Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fan
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During preflight First Officer advised me that I should contact Maintenance with regards to an issue concerning the #2 engine. Appeared to be damage to the exit guide vanes; these are the stationary vanes directly behind the engine fan blades. Maintenance was contacted. First Officer and I both went to check the #2 engine. Upon further check we found multiple exit guide vanes throughout the bank of vanes that appeared to have been damaged. This went completely around the engine. There was material that was missing and exposing a green material underneath the missing material on multiple vanes. The missing material looked to have been torn or gouged out. Some of the material on the vanes appeared to have been shredded along with scratches on some of the vanes. The scratches ranged from 1/2 to three inches in length. The missing material was in various positions along the length of the vanes and on different sides of the vanes. Some of the material extended upward from the vanes in a jagged manner. None of this visible damage appeared to be uniform in nature. Not all vanes were damaged; but more than half of them were as far as I could tell. Note: An exit guide vane at the 4 o'clock position had been removed and was noted as such in the Log. In addition the #1 engine had two exit guide vanes at the 6 o'clock position that had been damaged and repaired. From what I could see it appeared that something had gone through the #2 engine and had damaged it. I made an entry in the Log to report the damage and request that the engine be checked and borescoped. I advised Maintenance; Dispatch; and the Duty Officer that I was not going to take this aircraft.This started another series of events. I had two mechanics that looked at the engine and told me that this was just normal wear and tear caused by wind erosion over time and that the missing material was a carbon tape that wrapped around the leading edges of the vanes. They both stated that the engine was ok. I disagreed and requested an inspection of the engine. Not at distance with a flashlight at night. This resulted in multiple phone calls to the Duty Officer; power plants; and eventually a conference call with two or three maintenance personnel and the Duty Officer. After about an hour of multiple conversations; it was determined that I was serious about not taking this aircraft until it was properly inspected. I cannot tell you the amount of pressure that I was placed under to try and convince me to take an airplane that in my view was damaged and not safe to fly. I was also left with the impression that my safety concerns were secondary at best and that the real issue was that maintenance did not want to take a hit for a down aircraft for the launch. We were eventually assigned at different aircraft; transloaded; departed 2 hours late.Appeared that something had been ingested through the #2 engine causing visible damage to multiple exit guide vanes on the #2 engine. This was found during the preflight of the aircraft by the first officer and reported to me. I do not know when the damage occurred.I think that the event could have been prevented if there was a record of the damage/wear and tear of the exit guide vanes and that this information was relayed to the flight crew if and when this damage was discovered. It was obvious to me that the aircraft did have a history of this nature since two vanes on the #1 engine had been damaged and repaired; and that a vane at the 4 o'clock position on the #2 engine had been removed. I hope that maintenance will keep a record and watch on this engine so that any future crews will have access to the history; know that the engine is being monitored and that the aircraft is safe to fly. I have had the exit guide vanes break and destroy an engine cowling before. It was quite significant. Maintenance did not tell me if there was any previous history of the damage that I was looking at.




Synopsis: A300 Captain is informed by his First Officer that a coating material appears to be peeling off the fan exit guide vanes. Maintenance is called and indicates that the missing material is carbon tape applied to the leading edges of the guide vanes and the ragged appearance is the result of normal erosion. The Captain refuses the aircraft and a two hour delay results.