Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Manuals; MEL; Logbook Entry
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: In the logbook and on our flight plan we had MEL 27-88-02 which was suppose to deactivate the Kruger flap system. The logbook was reviewed and the MEL was discussed between the First Officer and myself. All the placards were in place and signed off by maintenance that the DMP was accomplished. We started the aircraft and taxied out to the runway. I did notice a Kruger light on the SFPI; which was in the MEL that it might be displayed. We took off and climbed out. As we retracted the slats we received an ECAM warning and a single chime. The First Office was flying so I handled the ECAM. The ECAM message showed a Kruger not retracted and a notation of MAX SPD 300KIAS/.65. We did our after takeoff flows and checklist and I told the First Officer to fly the airplane and to not exceed the speed shown in the notation on ECAM. I did remember that besides getting the Kruger light that you could also get an ECAM message saying Kruger Fault. This was not the message we received after bringing up the flaps. I decided to get Maintenance Control on the line with Dispatch. I queried the maintenance people about our situation. I explained what we were showing and that it did not correspond with the MEL we had in the log book. We both concluded that if we could we would continue .65/300 knots. Maintenance was sure that the MEL was complied with and that it was probably an erroneous message; but to be safe we would comply with the speeds on the ECAM. After a discussion with dispatch about extra fuel burn and a longer duration flight we decided we were safe even if the Kruger Flap was extended. The dispatcher did run the numbers for fuel burn with Kruger Flap extended. The flight was uneventful and we landed with no further problems. I did make a comment in the logbook about what had transpired during the flight so if this was an anomaly maintenance could add this message to the MEL. We exited the aircraft where I noticed the Kruger Flap on the left side of the aircraft was partially extended. I immediately got the mechanics involved and told them of the situation. We headed to hotel for a 3 hour layover where we were to return to fly later. After returning to the gateway; and heading to the same aircraft we noticed the gear doors down and a panel on the wing root open. I met up with the maintenance people and asked if there was a problem. He told me that the aircraft was out of service. I asked him what was going on and we were told that the DMP for the KRUGER Flap MEL had not been complied with even though it had been stated so in the log book. Our flight was eventually cancelled as they were having some issues with the log book and could not do the DMP for this MEL.


Second narrative: The aircraft had MEL 27-88-02. During initial climb we received an ECAM for kruger flap not retracted. The MEL did not mention this warning so we complied with the restrictions and called dispatch and maintenance to see if they had any additional information for us and if they preferred us to come back or continue to our destination. Maintenance and the crew felt safe continuing to destination using the restrictions for the ECAM message and dispatch agreed.


Synopsis: A300 Flight Crew reported they had a flap problem but continued to their destination then later discovered they were not in compliance with the MEL.