Narrative:

We reported to the aircraft; reviewed the paperwork; the log book and noted MEL[for] fwd lav deactivated. The MEL denotes conditional statements under remarks or exceptions. Specifically; one of the exceptions for this MEL follows:'the pilot-in-command will determine if the flight duration is acceptable with a fwd/upper deck lavatory unusable...'I had a discussion with the first officer (first officer) explaining why I believe the 'flight duration' for this MEL was not acceptable; giving equal weight to all points.leaving one pilot on the flight deck for the time it would take to traverse the entire length of the aircraft presents an unnecessary risk to the safe operation of the flight. Considering our destination and the current threat level (elevated condition); leaving one pilot on the flight deck while the other transits the cabin creates increased exposure and an unnecessary risk to flight deck security.one of the flight attendants also expressed her concern for flight deck security having one pilot in the back of the aircraft passing through roughly 175 passengers to get to the front of the aircraft.considering the duration of the flight; it's reasonable to expect that one of the two pilots will need to leave the flight deck at least once to address a physiological need. During flight the passengers will certainly be informed that the fwd lav is not usable alerting the attention of any potential 'bad actors' that an opportunity may exist. Additionally; passenger perception of flight safety is negatively impacted when a pilot leaves the flight deck to use the fwd lav; not to mention the aft lav. Simply stated; passengers don't want to see the pilots flying the airplane; in the back of the airplane...for any reason.and certainly of lesser consideration than safety and security; in the age of social media everybody has a camera. When a pilot exits the flight deck to use the aft lav all the passengers will already know where he's going. I don't believe the company would appreciate seeing this on the internet; the local news or tabloid tv.to be sure; there is no shortage of scenarios to contemplate when operating under this MEL provided the pilot-in-command takes due care to consider them. I called maintenance control to inform them of my decision. The 'flight duration' on this particular flight under this MEL is not acceptable. The maintenance controller informed me that the lav will need parts and they will not be able to make repairs.it brings no joy to my heart to have to make this decision but unfortunately for me... It's my decision alone to make. My report to maintenance control was followed by a phone call from the chief pilot (cp). Cp began by asking in a very direct and intimidating tone; '...if [destination] is not acceptable...what is acceptable...'. I replied that I could run the airplane up to [a nearby airport]; about a 45 minute flight. That was clearly not the right answer and cp continued with that same line of questioning; '...what is acceptable...'. Cp did not seem at all interested in the reasons for my decision and I didn't try to explain my decision to him as he grew more irritated by the minute. As the discussion progressed; it became increasingly obvious to me that the only successful outcome to this conversation was to fly the airplane and accept the MEL; regardless of the circumstances. Needless to say; the conversation ended badly.cp said (quite emphatically) '...you have an airworthy aircraft... (I respectfully disagreed)....effective immediately both you and the first officer are off the trip.....you're both grounded.....you're not flying again until I see you at my desk for a section 13 hearing...'. He then hung up the phone.the flight was cancelled about 30 minutes after our conversation ended and myself and the first officer were provided dead head transportation back to our crew base.over the past several years I've refused an aircraft on two separate occasions under similar circumstances. In those cases; one resulted in a reasonable delay with an aircraft swap and the other resulted in a cockpit visit from the assistant chief pilot followed by an aircraft swap. In either case; there was no punitive action; apparently that philosophy has changed.the MEL language has never changed.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An A320 crew reported refusing to accept a 'serviceable aircraft' due to an inoperative forward lavatory for security reasons.

Narrative: We reported to the aircraft; reviewed the paperwork; the log book and noted MEL[for] Fwd Lav Deactivated. The MEL denotes conditional statements under Remarks or Exceptions. Specifically; one of the exceptions for this MEL follows:'The Pilot-in-Command will determine if the flight duration is acceptable with a FWD/Upper Deck lavatory unusable...'I had a discussion with the First Officer (FO) explaining why I believe the 'flight duration' for this MEL was not acceptable; giving equal weight to all points.Leaving one pilot on the flight deck for the time it would take to traverse the entire length of the aircraft presents an unnecessary risk to the safe operation of the flight. Considering our destination and the current threat level (Elevated Condition); leaving one pilot on the flight deck while the other transits the cabin creates increased exposure and an unnecessary risk to flight deck security.One of the flight attendants also expressed her concern for flight deck security having one pilot in the back of the aircraft passing through roughly 175 passengers to get to the front of the aircraft.Considering the duration of the flight; it's reasonable to expect that one of the two pilots will need to leave the flight deck at least once to address a physiological need. During flight the passengers will certainly be informed that the Fwd Lav is not usable alerting the attention of any potential 'bad actors' that an opportunity may exist. Additionally; passenger perception of flight safety is negatively impacted when a pilot leaves the flight deck to use the Fwd Lav; not to mention the Aft Lav. Simply stated; passengers don't want to see the pilots flying the airplane; in the back of the airplane...for any reason.And certainly of lesser consideration than safety and security; in the age of Social media everybody has a camera. When a pilot exits the flight deck to use the Aft Lav all the passengers will already know where he's going. I don't believe the Company would appreciate seeing this on the internet; the local news or tabloid TV.To be sure; there is no shortage of scenarios to contemplate when operating under this MEL provided the Pilot-in-Command takes due care to consider them. I called maintenance control to inform them of my decision. The 'flight duration' on this particular flight under this MEL is not acceptable. The Maintenance controller informed me that the Lav will need parts and they will not be able to make repairs.It brings no joy to my heart to have to make this decision but unfortunately for me... it's my decision alone to make. My report to Maintenance control was followed by a phone call from the Chief Pilot (CP). CP began by asking in a very direct and intimidating tone; '...if [destination] is not acceptable...what is acceptable...'. I replied that I could run the airplane up to [a nearby airport]; about a 45 minute flight. That was clearly not the right answer and CP continued with that same line of questioning; '...what is acceptable...'. CP did not seem at all interested in the reasons for my decision and I didn't try to explain my decision to him as he grew more irritated by the minute. As the discussion progressed; it became increasingly obvious to me that the only successful outcome to this conversation was to fly the airplane and accept the MEL; regardless of the circumstances. Needless to say; the conversation ended badly.CP said (quite emphatically) '...You have an airworthy Aircraft... (I respectfully disagreed)....effective immediately both you and the FO are off the trip.....you're both grounded.....you're not flying again until I see you at my desk for a Section 13 hearing...'. He then hung up the phone.The flight was cancelled about 30 minutes after our conversation ended and myself and the FO were provided dead head transportation back to our crew base.Over the past several years I've refused an aircraft on two separate occasions under similar circumstances. In those cases; one resulted in a reasonable delay with an Aircraft swap and the other resulted in a cockpit visit from the Assistant Chief Pilot followed by an aircraft swap. In either case; there was no punitive action; apparently that philosophy has changed.The MEL language has never changed.

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.