Narrative:

During preflight duties; it became aware to the flight crew several cargo door entry lights were inoperative. We notified maintenance and a [company] rep. Met the aircraft. We discussed the issue with the maintenance representative and he asked 'what did we want to do'; which I replied that the lights can be repaired or MEL'd. He immediately implied that we could leave with the lights inoperative and take care of the issue in ZZZ1. This began a long discussion of our duty to handle all discrepancies within the standard operating procedures outlined by the company and the FAA. At the end of this discussion he begrudgingly handled the MEL. While waiting for the maintenance logbook; an [company] station rep. Asked if we had notified maintenance about the lights because she had mentioned it to him hours earlier and his response was it needed no attention. Also during this time an aft cargo ovht message appeared and we noticed the right pack was inoperative. We walked to the maintenance personnel to notify them of these new issues. It wasn't until this time; 25 prior to departure that we were told the right pack automatic controller had been deferred hours earlier. We did not know of this deferral because to this point the maintenance logbook had been with maintenance. We returned to the aircraft to complete our preflight duties. Approximately 15 minutes prior to departure the log book was returned and the mechanic asked what we wanted to do; if we wanted to defer the item or that 'the light will go out in flight' (aft cargo ovht condition). Again implying we could leave with a maintenance discrepancy; and this time an EICAS message. We directed him to defer the item. Upon his return; and all tasks were complete; I spend a moment to discuss the importance of properly handling maintenance issues; both for safety and regulatory adherence. His response was incredulous and unprofessional; stating; 'I bet you don't do everything legal all the time'. I asked him for his badge information and returned to our flight duties. I found this entire event to be both unprofessional but also dangerous as he blatantly wanted to subvert regulation. Furthermore the situation was incredibly distracting. This is not the first time an event of this general nature has happened; a mechanic implying; or explicitly stating a maintenance discrepancy be ignored or not written in the maintenance logbook. Communications throughout our system; to all personal; should be distributed outlining the importance and compulsory requirements of all irregularities to be properly handled. I found one of the most disturbing features of this event was the unnecessary distraction it cause to our flight duties; and ensuring it does not happen again is quite important.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B767-300ER Captain reported a CRM issue with a maintenance representative regarding inoperative components on the aircraft.

Narrative: During preflight duties; it became aware to the flight crew several cargo door entry lights were inoperative. We notified Maintenance and a [company] rep. met the aircraft. We discussed the issue with the maintenance representative and he asked 'what did we want to do'; which I replied that the lights can be repaired or MEL'd. He immediately implied that we could leave with the lights inoperative and take care of the issue in ZZZ1. This began a long discussion of our duty to handle all discrepancies within the standard operating procedures outlined by the company and the FAA. At the end of this discussion he begrudgingly handled the MEL. While waiting for the maintenance logbook; an [company] station rep. asked if we had notified Maintenance about the lights because she had mentioned it to him hours earlier and his response was it needed no attention. Also during this time an AFT CARGO OVHT message appeared and we noticed the R Pack was INOP. We walked to the Maintenance personnel to notify them of these new issues. It wasn't until this time; 25 prior to departure that we were told the R Pack AUTO controller had been deferred hours earlier. We did not know of this deferral because to this point the maintenance logbook had been with Maintenance. We returned to the aircraft to complete our preflight duties. Approximately 15 minutes prior to departure the log book was returned and the mechanic asked what we wanted to do; if we wanted to defer the item or that 'the light will go out in flight' (AFT CARGO OVHT condition). Again implying we could leave with a maintenance discrepancy; and this time an EICAS message. We directed him to defer the item. Upon his return; and all tasks were complete; I spend a moment to discuss the importance of properly handling maintenance issues; both for safety and regulatory adherence. His response was incredulous and unprofessional; stating; 'I bet you don't do everything legal all the time'. I asked him for his badge information and returned to our flight duties. I found this entire event to be both unprofessional but also dangerous as he blatantly wanted to subvert regulation. Furthermore the situation was incredibly distracting. This is not the first time an event of this general nature has happened; a mechanic implying; or explicitly stating a maintenance discrepancy be ignored or not written in the Maintenance logbook. Communications throughout our system; to all personal; should be distributed outlining the importance and compulsory requirements of all irregularities to be properly handled. I found one of the most disturbing features of this event was the unnecessary distraction it cause to our flight duties; and ensuring it does not happen again is quite important.

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.