Narrative:

Prior to departure; I noticed multiple indicator lights in cockpit panels that were inoperative; which I believe to have been simply defective bulbs. I entered these into the ACARS (aircraft communications and reporting system) maintenance fault reporting; relief pilot called then in on VHF2 radio; and we also notified mechanic in cockpit personally of the items. He was working on another dome light issue from previous flight. After all passengers boarded; fuel on board; we were waiting for maintenance tech to address indicator lights. Tech came to flight deck and told me they would be deferring the gen drive; cargo door; etc. Lamps instead of re-lamping; and that they were working on the deferrals. I inquired delicately since replacement bulbs were in the box just behind his shoulder; re-lamping would be safer and quicker; and he looked back at the box and declined. He then left. Both first officers commented on the very strange attitude maintenance techs; there were 4 on aircraft; were exhibiting during our departure. I agreed. So we sat for another 5-10 minutes. Agent asked me multiple times if they could close the door; and I said no; as we were waiting for techs to finish deferring indicator lights and place deferral stickers.agent must have called on radio; because she came back asking to close door again; having heard from maintenance that they were finished with aircraft. At that time a new [maintenance report] started to print on cockpit printer.as there were still no deferral stickers on indicator lights; I told agent no; and proceeded to call ZZZ maintenance on VHF to inquire about deferrals and stickers. I was told very abruptly that the indicator lights were not deferred; but carried forward. I asked about decals for these items and was told that no decals are needed for carried forward items; only deferrals. He was very sure of himself.about 30 seconds later; the maintenance tech who declined earlier to re-lamping the indicator lights appeared in the flight deck. He too said no decal stickers were needed for carried forward items. I told him previous statement was that they were deferring them; he said they changed their mind and we were legal to go without any decals and with our new [maintenance release]. He too was abrupt and irritated because of my questioning; in my opinion. So we left 3 hours late to ZZZZ1. It seemed strange to me that no decal would be applied; but I could not find any reference in short order to back up my feeling; so we left. Once airborne on our way to ZZZZ1; I had time to search my ipad and found the reference in the fom. I have attached it here. It clearly says that all deferrals and carried forward items will have a decal placed adjacent to the inoperative item.I was very irritated upon finding this; as I feel that I was pushed out of ZZZ because [maintenance] clearly did not want to perform any work on this aircraft. I entered a new log item en-route that the flight deck was missing required decals for the carried forward items. Upon arrival in ZZZZ1; a [maintenance] tech appeared and asked about the decals. I explained the story as I have told it here.his response was that yes indeed; decals are required; and that ZZZ maintenance should have read the entire general maintenance manual section on this and they should have known better. He said he would take care of it and I left.the continuously increasing hostile attitude that I have been subjected to from ZZZ maintenance has been noticed by me; and almost every first officer I have flown with recently. This attitude and lack of willingness to do their job in my opinion erodes safety; builds dis-trust; is dis ingenuous to our passengers and shareholders; and in this case; violates the federal air regulations; which I will not tolerate; and will continue to resist with whatever strength and capability I have.this particular flight was issued a valid [maintenance report] without the main techs in ZZZ properly performing their duty to completion. The fact that it was reinforced by more than one maintenance person; I believe it to be willful and without regard to the safety of our passengers. I have not the power or influence at united to effect change in our maintenance operations; I can only use my authority on my personal flights to assure and stand for what I believe to be right and within the regulations; which [company] tells me on a continuous basis is my charge.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Captain reported Maintenance Tech did not follow proper procedure in deferring inoperative aircraft components.

Narrative: Prior to departure; I noticed multiple indicator lights in cockpit panels that were inoperative; which I believe to have been simply defective bulbs. I entered these into the ACARS (Aircraft Communications and Reporting System) maintenance fault reporting; relief pilot called then in on VHF2 radio; and we also notified Mechanic in cockpit personally of the items. He was working on another dome light issue from previous flight. After all passengers boarded; fuel on board; we were waiting for Maintenance Tech to address indicator lights. Tech came to flight deck and told me they would be deferring the gen drive; cargo door; etc. lamps instead of re-lamping; and that they were working on the deferrals. I inquired delicately since replacement bulbs were in the box just behind his shoulder; re-lamping would be safer and quicker; and he looked back at the box and declined. He then left. Both first officers commented on the very strange attitude Maintenance Techs; there were 4 on aircraft; were exhibiting during our departure. I agreed. So we sat for another 5-10 minutes. Agent asked me multiple times if they could close the door; and I said no; as we were waiting for techs to finish deferring indicator lights and place deferral stickers.Agent must have called on radio; because she came back asking to close door again; having heard from Maintenance that they were finished with aircraft. At that time a new [Maintenance Report] started to print on cockpit printer.As there were still no deferral stickers on indicator lights; I told agent no; and proceeded to call ZZZ Maintenance on VHF to inquire about deferrals and stickers. I was told very abruptly that the indicator lights were not deferred; but carried forward. I asked about decals for these items and was told that no decals are needed for carried forward items; only deferrals. He was very sure of himself.About 30 seconds later; the Maintenance Tech who declined earlier to re-lamping the indicator lights appeared in the flight deck. He too said no decal stickers were needed for carried forward items. I told him previous statement was that they were deferring them; he said they changed their mind and we were legal to go without any decals and with our new [Maintenance Release]. He too was abrupt and irritated because of my questioning; in my opinion. So we left 3 hours late to ZZZZ1. It seemed strange to me that no decal would be applied; but I could not find any reference in short order to back up my feeling; so we left. Once airborne on our way to ZZZZ1; I had time to search my iPad and found the reference in the FOM. I have attached it here. It clearly says that all deferrals and carried forward items will have a decal placed adjacent to the inoperative item.I was very irritated upon finding this; as I feel that I was pushed out of ZZZ because [Maintenance] clearly did not want to perform any work on this aircraft. I entered a new log item en-route that the flight deck was missing required decals for the carried forward items. Upon arrival in ZZZZ1; a [Maintenance] tech appeared and asked about the decals. I explained the story as I have told it here.His response was that yes indeed; decals are required; and that ZZZ Maintenance should have read the entire General Maintenance Manual section on this and they should have known better. He said he would take care of it and I left.The continuously increasing hostile attitude that I have been subjected to from ZZZ Maintenance has been noticed by me; and almost every First Officer I have flown with recently. This attitude and lack of willingness to do their job in my opinion erodes safety; builds dis-trust; is dis ingenuous to our passengers and shareholders; and in this case; violates the federal air regulations; which I will not tolerate; and will continue to resist with whatever strength and capability I have.This particular flight was issued a valid [Maintenance Report] without the main techs in ZZZ properly performing their duty to completion. The fact that it was reinforced by more than one maintenance person; I believe it to be willful and without regard to the safety of our passengers. I have not the power or influence at United to effect change in our maintenance operations; I can only use my authority on my personal flights to assure and stand for what I believe to be right and within the regulations; which [Company] tells me on a continuous basis is my charge.

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.