Narrative:

A deferred maintenance item was opened and entered in the aircraft logbook; under gmm 30.13.1 and air traffic area 54-50. It is specifically stated in the gmm and fom that a maintenance watch item may not be created to defer or repair any component or system that directly or indirectly effects the airworthiness of the aircraft or safety of passengers and crew. This panel is not in the MEL/cdl; it was required for airworthiness; cutting out the 'bent metal' and applying speed tape was not in compliance with the FAA regulation or general maintenance manual. The log page entry was 'engine number 1 nacelle has a bent metal panel on outboard upper side next to pylon.' it may well have had bent metal; but that 'bent metal' was cut off leaving a 3 X 6 inch hole in the pylon and taped over with speed tape. This would have required an stc or engineering order from airbus. It is more than questionable to cut out part of the airframe; apply speed tape each flight and call it a maintenance watch item. The speed tape departed the airplane shortly after takeoff on both flights; and was also replaced in ZZZ when we assumed the airplane.the next step was the number 1 thrust reverser was deferred and locked out...although there was nothing wrong with the thrust reverser. The reason explained to me by moc when I called was 'to prevent further damage;' (concerned it would blow the speed tape off?). Now the airplane is being dispatched with one thrust reverser...as the result of deferring something that shouldn't have been deferred in the first place. This maintenance watch item required re-inspection for each flight; and each logbook entry made was 'reinspected and ok for continued service.' this required the speed tape to be completely reapplied each flight; not just reinspected. On the return flight a passenger noticed the speed tape depart the airplane; she thought a part of the engine had flown off (apparently an argument between her and the husband ensued). It's difficult for the flight crew to articulate to passengers that we really didn't in fact lose part of the airplane...it was just tape that was covering a hole in the airplane that came off. Passengers were actually taking photos of the mechanic and the tape being applied to the hole as they walked up the air stairs.the cdl has several panels on the engine pylon listed that could be deferred; this was not one of them. Which means this should not have been deferred and was required for airworthiness. The company page for ZZZZ describes the runways as not grooved; consider slippery when wet. Dispatching to a potentially slippery runway with one thrust reverser inoperative when it didn't need to be is a safety issue. This was not a valid maintenance deferral. Follow the FAA regulations and general maintenance manual.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A319 Captain reported that damaged skin on an engine pylon was illegally deferred.

Narrative: A Deferred Maintenance Item was opened and entered in the aircraft logbook; under GMM 30.13.1 and ATA 54-50. It is specifically stated in the GMM and FOM that a maintenance watch item may NOT be created to defer or repair any component or system that directly or indirectly effects the airworthiness of the aircraft or safety of passengers and crew. This panel is not in the MEL/CDL; it was required for airworthiness; cutting out the 'bent metal' and applying speed tape was not in compliance with the FAA regulation or General Maintenance manual. The log page entry was 'ENG Number 1 nacelle has a bent metal panel on outboard upper side next to pylon.' It may well have had bent metal; but that 'bent metal' was cut off leaving a 3 X 6 inch hole in the pylon and taped over with speed tape. This would have required an STC or engineering order from Airbus. It is more than questionable to cut out part of the airframe; apply speed tape each flight and call it a maintenance watch item. The speed tape departed the airplane shortly after takeoff on both flights; and was also replaced in ZZZ when we assumed the airplane.The next step was the Number 1 thrust reverser was deferred and locked out...although there was nothing wrong with the thrust reverser. The reason explained to me by MOC when I called was 'to prevent further damage;' (concerned it would blow the speed tape off?). Now the airplane is being dispatched with one thrust reverser...as the result of deferring something that shouldn't have been deferred in the first place. This maintenance watch item required re-inspection for each flight; and each logbook entry made was 'reinspected and ok for continued service.' This required the speed tape to be completely reapplied each flight; not just reinspected. On the return flight a passenger noticed the speed tape depart the airplane; she thought a part of the engine had flown off (apparently an argument between her and the husband ensued). It's difficult for the flight crew to articulate to passengers that we really didn't in fact lose part of the airplane...it was just tape that was covering a hole in the airplane that came off. Passengers were actually taking photos of the mechanic and the tape being applied to the hole as they walked up the air stairs.The CDL has several panels on the engine pylon listed that could be deferred; this was not one of them. Which means this should not have been deferred and was required for airworthiness. The company page for ZZZZ describes the runways as not grooved; consider slippery when wet. Dispatching to a potentially slippery runway with one thrust reverser INOP when it didn't need to be is a safety issue. This was not a valid maintenance deferral. Follow the FAA regulations and General Maintenance Manual.

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.