Narrative:

I arrived at aircraft X [in the morning] to find that the aircraft had been written up earlier that morning for F/control - flaps locked (alignment fault - flaps locked at zero). This write-up was signed off by maintenance as 'performed flap reset ref amm 2751-00-XXX-XXX. Operations check good. No other defects noted at this time.' I phoned [maintenance control] to ask what was done as part of the sign-off and was informed that the flaps were extended and then retracted on the ground with no faults noted afterward. I then decided to look to see if there was any previous history of this same type of issue on this aircraft and discovered that the airplane had been written up for this same problem [several days earlier] and twice [one day after the first write up]. Further investigation of the previous maintenance action on the flaps system showed that two of the sign-offs were done by performing a bite test of sfcc 1 and 2 and an operational check of the flaps. And; on [the previous write-up]; the right wing trailing edge flap interconnecting strut was replaced and then subsequently swapped out [a couple days later] due to 'flap interconnecting strut assy P/north [redacted] was installed. Part is not effective for aircraft X. Install of correct part required.' I opted to place a phone call to the [flight operations manager] and spoke to [him] about the concerns that I had regarding the flaps system on aircraft X. [He] explained to me that he understood my concerns and pointed out that if the aircraft had been signed off by maintenance with an appropriate reference; the aircraft should be airworthy. He offered to support my decision either way. After considering everything previously mentioned; I was still not comfortable taking the airplane and I decided to refuse the airplane. Shortly thereafter; I spoke with [scheduling] who advised me that I would be swapped into another aircraft and that aircraft X was being returned back into service. Later on that night after I finished my duty period; I phoned [maintenance control] to see if aircraft X had flown that day and was informed that it had been down all day and was scheduled for an operational check flight the following morning.it is my belief that with the very lean operation [the company] is currently running; employees are subject to unreasonable pressure demands to keep the airline running on time. The day prior to this incident; I flew an airplane for four legs with pack 1 deferred. On the first leg of that day while enroute; we had a pack 2 regul fault. Since pack 1 was already deferred; dispatch of the airplane was not allowable with a pack 2 regul fault. After landing; a mechanic ran a bite test on pack 2 and was able to get the fault cleared. On leg three of that day and while enroute to ZZZ; we had another pack 2 regul fault. Since I was running up against possibly exceeding my flight duty period limit; there was pressure to get the airplane signed off quickly. The mechanic in ZZZ powered the airplane down; ran a bite test and signed the airplane off. Before leaving ZZZ; I phoned [maintenance control] to question whether or not this was an appropriate corrective action since this had been done earlier in the day. I was told that it was and that the aircraft just needed to get to [a hub] so that more troubleshooting could be done. Again; I believe that with the high aircraft utilization here at [the company] and the added pressure to maintain our very tight schedule; there is not much room left in the system to adequately address issues (in this case; maintenance issues) when they arise.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier Captain reported maintenance issues were not being adequately addressed by the company due to high aircraft utilization and pressure to maintain a very tight schedule.

Narrative: I arrived at Aircraft X [in the morning] to find that the aircraft had been written up earlier that morning for F/CTL - Flaps locked (Alignment fault - flaps locked at zero). This write-up was signed off by maintenance as 'Performed flap reset ref AMM 2751-00-XXX-XXX. OPS check good. No other defects noted at this time.' I phoned [Maintenance Control] to ask what was done as part of the sign-off and was informed that the flaps were extended and then retracted on the ground with no faults noted afterward. I then decided to look to see if there was any previous history of this same type of issue on this aircraft and discovered that the airplane had been written up for this same problem [several days earlier] and twice [one day after the first write up]. Further investigation of the previous maintenance action on the flaps system showed that two of the sign-offs were done by performing a BITE test of SFCC 1 and 2 and an operational check of the flaps. And; on [the previous write-up]; the right wing trailing edge flap interconnecting strut was replaced and then subsequently swapped out [a couple days later] due to 'Flap interconnecting strut Assy P/N [redacted] was installed. Part is not effective for Aircraft X. Install of correct part required.' I opted to place a phone call to the [Flight Operations Manager] and spoke to [him] about the concerns that I had regarding the Flaps system on Aircraft X. [He] explained to me that he understood my concerns and pointed out that if the aircraft had been signed off by maintenance with an appropriate reference; the aircraft should be airworthy. He offered to support my decision either way. After considering everything previously mentioned; I was still not comfortable taking the airplane and I decided to refuse the airplane. Shortly thereafter; I spoke with [Scheduling] who advised me that I would be swapped into another aircraft and that Aircraft X was being returned back into service. Later on that night after I finished my duty period; I phoned [Maintenance Control] to see if Aircraft X had flown that day and was informed that it had been down all day and was scheduled for an operational check flight the following morning.It is my belief that with the very lean operation [the company] is currently running; employees are subject to unreasonable pressure demands to keep the airline running on time. The day prior to this incident; I flew an airplane for four legs with Pack 1 deferred. On the first leg of that day while enroute; we had a PACK 2 REGUL FAULT. Since Pack 1 was already deferred; dispatch of the airplane was not allowable with a PACK 2 REGUL FAULT. After landing; a mechanic ran a BITE test on Pack 2 and was able to get the fault cleared. On leg three of that day and while enroute to ZZZ; we had another PACK 2 REGUL FAULT. Since I was running up against possibly exceeding my flight duty period limit; there was pressure to get the airplane signed off quickly. The mechanic in ZZZ powered the airplane down; ran a BITE test and signed the airplane off. Before leaving ZZZ; I phoned [Maintenance Control] to question whether or not this was an appropriate corrective action since this had been done earlier in the day. I was told that it was and that the aircraft just needed to get to [a hub] so that more troubleshooting could be done. Again; I believe that with the high aircraft utilization here at [the company] and the added pressure to maintain our very tight schedule; there is not much room left in the system to adequately address issues (in this case; maintenance issues) when they arise.

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.