Narrative:

Operated air carrier X flight from denver to phoenix as an airbus A320 captain. Engine #1 had a history of previous egt exceedance. I accepted the aircraft for this particular flight due to reasonable outside temperatures (approximately 65 degrees F) and low gross weight -- approximately 138000 pounds. Although no egt exceedance occurred on this particular takeoff, due to past rigid FAA enforcement following V2500 overtemps I am filing this report. I refused to fly the next leg phx-msp in this aircraft -- see enclosed report. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter's main complaint was the lack of aircraft history information, and specifically, engine data as related to temperatures, weights, improved climb, etc. When requesting a replacement aircraft, none were available. The planned takeoff was maximum gross weight performance limited, previous engine data was not available and ambient temperature was questionable, the reporter refused to operate the flight. His decision also was based on the FAA's previous strict enforcement against overtemp takeoff's. Then, as reporter says, 'I find appalling, I was replaced by another captain who operated the trip in the same aircraft in my place.' reporter wrote to his company vice-president for flight operations and was invited to a meeting with the senior vice-president for flight operations, mechanic captain representative and the safety coordinator. Reporter says the meeting was mostly to let him 'blow off steam,' but the vice-president did reassure him that they would improve the engine data/temperature information availability. Also, a modification to the engines has all but eliminated the overtemp problems. Reporter says that his judgement as a captain should not be questioned particularly when he chooses the most conservative and safest course.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT REFUSED ACFT FOR SAFETY CONCERNS. COMPANY REPLACED CAPT WITH ANOTHER WHO DIDN'T HAVE SAME CONCERNS.

Narrative: OPERATED ACR X FLT FROM DENVER TO PHOENIX AS AN AIRBUS A320 CAPT. ENG #1 HAD A HISTORY OF PREVIOUS EGT EXCEEDANCE. I ACCEPTED THE ACFT FOR THIS PARTICULAR FLT DUE TO REASONABLE OUTSIDE TEMPS (APPROX 65 DEGS F) AND LOW GROSS WT -- APPROX 138000 LBS. ALTHOUGH NO EGT EXCEEDANCE OCCURRED ON THIS PARTICULAR TKOF, DUE TO PAST RIGID FAA ENFORCEMENT FOLLOWING V2500 OVERTEMPS I AM FILING THIS RPT. I REFUSED TO FLY THE NEXT LEG PHX-MSP IN THIS ACFT -- SEE ENCLOSED RPT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR'S MAIN COMPLAINT WAS THE LACK OF ACFT HISTORY INFO, AND SPECIFICALLY, ENG DATA AS RELATED TO TEMPS, WTS, IMPROVED CLB, ETC. WHEN REQUESTING A REPLACEMENT ACFT, NONE WERE AVAILABLE. THE PLANNED TKOF WAS MAX GROSS WT PERFORMANCE LIMITED, PREVIOUS ENG DATA WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND AMBIENT TEMP WAS QUESTIONABLE, THE RPTR REFUSED TO OPERATE THE FLT. HIS DECISION ALSO WAS BASED ON THE FAA'S PREVIOUS STRICT ENFORCEMENT AGAINST OVERTEMP TKOF'S. THEN, AS RPTR SAYS, 'I FIND APPALLING, I WAS REPLACED BY ANOTHER CAPT WHO OPERATED THE TRIP IN THE SAME ACFT IN MY PLACE.' RPTR WROTE TO HIS COMPANY VICE-PRESIDENT FOR FLT OPS AND WAS INVITED TO A MEETING WITH THE SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT FOR FLT OPS, MECH CAPT REPRESENTATIVE AND THE SAFETY COORDINATOR. RPTR SAYS THE MEETING WAS MOSTLY TO LET HIM 'BLOW OFF STEAM,' BUT THE VICE-PRESIDENT DID REASSURE HIM THAT THEY WOULD IMPROVE THE ENG DATA/TEMP INFO AVAILABILITY. ALSO, A MODIFICATION TO THE ENGS HAS ALL BUT ELIMINATED THE OVERTEMP PROBS. RPTR SAYS THAT HIS JUDGEMENT AS A CAPT SHOULD NOT BE QUESTIONED PARTICULARLY WHEN HE CHOOSES THE MOST CONSERVATIVE AND SAFEST COURSE.

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.