Narrative:

Enroute; I sent a maintenance request code stating that the (captain's) audio control panel 1 was inoperative and that transmissions from the captain's boom microphone over vhr radios 1 and 2 were being reported as scratchy and unreadable over two separate headsets.after landing; local maintenance met our aircraft and according to the subsequent maintenance release document; the technician removed and replaced the number 1 radio management panel (rmp). Prior to our scheduled departure; I checked the function and quality of radio transmissions from the captain's station with clearance delivery and company hub maintenance and was informed that the transmissions were still scratchy and unreadable. In my radio communication with hub maintenance; the controller directed me to re-enter the discrepancy via ACARS and said that he would send the technicians back to the cockpit to address the problem.when the technicians returned to the cockpit; I explained that the original problem we were having with the radios was not corrected and asked for further help. We reviewed all action taken to this point in order to understand where the problem might be and the technician suggested exchanging headsets with the co-pilot station. After doing this; transmissions to clearance delivery and hub maintenance were described as satisfactory. In the light of the fact that I had earlier tried two headsets with no effect; I requested that our spare headset be replaced. The technician agreed and left the cockpit to obtain a replacement. He subsequently returned with a new; 'still in the box' headset from stock. At that point I thanked the technicians and we closed the main cabin door explaining to the agent and purser that we would wait for the new maintenance release to be delivered over the cockpit printer before starting our pushback.after receiving the maintenance release over the cockpit printer; I reviewed it and noted that the action addressing my last defect write-up made no mention of the fact that we had been directed by the technicians to exchange headsets between stations or that maintenance had replaced the presumably defective spare unit carried in the cockpit. Instead; the technician stated in the maintenance release that the only 'action' taken to resolve the 'defect' was 'clear-acp operation check normal'in my experience; anytime a headset is exchanged it is so noted in the corrective action section of the maintenance release. In my review of the maintenance release; I noted that the sign off for the last discrepancy did not describe the maintenance actions taken to resolve the discrepancy. Considering that the aircraft cabin door was closed and that we were beyond our scheduled departure time; I elected to overlook the disparity rationalizing that we had a valid maintenance release and should be legal to dispatch. We released brakes and pushed back for departure.enroute we received a message via the ACARS requesting further information concerning our delayed departure. The request stated that the delay had been coded '(flight operations call tech operations).' I responded to the message with a miscellaneous message: 'gr - zzzlm reqd to return to aircraft to finish repair of discrepancy no. X.'in retrospect; it appears that the technician signing off the final work accomplished concerning defect no. Y obfuscated the maintenance action taken so as to avoid having the delayed departure assigned to maintenance. If this is the case then I am concerned it represents a falsification of the aircraft maintenance record by omission. All departments concerned with the on-time departure of our flights are under substantial pressure to avoid any delay in those departures. This has been made clear to me in discussions with personnel from various departments at planeside as well as our flight office. That pressure was evidenced in this situation when almost immediately upon entering the cockpit to address our original maintenance discrepancies the two reporting maintenance technicians began talking about what they would and would not take a delay for with respect to the defects noted in our maintenance log. Their preoccupation was avoiding the consequence of a maintenance delay as much or more than the proper repair of the noted discrepancies. Misplaced priorities like these are a direct threat to the continued safe operation of our aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A320 Captain reported a log book entry was incorrectly signed off causing a delay assigned to the flight crew instead of maintenance.

Narrative: Enroute; I sent a Maintenance request code stating that the (Captain's) Audio Control Panel 1 was inoperative and that transmissions from the Captain's boom microphone over VHR radios 1 and 2 were being reported as scratchy and unreadable over two separate headsets.After landing; Local Maintenance met our aircraft and according to the subsequent maintenance release document; the technician removed and replaced the Number 1 Radio Management Panel (RMP). Prior to our scheduled departure; I checked the function and quality of radio transmissions from the Captain's station with Clearance Delivery and Company Hub maintenance and was informed that the transmissions were still scratchy and unreadable. In my radio communication with Hub maintenance; the controller directed me to re-enter the discrepancy via ACARS and said that he would send the technicians back to the cockpit to address the problem.When the technicians returned to the cockpit; I explained that the original problem we were having with the radios was not corrected and asked for further help. We reviewed all action taken to this point in order to understand where the problem might be and the technician suggested exchanging headsets with the co-pilot station. After doing this; transmissions to Clearance Delivery and Hub Maintenance were described as satisfactory. In the light of the fact that I had earlier tried two headsets with no effect; I requested that our spare headset be replaced. The technician agreed and left the cockpit to obtain a replacement. He subsequently returned with a new; 'still in the box' headset from stock. At that point I thanked the technicians and we closed the main cabin door explaining to the agent and purser that we would wait for the new Maintenance Release to be delivered over the cockpit printer before starting our pushback.After receiving the Maintenance Release over the cockpit printer; I reviewed it and noted that the action addressing my last defect write-up made no mention of the fact that we had been directed by the technicians to exchange headsets between stations or that maintenance had replaced the presumably defective spare unit carried in the cockpit. Instead; the technician stated in the Maintenance Release that the only 'Action' taken to resolve the 'Defect' was 'CLR-ACP OP CHECK NORMAL'In my experience; anytime a headset is exchanged it is so noted in the corrective action section of the Maintenance Release. In my review of the Maintenance Release; I noted that the sign off for the last discrepancy did not describe the maintenance actions taken to resolve the discrepancy. Considering that the aircraft cabin door was closed and that we were beyond our scheduled departure time; I elected to overlook the disparity rationalizing that we had a valid Maintenance Release and should be legal to dispatch. We released brakes and pushed back for departure.Enroute we received a message via the ACARS requesting further information concerning our delayed departure. The request stated that the delay had been coded '(FLT OPS CALL TECH OPS).' I responded to the message with a miscellaneous message: 'GR - ZZZLM REQD TO RETURN TO ACFT TO FINISH REPAIR OF DISCREPANCY NO. X.'In retrospect; it appears that the technician signing off the final work accomplished concerning Defect No. Y obfuscated the maintenance action taken so as to avoid having the delayed departure assigned to Maintenance. If this is the case then I am concerned it represents a falsification of the aircraft maintenance record by omission. All departments concerned with the on-time departure of our flights are under substantial pressure to avoid any delay in those departures. This has been made clear to me in discussions with personnel from various departments at planeside as well as our flight office. That pressure was evidenced in this situation when almost immediately upon entering the cockpit to address our original maintenance discrepancies the two reporting maintenance technicians began talking about what they would and would not take a delay for with respect to the defects noted in our maintenance log. Their preoccupation was avoiding the consequence of a maintenance delay as much or more than the proper repair of the noted discrepancies. Misplaced priorities like these are a direct threat to the continued safe operation of our aircraft.

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.