Narrative:

While doing my preflight flow; I noticed the batt switch was off with the APU running. We usually see this configuration with a gpu providing power; so that if the gpu goes off line; the aircraft will not drain the battery. I pushed the batt switch and resumed my preflight. A few minutes later; the APU shut down and the airplane went to standby power. I realized that in fact; the batt switch had been on; but the on symbol was not showing and that I had inadvertently turned the batt switch off; thereby initiating the APU shutdown sequence. We restarted the APU and called maintenance. I showed him the issue and we both observed that by wiggling the switch; the on indication would show briefly but it would not remain on. He was worried about being able to fix the issue; due to approaching departure time; but at this point; we were 30-45 minutes from push. He initially asked me to carry the problem to destination and fix it there; as we now knew the switch was on. I politely declined and asked it be fixed or MEL(ed). He reasoned it should be MEL-able; as we would receive a battery off EICAS message when it was off. He called maintenance control; and was advised that the batt switch indication was not deferrable. The crew vacated the cockpit and within minutes; by removing the switch and plugging it back in; it worked properly. I want to make clear the mechanic was friendly and helpful throughout; and his suggestion was more a reaction to the mere possibility of being late and a desire to 'keep the metal moving;' which is obviously a culture that flows from the top down. In contrast; there is another mechanic; who repeatedly argues with crews over the validity of write-ups and is often combative. I politely insisted throughout that I would be happy to take the jet; provided the switch either worked properly or was deferred. On my end; once the problem was fixed and the mechanics left the cockpit; I realized the issue had not been entered in the logbook. I rationalized that the switch could merely have been loose as opposed to being broken; and since it worked properly; an entry was not needed. I wish now that I had entered it; just for tracking purposes in case it came up again. I will do so next time. Despite forward-thinking changes and language in our new flight operation manual; old habits die hard. The attitude out on line is to keep the jets moving; period. Flight crews face resistance from mechanics; and especially maintenance control; in favor of departure time despite having a valid issue. As a captain; I play things straight. I call attention to write-ups when and where they happen; and insist they be fixed properly prior to departure; regardless of how close to push we are or aren't. I do my best to stick to the facts; lest I be accused of participating in a job action. The fact is - these airplanes are old and do not work they way they used to. Repeat write-ups are often dismissed or signed away with the old 'could not duplicate' or 'operations check normal.' those are all big-picture factors but getting back to this case; I would understand the mechanic's reaction had it been 5 minutes prior to push. But 30-45 minutes? Plenty of time. So why is he feeling such pressure to stay on time and ask a crew to carry a known issue back to base?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B767 Captain reported inadvertently shutting down the APU after pushing the battery switch because it indicated off when it actually was on.

Narrative: While doing my preflight flow; I noticed the BATT switch was off with the APU running. We usually see this configuration with a GPU providing power; so that if the GPU goes off line; the aircraft will not drain the battery. I pushed the BATT switch and resumed my preflight. A few minutes later; the APU shut down and the airplane went to standby power. I realized that in fact; the BATT switch had been ON; but the ON symbol was not showing and that I had inadvertently turned the BATT switch off; thereby initiating the APU shutdown sequence. We restarted the APU and called Maintenance. I showed him the issue and we both observed that by wiggling the switch; the ON indication would show briefly but it would not remain ON. He was worried about being able to fix the issue; due to approaching departure time; but at this point; we were 30-45 minutes from push. He initially asked me to carry the problem to destination and fix it there; as we now knew the switch was ON. I politely declined and asked it be fixed or MEL(ed). He reasoned it should be MEL-able; as we would receive a BATTERY OFF EICAS message when it was off. He called Maintenance Control; and was advised that the BATT switch indication was not deferrable. The crew vacated the cockpit and within minutes; by removing the switch and plugging it back in; it worked properly. I want to make clear the mechanic was friendly and helpful throughout; and his suggestion was more a reaction to the mere possibility of being late and a desire to 'keep the metal moving;' which is obviously a culture that flows from the top down. In contrast; there is another mechanic; who repeatedly argues with crews over the validity of write-ups and is often combative. I politely insisted throughout that I would be happy to take the jet; provided the switch either worked properly or was deferred. On my end; once the problem was fixed and the mechanics left the cockpit; I realized the issue had not been entered in the logbook. I rationalized that the switch could merely have been loose as opposed to being broken; and since it worked properly; an entry was not needed. I wish now that I had entered it; just for tracking purposes in case it came up again. I will do so next time. Despite forward-thinking changes and language in our new Flight Operation Manual; old habits die hard. The attitude out on line is to keep the jets moving; period. Flight crews face resistance from Mechanics; and especially Maintenance Control; in favor of departure time despite having a valid issue. As a Captain; I play things straight. I call attention to write-ups when and where they happen; and insist they be fixed properly prior to departure; regardless of how close to push we are or aren't. I do my best to stick to the facts; lest I be accused of participating in a job action. The fact is - these airplanes are OLD and do not work they way they used to. Repeat write-ups are often dismissed or signed away with the old 'could not duplicate' or 'Operations check normal.' Those are all big-picture factors but getting back to this case; I would understand the mechanic's reaction had it been 5 minutes prior to push. But 30-45 minutes? Plenty of time. So why is he feeling such pressure to stay on time and ask a crew to carry a known issue back to base?

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.