Narrative:

The first officer found number 2 main gear brake wear pins below flush during preflight. I contacted maintenance who came out to look. The pins had been written up the day prior and reported to have '1/32' inch protrusion so a maintenance discrepancy was invoked to have the brakes replaced the following day (our day). After feeling around the brake wear pin with a maintenance person witnessing; both the first officer and myself agreed that there was no pin protrusion and that the pin was flush or below its housing. The maintenance personnel then took hold of the pin from behind the assembly; twisted it around and repeatedly said that he could feel the end of the pin and insisted that the brake pads were scheduled to be replaced in [city] that day. The first officer and I agreed that despite the maintenance personnel's insistence that the brakes were ok for further use for the two more legs to [city]; we disagreed and I refused the aircraft.this is a classic case of 'pilot pushing' into a potentially unsafe situation and where money took precedence over getting an essential safety related part of the aircraft fixed in a timely manner. This scenario is becoming more common.I am not familiar with the maintenance discrepancy provision in [the] maintenance manual for this situation. We haven't been trained about its use and if there is a definite safety risk involved or if the risk is minimal but I was put in a situation that was uncomfortable because of it so I made the conservative decision not to take the aircraft. My first officer was also visibly upset that she was being pushed into a potentially unsafe situation and that her judgment was being questioned by the maintenance personnel.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 Captain reported that during preflight Maintenance was contacted to discuss a maintenance discrepancy; after pressure on pilots to continue with flight aircraft was refused.

Narrative: The First Officer found Number 2 main gear brake wear pins below flush during preflight. I contacted Maintenance who came out to look. The pins had been written up the day prior and reported to have '1/32' inch protrusion so a maintenance discrepancy was invoked to have the brakes replaced the following day (our day). After feeling around the brake wear pin with a Maintenance person witnessing; both the First Officer and myself agreed that there was no pin protrusion and that the pin was flush or below its housing. The Maintenance personnel then took hold of the pin from behind the assembly; twisted it around and repeatedly said that he could feel the end of the pin and insisted that the brake pads were scheduled to be replaced in [City] that day. The First Officer and I agreed that despite the maintenance personnel's insistence that the brakes were OK for further use for the two more legs to [City]; we disagreed and I refused the aircraft.This is a classic case of 'pilot pushing' into a potentially unsafe situation and where money took precedence over getting an essential safety related part of the aircraft fixed in a timely manner. This scenario is becoming more common.I am not familiar with the maintenance discrepancy provision in [the] maintenance manual for this situation. We haven't been trained about its use and if there is a definite safety risk involved or if the risk is minimal but I was put in a situation that was uncomfortable because of it so I made the conservative decision not to take the aircraft. My First Officer was also visibly upset that she was being pushed into a potentially unsafe situation and that her judgment was being questioned by the Maintenance personnel.

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.