Narrative:

While enroute; the crew sent a maintenance code noting the frequency on the number 2 generator was displayed in amber at 410 HZ during the climb out. The captain had encountered this on previous flights and the receiving station maintenance personnel had simply adjusted the idg frequency output; ran the engine and the aircraft returned to service. The destination maintenance supervisor directed the fix to our aircraft to be having the idg decoupled and deferred. As part of this deferral; the APU would be left on for the duration of the flight and used as a 'back-up' for the generator 1 carrying the load. The crew pointed out to the maintenance staff the numerous hits on the APU gen the past week (four) and stated we would not be terribly confident counting on a finicky generator as a back-up. We were told that the plan would not change and we would have to refuse the deferral item if necessary. I stated to the one mechanic we probably would; but the aircraft was never configured for the deferral nor was the idg ever disconnected. We did receive a visit in the cockpit from the maintenance supervisor; who explained that he had few staff and much work to do. Also; without the refusal he would be 'blamed' for any delay encountered while repairing the aircraft. The crew stated we could only 'refuse' a legally deferred aircraft; not some plan of repair. We were told a foreign carrier aircraft was due shortly (we do contract maintenance for them here) as well as another broken airbus. The possibility of a direct cancellation was mentioned by the supervisor. The maintenance staff ended up changing a generator control module and a successful run-up completed the work to sign off the number 2 generator. A normal takeoff was met with a circuit breaker rear panel popped ECAM and crew noticed a circuit breaker at T-30 was popped (generator 1 off bus tie contactor 2). SOP complied with and maintenance stated crew could reset with an 'emergency authority' caveat. Since we started the APU as a back-up and no further faults manifested; we decided to leave the circuit breaker out. Maintenance reply sent. The original problem of amber HZ on generator 2 was also noted to have returned. Maintenance reply sent. To conclude: we had a fairly minor issue with the number 2 generator that absolutely did not require removing a portion of a major aircraft system so that the station maintenance could run over and service another airline. Manpower; contract maintenance agreements and the time on the wall should never trump a quest for a safe operation; but it appears that today at that station they did. A refusal was put in the maintenance audit paperwork (not requested by crew) so that some perceived blame could be laid at the feet of the crew for wanting to operate in the safest manner possible. The crew never sent the refusal per fom guidance. It was not required. Flight safety guidance of late have mentioned a spike in generator related events (captain had one last month). To give one up only for the sake of expediency seemed like a poor choice to the crew. With the popped circuit breaker on departure; we likely would have returned to the departure airport if departing single idg.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An A319 Captain reported that maintenance wanted to disconnect an IDG for an over-frequency report and MEL the generator with an APU which was not totally reliable. The crew complained so the Generator Control was changed but it did not fix the problem.

Narrative: While enroute; the crew sent a maintenance code noting the frequency on the number 2 generator was displayed in AMBER at 410 HZ during the climb out. The Captain had encountered this on previous flights and the receiving station maintenance personnel had simply adjusted the IDG frequency output; ran the engine and the aircraft returned to service. The destination Maintenance Supervisor directed the fix to our aircraft to be having the IDG decoupled and deferred. As part of this deferral; the APU would be left on for the duration of the flight and used as a 'back-up' for the generator 1 carrying the load. The crew pointed out to the maintenance staff the numerous hits on the APU gen the past week (four) and stated we would not be terribly confident counting on a finicky generator as a back-up. We were told that the plan would not change and we would have to refuse the deferral item if necessary. I stated to the one mechanic we probably would; but the aircraft was never configured for the deferral nor was the IDG ever disconnected. We did receive a visit in the cockpit from the Maintenance Supervisor; who explained that he had few staff and much work to do. Also; without the refusal he would be 'blamed' for any delay encountered while repairing the aircraft. The crew stated we could only 'refuse' a legally deferred aircraft; not some plan of repair. We were told a foreign carrier aircraft was due shortly (we do contract maintenance for them here) as well as another broken Airbus. The possibility of a direct cancellation was mentioned by the Supervisor. The maintenance staff ended up changing a generator control module and a successful run-up completed the work to sign off the number 2 generator. A normal takeoff was met with a circuit breaker rear panel popped ECAM and crew noticed a circuit breaker at T-30 was popped (Generator 1 Off Bus Tie Contactor 2). SOP complied with and Maintenance stated crew could reset with an 'emergency authority' caveat. Since we started the APU as a back-up and no further faults manifested; we decided to leave the circuit breaker out. Maintenance reply sent. The original problem of AMBER HZ on generator 2 was also noted to have returned. Maintenance reply sent. To conclude: we had a fairly minor issue with the number 2 generator that absolutely did not require removing a portion of a major aircraft system so that the station maintenance could run over and service another airline. Manpower; Contract Maintenance agreements and the time on the wall should NEVER trump a quest for a safe operation; but it appears that today at that station they did. A refusal was put in the maintenance audit paperwork (not requested by crew) so that some perceived blame could be laid at the feet of the crew for wanting to operate in the safest manner possible. The crew never sent the refusal per FOM guidance. It was not required. Flight safety guidance of late have mentioned a spike in generator related events (Captain had one last month). To give one up only for the sake of expediency seemed like a poor choice to the crew. With the popped circuit breaker on departure; we likely would have returned to the departure airport if departing single IDG.

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.