A320
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 54; Flight Crew Type 1557
Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Aircraft; Procedure
I was assigned to fly 2 legs from ZZZ to ZZZ1 through ZZZ2. The aircraft had a MEL item for SEC (Spoiler and Elevator Computer) 2 indication INOP F/CTL page. I called Maintenance Control and after a conversation with an Airframe Technician; called Dispatch and refused the aircraft. I had 3 main concerns that the Airframe Technician did not address.There is a note under flight crew that states there are no landing penalties with SEC 2 INOP. Yet in the FM (Flight Manual) under F/CTL GND SPLR 5 INOP for loss of Spoiler 5 for SEC 2; a landing distance procedure applies. The Airframe Technician could not explain the difference. I don't know why these contradict.The following note states Maintenance is required to verify sidestick transducers associated with ELACs (Elevator and Aileron Computer) and operative SECs are operative. This sentence seems redundant to what the flight crew are asked to do in the procedure; which appears to ask the crew to pressurize all 3 hydraulic systems and do a flight control check for each operative ELAC and SEC. I say appears because this was far from clear in my conversation with the Airframe Technician. In fact; the verbiage appears different from the FM's description of the flight control check; which states both engines and generators must be running. So why am I doing this at the gate using the blue system on the aft overhead maintenance panel? At this point I am making educated guesses. The system training we as aircrew are given does not support doing this type of deferral. Having been through 4 full-course for the bus; the switch was identified as being for Maintenance use only. If I need to be able to do this type of deferral; I need better and more thorough system knowledge of what I am doing and why I am doing it; either from the Airframe Technician or ground school. I would propose a Pepsi blind taste test - call 3 different airframe technicians and ask them to explain this deferral. My bet is you would get 3 completely different answers. I just don't think our system ground training program supports this type of deferral.For a deferral of this type there needs to be a one paragraph-big picture of what you as the pilot are trying to accomplish. Pilot-to-pilot. If the Airframe Technician can't explain it to me adequately; and neither myself or the FO (First Officer) understands what is being conveyed; then we as a crew cannot meet the FOM requirements to have a complete understanding of the maintenance status. This leads to the philosophical debate of how much information needs to be taught in ground school; but I would submit for deferrals such as this we need much more. In addition; this day we received an email from ZZZ1 Operations stating there was a large weather system moving through; with the likelihood of diverts. Taking an aircraft that required maintenance action every leg to an alternate could be problematic.
A320 Captain reported confusion over whether certain components of the flight control system were deferrable and ultimately refused the aircraft.