Narrative:

Post shutdown checklist at ZZZ1; flight attendant (flight attendant) #1 advised me that she smelled a burning rubber odor after landing during the beginning stages of taxi-in. According to her input; this was the same odor that [the] captain; first officer; flight attendant#1; and [the] gate agent smelled in ZZZ prior to gate departure. In ZZZ prior to gate departure; maintenance (mx) was called. After consultation; mx techs believed that the source of the odor was external to the aircraft. They surmised that the source was landing aircraft on runway xxl. Our aircraft was just south of the touchdown point with a north wind. The jetbridge door was open. The odor was distinct but not sustained. It was definitely a burning rubber odor and not a sweaty sock odor. After consulting with mx techs on the scene; I concluded that the mx explanation was plausible. That is; the source was external and not aircraft related. I had no other evidence to refute their assessment at the time. After making inquiry of the crew; no adverse symptoms were reported by anyone. No aml entry was made. I decided to depart for ZZZ1 as planned. No odors or adverse symptoms were noticed or reported during flight. Since flight attendant#1 reported the same smell as described above after landing in ZZZ1; additionally; we were more than 5 miles in trail of the preceding aircraft (a king air). Based on the new evidence; I now believed the odor was aircraft-related and not precipitated by an external source. Therefore; I made an aml entry and contacted dispatch. I also spoke with the chief pilot and the dispatcher for [our] flight. I completed a safety report.[caused by] task saturation. Compressed timeline due to inbound aircraft disruption. (Change of planned aircraft.) station ZZZ wanted the flight to depart for customer satisfaction. Station managers should be instructed to not suggest possible causes for a mechanical discrepancy (ground air conditioning as the odor source... 'Happening all week'). I rejected that input as the ground AC was not connected while the aircraft was at the gate. Had the ground AC been connected; I may have falsely factored that input into the go/no-go decision.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A319 Captain reported a fume event at destination arrival. Discrepancy was referred to Maintenance and Dispatch as a repeat anomaly.

Narrative: Post Shutdown checklist at ZZZ1; Flight Attendant (FA) #1 advised me that she smelled a burning rubber odor after landing during the beginning stages of taxi-in. According to her input; this was the same odor that [the] Captain; First Officer; FA#1; and [the] Gate Agent smelled in ZZZ prior to gate departure. In ZZZ prior to gate departure; Maintenance (MX) was called. After consultation; MX techs believed that the source of the odor was external to the aircraft. They surmised that the source was landing aircraft on RWY XXL. Our aircraft was just south of the touchdown point with a north wind. The jetbridge door was open. The odor was distinct but not sustained. It was definitely a burning rubber odor and not a sweaty sock odor. After consulting with MX techs on the scene; I concluded that the MX explanation was plausible. That is; the source was external and not aircraft related. I had no other evidence to refute their assessment at the time. After making inquiry of the crew; no adverse symptoms were reported by anyone. No AML entry was made. I decided to depart for ZZZ1 as planned. No odors or adverse symptoms were noticed or reported during flight. Since FA#1 reported the same smell as described above after landing in ZZZ1; Additionally; we were more than 5 miles in trail of the preceding aircraft (a King Air). Based on the new evidence; I now believed the odor was aircraft-related and not precipitated by an external source. Therefore; I made an AML entry and contacted Dispatch. I also spoke with the Chief Pilot and the Dispatcher for [our] flight. I completed a safety report.[Caused by] task saturation. Compressed timeline due to inbound aircraft disruption. (Change of planned aircraft.) Station ZZZ wanted the flight to depart for customer satisfaction. Station managers should be instructed to not suggest possible causes for a mechanical discrepancy (ground air conditioning as the odor source... 'happening all week'). I rejected that input as the ground AC was not connected while the aircraft was at the gate. Had the ground AC been connected; I may have falsely factored that input into the go/no-go decision.

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.