Narrative:

Four times in the last 6 months; I have had a maintenance issue after leaving the gate and while still the ground; and maintenance control has either questioned me as to why I wrote up the discrepancy in the aircraft maintenance logbook (aml); or told me to write it as 'info-item.' I believe that in all these maintenance issues maintenance control has either changed procedures and not conveyed the new procedures to the flight ops department or maintenance control is confused on what is 'legal' as far as proper aml documentation is concerned. Received ECAM: F/control ground sp:right 1+2 fault taxiing out. I contacted dispatch/maintenance control. I explained the ECAM message (which had no ECAM procedures or QRH procedures associated with it) to maintenance control and stated that I had written it up in the aml. Maintenance control stated for me to cycle some specific hydraulic switches; at which point I asked maintenance control if I followed his instructions would I be able to 'balance' the write up in the mechanical discrepancy section of the aml with the notation of per maintenance manual such and such action accomplished with his name and employee number? (As we have always done.) maintenance control stated as long as I write it up as 'info-item.' I stated that I would not write it up as 'info-item' because per MEL introduction and FM 1 the malfunction does not meet the criteria of 'info-item.' maintenance control stated that if I did not want to write it up that way that I would have to return to the gate. I asked him why he is asking me to write it up as 'info-item?' maintenance control stated that this was the first time anyone told him that it wasn't appropriate. In the other three cases that I had; maintenance control was surprised that I wrote it up at all; and maintenance control stated that if I didn't write it as 'info-item' that it would be an 'open write.' I explained that it would not be 'open' if I entered per maintenance manual in the mechanical discrepancy section. Maintenance control said that pilots can't enter that. I asked since when? I also got on record that I disagreed with maintenance control's explanation and asked the dispatcher to research this procedure. Back to the gate in all 4 cases. 6 months later no explanation except line maintenance that stated I was correct; maintenance control was wrong; and next time to hang up the phone; call back and hopefully I will get someone different. I would like an immediate answer to this issue please. Thank you.I think the managing director of ops needs to call me and tell me why maintenance control is not on the same page as flight ops. What are the proper procedures now if they have changed; why have they changed; and why has communication failed between departments.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A320 Captain reported observing F/CTL GND SPLR 1 + 2 FAULT during taxi out and was told to enter an Aircraft Maintenance discrepancy as an INFO ITEM. The Captain refused and returned to the gate.

Narrative: Four times in the last 6 months; I have had a maintenance issue after leaving the gate and while still the ground; and Maintenance Control has either questioned me as to why I wrote up the discrepancy in the Aircraft Maintenance Logbook (AML); or told me to write it as 'info-item.' I believe that in all these maintenance issues Maintenance Control has either changed procedures and not conveyed the new procedures to the flight ops department OR Maintenance Control is confused on what is 'legal' as far as proper AML documentation is concerned. Received ECAM: F/CTL GND SP:R 1+2 FAULT taxiing out. I contacted dispatch/Maintenance Control. I explained the ECAM message (which had no ECAM procedures or QRH procedures associated with it) to Maintenance Control and stated that I had written it up in the AML. Maintenance Control stated for me to cycle some specific hydraulic switches; at which point I asked Maintenance Control if I followed his instructions would I be able to 'balance' the write up in the mechanical discrepancy section of the AML with the notation of per Maintenance Manual such and such action accomplished with his name and employee number? (As we have always done.) Maintenance Control stated as long as I write it up as 'info-item.' I stated that I would NOT write it up as 'info-item' because per MEL introduction and FM 1 the malfunction does not meet the criteria of 'info-item.' Maintenance Control stated that if I did not want to write it up that way that I would have to return to the gate. I asked him why he is asking me to write it up as 'info-item?' Maintenance Control stated that this was the first time anyone told him that it wasn't appropriate. In the other three cases that I had; Maintenance Control was surprised that I wrote it up at all; and Maintenance Control stated that if I didn't write it as 'info-item' that it would be an 'open write.' I explained that it would not be 'open' if I entered per Maintenance Manual in the mechanical discrepancy section. Maintenance Control said that pilots can't enter that. I asked since when? I also got on record that I disagreed with Maintenance Control's explanation and asked the dispatcher to research this procedure. Back to the gate in all 4 cases. 6 months later no explanation except line maintenance that stated I was correct; Maintenance Control was wrong; and next time to hang up the phone; call back and hopefully I will get someone different. I would like an immediate answer to this issue please. Thank you.I think the managing director of ops needs to call me and tell me why Maintenance Control is not on the same page as flight ops. What are the proper procedures now if they have changed; why have they changed; and why has communication failed between departments.

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.