Narrative:

First flight of day for this aircraft. Began pushback from gate for flight to ZZZ1. #2 engine started normally and we began start procedures for #1 engine. Engine spool-up was normal up to the point where fuel flow was introduced (ignition 'a' in use), then ignition occurred briefly but did not sustain. As autostart continued, ignition 'B' was introduced and normal start followed. I asked first officer to open up the MEL, remembering that an ignition 'a' fault was a 'no-go item (it was). I also remembered having an identical situation some time ago where, after conferring with our maintenance control in ZZZ1 (via radio), we were able to continue the flight by shutting down the problem engine and performing another start with ignition 'a' to determine if situation was just a 'one time' anomaly. (The assumption being this is an 'electric' airplane with computers controling everything, and sometimes they don't work first flight of the day. Also, moisture of some type could be the culprit, frosting an ignitor.) anyway, recalling that earlier situation, I shut down the problem engine (#1), pulled the ignition 'B' circuit breaker (the A320 rotates ignitors with each start, so 'B' would be next), and began another start. The start utilized ignition 'a' and was perfectly normal. I then contacted ZZZ1 maintenance control (again, via radio) and reported the ignition problem, and described how we had determined that ignition 'a would, in fact, work. The maintenance controller checked with another system technician for the airbus and said we could continue to ZZZ1 without a write-up being required, since the ignition 'a' system, in fact, was working. I queried him again on this last point, no write-up being required, to be sure we were 'legal.' he reiterated his previous statement saying that any logbook entry would require a return to the gate. While I had no reservations about taking the aircraft at that point, I did want to be sure there would be some sort of follow-up maintenance action at the completion of this flight to determine for sure what had caused the problem during the first start attempt. My concern was that, without a logbook entry, there might not be any sort of investigation. In hindsight, I still believe that the aircraft was mechanically sound and that we were correct in proceeding on to ZZZ1. The only reservation I have concerning the decision to proceed is the 'legal' or technical definition of when a system malfunction is actually required to be written up. If you suspect that the discrepancy was merely a transient condition, and you can check that the system in fact operates as it was designed to, are you in fact required to consider the system as malfunctioning and therefore write it up? My experience on new generation 'electric' aircraft (A320 and B757) has been that there are numerous 'transient' discrepancies that occur on a relatively frequent basis, and a write-up requirement for each and every one of these momentary glitches would deluge mechanics system wide with a lot of needless 'busy work.' then there was the presence of 120 or so passenger, expecting to reach their destination in a timely fashion. Much as I wish it were so, we don't operate an airline in a vacuum. There are always outside factors taken into consideration in any decision-making process. The return to the gate would have involved a lengthy delay, if not an outright cancellation. (We have no maintenance personnel in ZZZ2.) the answers are rarely (if ever) either black or white in real life scenarios such as this one.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN AIRBUS 320 FIRST START OF THE DAY FOUND #1 ENG 'A' SYS IGNITION INOP. ON SECOND ATTEMPT 'A' SYS NORMAL BUT NO WRITE-UP MADE IN LOGBOOK.

Narrative: FIRST FLT OF DAY FOR THIS ACFT. BEGAN PUSHBACK FROM GATE FOR FLT TO ZZZ1. #2 ENG STARTED NORMALLY AND WE BEGAN START PROCS FOR #1 ENG. ENG SPOOL-UP WAS NORMAL UP TO THE POINT WHERE FUEL FLOW WAS INTRODUCED (IGNITION 'A' IN USE), THEN IGNITION OCCURRED BRIEFLY BUT DID NOT SUSTAIN. AS AUTOSTART CONTINUED, IGNITION 'B' WAS INTRODUCED AND NORMAL START FOLLOWED. I ASKED FO TO OPEN UP THE MEL, REMEMBERING THAT AN IGNITION 'A' FAULT WAS A 'NO-GO ITEM (IT WAS). I ALSO REMEMBERED HAVING AN IDENTICAL SIT SOME TIME AGO WHERE, AFTER CONFERRING WITH OUR MAINT CTL IN ZZZ1 (VIA RADIO), WE WERE ABLE TO CONTINUE THE FLT BY SHUTTING DOWN THE PROB ENG AND PERFORMING ANOTHER START WITH IGNITION 'A' TO DETERMINE IF SIT WAS JUST A 'ONE TIME' ANOMALY. (THE ASSUMPTION BEING THIS IS AN 'ELECTRIC' AIRPLANE WITH COMPUTERS CTLING EVERYTHING, AND SOMETIMES THEY DON'T WORK FIRST FLT OF THE DAY. ALSO, MOISTURE OF SOME TYPE COULD BE THE CULPRIT, FROSTING AN IGNITOR.) ANYWAY, RECALLING THAT EARLIER SIT, I SHUT DOWN THE PROB ENG (#1), PULLED THE IGNITION 'B' CIRCUIT BREAKER (THE A320 ROTATES IGNITORS WITH EACH START, SO 'B' WOULD BE NEXT), AND BEGAN ANOTHER START. THE START UTILIZED IGNITION 'A' AND WAS PERFECTLY NORMAL. I THEN CONTACTED ZZZ1 MAINT CTL (AGAIN, VIA RADIO) AND RPTED THE IGNITION PROB, AND DESCRIBED HOW WE HAD DETERMINED THAT IGNITION 'A WOULD, IN FACT, WORK. THE MAINT CTLR CHKED WITH ANOTHER SYS TECHNICIAN FOR THE AIRBUS AND SAID WE COULD CONTINUE TO ZZZ1 WITHOUT A WRITE-UP BEING REQUIRED, SINCE THE IGNITION 'A' SYS, IN FACT, WAS WORKING. I QUERIED HIM AGAIN ON THIS LAST POINT, NO WRITE-UP BEING REQUIRED, TO BE SURE WE WERE 'LEGAL.' HE REITERATED HIS PREVIOUS STATEMENT SAYING THAT ANY LOGBOOK ENTRY WOULD REQUIRE A RETURN TO THE GATE. WHILE I HAD NO RESERVATIONS ABOUT TAKING THE ACFT AT THAT POINT, I DID WANT TO BE SURE THERE WOULD BE SOME SORT OF FOLLOW-UP MAINT ACTION AT THE COMPLETION OF THIS FLT TO DETERMINE FOR SURE WHAT HAD CAUSED THE PROB DURING THE FIRST START ATTEMPT. MY CONCERN WAS THAT, WITHOUT A LOGBOOK ENTRY, THERE MIGHT NOT BE ANY SORT OF INVESTIGATION. IN HINDSIGHT, I STILL BELIEVE THAT THE ACFT WAS MECHANICALLY SOUND AND THAT WE WERE CORRECT IN PROCEEDING ON TO ZZZ1. THE ONLY RESERVATION I HAVE CONCERNING THE DECISION TO PROCEED IS THE 'LEGAL' OR TECHNICAL DEFINITION OF WHEN A SYS MALFUNCTION IS ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO BE WRITTEN UP. IF YOU SUSPECT THAT THE DISCREPANCY WAS MERELY A TRANSIENT CONDITION, AND YOU CAN CHK THAT THE SYS IN FACT OPERATES AS IT WAS DESIGNED TO, ARE YOU IN FACT REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE SYS AS MALFUNCTIONING AND THEREFORE WRITE IT UP? MY EXPERIENCE ON NEW GENERATION 'ELECTRIC' ACFT (A320 AND B757) HAS BEEN THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS 'TRANSIENT' DISCREPANCIES THAT OCCUR ON A RELATIVELY FREQUENT BASIS, AND A WRITE-UP REQUIREMENT FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE MOMENTARY GLITCHES WOULD DELUGE MECHS SYS WIDE WITH A LOT OF NEEDLESS 'BUSY WORK.' THEN THERE WAS THE PRESENCE OF 120 OR SO PAX, EXPECTING TO REACH THEIR DEST IN A TIMELY FASHION. MUCH AS I WISH IT WERE SO, WE DON'T OPERATE AN AIRLINE IN A VACUUM. THERE ARE ALWAYS OUTSIDE FACTORS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN ANY DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. THE RETURN TO THE GATE WOULD HAVE INVOLVED A LENGTHY DELAY, IF NOT AN OUTRIGHT CANCELLATION. (WE HAVE NO MAINT PERSONNEL IN ZZZ2.) THE ANSWERS ARE RARELY (IF EVER) EITHER BLACK OR WHITE IN REAL LIFE SCENARIOS SUCH AS THIS ONE.

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.