Narrative:

During the walk-around; I discovered the #3 main landing gear (medium large transport) tire had steel cord showing. I returned to the cockpit; had not seen the captain; so I entered a maintenance code into ACARS and sent a message to maintenance control. I also went down to the small operations room at ZZZ; to inform the ground personnel but no one was present. The captain arrived shortly; I informed him of what I'd found and done. He became short with me and seemed upset. He went below to look at the tire. Upon his return; I asked him if contract maintenance had arrived; he stated he'd taken care of the problem. I asked how. He informed me he called maintenance control; described the steel cords; and got a deferral. The captain was visibly upset I had entered a maintenance code in his absence. We received a new maintenance release shortly after; that deferred the tire per the captain and maintenance control. Later; questioning the legality of what had occurred; I looked in the pilot deferral list and a tire is not something a pilot can defer. I asked the captain how this came to be and he said it was his decision; not mine to write up maintenance issues; in his opinion I was trying to delay the departure; and such activity was prohibited. It seems to me an illegal deferral was made in this case; because contract maintenance could not be readily reached. There seems to be a great conflict of interest with a pilot deferring; with concurrence of maintenance control; an item that has been written up; that is not pilot deferrable. Where does one draw the line? Will we pilots next decide oil dripping from an engine or hydraulic fluid dripping from the rudder is not really that bad? Pilots are not trained to determine the airworthiness of aircraft with problems not specifically deferrable by the pilot. This would never be allowed at a regular maintenance base; so I must wonder how it is allowed at a non-maintenance base that has contract maintenance. Do we now determine problems with our aircraft on the convenience of maintenance; and if it is not readily available; we simply ignore the problem; or in this case; decide we are qualified to make a decision to defer the item? Do we use the excuse of legal action against the pilots for not writing up items we know need to be documented and examined by qualified personnel? The human factors issues involve the captain's desire to get out of town and the desire to avoid any further delay.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: After completing an A320 preflight walk-around and entering a code for Maintenance Requested for a worn # 3 Main Landing Gear (MLG) tire with steel cord showing; a First Officer informs the Captain. Captain deferred the worn tire under their Pilot's deferral list; not their MEL. First Officer believes the deferral is illegal.

Narrative: During the Walk-around; I discovered the #3 Main Landing Gear (MLG) tire had steel cord showing. I returned to the cockpit; had not seen the Captain; so I entered a Maintenance Code into ACARS and sent a message to Maintenance Control. I also went down to the small Operations room at ZZZ; to inform the Ground personnel but no one was present. The Captain arrived shortly; I informed him of what I'd found and done. He became short with me and seemed upset. He went below to look at the tire. Upon his return; I asked him if Contract Maintenance had arrived; he stated he'd taken care of the problem. I asked how. He informed me he called Maintenance Control; described the steel cords; and got a deferral. The Captain was visibly upset I had entered a Maintenance Code in his absence. We received a new Maintenance Release shortly after; that deferred the tire per the Captain and Maintenance Control. Later; questioning the legality of what had occurred; I looked in the Pilot Deferral List and a tire is not something a pilot can defer. I asked the Captain how this came to be and he said it was his decision; not mine to write up Maintenance issues; in his opinion I was trying to delay the departure; and such activity was prohibited. It seems to me an illegal deferral was made in this case; because Contract Maintenance could not be readily reached. There seems to be a great conflict of interest with a pilot deferring; with concurrence of Maintenance Control; an item that has been written up; that is NOT pilot deferrable. Where does one draw the line? Will we pilots next decide oil dripping from an engine or hydraulic fluid dripping from the rudder is not really that bad? Pilots are not trained to determine the Airworthiness of aircraft with problems not specifically deferrable by the Pilot. This would never be allowed at a regular Maintenance Base; so I must wonder how it is allowed at a non-Maintenance Base that has Contract Maintenance. Do we now determine problems with our aircraft on the convenience of Maintenance; and if it is not readily available; we simply ignore the problem; or in this case; decide we are qualified to make a decision to defer the item? Do we use the excuse of legal action against the Pilots for not writing up items we know need to be documented and examined by qualified personnel? The Human Factors issues involve the Captain's desire to get out of town and the desire to avoid any further delay.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.