Narrative:

We reported to the gate at XA45; 1 hour before departure. While reviewing the logbook; we discovered 7 previous deferrals on the aircraft. The items deferred were not small items. I won't go into detail on each; but a few examples would be: the right idg inoperative single generator; landing gear monitor inoperative; automatic cargo loading system inoperative; forward lavatory and galley water inoperative; mid lavatory and galley water inoperative. Besides the overwhelming number of inoperative items to review; there are placards that have 5-10 steps that needed to be reviewed as well to make sure the aircraft complied with the mrd and was legal for dispatch. The paperwork for the maintenance alone took 45 mins to review. It is our opinion (captain/first officer) this aircraft should not have been dispatched from a maintenance base with all this inoperative. To dispatch the aircraft cross country with all these inoperative components places undue burden on the crew as well as the station operations. Today was an example of an unnecessary delay and an inconvenience to the passenger and crew. I was embarrassed to present this aircraft to our passenger. Both the forward and mid lavatory sinks were taped off and marked as inoperative. The practice of allowing an aircraft to be dispatched from a company maintenance station to a non maintenance location with multiple defects; while technically legal per the far; is irresponsible. The maintenance system is broken or someone is not doing their job; if we allow aircraft to operate this way. We disagreed with the reading and interpretation of an MEL item. This particular MEL item allows the inspection of an aircraft system within the flying day rather than wording the MEL item to read; before the initial flight of the day. Upon reviewing the placards; I asked the maintenance controller this question with the dispatcher on the phone; 'is the item in question working satisfactory?' the maintenance controller could not confirm that the component was operative before our flight; so we requested to have off-line mechanic inspect the system according to the placard and MEL. Why does an MEL allow an inspection after the flight or to re-inspect within the day. This operation doesn't seem safe. I personally don't want to be on an aircraft that is inspected after the fact. Upon arrival in ZZZ; I requested a maintenance supervisor meet the aircraft. We found out that the aircraft was routed through ZZZ1 again; 50 min turnaround; and doing another trip to ZZZ2 without being fixed. The mechanics said their hands were tied. I briefed the outbound crew and the captain said he had just received the aircraft and it had been refused by another crew. After our briefing he refused the aircraft as well. The only reason the aircraft is in ZZZ1 being fixed is because of our avocation and the other crews refusing to fly the aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757-200 CAPTAIN REPORTS MULTIPLE MEL DEFERRALS OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. ULTIMATELY FLT CREWS REFUSE TO FLY IT. ONLY THEN DOES MAINTENANCE OCCUR.

Narrative: WE RPTED TO THE GATE AT XA45; 1 HR BEFORE DEP. WHILE REVIEWING THE LOGBOOK; WE DISCOVERED 7 PREVIOUS DEFERRALS ON THE ACFT. THE ITEMS DEFERRED WERE NOT SMALL ITEMS. I WON'T GO INTO DETAIL ON EACH; BUT A FEW EXAMPLES WOULD BE: THE R IDG INOP SINGLE GENERATOR; LNDG GEAR MONITOR INOP; AUTO CARGO LOADING SYS INOP; FORWARD LAVATORY AND GALLEY WATER INOP; MID LAVATORY AND GALLEY WATER INOP. BESIDES THE OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF INOP ITEMS TO REVIEW; THERE ARE PLACARDS THAT HAVE 5-10 STEPS THAT NEEDED TO BE REVIEWED AS WELL TO MAKE SURE THE ACFT COMPLIED WITH THE MRD AND WAS LEGAL FOR DISPATCH. THE PAPERWORK FOR THE MAINT ALONE TOOK 45 MINS TO REVIEW. IT IS OUR OPINION (CAPT/FO) THIS ACFT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISPATCHED FROM A MAINT BASE WITH ALL THIS INOP. TO DISPATCH THE ACFT XCOUNTRY WITH ALL THESE INOP COMPONENTS PLACES UNDUE BURDEN ON THE CREW AS WELL AS THE STATION OPS. TODAY WAS AN EXAMPLE OF AN UNNECESSARY DELAY AND AN INCONVENIENCE TO THE PAX AND CREW. I WAS EMBARRASSED TO PRESENT THIS ACFT TO OUR PAX. BOTH THE FORWARD AND MID LAVATORY SINKS WERE TAPED OFF AND MARKED AS INOP. THE PRACTICE OF ALLOWING AN ACFT TO BE DISPATCHED FROM A COMPANY MAINT STATION TO A NON MAINT LOCATION WITH MULTIPLE DEFECTS; WHILE TECHNICALLY LEGAL PER THE FAR; IS IRRESPONSIBLE. THE MAINT SYS IS BROKEN OR SOMEONE IS NOT DOING THEIR JOB; IF WE ALLOW ACFT TO OPERATE THIS WAY. WE DISAGREED WITH THE READING AND INTERP OF AN MEL ITEM. THIS PARTICULAR MEL ITEM ALLOWS THE INSPECTION OF AN ACFT SYS WITHIN THE FLYING DAY RATHER THAN WORDING THE MEL ITEM TO READ; BEFORE THE INITIAL FLT OF THE DAY. UPON REVIEWING THE PLACARDS; I ASKED THE MAINT CTLR THIS QUESTION WITH THE DISPATCHER ON THE PHONE; 'IS THE ITEM IN QUESTION WORKING SATISFACTORY?' THE MAINT CTLR COULD NOT CONFIRM THAT THE COMPONENT WAS OPERATIVE BEFORE OUR FLT; SO WE REQUESTED TO HAVE OFF-LINE MECH INSPECT THE SYS ACCORDING TO THE PLACARD AND MEL. WHY DOES AN MEL ALLOW AN INSPECTION AFTER THE FLT OR TO RE-INSPECT WITHIN THE DAY. THIS OP DOESN'T SEEM SAFE. I PERSONALLY DON'T WANT TO BE ON AN ACFT THAT IS INSPECTED AFTER THE FACT. UPON ARR IN ZZZ; I REQUESTED A MAINT SUPVR MEET THE ACFT. WE FOUND OUT THAT THE ACFT WAS ROUTED THROUGH ZZZ1 AGAIN; 50 MIN TURNAROUND; AND DOING ANOTHER TRIP TO ZZZ2 WITHOUT BEING FIXED. THE MECHS SAID THEIR HANDS WERE TIED. I BRIEFED THE OUTBOUND CREW AND THE CAPT SAID HE HAD JUST RECEIVED THE ACFT AND IT HAD BEEN REFUSED BY ANOTHER CREW. AFTER OUR BRIEFING HE REFUSED THE ACFT AS WELL. THE ONLY REASON THE ACFT IS IN ZZZ1 BEING FIXED IS BECAUSE OF OUR AVOCATION AND THE OTHER CREWS REFUSING TO FLY THE ACFT.

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.