this message but it's not associated with MEL. I again referenced the statement 'both packs must operate normally' and said if you can clear the class 2 message or tell me what is causing the class 2 message I will take the plane if the class 2 message in fact confirms the pack 2 is operating normally. He said he could not again reaffirming his stance it was a legal deferral. I reiterated my aircraft refusal and the conversation ended. The next three or four phone calls were from the flight operations manager asking why I refused the plane and again reaffirming that it was a legal refusal. I gave him my opinion as stated to mc above and the flight operations manager still thought it was a legal deferral. I spoke to another mechanic who was on the flight deck working the issue and he said on the original deferral for the asf MEL maintenance should have changed a 'box' which they did not do thus making the deferral incomplete and that they would have to change the 'box' to make the deferral complete. I phoned the flight operations manager and told him about that conversation. Later the flight operations manager called back saying the mechanic was incorrect and the deferral was correct. I told the flight operations manager I had 3 witnesses to the conversation with the mechanic and I did not misunderstand him. Again the flight operations manager asked if I was willing to fly the plane now; I said no for the stated reason. The plane was subsequently taken out of service. I spoke to another mechanic (different than any of the others I had spoken to) and asked him about the 'box' issue and he confirmed what the other mechanic had said that the box was not changed and they were taking the plane out of service.if the deferral was legal; as the company claims; then why did they take the plane out of service? If it was legal then how does one explain MEL 'both packs must operate normally' while simultaneously I had a class 2 maintenance message for pack 2 and nobody could tell me what was wrong with pack 2? The flight manual states in reference to class 2 maintenance messages 'failure within a system that usually does not affect the flight'. That statement from the flight manual says 'usually'; in this instance wherein the MEL says 'both packs must operate normally' and the flight manual starts its description of class 2 maintenance message with 'failure within a system'; how can that be a legal deferral? Nobody was willing or able to tell me what caused the class 2 maintenance message. I kept telling the flight operations manager that if someone could tell me what caused the message so a more informed decision could be made or clear the message I would take the aircraft. Neither happened and the plane went to the hanger. This is an alarming trend that I see continuing over the last few years. The company has become very persuasive in attempting to get pilots to fly airplanes the company deems safe yet the captain; for whatever reason; does not. Gone are the days of the company asking if they can help in anyway and here are the days of the company strong arming pilots into taking airplanes deemed unsafe or illegal. This is not my first report on the same subject; I see the alarming trend continuing and worry that illegal and unsafe planes are being flown because of the strong arming of the company only for the on-time and completion rates. When captains refuse airplanes the company should stop handing us over to the flight operations manager and mc and we listen while they try to change our minds. Mc's job should be to fix the issue not try and coerce pilots into flying airplanes deemed unsafe. The flight operations manager should be there to help and support the captain and facilitate getting the plane fixed not spend time trying to get the captain to fly an airplane he/she has already refused. With over 31 years of airline flying the degradation of captains authority via pilot pushing has never been as bad as the last two to three years at this company. I hope this report not only brings light to my refusal stated above but to the overall continuing trend of pilot pushing by the management. Action item response this is the definition of a class 2 fault according to airbus and is contained in amm 31-32-00-0001. (B) class 2 faults. These are faults detected by the systems and which do not have any operational consequences (safety aspects) on the current flight or on the following flight(s) but which may have consequences if a second fault occurs. These faults are indicated to the cockpit crew on ground by a maintenance status on the ECAM status page after the engines shut down. System faults that result only in messages on the cfds (centralized fault display system) do not affect dispatch and do not require action other than addressed within the company's maintenance program. So the 2 MEL's were not in conflict with each other. The original MEL was for an avionics system fault. The reason the MEL states that both packs must operate normally is due to equipment cooling requirements and at the time of departure both packs were operating normally. The 2nd MEL was for the class 2 maintenance fault; which by the definition has no operational consequences on the current flight and the MEL does not require any maintenance action be taken on the initial deferral. The aircraft (AC) was not taken out of service due to the mels on the AC. It was taken out of service so that a plane change could be facilitated due to the crew refusal.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An A320 pilot reported confusion with an MEL regarding if an Air Conditioning Pack was operational when a Class II Maintenance Message 'Pack 1 or 2' was displayed on the Centralized Fault Display System.

Narrative: The MEL card in hand indicated for the Avionics Fault deferral 'both packs must operate normally'. The key word being normally. In the responders text below he indicates a class 2 maintenance message is a 'faults detected by the system' that do not affect dispatch. Or as stated in the Flight Manual 'failure within a system'. I completely agree with the stand alone definitions of the class 2 maintenance message but tie that same definition 'failure/fault within a system' with the MEL cards mandate of 'both packs must operate normally' and there I have an issue. The definition states 'failure/fault' and the MEL cards says operate normally. Again I would have a difficult time explaining to a FAA lawyer how a system definition of 'failure/fault' can coexist in the same system mandating 'operate normally'.I disagree with the responder's text in that he said the two MEL's are not in conflict with each other yet his own definition of a class 2 message states;These are faults detected by the systems and which DO NOT have any operational consequences (safety aspects) on the CURRENT flight or on the FOLLOWING flight(s) but which may have consequences if a second fault occurs. These faults are indicated to the cockpit crew on ground by a Maintenance STATUS on the ECAM STATUS page after the engines shut down. Original report follows below:Notice the responder states 'if a second fault occurs'; thus there had to be an initial fault. Again I have an issue with explaining the initial fault/failure associated with 'must operate normally' because there is no way of knowing if that initial fault still existed at time of dispatch; or even what the cause of it was.Second; pilot pushing. It is my understanding that this person has agreed that during aircraft refusals Captains will be asked the following questions.1.Are you ok?2.Is there anything I can do to help?As this refusal played out there was much more coercion from the company than what was agreed to by this person. That issue was not specifically addressed. I hope that it is being addressed behind the scenes.The original report and response follow for reference.We were scheduled to fly this airplane with the following four deferrals. 1. Aft cargo heat deferred 2. Center tank fuel pump deferred 3. Avionics system fault (ASF) MEL 21XXX 4. Outboard flap rub stripI arrived at the cockpit to find a mechanic performing the needed tests for the Avionics System Fault (ASF) deferral. I sat in my seat and started my preflight. While performing his tests we got a class 2 maintenance message 'pack 2'. I assumed the mechanic would fix that issue since it directly related to our ASF deferral. He left without saying anything. After a long delay and it appeared maintenance was not going to work that issue so we wrote it up. The same mechanic came back with a deferral sticker in his hand and deferred the class 2 message. I said that was there when you left and I assumed you would fix it. He said 'yea I saw it'; but I assumed from his actions he chose not to work it. I found it somewhat disturbing that in performing his required test a class 2 message came up; he saw it but did not to work it. In referencing MEL for the ASF it says under Flight Crew 'both packs must operate normally'. I asked the mechanic who was deferring the class 2 maintenance message what was wrong with pack 2. He said 'I don't know'. I asked him how can I take the airplane with a class 2 maintenance message for pack 2 in conjunction with MEL that specifically stated 'both packs must operate normally' if no one can tell me what is wrong; if anything with pack 2. He said 'it's deferrable'. I disagreed and refused the plane. I phoned dispatch; told them of the refusal and why I was refusing the aircraft. The dispatcher immediately phoned Maintenance Control (MC) and put him on the line. MC said this was a legal deferral. I asked how it could be if MEL said 'both packs must operate normally' and I had a class 2 maintenance message for pack 2 and nobody knew what was wrong with pack 2 causing the message. MC said it doesn't make a difference class 2 messages could be for many things and we don't know what is causing this message but it's not associated with MEL. I again referenced the statement 'both packs must operate normally' and said if you can clear the class 2 message OR tell me what is causing the class 2 message I will take the plane if the class 2 message in fact confirms the pack 2 is operating normally. He said he could not again reaffirming his stance it was a legal deferral. I reiterated my aircraft refusal and the conversation ended. The next three or four phone calls were from the Flight Operations Manager asking why I refused the plane and again reaffirming that it was a legal refusal. I gave him my opinion as stated to MC above and the Flight Operations Manager still thought it was a legal deferral. I spoke to another mechanic who was on the flight deck working the issue and he said on the original deferral for the ASF MEL maintenance should have changed a 'box' which they did not do thus making the deferral incomplete and that they would have to change the 'box' to make the deferral complete. I phoned the Flight Operations Manager and told him about that conversation. Later the Flight Operations Manager called back saying the mechanic was incorrect and the deferral was correct. I told the Flight Operations Manager I had 3 witnesses to the conversation with the mechanic and I did not misunderstand him. Again the Flight Operations Manager asked if I was willing to fly the plane now; I said no for the stated reason. The plane was subsequently taken out of service. I spoke to another mechanic (different than any of the others I had spoken to) and asked him about the 'box' issue and he confirmed what the other mechanic had said that the box was not changed and they were taking the plane out of service.If the deferral was legal; as the company claims; then why did they take the plane out of service? If it was legal then how does one explain MEL 'both packs must operate normally' while simultaneously I had a class 2 maintenance message for pack 2 and nobody could tell me what was wrong with pack 2? The Flight Manual states in reference to class 2 maintenance messages 'Failure within a system that usually does not affect the flight'. That statement from the Flight Manual says 'usually'; in this instance wherein the MEL says 'both packs must operate normally' and the Flight Manual starts its description of class 2 maintenance message with 'Failure within a system'; how can that be a legal deferral? Nobody was willing or able to tell me what caused the class 2 maintenance message. I kept telling the Flight Operations Manager that if someone could tell me what caused the message so a more informed decision could be made or clear the message I would take the aircraft. Neither happened and the plane went to the hanger. This is an alarming trend that I see continuing over the last few years. The company has become very persuasive in attempting to get pilots to fly airplanes the company deems safe yet the Captain; for whatever reason; does not. Gone are the days of the company asking if they can help in anyway and here are the days of the company strong arming pilots into taking airplanes deemed unsafe or illegal. This is not my first report on the same subject; I see the alarming trend continuing and worry that illegal and unsafe planes are being flown because of the strong arming of the company only for the on-time and completion rates. When Captains refuse airplanes the company should stop handing us over to the Flight Operations Manager and MC and we listen while they try to change our minds. MC's job should be to fix the issue not try and coerce pilots into flying airplanes deemed unsafe. The Flight Operations Manager should be there to help and support the Captain and facilitate getting the plane fixed not spend time trying to get the Captain to fly an airplane he/she has already refused. With over 31 years of airline flying the degradation of Captains authority via pilot pushing has never been as bad as the last two to three years at this company. I hope this report not only brings light to my refusal stated above but to the overall continuing trend of pilot pushing by the management. Action Item Response This is the Definition of a class 2 fault according to Airbus and is contained in AMM 31-32-00-0001. (b) Class 2 faults. These are faults detected by the systems and which DO NOT have any operational consequences (safety aspects) on the CURRENT flight or on the FOLLOWING flight(s) but which may have consequences if a second fault occurs. These faults are indicated to the cockpit crew on ground by a Maintenance STATUS on the ECAM STATUS page after the engines shut down. System faults that result only in messages on the CFDS (centralized fault display system) do not affect dispatch and do not require action other than addressed within the company's maintenance program. So the 2 MEL's were not in conflict with each other. The original MEL was for an Avionics system fault. The reason the MEL states that both packs must operate normally is due to equipment cooling requirements and at the time of departure BOTH packs were operating normally. The 2nd MEL was for the class 2 MAINTENANCE fault; which by the definition has no operational consequences on the current flight and the MEL does not require any maintenance action be taken on the initial deferral. The Aircraft (AC) was not taken out of service due to the MELs on the AC. It was taken out of service so that a plane change could be facilitated due to the crew refusal.

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.