Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; MEL; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Prior to push back the APU failed. APU was then MEL'd. Both engines were started in the Blocks due to APU failure and Pneumatic air start of both. As we started the pushback; the First Officer was cleaning up the Pneumatic start checklist and Number 2 Bleed Fault. We stopped the push and immediately informed MX (Maintenance) that the number 2 Bleed faulted. We complied with the ECAM instructions and shut off Number 2 Bleed. With the A/C stopped and parking brake set; I called the Dispatcher to inform him of the problem while MX was researching the problem with Maintenance Control and working the release document process. I confirmed with the FO (First Officer) that there was no associated Bleed Leak. MX asked if we had a Bleed Leak and we told him 'no.' MX then informed us that MEL 36-11-01-A was the applicable MEL. Because there was no associated Bleed Leak; there was no MX action to be performed; the valve was failed to the closed position. We shut down the number one engine to save fuel and realized we couldn't restart due to the number 2 Bleed valve and APU failed. I had MX pull us back into the Blocks for another pneumatic start of number 1 engine. We filled out the log and got the release document number as well as the MEL from MX (via Maintenance Control). After all the paperwork was completed; we started number 1 on pneumatics and then continued the push. MEL is incorrect for being a Flagged item if there is no associated Bleed Air Leak. No MX action is required without a Bleed Air Leak.


Second narrative: Crew notified me that they were having an issue with no. 2 bleed air supply and would probably have to defer it under MEL 36-11-01-a. I looked up the Mel and noticed that it had a FL310 restriction and also that the aircraft could not be operated into known/forecast icing. I checked icing maps and saw nothing to indicate icing other than the forecast scattered TS (thunder storm) activity in the area. I discussed this with the crew and we decided that we could remain clear of icing. I sent a new set of fuel burn numbers based on FL300 per the MEL. The MEL was added as a release document. During this period; I failed to notice that this was a flag item Mel and was thus not eligible to be added by release document procedure. After takeoff; I provided several updates to the crew via ACARS of TS locations to make sure that they were aware and able to remain clear of them.Proper release document procedure has the crew; myself; and a maintenance rep on a conference call. If this had been followed; the fact that this was a flag item may have been realized. I will pay more attention when it comes to identifying flag item MELs.


Synopsis: Pilots; dispatcher and maintenance controller reported that prior to push-back; an A300 APU failed and was deferred. After starting both engines using an air cart; the #2 engine bleed valve failed closed.