Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Control Valves
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; MEL
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: This is an informational report; we did not deviate from any policies or procedures. We flew the aircraft with MEL 30-21 applied for the Number 2 PRSOV valve on the Number 1 engine. During flight we briefly turned on the engine anti-ice and we received the ECAM message 'ANTI ICE ENG 1 VALVE CLOSED: Avoid icing conditions' by the time we received the fault we were clear of clouds and we maintained clear of icing conditions for the remainder of the flight.We entered the discrepancy in the logbook; because under the MEL the engine anti-ice should be operative. Contract maintenance was called and ultimately worked on the plane over the next couple of days. We assisted contract maintenance for several hours during those days with engine runs. We were only there to provide assistance with starting and shutting down the engines during the required testing. They were unable to determine what the issue was and ultimately maintenance secured both valves closed on the Number 1 engine and applied MEL 30-21. We were then able to operate clear of icing conditions on the third day.Over the course of this situation; a couple areas of concern came up. First; MEL 30-21 requires maintenance to secure the inoperative valve open using AMM TASK 30-21. However; that same task card is used on MEL 30-21 which calls for the valve to be closed. I have not seen the task card; but it seems like having one task card for two opposite tasks may cause confusion when completing the maintenance procedure. The other concern that I have is that there didn't seem to be clear enough direction on which valve is considered 'Number 1' and which one is considered 'Number 2'. The valves were referred to by number and by 'forward' or 'aft'. It seemed to take a while to determine which valve was which and that leads me to believe that the documentation may not be clear enough. If there is confusion on which valve is which; then it would be possible to accidentally secure the wrong valve in the open position when applying the original MEL 30-21; which would cause the failed valve to remain in the closed position and prevent the engine anti-ice from working. I am not saying that this is what happened in our situation; because from the information that I have gathered; the correct valve was secured correctly. I don't know why we received the ECAM message; but I am sure that we shouldn't have received it.It would be worth reviewing these MELs and Task Cards to see if they need to be revised or if additional guidance needs to be provided. I am curious why we received that ECAM message with the original MEL; because according to the MEL the system should have operated normally.




Synopsis: A First Officer of an A320 reported his concern about the application of an MEL procedure for engine anti-ice.