Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: When we arrived at the aircraft; fueling was complete and loading was nearly complete. The ACARS printer was malfunctioning and maintenance staff was informed. Maintenance finally provided fuel slips and the logbook at departure time without fixing the printer. The printer discrepancy was entered and maintenance provided a deferral. We blocked out after verifying the daily check and autoland were within their required time intervals.Upon landing; the APU failed to start and the associated APU FAULT EICAS message displayed. We referenced the QRH and attempted a 2nd start per the procedure. During these start attempts APU N1 stagnated at 23%; then rolled back.The next morning at wakeup; I called Dispatch to inquire about the APU status. The dispatcher informed me there were no APU MEL's. I requested a conference call with [Maintenance Control] but they were unwilling to talk with me. I insisted and finally spoke with a Maintenance controller. He said that since we had only attempted 2 starts; the write up had been cleared with a 3rd successful start. I informed him that the QRH didn't provide for a 3rd start attempt and the 3rd attempt that maintenance preformed occurred well after landing. Once at the aircraft; maintenance confirmed the 3rd start occurred several hours after landing. Since this 3rd start was preformed after the APU had time to warm; I requested a verification flight procedure be used but [Maintenance Control] declined.I then called [Management] and requested to speak with a Chief Pilot. They intervened and the verification flight procedure was implemented for our return flight.During cruise we began to review past logbook pages and noted the following issues. The APU had been written up 7 times [in the previous month]; prior to our [outbound] flight; for failed starts attempts. Each time the item was cleared with the corrective action 'Opts Check Normal or Good' while on the ground. Prior to our departure an APU Cold Soak Start Verification Flight had not been completed. ETOPS Maintenance manual requires an in-flight verification if the maintenance action can't be verified by normal ground tests or if a 'Critical Item' sustains two consecutive fight legs malfunctions.The aircraft should not have been released for ETOPS for our [outbound] flight without the APU running. If we sustained an engine generator failure; it is highly unlikely the APU would have started in-flight.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported that aircraft maintenance issues were not being addressed in accordance with FARs.