An ATR-72 aircraft had been written up with a bleed leak three times in last two days. Pilot did not...

Narrative:

This aircraft had been written up with a bleed leak 3 times in the last 2 days. The first was operations checked ok after a run-up. Maintenance replaced the air leak detection controller unit after the second time. After the third time; maintenance placed the bleed leak system on MEL. I believe that the MEL only applies to a faulty light; not an actual leak. The maintenance logbook did not mention any inspection of the engine to determine if there was structural failure nor any determination of the light coming on by accident. Tried to discuss this with maintenance; but they told me that with the bleed selected off there won't be any hot air coming from the engine and that this is a valid MEL. After much discussion; I flew the airplane without further incident. However; I still think the MEL was applied improperly. Of course; most of this was happening after departure time and there were no spare airplanes to swap into. The event occurred because maintenance did not want to spend the time to troubleshoot the problem because they had a number of broken airplanes that needed attention. They felt that this MEL was applied correctly to the situation and would give them time to fix it later. I first called maintenance control to ask about the MEL and how it was applied. I told them my concerns and they told me it was applied correctly. I told him I would not accept this aircraft. I then contacted dispatch to tell them I would not accept this aircraft. He told me there were no spares. I also called operations and told them as well. Then I went to the assistant chief pilot. He acted as translator for me and maintenance control. Eventually; maintenance control told me that there was a procedure to be followed prior to placing an item on MEL and he assured me that the aircraft was checked. I eventually capitulated and accepted the aircraft. If this was indeed a faulty light issue; documentation needs to be made into the maintenance logbook. All I saw was an addition of an MEL in the book. I need something to tell me that an inspection was done to determine that there was no structural damage and the light came on in error. If that had been done then I would have been convinced that this was a faulty light problem. None of that was done; so I was taken out of the loop.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ATR-72 ACFT HAD BEEN WRITTEN UP WITH A BLEED LEAK THREE TIMES IN LAST TWO DAYS. PILOT DID NOT FEEL ADEQUATE MAINT PERFORMED TO VERIFY ONLY THE BLEED LIGHT WAS AT FAULT.

Narrative: THIS ACFT HAD BEEN WRITTEN UP WITH A BLEED LEAK 3 TIMES IN THE LAST 2 DAYS. THE FIRST WAS OPS CHKED OK AFTER A RUN-UP. MAINT REPLACED THE AIR LEAK DETECTION CTLR UNIT AFTER THE SECOND TIME. AFTER THE THIRD TIME; MAINT PLACED THE BLEED LEAK SYS ON MEL. I BELIEVE THAT THE MEL ONLY APPLIES TO A FAULTY LIGHT; NOT AN ACTUAL LEAK. THE MAINT LOGBOOK DID NOT MENTION ANY INSPECTION OF THE ENG TO DETERMINE IF THERE WAS STRUCTURAL FAILURE NOR ANY DETERMINATION OF THE LIGHT COMING ON BY ACCIDENT. TRIED TO DISCUSS THIS WITH MAINT; BUT THEY TOLD ME THAT WITH THE BLEED SELECTED OFF THERE WON'T BE ANY HOT AIR COMING FROM THE ENG AND THAT THIS IS A VALID MEL. AFTER MUCH DISCUSSION; I FLEW THE AIRPLANE WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. HOWEVER; I STILL THINK THE MEL WAS APPLIED IMPROPERLY. OF COURSE; MOST OF THIS WAS HAPPENING AFTER DEP TIME AND THERE WERE NO SPARE AIRPLANES TO SWAP INTO. THE EVENT OCCURRED BECAUSE MAINT DID NOT WANT TO SPEND THE TIME TO TROUBLESHOOT THE PROB BECAUSE THEY HAD A NUMBER OF BROKEN AIRPLANES THAT NEEDED ATTN. THEY FELT THAT THIS MEL WAS APPLIED CORRECTLY TO THE SITUATION AND WOULD GIVE THEM TIME TO FIX IT LATER. I FIRST CALLED MAINT CTL TO ASK ABOUT THE MEL AND HOW IT WAS APPLIED. I TOLD THEM MY CONCERNS AND THEY TOLD ME IT WAS APPLIED CORRECTLY. I TOLD HIM I WOULD NOT ACCEPT THIS ACFT. I THEN CONTACTED DISPATCH TO TELL THEM I WOULD NOT ACCEPT THIS ACFT. HE TOLD ME THERE WERE NO SPARES. I ALSO CALLED OPS AND TOLD THEM AS WELL. THEN I WENT TO THE ASSISTANT CHIEF PLT. HE ACTED AS TRANSLATOR FOR ME AND MAINT CTL. EVENTUALLY; MAINT CTL TOLD ME THAT THERE WAS A PROC TO BE FOLLOWED PRIOR TO PLACING AN ITEM ON MEL AND HE ASSURED ME THAT THE ACFT WAS CHKED. I EVENTUALLY CAPITULATED AND ACCEPTED THE ACFT. IF THIS WAS INDEED A FAULTY LIGHT ISSUE; DOCUMENTATION NEEDS TO BE MADE INTO THE MAINT LOGBOOK. ALL I SAW WAS AN ADDITION OF AN MEL IN THE BOOK. I NEED SOMETHING TO TELL ME THAT AN INSPECTION WAS DONE TO DETERMINE THAT THERE WAS NO STRUCTURAL DAMAGE AND THE LIGHT CAME ON IN ERROR. IF THAT HAD BEEN DONE THEN I WOULD HAVE BEEN CONVINCED THAT THIS WAS A FAULTY LIGHT PROB. NONE OF THAT WAS DONE; SO I WAS TAKEN OUT OF THE LOOP.

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.

Attributes
ACN	738860
Time
Date	200704
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : zzz.airport
State Reference	US
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Environment
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	ATR 72
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground : parked ground : maintenance
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
ASRS Report	738860
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	other
Factors
Maintenance	contributing factor : schedule pressure performance deficiency : fault isolation performance deficiency : logbook entry
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Aircraft Maintenance Human Performance Company
Primary Problem	Company

An ATR-72 aircraft had been written up with a bleed leak three times in last two days. Pilot did not feel adequate maintenance performed to verify only the bleed light was at fault.