Narrative:

First leg involved a return to ZZZ due to numerous ECAM's in sequence with a resulting 'engine 1 -- EPR mode fault' and an 'autoflt -- a/thr off' ECAM being displayed. Because of thunderstorms as well as numerous dual FMGC failures in the maintenance history; a return to ZZZ was executed. The first officer made the write-ups using the maintenance code manual and relayed the appropriate ECAM titles in the log. After maintenance deferrals; the flight again departed ZZZ. Again; passing FL220; the same ECAM arose. I contacted maintenance and relayed this information. Since we had been dispatched with a deferral and since the MEL had essentially accomplished what the ECAM required; no action was required by the crew. However; upon discussion with maintenance; he was unaware that within the ECAM steps under the ECAM 'engine 1 -- EPR mode fault' was an action to take regarding an 'N1 degraded mode.' with this information; and assuming that same step was required under the ECAM that occurred on the first leg of the trip; a deferral would not have been authority/authorized. If that is so; the deferral under which we operated the second leg was invalid; and therefore; a potential improper maintenance dispatch may have resulted.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN A320 RETURNED AFTER TKOF FOR EPR MODE AND A/THR OFF FAULTS. THE EPR MODE FAULT MEL USED TO RELEASE THE ACFT WAS INAPPROPRIATE.

Narrative: FIRST LEG INVOLVED A RETURN TO ZZZ DUE TO NUMEROUS ECAM'S IN SEQUENCE WITH A RESULTING 'ENG 1 -- EPR MODE FAULT' AND AN 'AUTOFLT -- A/THR OFF' ECAM BEING DISPLAYED. BECAUSE OF TSTMS AS WELL AS NUMEROUS DUAL FMGC FAILURES IN THE MAINT HISTORY; A RETURN TO ZZZ WAS EXECUTED. THE FO MADE THE WRITE-UPS USING THE MAINT CODE MANUAL AND RELAYED THE APPROPRIATE ECAM TITLES IN THE LOG. AFTER MAINT DEFERRALS; THE FLT AGAIN DEPARTED ZZZ. AGAIN; PASSING FL220; THE SAME ECAM AROSE. I CONTACTED MAINT AND RELAYED THIS INFO. SINCE WE HAD BEEN DISPATCHED WITH A DEFERRAL AND SINCE THE MEL HAD ESSENTIALLY ACCOMPLISHED WHAT THE ECAM REQUIRED; NO ACTION WAS REQUIRED BY THE CREW. HOWEVER; UPON DISCUSSION WITH MAINT; HE WAS UNAWARE THAT WITHIN THE ECAM STEPS UNDER THE ECAM 'ENG 1 -- EPR MODE FAULT' WAS AN ACTION TO TAKE REGARDING AN 'N1 DEGRADED MODE.' WITH THIS INFO; AND ASSUMING THAT SAME STEP WAS REQUIRED UNDER THE ECAM THAT OCCURRED ON THE FIRST LEG OF THE TRIP; A DEFERRAL WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AUTH. IF THAT IS SO; THE DEFERRAL UNDER WHICH WE OPERATED THE SECOND LEG WAS INVALID; AND THEREFORE; A POTENTIAL IMPROPER MAINT DISPATCH MAY HAVE RESULTED.

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.