Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: ECAM Message for APU EMER SHUTDOWN while on the ground in ZZZ. Mechanics were on board for another; unrelated; maintenance item. We notified them of the ECAM message. One of the mechanics was on the flight deck with the logbook and called Maintenance Control to report the APU EMER SHUTDOWN message. At Maintenance Control's direction we attempted to restart the APU. It started normally and accepted air conditioning and electrical loads with no issues. We heard the mechanic say into the phone; 'Don't put it in the book?' as a question. I asked him if Maintenance Control had told him not to record the APU EMER SHUTDOWN message and he said they told him not to record the incident in the logbook. This was not an 'Auto' shutdown. This was an EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN. And Maintenance Control is telling mechanics in the field NOT to log the event?!? Why?In the past we; as pilots; were told to write everything in the logbook for tracking purposes. Then; we had a series of cabin fume events. Then; (name) sends an email stating 'We finally figured out how to get the Airbus up to our Boeing standard for Maintenance.' Now; Maintenance Control is telling mechanics NOT to record an APU EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN. Is it the Boeing standard for Maintenance to not record maintenance items because it is too close to departure time? We were delayed anyway for the unrelated maintenance item. Is it the Boeing standard for Maintenance to not record maintenance items related to the APU when the recent cabin fume events were traced to APU maintenance issues?As a line pilot I question every day the facade that Management places safety above all else when they are clearly most concerned with playing Beat the Clock. I see it every day in the attitude and behavior of legacy (airline) gate agents who are so afraid of losing their job over a delay that they don't seem to care about any issues that delay the boarding process. They are programmed to operate as an automaton until a pilot gets in their way to stop the process. This is leading to substantial conflict between work groups.This narrow-minded focus on departure time; cost savings; and whatever is convenient for 'the operation' is what killed people in the past. Now; cutting corners on Maintenance Policy to record everything that happens; it could potentially kill people again. And with what I perceive as (airline) fundamental lack of understanding of the Airbus; how it works; and what its maintenance requirements are; it will likely be an Airbus that suffers a catastrophic event due to Management's lack of understanding of [the Airbus].Stop blaming the Airbus for the Company's performance issues. Stop creating a hostile work environment where employees put the operation above safety and blame each other for delays. Start paying attention to internal practices of cutting corners regarding written policy to record all Maintenance events.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported questioning Company Management's policy of not reporting certain aircraft maintenance issues.