Narrative:

While planning flight at mci; I discovered that the deferred item log showed #2 idg inoperative and deferred. The log history showed the airplane losing electrical power in-flight the day before. I called maintenance to investigate this further. The controller told me that maintenance found wires arcing in the #2 engine pylon. The action taken was to just simply defer it. I expressed my concern as to this arcing and its possible effect on the electrical system -- that a simple deferral was not adequate. I asked; 'why was the airplane flown to mci like that?' he said it went through iad and was not fixed; but wasn't sure why. I informed maintenance and dispatch that I was refusing the airplane for mechanical reasons (above). After arriving in tpa; I received a call from ord local domicile manager looking for information as to what happened. Told him I had already spoken to the A320 fleet captain and to our FAA assistant poi about this flight. I expressed my concern about trend of critical aircraft system deferrals and a similar refusal by myself of an airplane with an inoperative idg that had been flying around the system for 4 days. The assistant poi agreed with me that the intent of the MEL is to allow the certificate holder fly the airplane to a maintenance station to fix it at the first opportunity and not stretch by the 10 day MEL time limit and fix it at the last min.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF A319 REFUSES ACFT FOR FLT DUE TO DEFERRED LOG ITEM WHICH HAD GENERATED ELECTRICAL ARCING. DELAY AND SOME PRESSURE BY MGMNT ENSUED.

Narrative: WHILE PLANNING FLT AT MCI; I DISCOVERED THAT THE DEFERRED ITEM LOG SHOWED #2 IDG INOP AND DEFERRED. THE LOG HISTORY SHOWED THE AIRPLANE LOSING ELECTRICAL PWR INFLT THE DAY BEFORE. I CALLED MAINT TO INVESTIGATE THIS FURTHER. THE CTLR TOLD ME THAT MAINT FOUND WIRES ARCING IN THE #2 ENG PYLON. THE ACTION TAKEN WAS TO JUST SIMPLY DEFER IT. I EXPRESSED MY CONCERN AS TO THIS ARCING AND ITS POSSIBLE EFFECT ON THE ELECTRICAL SYS -- THAT A SIMPLE DEFERRAL WAS NOT ADEQUATE. I ASKED; 'WHY WAS THE AIRPLANE FLOWN TO MCI LIKE THAT?' HE SAID IT WENT THROUGH IAD AND WAS NOT FIXED; BUT WASN'T SURE WHY. I INFORMED MAINT AND DISPATCH THAT I WAS REFUSING THE AIRPLANE FOR MECHANICAL REASONS (ABOVE). AFTER ARRIVING IN TPA; I RECEIVED A CALL FROM ORD LCL DOMICILE MGR LOOKING FOR INFO AS TO WHAT HAPPENED. TOLD HIM I HAD ALREADY SPOKEN TO THE A320 FLEET CAPT AND TO OUR FAA ASSISTANT POI ABOUT THIS FLT. I EXPRESSED MY CONCERN ABOUT TREND OF CRITICAL ACFT SYS DEFERRALS AND A SIMILAR REFUSAL BY MYSELF OF AN AIRPLANE WITH AN INOP IDG THAT HAD BEEN FLYING AROUND THE SYS FOR 4 DAYS. THE ASSISTANT POI AGREED WITH ME THAT THE INTENT OF THE MEL IS TO ALLOW THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER FLY THE AIRPLANE TO A MAINT STATION TO FIX IT AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY AND NOT STRETCH BY THE 10 DAY MEL TIME LIMIT AND FIX IT AT THE LAST MIN.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.