Narrative:

Maintenance performed on the skin valve vent overnight involved installation of a new skin valve which also failed to work. Station maintenance elected to defer and preflight papers included an operations placard for #X. As I arrived at the aircraft; work was in progress on same deferral by 2 maintenance technicians and they left a new MEL for #Y. (Still not sure what is the difference; but original called for 'extract' fan to 'override' and second one called for us to cancel ECAM for avionics system fault.) this was confusing to both the captain and me; so we asked the technicians to return to clear up what had changed between briefing and preflight. Boarding was in progress and I was doing the walkaround when technicians returned; so I missed the discussion between captain and technicians. On takeoff roll; ECAM for avionics skin valve fault popped up at about 60 KTS. As we were expecting an ECAM and because the particular ECAM was covered in recent newsletter regarding aborts; takeoff roll continued and got airborne normally and cancelled the ECAM. (Remember; we were expecting ECAM and didn't catch that it was different.) climb out was accompanied by loud noise at the extract vent -- not normal sound. Passing about 5000 ft; captain had me recall ECAM and then we realized that this was not the ECAM mentioned in operations placard. ECAM then executed and we deduced maintenance had been performed incorrectly. We requested from ATC an altitude below 10000 ft as we were not pressurizing; and set up phone patch with dispatch and maintenance. After discussion; captain elected to return to ZZZ and land overweight. Upon arrival at gate; I corrected previous deferral regarding skin valve. After we got 1/2 way to ZZZ1; we realized that there should have been a log entry for the skin valve. I think the improper maintenance could have been easier to catch if 2 things were different: 1) the MEL card for this deferral is far too wordy. It contained 90% superfluous information and the operations placard filled the rest. Placard failed to mention when ECAM would occur. It should have stated ECAM would happen before takeoff roll; not during. Basic information overload? 2) maintenance technicians should have been more informative regarding what got deferred first and how it changed before departure.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN A320 ON TKOF CLB AT 50 FT HAD ECAM WARNING AND AT 5000 FT REALIZED ACFT WAS NOT PRESSURIZING. DIVERTED AND LANDED OVERWT. CAUSED BY IMPROPER MEL SPECIAL PROCS.

Narrative: MAINT PERFORMED ON THE SKIN VALVE VENT OVERNIGHT INVOLVED INSTALLATION OF A NEW SKIN VALVE WHICH ALSO FAILED TO WORK. STATION MAINT ELECTED TO DEFER AND PREFLT PAPERS INCLUDED AN OPS PLACARD FOR #X. AS I ARRIVED AT THE ACFT; WORK WAS IN PROGRESS ON SAME DEFERRAL BY 2 MAINT TECHNICIANS AND THEY LEFT A NEW MEL FOR #Y. (STILL NOT SURE WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE; BUT ORIGINAL CALLED FOR 'EXTRACT' FAN TO 'OVERRIDE' AND SECOND ONE CALLED FOR US TO CANCEL ECAM FOR AVIONICS SYS FAULT.) THIS WAS CONFUSING TO BOTH THE CAPT AND ME; SO WE ASKED THE TECHNICIANS TO RETURN TO CLR UP WHAT HAD CHANGED BTWN BRIEFING AND PREFLT. BOARDING WAS IN PROGRESS AND I WAS DOING THE WALKAROUND WHEN TECHNICIANS RETURNED; SO I MISSED THE DISCUSSION BTWN CAPT AND TECHNICIANS. ON TKOF ROLL; ECAM FOR AVIONICS SKIN VALVE FAULT POPPED UP AT ABOUT 60 KTS. AS WE WERE EXPECTING AN ECAM AND BECAUSE THE PARTICULAR ECAM WAS COVERED IN RECENT NEWSLETTER REGARDING ABORTS; TKOF ROLL CONTINUED AND GOT AIRBORNE NORMALLY AND CANCELLED THE ECAM. (REMEMBER; WE WERE EXPECTING ECAM AND DIDN'T CATCH THAT IT WAS DIFFERENT.) CLB OUT WAS ACCOMPANIED BY LOUD NOISE AT THE EXTRACT VENT -- NOT NORMAL SOUND. PASSING ABOUT 5000 FT; CAPT HAD ME RECALL ECAM AND THEN WE REALIZED THAT THIS WAS NOT THE ECAM MENTIONED IN OPS PLACARD. ECAM THEN EXECUTED AND WE DEDUCED MAINT HAD BEEN PERFORMED INCORRECTLY. WE REQUESTED FROM ATC AN ALT BELOW 10000 FT AS WE WERE NOT PRESSURIZING; AND SET UP PHONE PATCH WITH DISPATCH AND MAINT. AFTER DISCUSSION; CAPT ELECTED TO RETURN TO ZZZ AND LAND OVERWT. UPON ARR AT GATE; I CORRECTED PREVIOUS DEFERRAL REGARDING SKIN VALVE. AFTER WE GOT 1/2 WAY TO ZZZ1; WE REALIZED THAT THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A LOG ENTRY FOR THE SKIN VALVE. I THINK THE IMPROPER MAINT COULD HAVE BEEN EASIER TO CATCH IF 2 THINGS WERE DIFFERENT: 1) THE MEL CARD FOR THIS DEFERRAL IS FAR TOO WORDY. IT CONTAINED 90% SUPERFLUOUS INFO AND THE OPS PLACARD FILLED THE REST. PLACARD FAILED TO MENTION WHEN ECAM WOULD OCCUR. IT SHOULD HAVE STATED ECAM WOULD HAPPEN BEFORE TKOF ROLL; NOT DURING. BASIC INFO OVERLOAD? 2) MAINT TECHNICIANS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE INFORMATIVE REGARDING WHAT GOT DEFERRED FIRST AND HOW IT CHANGED BEFORE DEP.

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.