A319 Captain and Dispatcher describe the events surrounding the Capitan's refusal to accept an aircraft that had experienced an uncommanded engine shut down after landing the previous night. The maintenance response in the logbook was that there were 'no faults; no failures and the condition could not be reproduced.'

Date: 2012-01 · Aircraft: A319 · Phase: ground

Anomalies: aircraft-equipment-problem-critical|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-maintenance

Synopsis

Narrative

Approximately 40 minutes before departure; Captain called to advise me of a logbook write-up from the previous night. The logbook said that after landing and pulling off the runway; the number one engine shut down. Captain said that the Maintenance response in the logbook was that there were 'no faults; no failures and the condition could not be reproduced.' The aircraft was certified as airworthy by the mechanic that signed it off. Captain said that he would not accept the aircraft because nothing had been done to fix the aircraft after an uncommanded shutdown. I told the Captain that I supported his view and that I would research the issue. After calling the Maintenance Tech Foreman; I was assured that the engine never shut down; and that it was just an ECAM fault. He said that it was basically like getting a check engine light on your car. I called Captain on his cell phone to explain the maintenance theory. He replied that the logbook said engine shutdown; not ECAM message of a shutdown. He was not interested in flying that airplane without an explanation of how the aircraft was repaired. I agreed that we would not move the airplane without further information. When I asked the Unit Coordinator for another airplane; I was told that there would not be a replacement because Maintenance said that aircraft was airworthy. I told him that the flight would not depart with that aircraft and I was advised to have the Captain call his Chief Pilot. I was also told to cancel the flight and charge the cancellation to the crew for refusing a good airplane. I made several requests to contact the pilot that made the original write-up and he was finally located. After speaking with his Chief Pilot; the Captain confirmed an uncommanded number one engine shutdown upon exiting the runway last night. The Captain/Dispatcher was pressured to accept an airplane that had an actual engine shutdown; and was not repaired.Maintenance and the Unit Coordinator made assumptions that the reported engine shut down was a computer error instead of finding out for certain. This wasn't an issue of whether a coffeemaker was repaired; it was an ENGINE failure. The mechanic should face severe reprimand for signing off the logbook without making sure that the problem was fixed. He signed his name that the airplane was airworthy; yet this aircraft has been out of service for 3 days and counting. Who know what would have happened if that plane took off on a short runway with passengers; and lost the engine at a critical moment.

Second reporter narrative

I reported to the aircraft to begin my pre-flight duties. When I checked the logbook an entry had been made by the Captain of the previous flight 'THE # 1 ENGINE FAILED ON LANDING'. Under the maintenance action the sign-off stated that no discrepancy could be found and that the aircraft was returned to service. I refused the aircraft due to 'insufficient action by Maintenance' and entered that statement into the logbook. Maintenance and Dispatch were contacted and informed of my decision not to accept the aircraft. The Dispatcher of the flight; agreed with me and my decision. Operations contacted me and stated that Maintenance had cleared the discrepancy in question and returned the aircraft to service and was I refusing to fly the trip? I stated that I was refusing the aircraft in its present condition. I contacted Maintenance Control and was told that this was nothing but an erroneous ECAM issued by the aircraft's computers and that Maintenance Control verified this event in their computer banks. I again read to him the exact write-up as 'THE # 1 ENGINE FAILED ON LANDING' to which he replied that the write-up was written wrong by the Captain and the aircraft was cleared for passenger service. Operations again asked if I was refusing to fly the trip and again I stated that I was refusing the aircraft for maintenance reasons. I than contacted my Dispatcher and asked if he would contact my Chief Pilot and have him call me via my cell-phone. Chief Pilot contacted me and asked how he could help. I informed him of the situation and said that if the Captain of the flight in question could be contacted and confirm to me that the engine had not quit on him but that it was indeed just an ECAM event; than after I ran the engine with a mechanic and it tested O.K. I would accept the aircraft. This plan of attack was agreed upon and after about an hour the Chief Pilot called me and informed me that the Captain in question was contacted and when asked about the event stated that the engine 'DID FAIL ON LANDING'; and it was not an ECAM event as stated by Maintenance and that he taxied back on one engine! The Chief Pilot advised me not to accept the aircraft.This event should never have occurred. My crew and I felt pressured and threatened by Operations to accept an aircraft that was clearly not airworthy. Also Maintenance Control was less than honest with me about the data it received on the event. I don't understand how the most sophisticated; computerized aircraft on the planet can send erroneous data on such a major event (an engine failure) to the computer banks of Maintenance Control! Most importantly of all; how is it that Maintenance and Operations completely disregarded the write-up of an engine failure by one of our senior Captains and assume the write up is wrong?

More incidents for this aircraft family →

Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.

← All incident reports Global safety overview