Narrative:

Flight abc was scheduled to operate from ZZZ-ZZZ1-ZZZ2. ZZZ operations was crowded; so I got my paperwork and headed to the jet. Once I got to the jet not yet having a chance to look at the paperwork; my first officer said that we have an MEL regarding the main deck cargo door. My first officer went on to say that the mechanic said that the previous crew said that it worked fine. I found this to be odd because it was my understanding and it is the way that I have been teaching the use of the MEL that if an item is deferred that it may not be used. I immediately located the load supervisor and asked him to locate the mechanic and let him know that I needed to talk to him. Within mins; the mechanic came up to the flight deck and we began to discuss the MEL. At this point we were 70 mins from departure. It was my intent to verify that the mechanic was going to comply with the deferred item maintenance procedure and manually close the door. He said that no he was not and went on to say that I could close the door using the electrical. I told him that I was not allowed to use an item that was deferred. He said I was wrong and assured me that it was ok. I showed him on the previous log pages where the deferred item maintenance procedure was done and other pages where it was not done. I found this to be very confusing and suggested that we call maintenance operations. At this point the mechanic appeared to become upset with me and said if I want to talk to maintenance operations that I should call because he had to recover a B757 that was blocking in and did not have time. I did call maintenance operations around XA10 and expressed my same concern. I was told that because of a note in column 5; any function main deck cargo system that is operative can be used. Because of the inconsistencies with the previous log pages; and the way I understood our MEL procedures; I again expressed my concern to maintenance operations. He agreed that if the door did operations check ok; to just have the mechanic in ZZZ clear the write-up. The mechanic came back and I asked him to please clear the write-up. He said he would not! Even though the door operations checked ok. I asked him to please comply with the deferred item maintenance procedure; and said he would not because it was not required. The mechanic went on to say; don't worry about the switch; he would shut the door! It was very obvious the mechanic was upset with me and made it clear that he did not have to comply with my rules. This made no sense to me at all. At this point another mechanic came up and said the same thing. By this time we were getting close to departure. I had 2 mechanics and maintenance operations telling me I was good to go. Still not feeling comfortable; I politely said I was not going to take the jet unless I had something in the logbook. Reluctantly; he did a write-up that he would close the door normally for troubleshooting but did not comply with the deferred item maintenance procedure. We blocked on time for ZZZ1. Arriving in ZZZ1; we were met by maintenance who wanted the logbook right away so he could start working on the deferred item maintenance procedure for the next leg. I was shocked at this and asked him if he had received a call from ZZZ regarding the door. He said no! He looked it up ahead of time. When the mechanic opened the logbook in ZZZ1 and saw what had been done in ZZZ; he told me that there was a problem and expressed his concern as well. The deferred item maintenance procedure was complied with in ZZZ1 and we departed for ZZZ2 without further incident. Just as in ZZZ1; we were met in ZZZ2 and 2 other mechanics said the same thing that the deferred item maintenance procedure should have been done. I may be completely wrong in my understanding of the MEL but with the inconsistencies in the logbook I feel like this is a reportable incident.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN A300 WITH A MAIN DECK CARGO DOOR DEFERRED AS INOP ELECTRICALLY PER THE MEL WAS DISPATCHED WITH THE MEL SPECIAL PROCS NOT ACCOMPLISHED.

Narrative: FLT ABC WAS SCHEDULED TO OPERATE FROM ZZZ-ZZZ1-ZZZ2. ZZZ OPS WAS CROWDED; SO I GOT MY PAPERWORK AND HEADED TO THE JET. ONCE I GOT TO THE JET NOT YET HAVING A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE PAPERWORK; MY FO SAID THAT WE HAVE AN MEL REGARDING THE MAIN DECK CARGO DOOR. MY FO WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE MECH SAID THAT THE PREVIOUS CREW SAID THAT IT WORKED FINE. I FOUND THIS TO BE ODD BECAUSE IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING AND IT IS THE WAY THAT I HAVE BEEN TEACHING THE USE OF THE MEL THAT IF AN ITEM IS DEFERRED THAT IT MAY NOT BE USED. I IMMEDIATELY LOCATED THE LOAD SUPVR AND ASKED HIM TO LOCATE THE MECH AND LET HIM KNOW THAT I NEEDED TO TALK TO HIM. WITHIN MINS; THE MECH CAME UP TO THE FLT DECK AND WE BEGAN TO DISCUSS THE MEL. AT THIS POINT WE WERE 70 MINS FROM DEP. IT WAS MY INTENT TO VERIFY THAT THE MECH WAS GOING TO COMPLY WITH THE DEFERRED ITEM MAINT PROC AND MANUALLY CLOSE THE DOOR. HE SAID THAT NO HE WAS NOT AND WENT ON TO SAY THAT I COULD CLOSE THE DOOR USING THE ELECTRICAL. I TOLD HIM THAT I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO USE AN ITEM THAT WAS DEFERRED. HE SAID I WAS WRONG AND ASSURED ME THAT IT WAS OK. I SHOWED HIM ON THE PREVIOUS LOG PAGES WHERE THE DEFERRED ITEM MAINT PROC WAS DONE AND OTHER PAGES WHERE IT WAS NOT DONE. I FOUND THIS TO BE VERY CONFUSING AND SUGGESTED THAT WE CALL MAINT OPS. AT THIS POINT THE MECH APPEARED TO BECOME UPSET WITH ME AND SAID IF I WANT TO TALK TO MAINT OPS THAT I SHOULD CALL BECAUSE HE HAD TO RECOVER A B757 THAT WAS BLOCKING IN AND DID NOT HAVE TIME. I DID CALL MAINT OPS AROUND XA10 AND EXPRESSED MY SAME CONCERN. I WAS TOLD THAT BECAUSE OF A NOTE IN COLUMN 5; ANY FUNCTION MAIN DECK CARGO SYS THAT IS OPERATIVE CAN BE USED. BECAUSE OF THE INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE PREVIOUS LOG PAGES; AND THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD OUR MEL PROCS; I AGAIN EXPRESSED MY CONCERN TO MAINT OPS. HE AGREED THAT IF THE DOOR DID OPS CHK OK; TO JUST HAVE THE MECH IN ZZZ CLR THE WRITE-UP. THE MECH CAME BACK AND I ASKED HIM TO PLEASE CLR THE WRITE-UP. HE SAID HE WOULD NOT! EVEN THOUGH THE DOOR OPS CHKED OK. I ASKED HIM TO PLEASE COMPLY WITH THE DEFERRED ITEM MAINT PROC; AND SAID HE WOULD NOT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT REQUIRED. THE MECH WENT ON TO SAY; DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE SWITCH; HE WOULD SHUT THE DOOR! IT WAS VERY OBVIOUS THE MECH WAS UPSET WITH ME AND MADE IT CLR THAT HE DID NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH MY RULES. THIS MADE NO SENSE TO ME AT ALL. AT THIS POINT ANOTHER MECH CAME UP AND SAID THE SAME THING. BY THIS TIME WE WERE GETTING CLOSE TO DEP. I HAD 2 MECHS AND MAINT OPS TELLING ME I WAS GOOD TO GO. STILL NOT FEELING COMFORTABLE; I POLITELY SAID I WAS NOT GOING TO TAKE THE JET UNLESS I HAD SOMETHING IN THE LOGBOOK. RELUCTANTLY; HE DID A WRITE-UP THAT HE WOULD CLOSE THE DOOR NORMALLY FOR TROUBLESHOOTING BUT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE DEFERRED ITEM MAINT PROC. WE BLOCKED ON TIME FOR ZZZ1. ARRIVING IN ZZZ1; WE WERE MET BY MAINT WHO WANTED THE LOGBOOK RIGHT AWAY SO HE COULD START WORKING ON THE DEFERRED ITEM MAINT PROC FOR THE NEXT LEG. I WAS SHOCKED AT THIS AND ASKED HIM IF HE HAD RECEIVED A CALL FROM ZZZ REGARDING THE DOOR. HE SAID NO! HE LOOKED IT UP AHEAD OF TIME. WHEN THE MECH OPENED THE LOGBOOK IN ZZZ1 AND SAW WHAT HAD BEEN DONE IN ZZZ; HE TOLD ME THAT THERE WAS A PROB AND EXPRESSED HIS CONCERN AS WELL. THE DEFERRED ITEM MAINT PROC WAS COMPLIED WITH IN ZZZ1 AND WE DEPARTED FOR ZZZ2 WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. JUST AS IN ZZZ1; WE WERE MET IN ZZZ2 AND 2 OTHER MECHS SAID THE SAME THING THAT THE DEFERRED ITEM MAINT PROC SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. I MAY BE COMPLETELY WRONG IN MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE MEL BUT WITH THE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE LOGBOOK I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A REPORTABLE INCIDENT.

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.