A321
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
MEL; Aircraft; Human Factors
I noticed during preflight that ECAM status page inoperative system column reflected: Fwd Cargo Heat. Aircraft already was carrying MEL 21-XXA. This MEL did not address this specific item in the inoperative system column. Approximately 30 minutes prior to departure; I asked Maintenance to come to the aircraft. When the maintenance person arrived; I explained my concern that the MEL did not specify that 'Fwd Cargo Heat' would be itemized on the status page. MEL only mentioned no live animals or temperature sensitive cargo in forward cargo compartment. The maintenance person ran some tests and made the following statement: Forward Cargo Heat only shows up when the hot air push button sw (Switch) is selected off; so wait to select the hot air push button sw to off. I said that was ridiculous as it does not comply with the MEL. MEL specifies to select hot air push button sw to off during cockpit preparation. The maintenance person said that he didn't know what to tell me. I suggested that if 'Fwd Cargo Heat' was in fact a correct item for this MEL; to make note of it in the AML (Aircraft Maintenance Log); so that I am covered and future crews do not question it as well; since it is not addressed in the MEL. Maintenance person said no he couldn't do that. I suggested a simple notation on the white placard. He said no he couldn't do that. So; I put an entry in the AML stating: 'During preflight; ECAM inop sys: fwd cargo heat. Why? MEL 21-XXA does not address this.'He takes AML and sometime later comes back to plane with the following action taken in AML: ' fwd cargo heat checked and approved for deferral per MEL. Entered on mic. Auth# [XXXX]. Deferral item 21-XXB. Cont#[XXXX] Employee #[XXXX].' I reviewed added MEL 21-XXB; noting that this Mel states under (o) (Operations) procedures to: check that the hot air pressure regulating valve is 'indicated closed'. However; MEL 21-XXA states to check that it is 'closed amber.' The cond sd page showed the valve as closed amber. I asked the maintenance person if 'closed amber satisfied the MEL 21-XXB requirement of 'indicated closed.' I explained that I am not going to assume that amber is correct when possibly green is the correct indication for MEL 21-XXB. He stated that MEL 21-XXA takes precedence. I disagreed; explaining that each MEL must be complied with in its entirety. He disagreed. So; I put another entry in AML stating: 'Please confirm that hot air press reg valve indicating closed 'amber' complies with MEL 21-XXB. MEL 21-XXB stated to verify 'indicated closed.'' He takes AML and sometime later 2 maintenance persons come back to plane with the following action taken in AML (exact wording): 'comply with MEL 21-XXB on display page sys ECAM verify and o/h button off in I.A.W. MEL ok for contuted service tech sys notified.' I stated that this sign off does not address my write up; as it does not state that 'amber' is correct. I asked them why they didn't sign it off by stating clearly that 'amber' is correct? They stated they aren't allowed to state that. I called Dispatch; explained the issue; and Dispatch transferred me to [Maintenance Operations]. [Maintenance Operations] immediately tried to tell me that MEL 21-XXB stated 'closed amber.' I corrected [Maintenance Operations] stating that this MEL stated 'closed.' [Maintenance Operations] then stated that MEL 21-XXA stated 'closed amber' so he will assume that it is correct.I explained that I was fully aware of that wording for Mel 21-XXA and I was not going to assume that amber was correct for Mel 21-XXB. If amber is in fact correct; I asked that the AML be signed off stating that amber is correct; since the MEL is written quite unclear. [Maintenance Operations] said they couldn't sign it off any other way; as it would be outside the boundaries of complying with MEL sign offs. I disagreed and stated that they are required to answer clearly any question a Captain has written up in the AML. [Maintenance Operations] disagreed and stated that if Mel 21-XXB was the only MEL that I would not have an issue. I disagreed and stated I definitely would have since amber wasn't specified in that MEL. [Maintenance Operations] then stated that this conversation is over. I handed the AML back to the maintenance persons and stated that I am refusing the Aircraft per my FOM (Flight Operations Manual) as I am not satisfied that it is safe or legal. They left with the AML. I called [ZZZ Director of Flight Operations]; Chief [Pilot 1]; Chief [Pilot 2] and Duty Pilot. Duty Pilot called back. I explained the situation. He stated that he was talking to [Maintenance Operations]. Sometime later another mechanic arrived with the AML. I had the Dispatcher on my phone so that Dispatcher could hear my conversation with this mechanic. I asked this mechanic if it would be alright to let the Dispatcher listen in. He said yes. I explained my concern to this mechanic. He seemed receptive. He left with the AML. He returned sometime later with additional maintenance papers that explained valve positions and colors. I explained to him that all that I needed; all that I ever needed was a confirmation on the fwd cargo heat inop sys ECAM (with an AML notation somewhere) and now all I need is a confirmation on the amber indication. I stated that if you feel that amber is correct and you can state it in AML; I will take the plane. He wrote in the AML (actual wording): 'per AMM (Aircraft Maintenance Manual) 31-XX-XX description & operation hor air sov valve closed & green and amber indication on ecam both indicate valve is fully closed and meet Mel's 21-XXA and 21-XXB ok for continued service Employee # [XXX].' We then pushed 2 hours and 25 minutes late. I explained the above proceedings to Dispatch on a recorded line. I sent a message to Dispatch via ACARS explaining my last write up and my concerns. There is no explanation other than blatant disregard for a Captain's concern of operating legally and safely. Maintenance inability to hold an intelligent conversation with a flight crew. Line maintenance and [Maintenance Operations] handled my concerns with complete incompetence. There's no excuse. They should be held accountable. I was dealing with maintenance for 2 hours and 30 minutes. Line maintenance in [ZZZ1] and [Maintenance Operations] clearly have no interest in acting in a professional; legal; and safe manner with a flight crew's concerns....telling me to wait to turn a switch off; telling me that one MEL overrides another; telling me that they can't answer a Captain's question clearly in writing; telling me that it would be outside the boundaries of MEL compliance to do so; applying MEL 21-XXB to the plane when possibly it wasn't supposed to be applied (if it was; why was it not already on the plane?); and taking 2 hours and 30 min to get a sign off (from a fourth mechanic) that [Maintenance Operations] stated that they couldn't legally do. The flight back from ZZZ2 on this plane was delayed as well. Over 200 passengers.
A321 Captain reported difficulties with Maintenance providing clarification in Aircraft Maintenance Log and wording on Minimum Equipment List.