Narrative:

Arrived at operations and was reviewing paperwork. Saw a long list of maintenance items; some of which were SOP related. In checking them; noticed that two of them seemed to be in conflict with each other. Their non-standard procedures required switch positions that could not be accomplished while complying with the other operations placard. I called maintenance control. Maintenance control told me he would call back after consultation with someone else. I took that opportunity to call dispatch and spoke with someone who told me the flight had flown for two days in this condition. There are two issues I have with that: first; there were many opportunities to fix at least one of the problems; so as not to create the problem. Second; and of more concern; is that the aircraft apparently flew at least four legs in this condition and no other dispatcher or captain discovered this problem before I did. I assume that would make each of those flights an illegal dispatch? This is the second time in a few months that I have been asked to dispatch with an aircraft with illegal maintenance deferrals...coincidentally both times were in ZZZ! The current maintenance condition of the A320 fleet has given me some cause for concern; especially given the minimal number of stations where any maintenance action can actually be accomplished. In this instance; two deferrals; with somewhat 'busy' non-standard procedures before and after takeoff appeared to not even be legal.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN A320 CAPTAIN REPORTS A SECOND TIME FINDING PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED ITEMS THAT ARE IN CONFLICT. THE MEL SPECIAL PROCEDURES REQUIRED SWITCH POSITIONS THAT COULD NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED WHILE COMPLYING WITH THE OTHER OPERATIONS PLACARD.

Narrative: ARRIVED AT OPS AND WAS REVIEWING PAPERWORK. SAW A LONG LIST OF MAINT ITEMS; SOME OF WHICH WERE SOP RELATED. IN CHECKING THEM; NOTICED THAT TWO OF THEM SEEMED TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER. THEIR NON-STANDARD PROCS REQUIRED SWITCH POSITIONS THAT COULD NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED WHILE COMPLYING WITH THE OTHER OPS PLACARD. I CALLED MAINT CTL. MAINT CTL TOLD ME HE WOULD CALL BACK AFTER CONSULTATION WITH SOMEONE ELSE. I TOOK THAT OPPORTUNITY TO CALL DISPATCH AND SPOKE WITH SOMEONE WHO TOLD ME THE FLT HAD FLOWN FOR TWO DAYS IN THIS CONDITION. THERE ARE TWO ISSUES I HAVE WITH THAT: FIRST; THERE WERE MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO FIX AT LEAST ONE OF THE PROBS; SO AS NOT TO CREATE THE PROB. SECOND; AND OF MORE CONCERN; IS THAT THE ACFT APPARENTLY FLEW AT LEAST FOUR LEGS IN THIS CONDITION AND NO OTHER DISPATCHER OR CAPT DISCOVERED THIS PROB BEFORE I DID. I ASSUME THAT WOULD MAKE EACH OF THOSE FLIGHTS AN ILLEGAL DISPATCH? THIS IS THE SECOND TIME IN A FEW MONTHS THAT I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO DISPATCH WITH AN ACFT WITH ILLEGAL MAINT DEFERRALS...COINCIDENTALLY BOTH TIMES WERE IN ZZZ! THE CURRENT MAINT CONDITION OF THE A320 FLEET HAS GIVEN ME SOME CAUSE FOR CONCERN; ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE MINIMAL NUMBER OF STATIONS WHERE ANY MAINT ACTION CAN ACTUALLY BE ACCOMPLISHED. IN THIS INSTANCE; TWO DEFERRALS; WITH SOMEWHAT 'BUSY' NON-STANDARD PROCS BEFORE AND AFTER TKOF APPEARED TO NOT EVEN BE LEGAL.

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.