Narrative:

The APU was operating as it was started by the mechanics who towed the aircraft from remote to the gate. The APU was being used for bleed air only. The electrical needs of the aircraft were on external power. At about XA45Z; the captain attempted to xfer power from the external ground unit to the APU generator. The APU generator did not accept the xfer. A second attempt was made and the results were the same. I looked up and saw a 'fault' light on the 'APU generator' push button. There was no ECAM message generated or displayed on the ECAM monitor. We believed it was a fault in the 'generator APU' push button and not the APU generator itself. The captain sent maintenance control an ACARS message and awaited the response. We discussed being able to start the engine at the gate with external power as we had APU bleed air. We also looked for the MEL's for the APU. MEL 49-70-05-2 seemed to be applicable. We then discussed that it was deferrable as long as the 'APU generator' push button was in the 'off' position. The captain said he had all of the MEL information and we proceeded to continue the engine start and pushback with the 'APU generator' push button in the 'off' position. About 20 mins into the flight; the first officer atsu function of the first officer's mcdu locked up and was not usable. The captain notified maintenance control via ACARS and handled all other communications requiring use of the atsu function. This caused me to be out of the information loop with the company/maintenance. We continued to ZZZ. We then continued a second leg with the same aircraft. As we were taxiing out of ZZZ; we got an 'electrical pump low pressure' ECAM warning on the ECAM monitor. There was a 'fault' light on the 'electrical pump' push button. We went to the fom and tried to reset by turning the push button to the 'off' position and back on. The fault remained. We then contacted maintenance control via a telephone patch over the ZZZ operations radio frequency. We were told to check circuit break -AB9. The circuit breaker was out and we were told to reset it. The fault cleared. Maintenance control told me the exact verbiage to put into the logbook for an 'information only' item. I also asked to send me that via ACARS. We continued on without any further events. The following day the captain informed me he had been notified that we had flown the aircraft with the incorrect MEL for the APU generator issue and; therefore; had flown the aircraft illegally. The captain and I discussed our actions as to how we handled the 'APU generator' fault issue. We believe we did all of the correct actions. If we had the incorrect MEL and the aircraft was flown illegally it was by honest mistake and not by intent. We made every effort to do the correct procedures with each of the 3 maintenance issues we had on the 2 legs we flew in this aircraft. I am not a mechanic. I believe there are times that I cannot properly assess a maintenance issue and even describe it properly. What I may see may or may not be the extent of the problem. I am not trained to do maintenance nor am I qualified to assess maintenance issues. The pilot deferral of maintenance is not in anyone's best interest except possibly saving money. I am not a qualified mechanic and I do not always feel comfortable deferring items. I am always concerned my description and assessment of the situation may be inadequate and lead maintenance control down the incorrect path of a solution. Trying to resolve maintenance issues via ACARS or telephone or radio patch is frequently difficult as the message transmitted may not always be the message received. As a result; I am always concerned that a situation like this will occur. I believe I have; to best of my ability; followed all of the procedures to handle the problem and I am legal to continue the flight when in reality I may not be legal. The pilot deferral program places a great deal of responsibility on me as a pilot. It is responsibility that I am not trained to handle; not qualified to handle with full confidence and I am not compensated for it. However; if there is a situation such as this; I am the one who will face the possible sanctions; fines and violations from the company and/or the FAA. The secondary problem is our MEL manual is not easily used and sometimes very confusing. I do not recall having any training on how to use this MEL with some level of confidence. The best avoidance for these events is to have adequate maintenance available at the stations as a resource for the pilot.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A320 CAPT IS INFORMED; AFTER THE FACT; THAT A CREW APPLIED MEL WAS NOT CORRECT FOR THE FAULT THAT WAS DEFERRED.

Narrative: THE APU WAS OPERATING AS IT WAS STARTED BY THE MECHS WHO TOWED THE ACFT FROM REMOTE TO THE GATE. THE APU WAS BEING USED FOR BLEED AIR ONLY. THE ELECTRICAL NEEDS OF THE ACFT WERE ON EXTERNAL PWR. AT ABOUT XA45Z; THE CAPT ATTEMPTED TO XFER PWR FROM THE EXTERNAL GND UNIT TO THE APU GENERATOR. THE APU GENERATOR DID NOT ACCEPT THE XFER. A SECOND ATTEMPT WAS MADE AND THE RESULTS WERE THE SAME. I LOOKED UP AND SAW A 'FAULT' LIGHT ON THE 'APU GENERATOR' PUSH BUTTON. THERE WAS NO ECAM MESSAGE GENERATED OR DISPLAYED ON THE ECAM MONITOR. WE BELIEVED IT WAS A FAULT IN THE 'GENERATOR APU' PUSH BUTTON AND NOT THE APU GENERATOR ITSELF. THE CAPT SENT MAINT CTL AN ACARS MESSAGE AND AWAITED THE RESPONSE. WE DISCUSSED BEING ABLE TO START THE ENG AT THE GATE WITH EXTERNAL PWR AS WE HAD APU BLEED AIR. WE ALSO LOOKED FOR THE MEL'S FOR THE APU. MEL 49-70-05-2 SEEMED TO BE APPLICABLE. WE THEN DISCUSSED THAT IT WAS DEFERRABLE AS LONG AS THE 'APU GENERATOR' PUSH BUTTON WAS IN THE 'OFF' POSITION. THE CAPT SAID HE HAD ALL OF THE MEL INFO AND WE PROCEEDED TO CONTINUE THE ENG START AND PUSHBACK WITH THE 'APU GENERATOR' PUSH BUTTON IN THE 'OFF' POSITION. ABOUT 20 MINS INTO THE FLT; THE FO ATSU FUNCTION OF THE FO'S MCDU LOCKED UP AND WAS NOT USABLE. THE CAPT NOTIFIED MAINT CTL VIA ACARS AND HANDLED ALL OTHER COMS REQUIRING USE OF THE ATSU FUNCTION. THIS CAUSED ME TO BE OUT OF THE INFO LOOP WITH THE COMPANY/MAINT. WE CONTINUED TO ZZZ. WE THEN CONTINUED A SECOND LEG WITH THE SAME ACFT. AS WE WERE TAXIING OUT OF ZZZ; WE GOT AN 'ELECTRICAL PUMP LOW PRESSURE' ECAM WARNING ON THE ECAM MONITOR. THERE WAS A 'FAULT' LIGHT ON THE 'ELECTRICAL PUMP' PUSH BUTTON. WE WENT TO THE FOM AND TRIED TO RESET BY TURNING THE PUSH BUTTON TO THE 'OFF' POSITION AND BACK ON. THE FAULT REMAINED. WE THEN CONTACTED MAINT CTL VIA A TELEPHONE PATCH OVER THE ZZZ OPS RADIO FREQ. WE WERE TOLD TO CHK CIRCUIT BREAK -AB9. THE CIRCUIT BREAKER WAS OUT AND WE WERE TOLD TO RESET IT. THE FAULT CLEARED. MAINT CTL TOLD ME THE EXACT VERBIAGE TO PUT INTO THE LOGBOOK FOR AN 'INFO ONLY' ITEM. I ALSO ASKED TO SEND ME THAT VIA ACARS. WE CONTINUED ON WITHOUT ANY FURTHER EVENTS. THE FOLLOWING DAY THE CAPT INFORMED ME HE HAD BEEN NOTIFIED THAT WE HAD FLOWN THE ACFT WITH THE INCORRECT MEL FOR THE APU GENERATOR ISSUE AND; THEREFORE; HAD FLOWN THE ACFT ILLEGALLY. THE CAPT AND I DISCUSSED OUR ACTIONS AS TO HOW WE HANDLED THE 'APU GENERATOR' FAULT ISSUE. WE BELIEVE WE DID ALL OF THE CORRECT ACTIONS. IF WE HAD THE INCORRECT MEL AND THE ACFT WAS FLOWN ILLEGALLY IT WAS BY HONEST MISTAKE AND NOT BY INTENT. WE MADE EVERY EFFORT TO DO THE CORRECT PROCS WITH EACH OF THE 3 MAINT ISSUES WE HAD ON THE 2 LEGS WE FLEW IN THIS ACFT. I AM NOT A MECH. I BELIEVE THERE ARE TIMES THAT I CANNOT PROPERLY ASSESS A MAINT ISSUE AND EVEN DESCRIBE IT PROPERLY. WHAT I MAY SEE MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE EXTENT OF THE PROB. I AM NOT TRAINED TO DO MAINT NOR AM I QUALIFIED TO ASSESS MAINT ISSUES. THE PLT DEFERRAL OF MAINT IS NOT IN ANYONE'S BEST INTEREST EXCEPT POSSIBLY SAVING MONEY. I AM NOT A QUALIFIED MECH AND I DO NOT ALWAYS FEEL COMFORTABLE DEFERRING ITEMS. I AM ALWAYS CONCERNED MY DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION MAY BE INADEQUATE AND LEAD MAINT CTL DOWN THE INCORRECT PATH OF A SOLUTION. TRYING TO RESOLVE MAINT ISSUES VIA ACARS OR TELEPHONE OR RADIO PATCH IS FREQUENTLY DIFFICULT AS THE MESSAGE XMITTED MAY NOT ALWAYS BE THE MESSAGE RECEIVED. AS A RESULT; I AM ALWAYS CONCERNED THAT A SITUATION LIKE THIS WILL OCCUR. I BELIEVE I HAVE; TO BEST OF MY ABILITY; FOLLOWED ALL OF THE PROCS TO HANDLE THE PROB AND I AM LEGAL TO CONTINUE THE FLT WHEN IN REALITY I MAY NOT BE LEGAL. THE PLT DEFERRAL PROGRAM PLACES A GREAT DEAL OF RESPONSIBILITY ON ME AS A PLT. IT IS RESPONSIBILITY THAT I AM NOT TRAINED TO HANDLE; NOT QUALIFIED TO HANDLE WITH FULL CONFIDENCE AND I AM NOT COMPENSATED FOR IT. HOWEVER; IF THERE IS A SITUATION SUCH AS THIS; I AM THE ONE WHO WILL FACE THE POSSIBLE SANCTIONS; FINES AND VIOLATIONS FROM THE COMPANY AND/OR THE FAA. THE SECONDARY PROB IS OUR MEL MANUAL IS NOT EASILY USED AND SOMETIMES VERY CONFUSING. I DO NOT RECALL HAVING ANY TRAINING ON HOW TO USE THIS MEL WITH SOME LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE. THE BEST AVOIDANCE FOR THESE EVENTS IS TO HAVE ADEQUATE MAINT AVAILABLE AT THE STATIONS AS A RESOURCE FOR THE PLT.

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.