Narrative:

Coming out of 16000' we experienced a #1 CSD high oil temperature. We followed procedures and disconnected the CSD. We then started the APU and used it to power the #1 buss. Being that we were so close to phx, and the WX in chicago, we elected to go back to phx to have the system looked at. This was a very conservative measure, but since it was snowing at our destination and we had minimum fuel for trip, so APU running for 3 hours would dent our contingency fuel. Therefore, we thought it best to have system looked at, since we were so close to a maintenance facility and the temperature had jumped so fast. In order to go back to phx we would have to make an overweight landing. We weighed 110000 pounds; aircraft limit 105000#. Conditions were favorable: very light winds, long runway, long final to stabilize and captain's recent streak of very smooth lndgs. I notified company--alerted maintenance for inspection. We did not declare an emergency. We contemplated burning off the excess, but did not feel the 1 hour burn time was warranted under conditions. The landing was picture perfect. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter stated that aircraft did not have fuel dump capability, therefore the election to land overweight. Further stated that a proper log book write up was made in that it was stated that an overweight landing had been made and that write-up was signed off as being inspected. As further events unfold, it appears that the company had taken punitive action on this captain, using marginal judgement and financial loss as a basis. (Someone had cancelled the flight and revenue was lost--no one knows who cancelled the flight.) it was reported that the captain involved was also in some form of contestant mode with the company, having made several unscheduled lndgs prior to this event. Pilot group generally thought company was making an example of this pilot by suspending him for 7 days and sending him back for training. The flight re-originated to destination 2 hours later. Reporter also brought up the information that he felt that morale was at an all-time low as contract negotiations were still in progress and that the pilot group felt disenchanted with the management group.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MLG FLT CREW ELECTED TO RETURN TO ARPT OF DEP AFTER DISCONNECTING #1 GENERATOR.

Narrative: COMING OUT OF 16000' WE EXPERIENCED A #1 CSD HIGH OIL TEMP. WE FOLLOWED PROCS AND DISCONNECTED THE CSD. WE THEN STARTED THE APU AND USED IT TO PWR THE #1 BUSS. BEING THAT WE WERE SO CLOSE TO PHX, AND THE WX IN CHICAGO, WE ELECTED TO GO BACK TO PHX TO HAVE THE SYS LOOKED AT. THIS WAS A VERY CONSERVATIVE MEASURE, BUT SINCE IT WAS SNOWING AT OUR DEST AND WE HAD MINIMUM FUEL FOR TRIP, SO APU RUNNING FOR 3 HRS WOULD DENT OUR CONTINGENCY FUEL. THEREFORE, WE THOUGHT IT BEST TO HAVE SYS LOOKED AT, SINCE WE WERE SO CLOSE TO A MAINT FAC AND THE TEMP HAD JUMPED SO FAST. IN ORDER TO GO BACK TO PHX WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE AN OVERWEIGHT LNDG. WE WEIGHED 110000 LBS; ACFT LIMIT 105000#. CONDITIONS WERE FAVORABLE: VERY LIGHT WINDS, LONG RWY, LONG FINAL TO STABILIZE AND CAPT'S RECENT STREAK OF VERY SMOOTH LNDGS. I NOTIFIED COMPANY--ALERTED MAINT FOR INSPECTION. WE DID NOT DECLARE AN EMER. WE CONTEMPLATED BURNING OFF THE EXCESS, BUT DID NOT FEEL THE 1 HR BURN TIME WAS WARRANTED UNDER CONDITIONS. THE LNDG WAS PICTURE PERFECT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATED THAT ACFT DID NOT HAVE FUEL DUMP CAPABILITY, THEREFORE THE ELECTION TO LAND OVERWT. FURTHER STATED THAT A PROPER LOG BOOK WRITE UP WAS MADE IN THAT IT WAS STATED THAT AN OVERWT LNDG HAD BEEN MADE AND THAT WRITE-UP WAS SIGNED OFF AS BEING INSPECTED. AS FURTHER EVENTS UNFOLD, IT APPEARS THAT THE COMPANY HAD TAKEN PUNITIVE ACTION ON THIS CAPT, USING MARGINAL JUDGEMENT AND FINANCIAL LOSS AS A BASIS. (SOMEONE HAD CANCELLED THE FLT AND REVENUE WAS LOST--NO ONE KNOWS WHO CANCELLED THE FLT.) IT WAS RPTED THAT THE CAPT INVOLVED WAS ALSO IN SOME FORM OF CONTESTANT MODE WITH THE COMPANY, HAVING MADE SEVERAL UNSCHEDULED LNDGS PRIOR TO THIS EVENT. PLT GROUP GENERALLY THOUGHT COMPANY WAS MAKING AN EXAMPLE OF THIS PLT BY SUSPENDING HIM FOR 7 DAYS AND SENDING HIM BACK FOR TRAINING. THE FLT RE-ORIGINATED TO DEST 2 HRS LATER. RPTR ALSO BROUGHT UP THE INFO THAT HE FELT THAT MORALE WAS AT AN ALL-TIME LOW AS CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WERE STILL IN PROGRESS AND THAT THE PLT GROUP FELT DISENCHANTED WITH THE MGMNT GROUP.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.