A319
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Confusion; Troubleshooting
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Aircraft; Manuals; Procedure
There was a single MEL listed in the maintenance log and on the flight release (21-26-XX-X-Skin Air Outlet Valve). The MEL requires maintenance follow-up; and the required maintenance notation was in the logbook: 'AEVC Test accomplished per MEL 21-26-XXX.' Preflight; engine start; taxi-out; and take-off were normal. Just after the flaps were retracted; VENT SKIN VALVE FAULT was displayed on ECAM. I remembered reading a note in the MEL procedures (Operations Procedures) that 'If VENT SKIN VALVE FAULT is displayed on ECAM E/WD; follow ECAM procedure' non-normal methodology was followed; and First Officer retained control of the aircraft; and I ran the ECAM procedure. The first item in the ECAM procedure called for the BLOWER switch to be placed in OVRD. The second item called for the EXTRACT switch to also be placed in OVRD. The VENT SKIN VALVE FAULT remained illuminated. The next line on the ECAM was: IF UNSUCESSFUL; limit altitude to 10;000 FT; or MEA; select manual pressurization; depressurize cabin. That confused me (us). Since the VENT SKIN VALVE FAULT was still illuminated; I took that to mean that the fault was still present. I took this to mean that the ECAM procedure was unsuccessful. Seeking more information; I looked up the fault in the QRH; and supplemental non normal handbook. There is a note in each that says that with both the BLOWER and EXTRACT switch in OVRD; the radar may not continue to display on the N/D's. I had no interest in depressurizing the cabin (it was pressurized; and operating normally); and since there was a significant amount of convective activity along our proposed route of flight; I did not want to lose radar. First Officer continued to fly (maintaining 10;000 FT as per the ECAM note); and taking care of ATC communications while I contacted Dispatch via the SAT Phone. I was successful in getting our Dispatcher on the phone and after describing our situation; he put me through to Maintenance Control. I spoke at length with MOC; and none of us on the call (me; Maintenance Control; and the Dispatcher) had a clear idea what the ECAM message: 'IF UNSUCESSFUL' was referring to; what the next course of action should be. I told the Dispatcher that I wanted to divert; he agreed; and it was decided that we should turn back. I opted to not depressurize the cabin; and we made an uneventful return. Once on the ground; Maintenance arrived and cleared the original MEL (21-26-XXX). I spoke with the Senior Check Airman on the A320 via phone to get his perspective; and he agreed with us that the ECAM procedure was unclear; and diverting looked to be the appropriate response. After the MEL (21-26-XXX) was cleared; we departed and had an uneventful flight. Not enough information in the 'Operations Procedures' section of the original MEL; and ECAM procedure was unclear; confusing and perhaps irrelevant.
A319 Captain reports being dispatched with an MEL for a skin air outlet valve and with follow up procedures accomplished and signed off by Maintenance. After the flaps are retracted a VENT SKIN VALVE FAULT was displayed on ECAM. The ECAM procedure is unsuccessful and the crew elects to return to the departure airport.