A320
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Arrived at aircraft to be greeted by a pungent odor and Flight Attendants advising me of a deferred row of seats due to a vomit event that had occurred on a prior flight (unknown how many legs flown in present condition). As the FAs had already made inquiries as to additional cleaning of the soiled area it was related/determined that the particular event had taken place in excess of 24 hours prior and the entire row was merely deferred without any apparent or indicated cleaning as a corrective action. The prior resolution was to apparently pick up the 'chunks'; covering the affected area with coffee grounds to mask the odor and then defer the entire row. As the spill was indicated to be vomit and/or containing other bodily fluid; myself and other crew members agreed that the situation was bio-hazard/hazmat in its present condition. Cleaning staff that was present at the time had additionally stated that they would not address; were unable and could not/would not provide any further resolution to the soiled area. 'No supplies or time' was the response I received.I would not/will not expose my crew; my passengers or myself to the continuation of this condition/potential hazard. I subsequently contacted operations and requested further cleaning and Maintenance to review the situation and was met with significant opposition to any resolution. 'Can we board?' was entirely unacceptable to the entire crew with respect to the odor and additionally the visual aspect (especially being that it was row 2). Finally a Maintenance Supervisor arrived to assist in the situation; whereby it was finally agreed on that this was a valid concern. I also then made a logbook entry in an effort document/require corrective action. Additionally I must also mention that the aircraft apparently had flown multiple legs in this condition. Finally further cleaning was accomplished and the corrective action was agreed upon to be satisfactory with the row remaining deferred. Upon further review/scrutiny of the incident it has now become apparent that the original deferral used (a previous crew/crews) was also wrong since this row does not contain inflatable seat belts. There are 2 specific/different MEL deferral procedures relating to the seat belts. Although the deferral used is/would be more restrictive and minor in difference it is nonetheless wrong. It is also troubling that this was overlooked in haste to keep this airplane 'on-time/schedule' under the oversight of myself and however many supervisors were present/became involved.
A320 Captain reported refusing to accept an aircraft until an insufficiently cleaned area of vomit in the cabin had been addressed.