Narrative:

I was on the CE680 when I had to MEL the main entry door message system. The problem was when you close the door the aircraft still thought it was open and was giving us a cabin door and check doors amber messages. After following the afm (QRH) procedures the messages clear. When this was discovered as to be a true fault (not spurious) I attempted to apply the MEL; 52-70-xx-xx; in order for us to continue to operate the aircraft with a known discrepancy. So you can imagine my surprise when the mechanic in maintenance control called me after I sent in the MEL and asked why I was writing it up. He said he didn't understand why I would write it up when the afm procedure cleared the message. I included the verbiage in the discrepancy write up that the message clears after the afm procedure is followed; as an aid for mechanics in trouble shooting the problem later. The afm procedure is found in the abnormal section; and is also found in the QRH abnormals. So was the maintenance controller expecting me to run an abnormal QRH procedure to reset the amber caution messages every time I close the door? I can only guess that; yes; that is the case. He then asked if I wear a watch or if anyone was standing near the door when it was closed. Something about interfering with the door sensors and closing sequence. I replied to both in the affirmative and was unsure as to what he was expecting me to do. I was wondering if he wanted me to move as far away from the door as possible (stand in the cockpit?) when closing it and remove my watch and then not follow through with the MEL? I made it clear that the discrepancy should be documented by MEL and the maintenance controller relented.suggestions: when a PIC enters an MEL for an inoperative item the only response from maintenance control should be to enter it into the system. The same holds true for an aircraft on ground (aog); with the exception in both cases; if the entry is done in error. Not ever to try to intimidate; confuse or to change the mind of the PIC regarding a maintenance discrepancy. I have noted that recently this has become a regular problem and something needs to change.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CE680 Captain reported a main 'CABIN DOOR' not closed and 'CHECK DOOR' alert which cleared after following the AFM/QRH Abnormal procedure. Maintenance Control objected to a Maintenance Log entry after the procedure cleared the fault.

Narrative: I was on the CE680 when I had to MEL the main entry door message system. The problem was when you close the door the aircraft still thought it was open and was giving us a CABIN DOOR and CHECK DOORS amber messages. After following the AFM (QRH) procedures the messages clear. When this was discovered as to be a true fault (not spurious) I attempted to apply the MEL; 52-70-XX-XX; in order for us to continue to operate the aircraft with a known discrepancy. So you can imagine my surprise when the Mechanic in Maintenance Control called me after I sent in the MEL and asked why I was writing it up. He said he didn't understand why I would write it up when the AFM procedure cleared the message. I included the verbiage in the discrepancy write up that the message clears after the AFM procedure is followed; as an aid for mechanics in trouble shooting the problem later. The AFM procedure is found in the Abnormal section; and is also found in the QRH Abnormals. So was the Maintenance Controller expecting me to run an Abnormal QRH procedure to reset the amber caution messages every time I close the door? I can only guess that; yes; that is the case. He then asked if I wear a watch or if anyone was standing near the door when it was closed. Something about interfering with the door sensors and closing sequence. I replied to both in the affirmative and was unsure as to what he was expecting me to do. I was wondering if he wanted me to move as far away from the door as possible (stand in the cockpit?) when closing it and remove my watch and then not follow through with the MEL? I made it clear that the discrepancy should be documented by MEL and the Maintenance Controller relented.Suggestions: When a PIC enters an MEL for an inoperative item the only response from Maintenance Control should be to enter it into the system. The same holds true for an Aircraft on Ground (AOG); with the exception in both cases; if the entry is done in error. Not ever to try to intimidate; confuse or to change the mind of the PIC regarding a maintenance discrepancy. I have noted that recently this has become a regular problem and something needs to change.

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.