Narrative:

Picked up crj-200 aircraft in ZZZ1. Found paperwork and logbooks and mels out. Looked like a crew had refused aircraft; but not sure. Read MEL which was a right idg constant speed drive; which locks the generator #2 out. Called dispatch and maintenance to confirm APU running and that numbers were applied; since [fuel burn] was not in the remarks. Dispatcher confirmed it was. Maintenance control stated that MEL for the generator #2 did not need to be applied to the MEL because constant speed drive [was] included in the MEL. I felt it was correct due to the MEL for the CSD and the generator consisted of the same (M) and (O) actions; and in VFR conditions (safe to fly).the actions on the (M) required; that for future flight the APU oil be checked within a flight day. Flight day consists of a 24-hour period (midnight to midnight). The oil was checked in ZZZ [earlier] that morning. So we were legal to depart. Once I landed found out that we were keeping aircraft for the next day. I called dispatch to inform that the departure time would exceed the 24-hour period for the APU oil check; so on-call [contract] maintenance would have to do it. Trying to head-off a problem for the next day. Dispatch informed me that they would tell them. Went to hotel. Next day; called before leaving hotel and informed them again about the MEL APU oil check. Once at the aircraft for flight; found the oil check had not been performed.I feel the MEL requires the APU oil check because it also requires that APU run continuously for every flight; at altitudes up to FL200; where oil coking has been reported to cause problems. Not only that; but by the second flight from ZZZ2 to ZZZ3 and thereafter; we would be encountering weather; and night operations increasing the risk if a failure should occur. I called dispatch to ask of the company's intentions and was put on hold for about ten minutes. So I called back and talked with my dispatcher again and told him that I am eating up my minutes on my phone; so I left my cell phone number and asked that maintenance call me. My phone did ring but it was my chief pilot on his personal line. I received two calls from him; one at xa:25; and the other at xa:31. First lasted four minutes and 15 seconds; which he was very professional; and asked me what was going on. I stated my concern and read to him the MEL for the number-two CSD requirements and then the definition of flight day out of the introduction page of the carrier's MEL book; and told him the times of the last APU oil check out of the maintenance logbook. He stated he was at a disadvantage because he did not have a MEL book in front of him. He then stated he will talk with maintenance then call me back.I waited; then he called back; the second call lasted three minutes and 28 seconds. He stated he talked with maintenance and they read it as a calendar day and that he feels it is safe to go. I reread the MEL and told him the page where it plainly states flight day. He told me if I feel it is unsafe that I can refuse the aircraft and they will get on-call maintenance out to check it; but it would have to be looked into further; but he feels it is safe. He then told me they will check the APU oil in ZZZ2. I told him I am not the only one affected here and I have to speak to my crew; and see how they feel. He then asked me to call him back. Told the crew what had transpired and told them that the first flight will be in VFR conditions so the risk of flight is severely reduced. Each thought the fallout from the company would be worse than any aircraft problem; and since we received no clarification from the maintenance department we weren't sure if we had misread the MEL.we all felt safe to go; and since the APU would be checked in ZZZ2; then the weather would pose no threat. I called dispatch and told them that we would then go to ZZZ2 and asked [dispatch] to please pass on to chief pilot. They told me he was still on the phone with them and they would. Called operations and they stated that maintenance control called and stated the delay should not be coded on them. Operations then asked me how I wanted to code the delay; I stated code it on the me; (a small part of event; but felt it important).left for ZZZ2 with a 30 minute delay. Landed in ZZZ2; [contacted] dispatch through ACARS; if we should hold boarding or board; didn't know how long it would take to do an oil check. No answer. Then the gate agent asked me to call operations because the company had called and stated that the maintenance action did not have to be done. So I told them that I would get hold of the company to find out what was going on. So I sent another ACARS. No answer. Finally operations sent back that maintenance would get to it when they had a chance. By that time the ZZZ2 gate manager was on-board with us; so he had his answer. All was good; didn't have to worry; APU was getting checked before we had to fly into weather or night operations; severely reducing the risk to the crew and passengers if an unseen event may occur. Still was wondering about time line; so tried to call company through commercial radio; but at that time contract maintenance showed up. Sent to dispatch that we were boarding and maintenance was done; got a message right away from dispatch saying thanks. Delay should of been shorter; but ZZZ2 operations asked if they could board another regional carrier beside us. They had weight and balance issues and had to kick a jump seater person; leading to a delayed boarding.if the entry into the logbook had not been made the plane would have gone all the way back to ZZZ4 where the work on the idg would have been done before an entry in the maintenance logbook would have ever been done for that flight day. It's terrible that our maintenance controllers will not even take the time to discuss an MEL with a crew before involving management into the decision. I feel this is a recurring event in the company lately; adding to a very stressful environment. After the event transpired; the moral and effort put forth by the crew was diminished causing fatigue.last week; on the same last day; flight to ZZZ4; I had to deny [refuse] an aircraft for an idg with an APU MEL. The APU MEL clearly stated that both main idgs have to be operative; but mr. 'X' in maintenance control stated it was a typo; and when I told him that I can't take it [accept the aircraft]; and before the dispatcher and mr. 'X' could talk about getting maintenance out to fix the problem; mr. 'X' just hung up on me and the dispatcher in the middle of our conversation. Just leaving me and my crew up in the air with no idea what was going to happen for the rest of the night. I talked with crew members and dispatch and found out I was the second crew member to refuse that aircraft and then a third refused it. I don't know how it got fixed; but that day the weather was hard minimums and there was no way I was attempting those odds with peoples lives in my control. I felt it important to write this to try to improve the relation between crew members and maintenance control; to try to relieve the stress [that's] added when every time you call; is a conflict. I really don't know how to fix this. I spoke to our union representative after this occurrence and wanted him in the loop if he has to defend me in the future against the company. It seems to be an increasing trend when speaking to other pilots. Maybe an open discussion would be the way to go. The only maintenance people the pilots come into contact with are the maintenance people who fix the aircraft and the relations are great with those folks.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CRJ-200 Captain reports about recurring conflicts with Maintenance Control involving an MEL requirement to check the APU oil within one 'Flight Day' as the MEL states; or within one 'Calendar Day' according to Maintenance; whenever an engine IDG/Generator is deferred. APU must remain running but oil coking in the APU oil lines shuts down the APU inflight; leaving only one Generator operating.

Narrative: Picked up CRJ-200 aircraft in ZZZ1. Found paperwork and logbooks and MELs out. Looked like a crew had refused aircraft; but not sure. Read MEL which was a Right IDG Constant Speed Drive; which locks the Generator #2 out. Called Dispatch and Maintenance to confirm APU running and that numbers were applied; since [fuel burn] was not in the remarks. Dispatcher confirmed it was. Maintenance Control stated that MEL for the Generator #2 did not need to be applied to the MEL because Constant Speed Drive [was] included in the MEL. I felt it was correct due to the MEL for the CSD and the Generator consisted of the same (M) and (O) actions; and in VFR conditions (safe to Fly).The actions on the (M) required; that for future flight the APU oil be checked within a Flight Day. Flight Day consists of a 24-hour period (midnight to midnight). The oil was checked in ZZZ [earlier] that morning. So we were legal to depart. Once I landed found out that we were keeping aircraft for the next day. I called Dispatch to inform that the departure time would exceed the 24-hour period for the APU oil check; so on-call [Contract] Maintenance would have to do it. Trying to head-off a problem for the next day. Dispatch informed me that they would tell them. Went to hotel. Next day; called before leaving hotel and informed them again about the MEL APU oil check. Once at the aircraft for flight; found the oil check had not been performed.I feel the MEL requires the APU oil check because it also requires that APU run continuously for every flight; at altitudes up to FL200; where oil coking has been reported to cause problems. Not only that; but by the second flight from ZZZ2 to ZZZ3 and thereafter; we would be encountering weather; and night operations increasing the risk if a failure should occur. I called Dispatch to ask of the company's intentions and was put on hold for about ten minutes. So I called back and talked with my Dispatcher again and told him that I am eating up my minutes on my phone; so I left my cell phone number and asked that Maintenance call me. My phone did ring but it was my Chief Pilot on his personal line. I received two calls from him; one at XA:25; and the other at XA:31. First lasted four minutes and 15 seconds; which he was very professional; and asked me what was going on. I stated my concern and read to him the MEL for the Number-Two CSD requirements and then the definition of Flight Day out of the introduction page of the carrier's MEL book; and told him the times of the last APU oil check out of the Maintenance Logbook. He stated he was at a disadvantage because he did not have a MEL book in front of him. He then stated he will talk with Maintenance then call me back.I waited; then he called back; the second call lasted three minutes and 28 seconds. He stated he talked with Maintenance and they read it as a Calendar Day and that he feels it is safe to go. I reread the MEL and told him the page where it plainly states Flight Day. He told me if I feel it is unsafe that I can refuse the aircraft and they will get on-call Maintenance out to check it; but it would have to be looked into further; but he feels it is safe. He then told me they will check the APU oil in ZZZ2. I told him I am not the only one affected here and I have to speak to my crew; and see how they feel. He then asked me to call him back. Told the Crew what had transpired and told them that the first flight will be in VFR conditions so the risk of flight is severely reduced. Each thought the fallout from the company would be worse than any aircraft problem; and since we received no clarification from the Maintenance Department we weren't sure if we had misread the MEL.We all felt safe to go; and since the APU would be checked in ZZZ2; then the weather would pose no threat. I called Dispatch and told them that we would then go to ZZZ2 and asked [Dispatch] to please pass on to Chief Pilot. They told me he was still on the phone with them and they would. Called Operations and they stated that Maintenance Control called and stated the delay should not be coded on them. Operations then asked me how I wanted to code the delay; I stated code it on the me; (a small part of event; but felt it important).Left for ZZZ2 with a 30 minute delay. Landed in ZZZ2; [contacted] Dispatch through ACARS; if we should hold boarding or board; didn't know how long it would take to do an oil check. No answer. Then the gate Agent asked me to call Operations because the company had called and stated that the Maintenance action did not have to be done. So I told them that I would get hold of the company to find out what was going on. So I sent another ACARS. No answer. Finally Operations sent back that Maintenance would get to it when they had a chance. By that time the ZZZ2 gate Manager was on-board with us; so he had his answer. All was good; didn't have to worry; APU was getting checked before we had to fly into weather or night operations; severely reducing the risk to the crew and passengers if an unseen event may occur. Still was wondering about time line; so tried to call company through commercial radio; but at that time Contract Maintenance showed up. Sent to Dispatch that we were boarding and Maintenance was done; got a message right away from Dispatch saying thanks. Delay should of been shorter; but ZZZ2 Operations asked if they could board another regional carrier beside us. They had Weight and Balance issues and had to kick a jump seater person; leading to a delayed boarding.If the entry into the logbook had not been made the plane would have gone all the way back to ZZZ4 where the work on the IDG would have been done before an entry in the Maintenance Logbook would have ever been done for that Flight Day. It's terrible that our Maintenance Controllers will not even take the time to discuss an MEL with a crew before involving management into the decision. I feel this is a recurring event in the company lately; adding to a very stressful environment. After the event transpired; the moral and effort put forth by the crew was diminished causing fatigue.Last week; on the same last day; flight to ZZZ4; I had to deny [refuse] an aircraft for an IDG with an APU MEL. The APU MEL clearly stated that both main IDGs have to be operative; but Mr. 'X' in Maintenance Control stated it was a typo; and when I told him that I can't take it [accept the aircraft]; and before the Dispatcher and Mr. 'X' could talk about getting Maintenance out to fix the problem; Mr. 'X' just hung up on me and the Dispatcher in the middle of our conversation. Just leaving me and my crew up in the air with no idea what was going to happen for the rest of the night. I talked with crew members and Dispatch and found out I was the second crew member to refuse that aircraft and then a third refused it. I don't know how it got fixed; but that day the weather was hard minimums and there was no way I was attempting those odds with peoples lives in my control. I felt it important to write this to try to improve the relation between crew members and Maintenance Control; to try to relieve the stress [that's] added when every time you call; is a conflict. I really don't know how to fix this. I spoke to our Union Representative after this occurrence and wanted him in the loop if he has to defend me in the future against the company. It seems to be an increasing trend when speaking to other pilots. Maybe an open discussion would be the way to go. The only Maintenance people the pilots come into contact with are the Maintenance people who fix the aircraft and the relations are great with those folks.

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.