Narrative:

We got our flight papers from operations with a note that maintenance was required on our aircraft. The captain was informed that a deferral of the left engine generator would be required. The captain refused the aircraft with the left generator inoperative and the flight canceled to get maintenance into position to change the left idg. This whole issue brings into question the validity of the maintenance non-MEL items program. Either a problem with the aircraft is deferred in accordance with the MEL; or it isn't. The use of the maintenance non-MEL items program for non-cosmetic; non-MEL items which aren't flight or system related is acceptable; but if the aircraft problem is on the MEL; or is aircraft system related; it should; for safety's sake; no carry forwards should be allowed. In this case; how is an acceptable level of safety determined? In this case; the idg was clearly not performing within limits as it should have connected automatically. Furthermore; how is carrying forward an item like a failing generator safe? At some point the idg was going to fail and the failure to automatically connect was a symptom of impending failure. How could anyone justify this as an 'acceptable degree of safety?' supplemental information from acn 775373: I was the captain for a flight on feb/xa/08. I arrived in operations and got papers for flight. There was an issue with the left idg showing idg had history of no automatic xfer of power from APU to engine generator and that we needed to do that xfer manually. Also stated idg needed to be replaced. My inquiry started out as to if idg needed to be replaced; why was it not deferred? Maintenance controller stated that there was no MEL for manually resetting idg. Fleet engineering has been looking at the non-MEL maintenance item list all night and determined that the aircraft was not legal. Aircraft had been flown for 4 days with improper non-MEL maintenance item list item. I asked that since a 'normal' part of the engine generator electrical system xfer was bad; how could they non-MEL maintenance item list the item and not defer it? Maintenance controller stated they cannot and that the entire left generator would have to be deferred and asked if I was willing to take aircraft with inoperative left engine generator. I refused the aircraft. Callback conversation with reporter acn 775373 revealed the following information: reporter stated the #1 engine generator (idg) would not automatic transfer electric power from APU to engine generator; after engine was started. A 'one time' irregular operations; manual transfer or 'reset' in the cockpit; is allowed. After that; the idg has to be deferred. This aircraft had been flying numerous flights for four days with the flight crews performing an 'irregular operations' procedure each time the #1 engine was started. He noticed the aircraft equipment operating procedure discrepancy prior to departure.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B757-200 ACFT WOULD NOT AUTO TRANSFER APU ELECTRICAL POWER TO THE # 1 ENG GENERATOR AFTER ENG START. CAPTAIN NOTICED THE #1 ENG GENERATOR WAS NOT DEFERRED PER THE MEL.

Narrative: WE GOT OUR FLT PAPERS FROM OPS WITH A NOTE THAT MAINT WAS REQUIRED ON OUR ACFT. THE CAPT WAS INFORMED THAT A DEFERRAL OF THE L ENG GENERATOR WOULD BE REQUIRED. THE CAPT REFUSED THE ACFT WITH THE L GENERATOR INOP AND THE FLT CANCELED TO GET MAINT INTO POS TO CHANGE THE L IDG. THIS WHOLE ISSUE BRINGS INTO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE MAINT NON-MEL ITEMS PROGRAM. EITHER A PROB WITH THE ACFT IS DEFERRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MEL; OR IT ISN'T. THE USE OF THE MAINT NON-MEL ITEMS PROGRAM FOR NON-COSMETIC; NON-MEL ITEMS WHICH AREN'T FLT OR SYS RELATED IS ACCEPTABLE; BUT IF THE ACFT PROB IS ON THE MEL; OR IS ACFT SYS RELATED; IT SHOULD; FOR SAFETY'S SAKE; NO CARRY FORWARDS SHOULD BE ALLOWED. IN THIS CASE; HOW IS AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SAFETY DETERMINED? IN THIS CASE; THE IDG WAS CLEARLY NOT PERFORMING WITHIN LIMITS AS IT SHOULD HAVE CONNECTED AUTOMATICALLY. FURTHERMORE; HOW IS CARRYING FORWARD AN ITEM LIKE A FAILING GENERATOR SAFE? AT SOME POINT THE IDG WAS GOING TO FAIL AND THE FAILURE TO AUTOMATICALLY CONNECT WAS A SYMPTOM OF IMPENDING FAILURE. HOW COULD ANYONE JUSTIFY THIS AS AN 'ACCEPTABLE DEGREE OF SAFETY?' SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 775373: I WAS THE CAPT FOR A FLT ON FEB/XA/08. I ARRIVED IN OPS AND GOT PAPERS FOR FLT. THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE L IDG SHOWING IDG HAD HISTORY OF NO AUTOMATIC XFER OF PWR FROM APU TO ENG GENERATOR AND THAT WE NEEDED TO DO THAT XFER MANUALLY. ALSO STATED IDG NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. MY INQUIRY STARTED OUT AS TO IF IDG NEEDED TO BE REPLACED; WHY WAS IT NOT DEFERRED? MAINT CTLR STATED THAT THERE WAS NO MEL FOR MANUALLY RESETTING IDG. FLEET ENGINEERING HAS BEEN LOOKING AT THE NON-MEL MAINT ITEM LIST ALL NIGHT AND DETERMINED THAT THE ACFT WAS NOT LEGAL. ACFT HAD BEEN FLOWN FOR 4 DAYS WITH IMPROPER NON-MEL MAINT ITEM LIST ITEM. I ASKED THAT SINCE A 'NORMAL' PART OF THE ENG GENERATOR ELECTRICAL SYS XFER WAS BAD; HOW COULD THEY NON-MEL MAINT ITEM LIST THE ITEM AND NOT DEFER IT? MAINT CTLR STATED THEY CANNOT AND THAT THE ENTIRE L GENERATOR WOULD HAVE TO BE DEFERRED AND ASKED IF I WAS WILLING TO TAKE ACFT WITH INOP L ENG GENERATOR. I REFUSED THE ACFT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR ACN 775373 REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: REPORTER STATED THE #1 ENG GENERATOR (IDG) WOULD NOT AUTO TRANSFER ELECTRIC POWER FROM APU TO ENG GENERATOR; AFTER ENG WAS STARTED. A 'ONE TIME' IRREGULAR OPS; MANUAL TRANSFER OR 'RESET' IN THE COCKPIT; IS ALLOWED. AFTER THAT; THE IDG HAS TO BE DEFERRED. THIS ACFT HAD BEEN FLYING NUMEROUS FLIGHTS FOR FOUR DAYS WITH THE FLIGHT CREWS PERFORMING AN 'IRREGULAR OPS' PROCEDURE EACH TIME THE #1 ENG WAS STARTED. HE NOTICED THE ACFT EQUIPMENT OPERATING PROCEDURE DISCREPANCY PRIOR TO DEPARTURE.

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.