Narrative:

The left main inboard tire was deferred due to cord showing. My first officer brought the general condition of the tire to my attention after his walk-around. I went below to inspect the tire and found that not only was there cord showing but there was no tread left on the tire. Having been into san numerous times (and mostly with airplanes with 8 main tires and 4 sets of breaks); I am well aware of the various challenges to include a fairly short runway. I thought it to be a reasonable request to have tread on our 4 tires landing into san. I entered a write-up and sent it in to maintenance: 'left main inboard tire unsatisfactory; please change.' I then called station maintenance and the controller said that people are on their way and to make sure we make an ACARS entry (which we had). For at least 10 minutes no one from maintenance arrived but there was a visit from a representative from station operations who isn't employed by [company]; rather an outside contracting firm; who was saying that it was deferred and if we wanted it changed that I would have to refuse the aircraft and start that process. So I sent an ACARS message to our dispatcher and refused the aircraft due to maintenance refusal to change the tire. She responded and asked if I had talked with maintenance control. I then called her; I said that I hadn't spoken to maintenance control; but would if she thought I needed to. She then said she would have to patch in the operations manager and I would have to talk to him/her. I told her I have no reason to talk to the operations manager and didn't need to. She stated that it was her [dispatchers] procedure to conference in the operations manager on all refusals and that I would have to at least 'listen' to the operations manager. I told her that she was wrong and that I would not be talking to or listening to the operations manager and that the aircraft had been refused and to have a nice day.there seems to be an obvious and overt mandate by senior flight operations management to try and intimidate; threaten and otherwise limit the scope of authority of the captain. This was not only obvious 'pilot pushing' but more indicative of a systemic and institutional effort to decrease safety margins and to abrogate captain's and dispatcher's authority. Had the company not stopped station maintenance from changing the tire when requested to do so we would have been on time.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 Captain reported he was required by company to refuse the aircraft before Maintenance would change a main gear tire that had cord showing.

Narrative: The left main inboard tire was deferred due to cord showing. My FO brought the general condition of the tire to my attention after his walk-around. I went below to inspect the tire and found that not only was there cord showing but there was no tread left on the tire. Having been into SAN numerous times (and mostly with airplanes with 8 main tires and 4 sets of breaks); I am well aware of the various challenges to include a fairly short runway. I thought it to be a reasonable request to have tread on our 4 tires landing into SAN. I entered a write-up and sent it in to maintenance: 'left main inboard tire unsatisfactory; please change.' I then called station maintenance and the controller said that people are on their way and to make sure we make an ACARS entry (which we had). For at least 10 minutes no one from maintenance arrived but there was a visit from a representative from station operations who isn't employed by [Company]; rather an outside contracting firm; who was saying that it was deferred and if we wanted it changed that I would have to refuse the aircraft and start that process. So I sent an ACARS message to our dispatcher and refused the aircraft due to maintenance refusal to change the tire. She responded and asked if I had talked with Maintenance Control. I then called her; I said that I hadn't spoken to Maintenance Control; but would if she thought I needed to. She then said she would have to patch in the Operations Manager and I would have to talk to him/her. I told her I have no reason to talk to the Operations Manager and didn't need to. She stated that it was her [dispatchers] procedure to conference in the Operations Manager on all refusals and that I would have to at least 'listen' to the Operations Manager. I told her that she was wrong and that I would not be talking to or listening to the Operations Manager and that the aircraft had been refused and to have a nice day.There seems to be an obvious and overt mandate by senior flight operations management to try and intimidate; threaten and otherwise limit the scope of authority of the Captain. This was not only obvious 'pilot pushing' but more indicative of a systemic and institutional effort to decrease safety margins and to abrogate Captain's and Dispatcher's Authority. Had the company not stopped station maintenance from changing the tire when requested to do so we would have been on time.

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.