Narrative:

While flight planning; I noticed that the right #2 engine tank fuel xfer valve was inoperative in the closed position. I read the MEL card after arriving at the aircraft. The maintenance section reads; in part; as follows: perform the following procedure to open remaining inter-cell xfer valves (ictv) before departure. It then describes a complex procedure involving the opening and closing of numerous circuit breakers with 10-second delays between pulling each one. The flight crew items include verifying the valves indicate 'open' before pushback; and a complex fall back procedure if the valves do not indicate 'open.' due to the complexity of the procedure and in the interest of safety; I requested maintenance perform their items as described above. Shortly after this request I noticed our flight time had slipped further (the flight was already delayed due to the aircraft's late arrival); and the delay reason was flight crew. I called the zone controller and asked why I was charged with the delay. The controller stated that a maintenance supervisor had told her that I was responsible for the procedure; not maintenance. I also received an ACARS; from the same controller later in-flight; stating 'regarding: delay. According to MEL under flight crew item C fuel xfer valves must be verified open by flight crew. Thank you.' the record still shows us as the only delay charged to the flight. I felt I was being intimidated; by being charged with the delay; into performing a complex procedure that could more safely be performed by maintenance professionals. This goes along with a trend I think has started during the past 2 months. For example; a maintenance controller has called my manager about me; on 2 separate occasions; after becoming upset over my reporting of defects while at non-maintenance stations. I have also been asked by maintenance; while in-flight; to reset a circuit breaker that was not part of any approved in-flight flight manual procedure; without any reference to the use of captain's emergency authority/authorized as detailed in the flight manual. I declined; since the inoperative system (transponder #1) was not critical to the safe continuation of the flight. This instance seemed to be a case of attempting to restore a redundant system without having to use contract maintenance at a non-maintenance station. Is safety still our #1 priority; or has that changed?

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A320 CAPT REPORTS THAT HE FEELS HE IS TAKING ON THE ADDITIONAL BURDEN OF ACCOMPLISHING MAINT ACTIONS.

Narrative: WHILE FLT PLANNING; I NOTICED THAT THE R #2 ENG TANK FUEL XFER VALVE WAS INOP IN THE CLOSED POS. I READ THE MEL CARD AFTER ARRIVING AT THE ACFT. THE MAINT SECTION READS; IN PART; AS FOLLOWS: PERFORM THE FOLLOWING PROC TO OPEN REMAINING INTER-CELL XFER VALVES (ICTV) BEFORE DEP. IT THEN DESCRIBES A COMPLEX PROC INVOLVING THE OPENING AND CLOSING OF NUMEROUS CIRCUIT BREAKERS WITH 10-SECOND DELAYS BTWN PULLING EACH ONE. THE FLT CREW ITEMS INCLUDE VERIFYING THE VALVES INDICATE 'OPEN' BEFORE PUSHBACK; AND A COMPLEX FALL BACK PROC IF THE VALVES DO NOT INDICATE 'OPEN.' DUE TO THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PROC AND IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY; I REQUESTED MAINT PERFORM THEIR ITEMS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. SHORTLY AFTER THIS REQUEST I NOTICED OUR FLT TIME HAD SLIPPED FURTHER (THE FLT WAS ALREADY DELAYED DUE TO THE ACFT'S LATE ARR); AND THE DELAY REASON WAS FLT CREW. I CALLED THE ZONE CTLR AND ASKED WHY I WAS CHARGED WITH THE DELAY. THE CTLR STATED THAT A MAINT SUPVR HAD TOLD HER THAT I WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROC; NOT MAINT. I ALSO RECEIVED AN ACARS; FROM THE SAME CTLR LATER INFLT; STATING 'REGARDING: DELAY. ACCORDING TO MEL UNDER FLT CREW ITEM C FUEL XFER VALVES MUST BE VERIFIED OPEN BY FLT CREW. THANK YOU.' THE RECORD STILL SHOWS US AS THE ONLY DELAY CHARGED TO THE FLT. I FELT I WAS BEING INTIMIDATED; BY BEING CHARGED WITH THE DELAY; INTO PERFORMING A COMPLEX PROC THAT COULD MORE SAFELY BE PERFORMED BY MAINT PROFESSIONALS. THIS GOES ALONG WITH A TREND I THINK HAS STARTED DURING THE PAST 2 MONTHS. FOR EXAMPLE; A MAINT CTLR HAS CALLED MY MGR ABOUT ME; ON 2 SEPARATE OCCASIONS; AFTER BECOMING UPSET OVER MY RPTING OF DEFECTS WHILE AT NON-MAINT STATIONS. I HAVE ALSO BEEN ASKED BY MAINT; WHILE INFLT; TO RESET A CIRCUIT BREAKER THAT WAS NOT PART OF ANY APPROVED INFLT FLT MANUAL PROC; WITHOUT ANY REF TO THE USE OF CAPT'S EMER AUTH AS DETAILED IN THE FLT MANUAL. I DECLINED; SINCE THE INOP SYS (XPONDER #1) WAS NOT CRITICAL TO THE SAFE CONTINUATION OF THE FLT. THIS INSTANCE SEEMED TO BE A CASE OF ATTEMPTING TO RESTORE A REDUNDANT SYS WITHOUT HAVING TO USE CONTRACT MAINT AT A NON-MAINT STATION. IS SAFETY STILL OUR #1 PRIORITY; OR HAS THAT CHANGED?

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.