Narrative:

Assigned [an aircraft] for a ferry then passenger leg. Weather at both destinations was marginal with snow and 1 mile visibility being forecast at our final stop. Spoke to 2 (two) other crews who both refused this tail due to the mels listed. One of the crews was the crew that brought the plane in the night before and was assigned it this morning (who subsequently refused). The plane in question had the autopilot; yaw damper; right side flight director; mach trim and several other mels listed. After speaking to both crews and to each other about this situation; both the PIC and I decided it was unsafe to fly this plane with a majority of the automation missing. The PIC contacted the [chief pilot] and informed him of our decision and concerns. We were then given another tail to sit standby on. The fact that the company tried to get 3 crews to fly a plane that was quite unsafe is astonishing. Every recurrent we talk about altitude and navigation deviations being the big 2 issues we have; and yet the company tried to push three crews to fly a plane several legs a day for numerous days with the autopilot deferred and no flight director on the right side with no yaw damper or mach trim. This increases the workload on the crew exponentially and unnecessarily. More so; the plane was at a maintenance base at the maintenance facility! This event never should have happened and further events can be avoided by standing by [our company's] sms level 4 safety status and fixing a plane that has this many mels that compromise safety. Sadly had we or another crew taken this plane and had a nav/alt deviation I'm sure the company would have said the plane should have been refused by the crews?!?!

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Fractional First Officer (FO) reported he and his Captain; as well as two other flight crews; refused to fly an aircraft into a marginal weather situation with several autoflight systems inoperative and deferred. Reporter stated he was concerned with his employer's attitude and pressure.

Narrative: Assigned [an aircraft] for a ferry then passenger leg. Weather at both destinations was marginal with snow and 1 mile visibility being forecast at our final stop. Spoke to 2 (TWO) other crews who both refused this tail due to the MELs listed. One of the crews was the crew that brought the plane in the night before and was assigned it this morning (who subsequently refused). The plane in question had the autopilot; yaw damper; right side flight director; mach trim and several other MELs listed. After speaking to both crews and to each other about this situation; both the PIC and I decided it was unsafe to fly this plane with a majority of the automation missing. The PIC contacted the [Chief Pilot] and informed him of our decision and concerns. We were then given another tail to sit standby on. The fact that the company tried to get 3 crews to fly a plane that was quite unsafe is astonishing. Every recurrent we talk about altitude and navigation deviations being the big 2 issues we have; and yet the company tried to push THREE crews to fly a plane several legs a day for numerous days with the autopilot deferred AND no flight director on the right side with no yaw damper or mach trim. This increases the workload on the crew exponentially and unnecessarily. More so; the plane was at a maintenance base at the maintenance facility! This event never should have happened and further events can be avoided by standing by [our company's] SMS level 4 safety status and fixing a plane that has this many MELs that compromise safety. Sadly had we or another crew taken this plane and had a nav/alt deviation I'm sure the company would have said the plane should have been refused by the crews?!?!

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.