Flight crew dilemma in deciding direction to take in acceptance of aircraft with equipment problem a...

Attributes
ACN	200533
Time
Date	199201
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : iah
State Reference	TX
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Large Transport, Low Wing, 3 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	ground : parked ground : preflight
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : second officer
Qualification	pilot : flight engineer pilot : atp pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 4000 flight time type : 1000
ASRS Report	200533
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other other : unspecified
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	other Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Aircraft
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

On an large transport that we were to take from iah-pty, the #3 generator was placarded inoperative. The captain felt uncomfortable with this placard due to en route and destination WX, and lack of suitable alternates. (Which would be necessary if a second generator should fail en route). The captain requested that the #3 generator be repaired prior to dispatch due to the afore mentioned conditions, although the MEL allows dispatch with one generator inoperative. Maintenance initially estimated approximately 5 hours repair time. When this information was passed to the crew coordinator, the captain was informed (by the crew coordinator), that if he wouldn't take the aircraft as is, that he would be replaced by a standby callout captain who would accept the dispatch. The captain informed the copilot and myself that it then is our individual discretion whether or not we wanted to fly this airplane with a standby captain, who obviously has a less conservative view point. I very much disliked the legal and moral position that this put me in! By now a representative from the chief pilot's office had arrived and summed up by saying 'either you take this aircraft as is or we cancel the flight.' our airline has no union, and this presents a dilemma between possibly losing your job and career (with no recourse) vs doing what you feel is proper. The captain then privately asked the copilot and myself for our opinions. The first and I both concurred that the flight was technically legal according to the MEL and that we were comfortable in going. We also concurred that we would support the captain if he should opt for a more conservative path, and not fly with the standby captain. Our captain accepted the aircraft as-is. The bottom line is I feel we were safe in this instance, however there is undue pressure to go against the conservative judgement of the PIC.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC DILEMMA IN DECIDING DIRECTION TO TAKE IN ACCEPTANCE OF ACFT WITH EQUIP PROBLEM AFTER CONSIDERATION OF MEL REQUIREMENTS, WX FACTORS OF ENRTE WX AND MORAL JUDGEMENTS OF AIRLINE MGMNT POLICY OF PLACING PRESSURE ON FLC TO TAKE ACFT IN SAID CONDITION.

Narrative: ON AN LGT THAT WE WERE TO TAKE FROM IAH-PTY, THE #3 GENERATOR WAS PLACARDED INOP. THE CAPT FELT UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THIS PLACARD DUE TO ENRTE AND DEST WX, AND LACK OF SUITABLE ALTERNATES. (WHICH WOULD BE NECESSARY IF A SECOND GENERATOR SHOULD FAIL ENRTE). THE CAPT REQUESTED THAT THE #3 GENERATOR BE REPAIRED PRIOR TO DISPATCH DUE TO THE AFORE MENTIONED CONDITIONS, ALTHOUGH THE MEL ALLOWS DISPATCH WITH ONE GENERATOR INOP. MAINT INITIALLY ESTIMATED APPROX 5 HRS REPAIR TIME. WHEN THIS INFO WAS PASSED TO THE CREW COORDINATOR, THE CAPT WAS INFORMED (BY THE CREW COORDINATOR), THAT IF HE WOULDN'T TAKE THE ACFT AS IS, THAT HE WOULD BE REPLACED BY A STANDBY CALLOUT CAPT WHO WOULD ACCEPT THE DISPATCH. THE CAPT INFORMED THE COPLT AND MYSELF THAT IT THEN IS OUR INDIVIDUAL DISCRETION WHETHER OR NOT WE WANTED TO FLY THIS AIRPLANE WITH A STANDBY CAPT, WHO OBVIOUSLY HAS A LESS CONSERVATIVE VIEW POINT. I VERY MUCH DISLIKED THE LEGAL AND MORAL POS THAT THIS PUT ME IN! BY NOW A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE CHIEF PLT'S OFFICE HAD ARRIVED AND SUMMED UP BY SAYING 'EITHER YOU TAKE THIS ACFT AS IS OR WE CANCEL THE FLT.' OUR AIRLINE HAS NO UNION, AND THIS PRESENTS A DILEMMA BTWN POSSIBLY LOSING YOUR JOB AND CAREER (WITH NO RECOURSE) VS DOING WHAT YOU FEEL IS PROPER. THE CAPT THEN PRIVATELY ASKED THE COPLT AND MYSELF FOR OUR OPINIONS. THE FIRST AND I BOTH CONCURRED THAT THE FLT WAS TECHNICALLY LEGAL ACCORDING TO THE MEL AND THAT WE WERE COMFORTABLE IN GOING. WE ALSO CONCURRED THAT WE WOULD SUPPORT THE CAPT IF HE SHOULD OPT FOR A MORE CONSERVATIVE PATH, AND NOT FLY WITH THE STANDBY CAPT. OUR CAPT ACCEPTED THE ACFT AS-IS. THE BOTTOM LINE IS I FEEL WE WERE SAFE IN THIS INSTANCE, HOWEVER THERE IS UNDUE PRESSURE TO GO AGAINST THE CONSERVATIVE JUDGEMENT OF THE PIC.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.

Flight crew dilemma in deciding direction to take in acceptance of aircraft with equipment problem after consideration of MEL requirements, WX factors of en route WX and moral judgements of airline management policy of placing pressure on flight crew to take aircraft in said condition.