Narrative:

Prior to arrival to begin flying airbus trip; I had previously viewed the assigned aircraft for the flight ZZZ-ZZZ1. The original aircraft that was assigned at approximately XA00 had at that time; and still does as of this report date and time; deferred item 'loop a l-hand wing(south) leak detection loop(south) inoperative.' I notified dispatch that I was refusing the aircraft as this defect had been in place for 5 days; and I didn't feel comfortable taking the aircraft from a maintenance station across the country with this defect. Upon arrival to begin the above trip; I attempted to look and see what the status of the aircraft was; and I discovered through the computer system that maintenance had in fact canceled my previous entry into the system with the refusal for this aircraft. All open write-ups within this system are to be either cleared with the problem being fixed or deferred -- not simply removed from the system. The intent of these actions is to notify follow-on crews of the refusal as in using ACARS code X when at the aircraft. No maintenance person from any facility should have the authority/authorized to simply remove a log item that has been placed into the computer log without annotating what action was taken to fix the refused item. The 'removal procedure' by maintenance totally impeded the intended process of notifying follow-on crews that the aircraft has already been refused by a previous crew and the reason why. This procedure needs to be terminated immediately.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT REFUSED TO FLY AN A319 WITH A DEFERRED ITEM; AND ENTERED THE REFUSAL INTO THE MAINT COMPUTER LOG. THIS REFUSAL SHOULD HAVE REMAINED IN THE MAINT LOG; BUT WAS REMOVED.

Narrative: PRIOR TO ARR TO BEGIN FLYING AIRBUS TRIP; I HAD PREVIOUSLY VIEWED THE ASSIGNED ACFT FOR THE FLT ZZZ-ZZZ1. THE ORIGINAL ACFT THAT WAS ASSIGNED AT APPROX XA00 HAD AT THAT TIME; AND STILL DOES AS OF THIS RPT DATE AND TIME; DEFERRED ITEM 'LOOP A L-HAND WING(S) LEAK DETECTION LOOP(S) INOP.' I NOTIFIED DISPATCH THAT I WAS REFUSING THE ACFT AS THIS DEFECT HAD BEEN IN PLACE FOR 5 DAYS; AND I DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE TAKING THE ACFT FROM A MAINT STATION ACROSS THE COUNTRY WITH THIS DEFECT. UPON ARR TO BEGIN THE ABOVE TRIP; I ATTEMPTED TO LOOK AND SEE WHAT THE STATUS OF THE ACFT WAS; AND I DISCOVERED THROUGH THE COMPUTER SYS THAT MAINT HAD IN FACT CANCELED MY PREVIOUS ENTRY INTO THE SYS WITH THE REFUSAL FOR THIS ACFT. ALL OPEN WRITE-UPS WITHIN THIS SYS ARE TO BE EITHER CLRED WITH THE PROB BEING FIXED OR DEFERRED -- NOT SIMPLY REMOVED FROM THE SYS. THE INTENT OF THESE ACTIONS IS TO NOTIFY FOLLOW-ON CREWS OF THE REFUSAL AS IN USING ACARS CODE X WHEN AT THE ACFT. NO MAINT PERSON FROM ANY FACILITY SHOULD HAVE THE AUTH TO SIMPLY REMOVE A LOG ITEM THAT HAS BEEN PLACED INTO THE COMPUTER LOG WITHOUT ANNOTATING WHAT ACTION WAS TAKEN TO FIX THE REFUSED ITEM. THE 'REMOVAL PROC' BY MAINT TOTALLY IMPEDED THE INTENDED PROCESS OF NOTIFYING FOLLOW-ON CREWS THAT THE ACFT HAS ALREADY BEEN REFUSED BY A PREVIOUS CREW AND THE REASON WHY. THIS PROC NEEDS TO BE TERMINATED IMMEDIATELY.

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.