Narrative:

During preflight; several maintenance discrepancies were discovered and submitted to maintenance via ACARS submission. These discrepancies included: 1) over-servicing on the green hydraulic system (system appropriately drained by maintenance). 2) captain's navigation display too dim for suitable use in high ambient light conditions (navigation display replaced by maintenance). 3) FOD discovered on exterior preflight; a napkin or other paper material in the avionics ventilation system inlet on the left side of the forward fuselage. FOD removed by maintenance. Additionally; aircraft had some history of avionics faults in the recent past whereby they were cleared via circuit breaker reset only without any actual maintenance action. 4) tail white position light lens was obscured by either oil or APU exhaust residue which required cleaning to make the light visible; 5) fastener near the ram air temperature door on the left lower side of the fuselage was loose which required a gear door swing to alleviate by maintenance. 6) numerous areas of peeling paint were noticed. Inquiry made to see if those areas were previously recorded in the aircraft maintenance log for tracking (corrosion issue). They were not according to local maintenance and were; therefore; submitted by ACARS to ensure they were appropriately documented. Issue: approximately 5 mins prior to departure; a representative of the flight office came to inquire as to whether or not they 'could be of any assistance.' what I will relay is my perception of the fact someone from the flight operations management division felt they needed to come to our aircraft because we had reported discrepancies as required by both our operations manual and the FARS. This is an attempt at pilot pushing in my opinion. Asking 'what can we do to help?' might be a nice way of doing it; but unless the individual is a qualified a&P on the airbus or can somehow magically correct maintenance discrepancies; there is no need for a visit by this or any other flight operations management personnel to the cockpit of the aircraft! Do these folks visit every cockpit prior to departure if they don't have maintenance issues? Sadly; there are some pilots that might be intimidated by such a visit from management. Fortunately; I; and the captain I was flying with; don't fall into that group. Aircraft issues have to be reported into the maintenance log as required by our SOP. If that results in a late departure (we blocked out 3 mins early); then that is the result. Management pilots or any other management representatives do not have any business in the real time preparation for flight/dispatch. If they don't want such issues to recur then they need to ensure that aircraft are appropriately maintained on a daily basis.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AFTER REPORTING MULTIPLE ACFT DISCREPANCIES DISCOVERED DURING THEIR PREFLT TO MAINT; FLT CREW OF AN A320 ARE DISMAYED TO BE APPROACHED BY FLT MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL WHOSE PRESENCE THEY FELT WAS INTENDED TO INTIMIDATE THEM INTO ACCEPTING THE ACFT WITHOUT APPROPRIATE ATTENTION TO THE WRITE-UPS.

Narrative: DURING PREFLT; SEVERAL MAINT DISCREPANCIES WERE DISCOVERED AND SUBMITTED TO MAINT VIA ACARS SUBMISSION. THESE DISCREPANCIES INCLUDED: 1) OVER-SERVICING ON THE GREEN HYD SYS (SYS APPROPRIATELY DRAINED BY MAINT). 2) CAPT'S NAV DISPLAY TOO DIM FOR SUITABLE USE IN HIGH AMBIENT LIGHT CONDITIONS (NAV DISPLAY REPLACED BY MAINT). 3) FOD DISCOVERED ON EXTERIOR PREFLT; A NAPKIN OR OTHER PAPER MATERIAL IN THE AVIONICS VENTILATION SYS INLET ON THE L SIDE OF THE FORWARD FUSELAGE. FOD REMOVED BY MAINT. ADDITIONALLY; ACFT HAD SOME HISTORY OF AVIONICS FAULTS IN THE RECENT PAST WHEREBY THEY WERE CLRED VIA CIRCUIT BREAKER RESET ONLY WITHOUT ANY ACTUAL MAINT ACTION. 4) TAIL WHITE POS LIGHT LENS WAS OBSCURED BY EITHER OIL OR APU EXHAUST RESIDUE WHICH REQUIRED CLEANING TO MAKE THE LIGHT VISIBLE; 5) FASTENER NEAR THE RAM AIR TEMP DOOR ON THE L LOWER SIDE OF THE FUSELAGE WAS LOOSE WHICH REQUIRED A GEAR DOOR SWING TO ALLEVIATE BY MAINT. 6) NUMEROUS AREAS OF PEELING PAINT WERE NOTICED. INQUIRY MADE TO SEE IF THOSE AREAS WERE PREVIOUSLY RECORDED IN THE ACFT MAINT LOG FOR TRACKING (CORROSION ISSUE). THEY WERE NOT ACCORDING TO LCL MAINT AND WERE; THEREFORE; SUBMITTED BY ACARS TO ENSURE THEY WERE APPROPRIATELY DOCUMENTED. ISSUE: APPROX 5 MINS PRIOR TO DEP; A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FLT OFFICE CAME TO INQUIRE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY 'COULD BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE.' WHAT I WILL RELAY IS MY PERCEPTION OF THE FACT SOMEONE FROM THE FLT OPS MGMNT DIVISION FELT THEY NEEDED TO COME TO OUR ACFT BECAUSE WE HAD RPTED DISCREPANCIES AS REQUIRED BY BOTH OUR OPS MANUAL AND THE FARS. THIS IS AN ATTEMPT AT PLT PUSHING IN MY OPINION. ASKING 'WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP?' MIGHT BE A NICE WAY OF DOING IT; BUT UNLESS THE INDIVIDUAL IS A QUALIFIED A&P ON THE AIRBUS OR CAN SOMEHOW MAGICALLY CORRECT MAINT DISCREPANCIES; THERE IS NO NEED FOR A VISIT BY THIS OR ANY OTHER FLT OPS MGMNT PERSONNEL TO THE COCKPIT OF THE ACFT! DO THESE FOLKS VISIT EVERY COCKPIT PRIOR TO DEP IF THEY DON'T HAVE MAINT ISSUES? SADLY; THERE ARE SOME PLTS THAT MIGHT BE INTIMIDATED BY SUCH A VISIT FROM MGMNT. FORTUNATELY; I; AND THE CAPT I WAS FLYING WITH; DON'T FALL INTO THAT GROUP. ACFT ISSUES HAVE TO BE RPTED INTO THE MAINT LOG AS REQUIRED BY OUR SOP. IF THAT RESULTS IN A LATE DEP (WE BLOCKED OUT 3 MINS EARLY); THEN THAT IS THE RESULT. MGMNT PLTS OR ANY OTHER MGMNT REPRESENTATIVES DO NOT HAVE ANY BUSINESS IN THE REAL TIME PREPARATION FOR FLT/DISPATCH. IF THEY DON'T WANT SUCH ISSUES TO RECUR THEN THEY NEED TO ENSURE THAT ACFT ARE APPROPRIATELY MAINTAINED ON A DAILY BASIS.

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.