Narrative:

This report is being filed due to refusing to operate the aircraft with an inoperative generator. While on my layover in ZZZZ; I received a phone call in the morning from the crew scheduling coordinator who informed me that the airplane that we were scheduled to fly back to ZZZ had an inoperative generator and was still waiting for repairs in ZZZZ. They were not sure if the repairs could be done by our departure time. The maintenance coordinator along with operations was curious to know if we would be willing to take the airplane from ZZZZ to ZZZ with the right generator deferred inoperative. Per the MEL - the flight could be operated legally under this condition. We were the crew that had experienced the original electrical generator failure the day before while enroute to ZZZZ; so we were familiar with airplane and the generator situation. As a side note; the flight back to ZZZ on the day we arrived was cancelled due to the inoperative generator. I told both of them that I appreciated the early communication and that I would check with my crew to get input and feedback from them as well before making the final decision on whether we would or would not operate with the MEL. I also asked to speak with the dispatcher to determine if there was anything significant weather wise that I needed to consider. Following those conversations; I began contacting the other pilots to get their input into the situation. After speaking with all of the pilots; it was agreed that we did not feel safe being dispatched with an inoperative electrical generator (idg).we knew (based on the conversation with maintenance control) that a new idg had been flown in to ZZZZ and it was waiting for customs to clear it; so that the repairs could be started. If we would have accepted the airplane and operated with the MEL; we could have operated an on time departure. We also knew; that if we took the airplane with the inoperative generator; it would have put us on another long oceanic route; which would have left us very few choices of nearby suitable divert airports if our back systems (operating generator and/or APU) were to fail. We did not feel this was safe or prudent way to start our flight. Maintenance control knew they could not get the repairs done in time for us to be legal per our crew time calculations; so coordination with crew scheduling began; and our crew rest was re-set. This allowed time for the repairs to be done; and for us to be able to operate the flight home - 7 hours late. While discussing the event with my crew; we also referenced several source documents to help validate our safety decision to not operate this flight under the MEL. We referenced: the regional equipment guide. We looked at the fom and found of particular interest that a report is required if you operate a flight with a degraded electrical system as a result of an 'inflight' failure and have to use an emergency back-up for a sustained amount of time (we would have been using the APU for this back up for approximately 12 hours). Just that section alone - put doubt about dispatching from a maintenance base with this electrical problem. We reasoned that the decision to continue to ZZZZ once airborne (inflight failure of generator) with an inoperative generator was a very different decision than being dispatched (from the ground) with the generator inoperative. In addition; we noted and referenced the union policy manual (air safety section); which was another source not recommending operating from a maintenance base with an inoperative generator. All of these resources indicated that a decision to fly this route with the generator inoperative was not very desirable. We made it safely back to ZZZ once the generator was repaired. The impact was a delay of about 7 hours to our customers and crew.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B777 Captain reported refusing to operate an aircraft with an inoperative generator until the aircraft was repaired. Captain reported the repairs were made and the flight successfully operated 7 hours late.

Narrative: This report is being filed due to refusing to operate the aircraft with an inoperative generator. While on my layover in ZZZZ; I received a phone call in the morning from the Crew Scheduling coordinator who informed me that the airplane that we were scheduled to fly back to ZZZ had an inoperative generator and was still waiting for repairs in ZZZZ. They were not sure if the repairs could be done by our departure time. The maintenance coordinator along with Operations was curious to know if we would be willing to take the airplane from ZZZZ to ZZZ with the right generator deferred inoperative. Per the MEL - the flight could be operated legally under this condition. We were the crew that had experienced the original electrical generator failure the day before while enroute to ZZZZ; so we were familiar with airplane and the generator situation. As a side note; the flight back to ZZZ on the day we arrived was cancelled due to the inoperative generator. I told both of them that I appreciated the early communication and that I would check with my crew to get input and feedback from them as well before making the final decision on whether we would or would not operate with the MEL. I also asked to speak with the dispatcher to determine if there was anything significant weather wise that I needed to consider. Following those conversations; I began contacting the other pilots to get their input into the situation. After speaking with all of the pilots; it was agreed that we did not feel safe being dispatched with an inoperative electrical generator (IDG).We knew (based on the conversation with Maintenance Control) that a new IDG had been flown in to ZZZZ and it was waiting for customs to clear it; so that the repairs could be started. If we would have accepted the airplane and operated with the MEL; we could have operated an on time departure. We also knew; that if we took the airplane with the inoperative generator; it would have put us on another long oceanic route; which would have left us very few choices of nearby suitable divert airports if our back systems (operating generator and/or APU) were to fail. We did not feel this was safe or prudent way to start our flight. Maintenance Control knew they could not get the repairs done in time for us to be legal per our crew time calculations; so coordination with crew scheduling began; and our crew rest was re-set. This allowed time for the repairs to be done; and for us to be able to operate the flight home - 7 hours late. While discussing the event with my crew; we also referenced several source documents to help validate our safety decision to not operate this flight under the MEL. We referenced: the regional equipment guide. We looked at the FOM and found of particular interest that a report is required if you operate a flight with a degraded electrical system as a result of an 'inflight' failure and have to use an emergency back-up for a sustained amount of time (we would have been using the APU for this back up for approximately 12 hours). Just that section alone - put doubt about dispatching from a maintenance base with this electrical problem. We reasoned that the decision to continue to ZZZZ once airborne (inflight failure of generator) with an inoperative generator was a very different decision than being dispatched (from the ground) with the generator inoperative. In addition; we noted and referenced the Union Policy Manual (Air Safety Section); which was another source not recommending operating from a maintenance base with an inoperative generator. All of these resources indicated that a decision to fly this route with the generator inoperative was not very desirable. We made it safely back to ZZZ once the generator was repaired. The impact was a delay of about 7 hours to our customers and crew.

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.