Narrative:

After loading was complete; I was handed a signed load manifest. He advised the cockpit crew that a ground handler advised him that a lock was broken in position 5R main deck. He said that maintenance control and local maintenance were aware of the broken lock and would advise ZZZ maintenance and it would be addressed there. That was confirmed with local maintenance. According to the loading sheet there was a uld in the 5R position. After a brief discussion with the first officer we challenged the validity of the ground crews decision; 1. To withhold information to the crew regarding a defect on the airplane. 2. Not consulting published manuals regarding the effects of a broken lock and loading procedures. 3.the collusion between local maintenance to not disclose the defect to the crew and make the decision to address the defect after the flight would have concluded. After reviewing the MEL/ddg and seeing there was definitely a procedure we ask local maintenance to call again. This time informed local maintenance that the lock must be deferred. With the cat out of the bag and as the realization started sinking in on just how serious the infraction was company was brought in and made aware of the situation. During my inquiry surrounding these events I was told that the broken lock was discovered on the inbound flight. Local maintenance was informed as was the company station supervisor. I have no way to confirm this. A question in my mind; was the lock broken in ZZZ and never reported?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Pilot reported getting the run around from Maintenance and eventually getting the problem resolved.

Narrative: After loading was complete; I was handed a signed load manifest. He advised the cockpit crew that a ground handler advised him that a lock was broken in position 5R main deck. He said that Maintenance Control and Local Maintenance were aware of the broken lock and would advise ZZZ Maintenance and it would be addressed there. That was confirmed with Local Maintenance. According to the loading sheet there was a ULD in the 5R position. After a brief discussion with the First Officer we challenged the validity of the ground crews decision; 1. To withhold information to the crew regarding a defect on the airplane. 2. Not consulting published manuals regarding the effects of a broken lock and loading procedures. 3.The collusion between Local Maintenance to not disclose the defect to the crew and make the decision to address the defect after the flight would have concluded. After reviewing the MEL/DDG and seeing there was definitely a procedure we ask Local Maintenance to call again. This time informed Local Maintenance that the lock must be deferred. With the cat out of the bag and as the realization started sinking in on just how serious the infraction was Company was brought in and made aware of the situation. During my inquiry surrounding these events I was told that the broken lock was discovered on the inbound flight. Local maintenance was informed as was the Company Station Supervisor. I have no way to confirm this. A question in my mind; was the lock broken in ZZZ and never reported?

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.