Narrative:

Shut #2 engine down due to start valve open light illuminated. Landed at the nearest suitable airport. All procedures and checklist accomplished approach and landing uneventful. At our company the dispatchers are 'management' and the capts are 'labor.' while on the approach to buf the dispatcher (by SELCAL) disturbed the crew to 'suggest' that we divert to an airport 100 mi further than the first suitable (syr) - I assume it is because there was maintenance at the further airport. I declined and landed at buffalo. As it turned out - had we continued the extra 100 mi we probably would have had a compound emergency - hydraulic failure. This was an unrelated failure found only after landing. Dispatchers should not be management. I believe this dispatcher's motives were based on profit alone and not safety of flight. I received a call 2 days later by another management type to 'ask' why I did not follow the dispatcher's suggestion. Only after the hydraulic failure was mentioned was the conversation politely ended. What if I was not so 'lucky' as to have that other 'emergency?' I believe I would have been reprimanded by the company.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INFLT ENG SHUTDOWN MANDATES A DIVERSION TO ALTERNATE. COMPANY DISPATCHER HAS OTHER SUGGESTION RATHER THAN USE OF NEAREST SUITABLE ARPT.

Narrative: SHUT #2 ENG DOWN DUE TO START VALVE OPEN LIGHT ILLUMINATED. LANDED AT THE NEAREST SUITABLE ARPT. ALL PROCS AND CHKLIST ACCOMPLISHED APCH AND LNDG UNEVENTFUL. AT OUR COMPANY THE DISPATCHERS ARE 'MGMNT' AND THE CAPTS ARE 'LABOR.' WHILE ON THE APCH TO BUF THE DISPATCHER (BY SELCAL) DISTURBED THE CREW TO 'SUGGEST' THAT WE DIVERT TO AN ARPT 100 MI FURTHER THAN THE FIRST SUITABLE (SYR) - I ASSUME IT IS BECAUSE THERE WAS MAINT AT THE FURTHER ARPT. I DECLINED AND LANDED AT BUFFALO. AS IT TURNED OUT - HAD WE CONTINUED THE EXTRA 100 MI WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE HAD A COMPOUND EMER - HYD FAILURE. THIS WAS AN UNRELATED FAILURE FOUND ONLY AFTER LNDG. DISPATCHERS SHOULD NOT BE MGMNT. I BELIEVE THIS DISPATCHER'S MOTIVES WERE BASED ON PROFIT ALONE AND NOT SAFETY OF FLT. I RECEIVED A CALL 2 DAYS LATER BY ANOTHER MGMNT TYPE TO 'ASK' WHY I DID NOT FOLLOW THE DISPATCHER'S SUGGESTION. ONLY AFTER THE HYD FAILURE WAS MENTIONED WAS THE CONVERSATION POLITELY ENDED. WHAT IF I WAS NOT SO 'LUCKY' AS TO HAVE THAT OTHER 'EMER?' I BELIEVE I WOULD HAVE BEEN REPRIMANDED BY THE COMPANY.

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.