A321
Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Communication Breakdown
Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Aircraft; Logbook Entry; Procedure
I was the Captain assigned on Flight ABCD scheduled ZZZ to ZZZ1. Flight release indicated MEL item on Aircraft with the ELAC 1 computer reported fault from inbound crew the night before. Review of flight release and Aircraft Logbook showed flight was released under MEL 27-XXB. option 2. Both First Officer (FO) and I carefully reviewed the five pages of the MEL requirements prior to departure and discussed our plan of action prior to departure. Our initial review of the AML showed that the MEL action had been done by Maintenance; the Yellow form placard was in front of the logbook. ELAC 1 push button was placarded inoperative with inoperative sticker.After engine start and pushback; we requested taxi to a spot where we could conduct the required MEL ELAC/SEC check. We used the MEL carefully to comply with each step; however we did not see the expected responses or results on the system displays to confirm a satisfactory check. After several attempts to ensure we complied with the MEL procedure; I decided we needed to return to the gate and consult with Maintenance.Upon return to the gate; we discussed with the ZZZ Mechanic our observations of the MEL procedures. The Mechanic reviewed our AML and informed me that although the MEL for the ELAC 1 deferral was properly entered in the AML; the actual signoff for the flight was not entered. Further investigation revealed that the actual maintenance required actions for the MEL were not completed prior to the flight.Maintenance completed the required actions for the MEL procedure. Then; observed as the FO and I completed the operational preflight checks as required by the MEL procedure. All results were satisfactory and the passengers were re-boarded. The AML entries were completed correctly and we departed without further incident. Maintenance Personnel did not comply with MEL procedures in the MEL during overnight shift. We were not made aware of this until after we returned to the gate.I recently transitioned to the airbus from another type aircraft. With less than 100 hours in type; I have not had a lot of experience with the A320 MEL; and specifically not with the flight control system. Even with diligence; I misread the MEL operational directions; and wrongly interpreted the requirements for Dispatch with the AML sign off.A very poorly written 27-XXB. Option 2 MEL contributed to our misunderstanding of the MEL compliance requirements. Had the MEL stated 'Complete operational check prior to engine start' then it would have cleared up all confusion on the part of the flight crew. A five-page operational MEL is complicated and must be completed with great care. Rewrite the MEL 27-XXB. Option 2 MEL procedure to state 'Operational check must be performed prior to engine start.Specifically; include and incorporate ELAC 1 or 2 fault; MEL 27-XXB. Option 2; as a MEL work exercise in the initial A320 training syllabus. The flight control system; with its hydraulic powered components is a very complicated and a critical system. Working through the problem of an ELAC fault MEL Dispatch procedure will train any pilot to a better understanding of both the MEL procedures and the flight control system.Better oversight of station Maintenance assignment and completion. It is my understanding that the compliance with the Maintenance portion of the MEL was interrupted by various distractions; including a shift change causing the incomplete Dispatch and AML documentation.
A321 Captain reported noncompliance with Maintenance Logbook and MEL procedures for an ELAC 1 FAULT caused a gate return and flight delay.