Narrative:

Flight was assigned aircraft X initially. By the time I reached the airport; it was aircraft Y checking the inbound log; there were 4 open items (2 cosmetic and 2 safety of flight). I called dispatch to ask about the status of the open items before releasing the aircraft and was told that he did not know. I called maintenance control who said it was a local issue. I called line maintenance and was told that if I wanted the engine 2 high pressure valve fault addressed I needed to refuse the aircraft. I did. The flight was into known icing conditions on an arrival that is a steep descent over the mountains. This is the exact reason for the high pressure valve to open and provide the needed hot air for anti-icing. Within mins of refusing the aircraft; I was paged by flight operations. Station maintenance was calling to tell me the gate lead mechanic had already fixed and signed off the log item. Upon questioning; I was told that they had fixed the problem and run the engine with no issues. I released the aircraft and went to the gate. I checked the maintenance release and saw that they had cleared all log items. Due to the late departure; I did my flows and briefings and we got underway. During the flight I asked the first officer what he had seen line maintenance do and he said they had retrieved some information from the box (FMGC) and left. I asked him about the engine run and he said he had no knowledge of any engine run-up. On descent into ZZZ; in icing conditions; we got the ECAM for the engine #2 high pressure valve and completed the procedure. On the ground; I went into operations; called dispatch; and spoke to maintenance control regarding the entire incident. It is clear I was lied to in order to expedite a departure; to an outstation with no maintenance; 'after' I had refused to defer it due to safety of flight. As an airline captain; I have become used to the pencil whipping of maintenance items for expeditious movement of aircraft. I have seen first hand the 'shopping' of broken aircraft to whichever captain will fly it. I have also experienced the normal 'we will not fix anything until you refuse the aircraft' routine many; many times. However this is the first time I have been openly and brazenly lied to in order to take an aircraft I have refused due to a safety of flight issue. This nonsense has to be stopped and it is clear that only the FAA can do it! Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated this issue of having to refuse aircraft because of safety of flight issues; just to get maintenance to fix an item; places undue pressure on flight crews. Being lied to when; in this case; going into a known icing conditions with the #2 engine high pressure bleed valve not functioning correctly and maintenance in essence; pencil whipping the write-up to get the plane out; is another indication of his company's unsafe maintenance practices.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN AIRBUS A319 CAPTAIN REPORTS ON HIS COMPANY'S MAINT DEPARTMENT'S ATTITUDE OF LYING TO HIM; PENCIL WHIPPING AND TELLING PILOTS THEY HAVE TO REFUSE ACFT BEFORE ANYTHING WILL BE FIXED.

Narrative: FLT WAS ASSIGNED ACFT X INITIALLY. BY THE TIME I REACHED THE ARPT; IT WAS ACFT Y CHKING THE INBOUND LOG; THERE WERE 4 OPEN ITEMS (2 COSMETIC AND 2 SAFETY OF FLT). I CALLED DISPATCH TO ASK ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE OPEN ITEMS BEFORE RELEASING THE ACFT AND WAS TOLD THAT HE DID NOT KNOW. I CALLED MAINT CTL WHO SAID IT WAS A LCL ISSUE. I CALLED LINE MAINT AND WAS TOLD THAT IF I WANTED THE ENG 2 HIGH PRESSURE VALVE FAULT ADDRESSED I NEEDED TO REFUSE THE ACFT. I DID. THE FLT WAS INTO KNOWN ICING CONDITIONS ON AN ARR THAT IS A STEEP DSCNT OVER THE MOUNTAINS. THIS IS THE EXACT REASON FOR THE HIGH PRESSURE VALVE TO OPEN AND PROVIDE THE NEEDED HOT AIR FOR ANTI-ICING. WITHIN MINS OF REFUSING THE ACFT; I WAS PAGED BY FLT OPS. STATION MAINT WAS CALLING TO TELL ME THE GATE LEAD MECH HAD ALREADY FIXED AND SIGNED OFF THE LOG ITEM. UPON QUESTIONING; I WAS TOLD THAT THEY HAD FIXED THE PROB AND RUN THE ENG WITH NO ISSUES. I RELEASED THE ACFT AND WENT TO THE GATE. I CHKED THE MAINT RELEASE AND SAW THAT THEY HAD CLRED ALL LOG ITEMS. DUE TO THE LATE DEP; I DID MY FLOWS AND BRIEFINGS AND WE GOT UNDERWAY. DURING THE FLT I ASKED THE FO WHAT HE HAD SEEN LINE MAINT DO AND HE SAID THEY HAD RETRIEVED SOME INFO FROM THE BOX (FMGC) AND LEFT. I ASKED HIM ABOUT THE ENG RUN AND HE SAID HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY ENG RUN-UP. ON DSCNT INTO ZZZ; IN ICING CONDITIONS; WE GOT THE ECAM FOR THE ENG #2 HIGH PRESSURE VALVE AND COMPLETED THE PROC. ON THE GND; I WENT INTO OPS; CALLED DISPATCH; AND SPOKE TO MAINT CTL REGARDING THE ENTIRE INCIDENT. IT IS CLR I WAS LIED TO IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE A DEP; TO AN OUTSTATION WITH NO MAINT; 'AFTER' I HAD REFUSED TO DEFER IT DUE TO SAFETY OF FLT. AS AN AIRLINE CAPT; I HAVE BECOME USED TO THE PENCIL WHIPPING OF MAINT ITEMS FOR EXPEDITIOUS MOVEMENT OF ACFT. I HAVE SEEN FIRST HAND THE 'SHOPPING' OF BROKEN ACFT TO WHICHEVER CAPT WILL FLY IT. I HAVE ALSO EXPERIENCED THE NORMAL 'WE WILL NOT FIX ANYTHING UNTIL YOU REFUSE THE ACFT' ROUTINE MANY; MANY TIMES. HOWEVER THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE BEEN OPENLY AND BRAZENLY LIED TO IN ORDER TO TAKE AN ACFT I HAVE REFUSED DUE TO A SAFETY OF FLT ISSUE. THIS NONSENSE HAS TO BE STOPPED AND IT IS CLR THAT ONLY THE FAA CAN DO IT! CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: REPORTER STATED THIS ISSUE OF HAVING TO REFUSE ACFT BECAUSE OF SAFETY OF FLIGHT ISSUES; JUST TO GET MAINT TO FIX AN ITEM; PLACES UNDUE PRESSURE ON FLIGHT CREWS. BEING LIED TO WHEN; IN THIS CASE; GOING INTO A KNOWN ICING CONDITIONS WITH THE #2 ENGINE HIGH PRESSURE BLEED VALVE NOT FUNCTIONING CORRECTLY AND MAINT IN ESSENCE; PENCIL WHIPPING THE WRITE-UP TO GET THE PLANE OUT; IS ANOTHER INDICATION OF HIS COMPANY'S UNSAFE MAINT PRACTICES.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.