Narrative:

We initiated a call to maintenance to inspect a bird strike and a damaged movable flap track fairing seal. A contract mechanic showed to the aircraft and took the logbook. When he returned minutes later; both entries were signed off. However; he incorrectly applied the incorrect configuration deviation list (cdl). These 2 cdls are not even close to the same thing. It was quite obvious no one actually read the cdl they were applying. After pointing this out; the contract mechanic called maintenance control and hastily wrote over his sign off changing the cdl. This logbook pencil whipping was just the start.when he tried to leave; I stopped him and asked him if he actually read the cdl. My concern was the cdl required a follow up and the completion of an aircraft maintenance manual (amm) task. This mechanic had not been at the aircraft long enough to accomplish these things. His reply to me was 'it's good.' we were not comfortable and he called maintenance control again. He handed me the phone because he barely spoke english and was clearly confused. My conversation with the maintenance controller was frustrating to say the least. I had to insist he actually pull up the cdl and read it with me; something he clearly had not done when giving the original sign off. It was at this point he finally sent the contract mechanic the amm task to be accomplished. I want to point out that the amm task was no small procedure. It included cutting any loose seal; applying speed tape; and dropping the flaps for inspection. After the contract mechanic finished; I went outside to inspect his work. As a necessary part of the amm task; he trimmed off the majority of the seal. The problem; however; was the cdl requires at least 50% of the seal be present. We no longer met the conditions of the cdl. Once again; if anyone besides us; the flight crew; had cared to read the text of the cdl; this would have been caught. When we pointed this out to the mechanic; I kid you not; he replied; 'it's good.'once again; we called maintenance control. After some debate; their solution was to apply a second cdl. Their solution involved intentionally damaging the fixed fairing seal; applying that cdl in addition to the first cdl 27 and using only the provisions from second cdl. The second cdl states; all the seal can be missing. However; this is for the fixed seal; and not the movable seal. For some reason; maintenance control got it in their head that this was legal because these two cdls are similar and reference each other in the remarks section of the cdl. Since when has it ever been acceptable to ignore the provisions of one cdl because a second cdl has been applied? One does not take precedence over the other. These are two different cdls; one for a fixed seal; and one for a movable seal. We; of course; refused the airplane. The conditions of the initial cdl were not met. Yet; we were pressured by maintenance control to take the airplane. We were told to call the chief pilot. Chief pilot answered the phone. I cannot speak to the conversation the captain had; but I felt like we did not have his support. It felt like all departments were pressuring us to fly the airplane. This went on for a couple hours. We were constantly told we were wrong and needed to fly the airplane. At one point; we could hear the manager of maintenance control yelling angrily in the background of the call. Someone finally called the chief mechanic and woke him up. He agreed with us; and the airplane was finally grounded. We made a subsequent logbook entry stating the cdl conditions were not met.as egregious as these logbook pencil-whippings and ignorance for maintenance procedures were; this is not the only incident I have encountered at the company in recent months where this has occurred. This is becoming a major problem where deferrals are being done incorrectly; wrong mels are being applied; aircraft signoffs are done incorrectly; contract mechanics have no idea what they are doing. Amm tasks are not being accomplished when an MEL/cdl is applied; there are communication issues with maintenance control; and maintenance is being rushed to get the airplanes out.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A319 First Officer reported that the aircraft was refused due to the misapplication of a CDL Procedure.

Narrative: We initiated a call to Maintenance to inspect a bird strike and a damaged movable flap track fairing seal. A contract mechanic showed to the aircraft and took the logbook. When he returned minutes later; both entries were signed off. However; he incorrectly applied the incorrect Configuration Deviation List (CDL). These 2 CDLs are not even close to the same thing. It was quite obvious no one actually read the CDL they were applying. After pointing this out; the contract mechanic called Maintenance control and hastily wrote over his sign off changing the CDL. This logbook pencil whipping was just the start.When he tried to leave; I stopped him and asked him if he actually read the CDL. My concern was the CDL required a Follow up and the completion of an Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) task. This mechanic had not been at the aircraft long enough to accomplish these things. His reply to me was 'it's good.' We were not comfortable and he called Maintenance control again. He handed me the phone because he barely spoke English and was clearly confused. My conversation with the Maintenance controller was frustrating to say the least. I had to insist he actually pull up the CDL and read it with me; something he clearly had not done when giving the original sign off. It was at this point he finally sent the contract mechanic the AMM task to be accomplished. I want to point out that the AMM task was no small procedure. It included cutting any loose seal; applying speed tape; and dropping the flaps for inspection. After the contract mechanic finished; I went outside to inspect his work. As a necessary part of the AMM task; he trimmed off the majority of the seal. The problem; however; was the CDL requires at least 50% of the seal be present. We no longer met the conditions of the CDL. Once again; if anyone besides us; the flight crew; had cared to read the text of the CDL; this would have been caught. When we pointed this out to the mechanic; I kid you not; he replied; 'it's good.'Once again; we called Maintenance control. After some debate; their solution was to apply a second CDL. Their solution involved intentionally damaging the FIXED fairing seal; applying that CDL in addition to the first CDL 27 and using only the provisions from second CDL. The Second CDL states; all the seal can be missing. However; this is for the FIXED seal; and not the movable seal. For some reason; Maintenance control got it in their head that this was legal because these two CDLs are similar and reference each other in the remarks section of the CDL. Since when has it ever been acceptable to ignore the provisions of one CDL because a second CDL has been applied? One does not take precedence over the other. These are two different CDLs; one for a fixed seal; and one for a movable seal. We; of course; refused the airplane. The conditions of the initial CDL were not met. Yet; we were pressured by Maintenance control to take the airplane. We were told to call the chief pilot. Chief Pilot answered the phone. I cannot speak to the conversation the captain had; but I felt like we did not have his support. It felt like all departments were pressuring us to fly the airplane. This went on for a couple hours. We were constantly told we were wrong and needed to fly the airplane. At one point; we could hear the manager of maintenance control yelling angrily in the background of the call. Someone finally called the Chief Mechanic and woke him up. He agreed with us; and the airplane was finally grounded. We made a subsequent logbook entry stating the CDL conditions were not met.As egregious as these logbook pencil-whippings and ignorance for Maintenance procedures were; this is not the only incident I have encountered at the company in recent months where this has occurred. This is becoming a major problem where Deferrals are being done incorrectly; wrong MELs are being applied; aircraft signoffs are done incorrectly; contract mechanics have no idea what they are doing. AMM tasks are not being accomplished when an MEL/CDL is applied; there are communication issues with Maintenance control; and maintenance is being rushed to get the airplanes out.

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.