Narrative:

At crew level on flight ZZZ to ZZZ1 crew saw amber caution and chime ECAM message 'smoke discharge 2.' no fire warning or smoke warning. ECAM did not seem appropriate, so crew further analyzed situation using flight handbook, maintenance dispatch and cargo smoke test. Cargo fire detection system report indicated bottle #1 low pressure -- logical. Flight attendant reported a chemical smell at R17 (bottle discharge??). Declared emergency with ZZZ center as we informed dispatch and maintenance landing ZZZ2. Captain landed overweight as first officer reported 100 FPM just before touchdown. Emergency equipment report no smoke. Deplaned at gate. Post flight inspection, no bottle discharge. Deferred per maintenance. En route, captain realized overweight inspection had not been accomplished by contract maintenance. Informed maintenance and wrote in book inbound ZZZ1. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the amber caution and ECAM message 'smoke discharge 2' was not logical as a cargo compartment fire or smoke warning would precede the bottle discharge. The reporter said with this warning and the cabin attendant reporting a chemical odor, an emergency and diversion was in order. The reporter stated when the cabin attendant was interviewed, it was questionable that a chemical odor was in fact smelled. The reporter stated, when on the ground, the contract technicians were very thorough and found no cargo compartment fire extinguisher bottles discharged. The reporter said the false bottle discharge warning was deferred per the MEL.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN AIRBUS 320 DECLARED AN EMER AND DIVERTED DUE TO ILLOGICAL ECAM WARNING 'SMOKE DISCHARGE 2' WITH NO ECAM FIRE OR SMOKE WARNING.

Narrative: AT CREW LEVEL ON FLT ZZZ TO ZZZ1 CREW SAW AMBER CAUTION AND CHIME ECAM MESSAGE 'SMOKE DISCHARGE 2.' NO FIRE WARNING OR SMOKE WARNING. ECAM DID NOT SEEM APPROPRIATE, SO CREW FURTHER ANALYZED SIT USING FLT HANDBOOK, MAINT DISPATCH AND CARGO SMOKE TEST. CARGO FIRE DETECTION SYS RPT INDICATED BOTTLE #1 LOW PRESSURE -- LOGICAL. FLT ATTENDANT RPTED A CHEMICAL SMELL AT R17 (BOTTLE DISCHARGE??). DECLARED EMER WITH ZZZ CTR AS WE INFORMED DISPATCH AND MAINT LNDG ZZZ2. CAPT LANDED OVERWT AS FO RPTED 100 FPM JUST BEFORE TOUCHDOWN. EMER EQUIP RPT NO SMOKE. DEPLANED AT GATE. POST FLT INSPECTION, NO BOTTLE DISCHARGE. DEFERRED PER MAINT. ENRTE, CAPT REALIZED OVERWT INSPECTION HAD NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED BY CONTRACT MAINT. INFORMED MAINT AND WROTE IN BOOK INBOUND ZZZ1. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE AMBER CAUTION AND ECAM MESSAGE 'SMOKE DISCHARGE 2' WAS NOT LOGICAL AS A CARGO COMPARTMENT FIRE OR SMOKE WARNING WOULD PRECEDE THE BOTTLE DISCHARGE. THE RPTR SAID WITH THIS WARNING AND THE CABIN ATTENDANT RPTING A CHEMICAL ODOR, AN EMER AND DIVERSION WAS IN ORDER. THE RPTR STATED WHEN THE CABIN ATTENDANT WAS INTERVIEWED, IT WAS QUESTIONABLE THAT A CHEMICAL ODOR WAS IN FACT SMELLED. THE RPTR STATED, WHEN ON THE GND, THE CONTRACT TECHNICIANS WERE VERY THOROUGH AND FOUND NO CARGO COMPARTMENT FIRE EXTINGUISHER BOTTLES DISCHARGED. THE RPTR SAID THE FALSE BOTTLE DISCHARGE WARNING WAS DEFERRED PER THE MEL.

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.