Narrative:

On arrival in operations; while completing my preflight duties; I noted 4 log history items concerning possibly interrelated flight control issues and elected to call dispatch and maintenance control to gain further insight. The maintenance controller stated that he needed to get up to speed (perhaps he had just started his shift?) and that I 'should just refuse the aircraft!' I protested that course of action and advised him that I was just seeking clarification of the write ups in the log; because they were vague and I could not determine if the problem had been properly corrected. The maintenance controller stated that he did not see any additional information in 'his system' and that he was not sure if the problem had been handled correctly by maintenance; so it was better to keep the aircraft on the ground rather than send it out of a maintenance station with a potential unresolved problem. I agreed and asked if another aircraft was available for our flight. He stated he did not know; and at that time; the dispatcher stated that based on the conversation that he had just heard between myself and maintenance control; that he was going to refuse the aircraft and either have maintenance performed or find us another ship. I advised the dispatcher on how to contact me and waited for further information. My first officer suggested that we go visit the maintenance controllers to see if they could assist. I briefed the controller on my concerns and what had transpired in my conversation with dispatch and maintenance control. After looking in his computer system; he stated that there were no related deferrals or open items on the aircraft and that 'I could not refuse the aircraft.' at that point I reminded him that I had not refused it ; the dispatcher had; but regardless; I had concerns about the log history and wanted them resolved prior to signing a release for the flight. At that point; he became indignant and told me that maintenance had run a ground test on the system and the aircraft had told them it was ok. I again reminded him of the potentially chronic nature of the issue and asked at what point will good judgment take a precedent over continually returning an aircraft to the line after a 'ground checks normal'. His remarks were that the 'aircraft was smarter than we are'; and if it ground tests ok; then as far as he is concerned it's not broken and I should just go fly. At this point; I went to the flight office and briefed the duty manager on what had transpired and we proceeded to conference call with maintenance control. Dispatch; maintenance control and I all expressed concern over a potential malfunction with the aircraft; but base maintenance continued to protest further troubleshooting; stating the aircraft had flown two legs since the write-up with no gripes so it must be ok now; and it would take two mechanics 30 minutes to perform the testing necessary to rule out any problems. The maintenance controller ordered the work performed despite the protests of base maintenance and it was discovered that a flap/slat control computer had failed and needed to be replaced. The repair was made and the flight departed approximately 1:30 late. It is obvious to me that the attitudes displayed by some parties to this discussion; display far less than our stated focus of a safety mindset. Furthermore; seeking to intimidate those who put forth a legitimate concern about the safety of our flight operations should never be tolerated.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A320 Captain questioned maintenance actions taken to address flap/slat problems on an aircraft he was assigned and is criticized by the maintenance personnel involved. A defective FSEU (Flap Slat Electronic Unit) was eventually detected and replaced.

Narrative: On arrival in operations; while completing my preflight duties; I noted 4 log history items concerning possibly interrelated flight control issues and elected to call Dispatch and Maintenance Control to gain further insight. The Maintenance Controller stated that he needed to get up to speed (perhaps he had just started his shift?) and that I 'should just refuse the aircraft!' I protested that course of action and advised him that I was just seeking clarification of the write ups in the log; because they were vague and I could not determine if the problem had been properly corrected. The Maintenance Controller stated that he did not see any additional information in 'his system' and that he was not sure if the problem had been handled correctly by maintenance; so it was better to keep the aircraft on the ground rather than send it out of a maintenance station with a potential unresolved problem. I agreed and asked if another aircraft was available for our flight. He stated he did not know; and at that time; the Dispatcher stated that based on the conversation that he had just heard between myself and Maintenance Control; that he was going to refuse the aircraft and either have maintenance performed or find us another ship. I advised the dispatcher on how to contact me and waited for further information. My first officer suggested that we go visit the Maintenance Controllers to see if they could assist. I briefed the controller on my concerns and what had transpired in my conversation with Dispatch and Maintenance Control. After looking in his computer system; he stated that there were no related deferrals or open items on the aircraft and that 'I could NOT refuse the aircraft.' At that point I reminded him that I had not refused it ; the Dispatcher had; but regardless; I had concerns about the log history and wanted them resolved prior to signing a release for the flight. At that point; he became indignant and told me that maintenance had run a ground test on the system and the aircraft had told them it was OK. I again reminded him of the potentially chronic nature of the issue and asked at what point will good judgment take a precedent over continually returning an aircraft to the line after a 'ground checks normal'. His remarks were that the 'aircraft was smarter than we are'; and if it ground tests ok; then as far as he is concerned it's not broken and I should just go fly. At this point; I went to the flight office and briefed the duty manager on what had transpired and we proceeded to conference call with Maintenance Control. Dispatch; Maintenance Control and I all expressed concern over a potential malfunction with the aircraft; but base maintenance continued to protest further troubleshooting; stating the aircraft had flown two legs since the write-up with no gripes so it must be ok now; and it would take two mechanics 30 minutes to perform the testing necessary to rule out any problems. The Maintenance Controller ordered the work performed despite the protests of base maintenance and it was discovered that a Flap/Slat control computer had failed and needed to be replaced. The repair was made and the flight departed approximately 1:30 late. It is obvious to me that the attitudes displayed by some parties to this discussion; display far less than our stated focus of a safety mindset. Furthermore; seeking to intimidate those who put forth a legitimate concern about the safety of our flight operations should never be tolerated.

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.