Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
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 MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The first three words; 'before each flight' in the [MELs]. On this round trip; we were schedule to fuel in each location; so 'before each refueling' also applied.In an effort to be proactive; I called the Dispatcher and asked if we could verify that Contract Maintenance would be available to perform this check in the outstation. The Dispatcher seemed entirely unaware of what MEL I was referring to. He made a comment indicating that he didn't see that requirement and then said he would transfer the call to include [Technical Support Maintenance Control]. After holding the on the phone; the call was disconnected. I sent the Dispatcher an ACARS and I received an email to my company email (and the same response via ACARS) that stated; 'Sir. Sorry I dropped your call! In regards to the MEL; it is not a check each flight item.'I then called the Dispatcher back and read the MEL to him. He indicated that he did not read it but was basing his response on what [Technical Support Maintenance Control] told him. I asked to be connected with [Technical Support Maintenance Control] and; once connected; [Technical Support Maintenance Control] agreed with me and said that if the MEL says each flight; it will be checked in the outstation and they will coordinate it.This experience comes after another recent flight experience where I called the Dispatcher to clarify MEL language. During that call; with a separate Dispatcher; a Pack Inoperative MEL was dispatched with another PACK related CDL. The PACK MEL had a note that it could not be dispatched with another other PACK related MEL in the same chapter. I called to confirm that the reference to the MEL didn't include the open CDL of a missing PACK exhaust flap and that they weren't in the same Chapter. When I called; that Dispatcher said; 'Oh; I didn't even see that (...) where are you looking for that?' Once he read it; he said he didn't know the answer and we conferenced in [Technical Support Maintenance Control]. The reason for this report is to express concern and discomfort that our dispatchers seem task saturated beyond a point at which they can reliably and thoroughly review each release; specifically related to the MELs and CDLs that affect the flight. The workload they are given appears to force a mindset of a need to maintain operational performance; which appears to cause their process to simply become; 'if it's legal; it must be safe'. I called two dispatchers; on two flights; related to two different MELs and; in both cases; neither one even knew of the existence of the MEL I was referring to in the release they sent me.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported that dispatchers are task saturated and are missing items that are required by the FARs.