Narrative:

Flight was en route mia to phx FL350. The flight had reported their yellow hydraulic system had failed shortly after departing mia and was proceeding onward to phx as normal. At approximately XA30 phx local, flight called approximately 100 NM north of msy and reported they had some indications that they were now having problems with their green hydraulic system and requested to talk to maintenance control. I immediately notified maintenance and the reply was something like 'oh no, this is not good.' maintenance control and the crew carried on conversations relative to the problem, once losing communication with each other between msy and iah. At least once the crew asked maintenance control for their opinion on what they thought would be the best course of action. Maintenance's reply was to refer to their QRH. However, off frequency, the maintenance controller was briefing the A320 fleet manager of the situation. After being briefed, the A320 fleet manager replied that he would be diverting to msy if he was the PIC. The maintenance controller's response was that's what he would do too! However (the maintenance controller's opinion) this was never conveyed to the crew or to me, the dispatcher, in any official capacity. After landing phx, the captain was very disappointed that it was the professional opinion of both the A320 fleet manager and the maintenance controller that the safety of the flight was such that they both would recommend the flight land as soon as possible, yet this was never conveyed to the crew. When questioned as to why the maintenance controller did not advise the crew of his opinion, he stated that the policy in maintenance control was he was not supposed to give his opinion to the crew, but rather advise the crew to refer to their QRH for advice. When the safety of the flight is in jeopardy (in the opinion of the maintenance controller) he is directed not to advise the crew, but rather have them refer to their QRH. I find this policy is in direct conflict with the fom and the airline's operational philosophy. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter states that the flight captain has followed up with management to attempt to change this policy.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DISPATCHER QUESTIONS COMPANY POLICY REGARDING ACFT EQUIP PROB INFLT IN ZHU AIRSPACE.

Narrative: FLT WAS ENRTE MIA TO PHX FL350. THE FLT HAD RPTED THEIR YELLOW HYD SYS HAD FAILED SHORTLY AFTER DEPARTING MIA AND WAS PROCEEDING ONWARD TO PHX AS NORMAL. AT APPROX XA30 PHX LCL, FLT CALLED APPROX 100 NM N OF MSY AND RPTED THEY HAD SOME INDICATIONS THAT THEY WERE NOW HAVING PROBS WITH THEIR GREEN HYD SYS AND REQUESTED TO TALK TO MAINT CTL. I IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED MAINT AND THE REPLY WAS SOMETHING LIKE 'OH NO, THIS IS NOT GOOD.' MAINT CTL AND THE CREW CARRIED ON CONVERSATIONS RELATIVE TO THE PROB, ONCE LOSING COM WITH EACH OTHER BTWN MSY AND IAH. AT LEAST ONCE THE CREW ASKED MAINT CTL FOR THEIR OPINION ON WHAT THEY THOUGHT WOULD BE THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION. MAINT'S REPLY WAS TO REFER TO THEIR QRH. HOWEVER, OFF FREQ, THE MAINT CTLR WAS BRIEFING THE A320 FLEET MGR OF THE SIT. AFTER BEING BRIEFED, THE A320 FLEET MGR REPLIED THAT HE WOULD BE DIVERTING TO MSY IF HE WAS THE PIC. THE MAINT CTLR'S RESPONSE WAS THAT'S WHAT HE WOULD DO TOO! HOWEVER (THE MAINT CTLR'S OPINION) THIS WAS NEVER CONVEYED TO THE CREW OR TO ME, THE DISPATCHER, IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY. AFTER LNDG PHX, THE CAPT WAS VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT IT WAS THE PROFESSIONAL OPINION OF BOTH THE A320 FLEET MGR AND THE MAINT CTLR THAT THE SAFETY OF THE FLT WAS SUCH THAT THEY BOTH WOULD RECOMMEND THE FLT LAND ASAP, YET THIS WAS NEVER CONVEYED TO THE CREW. WHEN QUESTIONED AS TO WHY THE MAINT CTLR DID NOT ADVISE THE CREW OF HIS OPINION, HE STATED THAT THE POLICY IN MAINT CTL WAS HE WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO GIVE HIS OPINION TO THE CREW, BUT RATHER ADVISE THE CREW TO REFER TO THEIR QRH FOR ADVICE. WHEN THE SAFETY OF THE FLT IS IN JEOPARDY (IN THE OPINION OF THE MAINT CTLR) HE IS DIRECTED NOT TO ADVISE THE CREW, BUT RATHER HAVE THEM REFER TO THEIR QRH. I FIND THIS POLICY IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE FOM AND THE AIRLINE'S OPERATIONAL PHILOSOPHY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATES THAT THE FLT CAPT HAS FOLLOWED UP WITH MGMNT TO ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THIS POLICY.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.