Narrative:

As aircraft was taxiing out for takeoff; engine anti-ice was in use. As engine anti-ice switches were selected off; we would intermittently get an ECAM notice and local fault light indicating the anti-ice valves had not fully closed (in disagreement with the selected switch position). Anti-ice was selected back on; fault lights and ECAM cleared; indicating anti-ice valves were now open; and in agreement with switch position. We stopped the aircraft to troubleshoot and/or diagnose the problem; and found that this was an intermittent problem; and did not occur all the time. As per our ops manual; I contacted the dispatcher and phone patched with maintenance to discuss the problem. We all agreed the flight was safe to continue; as whenever the fault occurred; the valves would fault to the safe position of 'on' guaranteeing engine anti ice protection; and we agreed to have maintenance correct the issue at the next landing. As per our ops manual; we judged it safe to continue; there was no reference to our procedure for this type of event in our QRH (quick reference handbook); the MEL was consulted and the operations procedure was complied with (increase fuel burn by 3% to account for continuous engine anti-ice use); and our supplemental non-normal procedures guide had no procedures to follow; so the dispatcher and I agreed it was safe to continue the flight. At the destination I was rechecking the MEL and realized that if the item was to be placed on MEL; there was a maintenance procedure to follow; which included physically securing the engine anti-ice valves in the open position. My concern now is that this may not have been the 'legal' course of action to follow. I have no doubt that safety was not compromised in any way; and that the flight was conducted with the highest level of safety...my concern is did I conduct the flight 'legally.' in the confusion of trying to complete a flight; trying to solve a discrepancy on a taxiway with a phone patch between dispatch and maintenance; my concern had been on 'do I judge it safe to continue;' to which we all agreed it was. My concern is that while attempting to follow the MEL and comply with the MEL 'operations procedures;' both the dispatcher and I were less concerned with and less attentive to the 'maintenance procedures;' which should have been accomplished. My belief is that since the aircraft had been dispatched; the item was not an MEL item; but was to be considered a 'non-normal' and handled as such. In accordance with that; we did comply with any and all ECAM messages and/or procedures; we did consult our QRH which did not even identify the issue; we did consult the MEL and complied with all operations considerations and procedures; and I did consult and comply with our supplemental non-normal procedures guide.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An A319 Captain described his confusion over an engine anti-ice ECAM indicating an anti-ice valve disagreement with the switches in the CLOSED position. Because the valves were all the way open the pilot treated the event as a non normal.

Narrative: As aircraft was taxiing out for takeoff; engine anti-ice was in use. As engine anti-ice switches were selected off; we would intermittently get an ECAM notice and local fault light indicating the anti-ice valves had not fully closed (in disagreement with the selected switch position). Anti-ice was selected back on; fault lights and ECAM cleared; indicating anti-ice valves were now open; and in agreement with switch position. We stopped the aircraft to troubleshoot and/or diagnose the problem; and found that this was an intermittent problem; and did not occur all the time. As per our Ops Manual; I contacted the Dispatcher and phone patched with Maintenance to discuss the problem. We all agreed the flight was safe to continue; as whenever the fault occurred; the valves would fault to the safe position of 'ON' guaranteeing engine anti ice protection; and we agreed to have Maintenance correct the issue at the next landing. As per our Ops Manual; we judged it safe to continue; there was no reference to our procedure for this type of event in our QRH (Quick Reference Handbook); the MEL was consulted and the operations procedure was complied with (increase fuel burn by 3% to account for continuous engine anti-ice use); and our Supplemental Non-Normal Procedures guide had no procedures to follow; so the Dispatcher and I agreed it was safe to continue the flight. At the destination I was rechecking the MEL and realized that if the item was to be placed on MEL; there was a maintenance procedure to follow; which included physically securing the engine anti-ice valves in the open position. My concern now is that this may not have been the 'legal' course of action to follow. I have no doubt that safety was not compromised in any way; and that the flight was conducted with the highest level of safety...my concern is did I conduct the flight 'legally.' In the confusion of trying to complete a flight; trying to solve a discrepancy on a taxiway with a phone patch between Dispatch and Maintenance; my concern had been on 'do I judge it SAFE to continue;' to which we all agreed it was. My concern is that while attempting to follow the MEL and comply with the MEL 'Operations Procedures;' both the Dispatcher and I were less concerned with and less attentive to the 'Maintenance Procedures;' which should have been accomplished. My belief is that since the aircraft had been dispatched; the item was not an MEL item; but was to be considered a 'non-normal' and handled as such. In accordance with that; we did comply with any and all ECAM messages and/or procedures; we did consult our QRH which did not even identify the issue; we did consult the MEL and complied with all operations considerations and procedures; and I did consult and comply with our Supplemental Non-Normal Procedures guide.

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.