Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown; Troubleshooting; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Over A Period Of Days
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Issue one: Prior to departing; I was debriefed by the previous crew about a temperature control problem. I talked to the Mechanic and he recommended that we not board yet. I told the Agent to hold off boarding until we heard from Maintenance then went to print the flight plans. The remote dispatch room in this concourse is at the opposite end of the terminal from where we were parked; so it took a while for me to head back to the plane. On my way back; the First Officer met me saying that the Gate Agent had threatened him with being personally charged with delaying our departure if he did not allow them to board the aircraft. I told him to let them board but that it was going to be uncomfortable for the passengers. When I got back to the plane the Mechanic told me that he had cleaned the temp sensor in the cockpit and that the system BITE checked OK. I looked at the pack temp data on the ECS/MSG page and found it to be way out of balance and inconsistent with the PAC temp control settings. When I showed it to the Mechanic he just kept saying that it BITE checked OK. I suggested to him that there was possibly a mechanical failure of some sort; but my input was only met with increasing resistance. He appeared to me to be pressured to get this plane off the gate; but reluctantly agreed to run another BITE check; this time with only the APU supplying air and with us watching the ECS/MSG page in the cockpit. During that test the left PAC output temp went to 148 while the right remained at 18. When the flight deck duct temp reached 113 I secured the left PAC. The Technician returned again reassuring us that the BITE test was perfect and the system was working properly. When I showed him the picture that I had taken of the temps during the test he agreed to investigate the possibility of a mechanical failure. Upon visual inspection of the actual ACM he discovered that the right PAC output temp sensor was not installed properly and was just hanging by the electrical connector beside the ACM. It had BITE checked OK because the BITE check does not verify the items installation; it assumes that it is installed correctly. He reinstalled it properly into its threaded fitting and the system then worked as it should. That issue was settled. ISSUE 2: While preparing the doors for departure the flight attendants noticed that door 4L was difficult to arm and that the arming mode selector handle did not travel full throw as it had on the previous leg that they had just flown on the same aircraft. I called Maintenance and the discrepancy was cleared. The Technician reported to have found debris in the girt bar fittings. That issue was settled; or so we thought. THE NEXT DAY (Issue 2 Revisited) While preparing the doors for departure the flight attendants again noticed that door 4L was difficult to arm and that the arming mode selector handle did not travel full throw. While I consider the in-flight crew members to possess more expertise than me when it comes to the normal operation of the doors; this time I went back to see for myself what was happening. Not only was the door malfunctioning as described; but the frame around the mode level had been knocked loose by some unknown trauma. My concern then became the possibility of internal damage or misalignment that would have a negative effect on our ability to use the door in the event of an emergency. Maintenance had already signed off the log book with an 'Ops Checks OK' type of entry. I asked the Tech to do an inspection to check for damage and he refused. He said that the problems were cosmetic and that he didn't care about anything other than the girt bar being in place. He and I disagreed and I continued to press him for an inspection. Standing toe to toe he told me; 'I'm not going to fix it and it can't be fixed at this base.' That prompted me to call the FODM who then placed me in contact with the Maintenance Supervisor; and ultimately a Maintenance Control Supervisor. They agreed with me that since there was damage to the door an inspection was warranted. That inspection did reveal a misalignment of the door that took quite a while to repair. The flight got cancelled and the next day we flew the same plane to our destination with door 4L functioning perfectly. The flight terminated without further incident.




Synopsis: A B757-200 Captain addressed multiple issues affecting the operation of his flights including improperly cleared maintenance issues; refusal to complete maintenance actions; confrontation with passenger service personnel over delays for maintenance; and a general breakdown in teamwork between different agencies within the airline.