Narrative:

When I arrived at our jet I found an MEL on the log book relating to a write up we had made on this aircraft when we brought it in the night before. That write up described an indication on the hydraulic ECAM page that indicated a failed or faulty pressure switch or related cannon plug downstream from the blue electric hydraulic pump. My past experiences with this specific write up has caused me numerous disagreements with maintenance control with regards to whether or not a suitable MEL exists for this condition. Those past experiences only reinforced my interpretation that the MEL does not address this specific condition; and it is therefore not 'MEL'able. When the condition was discovered the night before; I entered it and another discrepancy into the logbook and called maintenance control and relayed the info regarding both. I made clear to him that it was my interpretation of the mels that the hydraulic issue must be fixed; as it was not 'MEL'able. I assumed; wrongly; that with the aircraft overnighting with ample maintenance staff on duty the issue would be correctly addressed. Unfortunately; upon arriving the next morning I found the inappropriate MEL applied to the write-up.I called maintenance control and explained that their MEL did not address the indication; instead it addressed the label; an entirely different indication. We went back and forth; with him stating that airbus had put out some kind of an engineering statement years ago that supposedly addressed this indication and that we were 'good to go'. I replied that I had; in fact; read such a report years before and it was determined to not address this condition. I acknowledged that there may in fact be another report and I would be very eager to read it as I was looking for some way to legally fly this airplane with its passengers to their destination. After considerable discussion he acknowledged that the applied MEL was in fact incorrect; and he now wanted to apply the same MEL number; but with a new condition. The new proposed condition was for the electric pump indication. I pointed out that too was incorrect; as the pump indicated properly and the failed switch was downstream of the pump. I repeatedly stressed that I did not consider this a safety issue; but rather a legal one; as it was simply a poorly written MEL that did not adequately address all the potential ECAM indications.after significant additional dialog back and forth without a mutually agreeable solution I had no choice but to call maintenance control and refuse the MEL and; if it remained on the logbook; refuse the aircraft as well. I called dispatch and explained the situation and was transferred to the maintenance representative there. I relayed to him the disagreement with maintenance control and explained my pained position. He listened and said he'd get back to me. A short time later I learned that the flight had been put on an extended delay and a repair would be made. The delay extended into late afternoon when we finally departed. Simply put; this specific failure provides only 2 options. The first; fix the aircraft and proceed with schedule. Second; if fix isn't possible at current station within a reasonable period of time; as determined by maintenance control and dispatch; then maintenance ferry the aircraft to a station where repairs can be accomplished. The third option maintenance control tried to apply is not acceptable. One cannot twist an existing MEL to fit a scenario where it doesn't properly apply; as I believe was the case here. The fix is very simple; modify the mels to address this specific situation. Until this occurs; maintenance will not be able to avail itself of the very simple and reasonable process of applying a legal and safe MEL to this relatively innocuous situation. Oh; and ensure moc understands and respects the limits of the mels; and proceeds accordingly.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An A319 Captain refused an aircraft due to a deferred hydrualic system MEL item which he felt was inappropriately applied to the anomalous condition.

Narrative: When I arrived at our jet I found an MEL on the log book relating to a write up we had made on this aircraft when we brought it in the night before. That write up described an indication on the hydraulic ECAM page that indicated a failed or faulty pressure switch or related cannon plug downstream from the Blue electric hydraulic pump. My past experiences with this specific write up has caused me numerous disagreements with Maintenance Control with regards to whether or not a suitable MEL exists for this condition. Those past experiences only reinforced my interpretation that the MEL does not address this specific condition; and it is therefore not 'MEL'able. When the condition was discovered the night before; I entered it and another discrepancy into the logbook and called Maintenance Control and relayed the info regarding both. I made clear to him that it was my interpretation of the MELs that the hydraulic issue must be fixed; as it was not 'MEL'able. I assumed; wrongly; that with the aircraft overnighting with ample Maintenance staff on duty the issue would be correctly addressed. Unfortunately; upon arriving the next morning I found the inappropriate MEL applied to the write-up.I called Maintenance Control and explained that their MEL did not address the indication; instead it addressed the label; an entirely different indication. We went back and forth; with him stating that Airbus had put out some kind of an engineering statement years ago that supposedly addressed this indication and that we were 'good to go'. I replied that I had; in fact; read such a report years before and it was determined to NOT address this condition. I acknowledged that there may in fact be another report and I would be very eager to read it as I was looking for some way to LEGALLY fly this airplane with its passengers to their destination. After considerable discussion he acknowledged that the applied MEL was in fact incorrect; and he now wanted to apply the same MEL number; but with a new condition. The new proposed condition was for the electric pump indication. I pointed out that too was incorrect; as the pump indicated properly and the failed switch was downstream of the pump. I repeatedly stressed that I did not consider this a safety issue; but rather a legal one; as it was simply a poorly written MEL that did not adequately address all the potential ECAM indications.After significant additional dialog back and forth without a mutually agreeable solution I had no choice but to call Maintenance Control and refuse the MEL and; if it remained on the logbook; refuse the aircraft as well. I called Dispatch and explained the situation and was transferred to the Maintenance Representative there. I relayed to him the disagreement with Maintenance Control and explained my pained position. He listened and said he'd get back to me. A short time later I learned that the flight had been put on an extended delay and a repair would be made. The delay extended into late afternoon when we finally departed. Simply put; this specific failure provides only 2 options. The first; FIX the aircraft and proceed with schedule. Second; if fix isn't possible at current station within a reasonable period of time; as determined by Maintenance Control and Dispatch; then maintenance ferry the aircraft to a station where repairs can be accomplished. The third option Maintenance Control tried to apply is NOT acceptable. One cannot twist an existing MEL to fit a scenario where it doesn't properly apply; as I believe was the case here. The fix is very simple; modify the MELs to address this specific situation. Until this occurs; Maintenance will not be able to avail itself of the very simple and reasonable process of applying a LEGAL and safe MEL to this relatively innocuous situation. Oh; and ensure MOC understands and respects the limits of the MELs; and proceeds accordingly.

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.