Narrative:

On oct/sat/97, flight xx aircraft abc, a left AC generator was meled inoperative. A condition of the MEL was no flight into icing conditions. It was the captain's leg. When it was evident that we would be flying into icing, I (first officer) suggested a lower altitude twice. I was overruled by the captain, thereby flying against MEL procedure. During flight ww to ama, aircraft def, we got a lavatory smoke warning on steady and intermittently. I expressed my concern to the captain and initiated the emergency procedures, which he objected to, stating it was the humidity causing a false warning. I had the flight attendant check the lavatory, checked it myself, and later in the flight, the captain checked it. The captain then told me to reset the lavatory circuit breakers (against operations manual procedures). When I objected he displayed anger and irritation questioning how long I had been an airline pilot. I reset the circuit breakers and again the warning sounded. Again I went through the emergency procedures against his wishes. I again expressed my concern about the lavatory warning, telling him I was extremely uncomfortable flying with a lavatory smoke warning. I cited the operations manual which states that you must treat all warnings as if they are an actual situation. He overruled me and continued the flight. It was the same captain in both sits (aircraft generator and lavatory smoke warning).

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FO OF AN ACR LTT COMPLAINS THAT THE CAPT FLEW INTO KNOWN ICING CONDITIONS WITH A MELED GENERATOR RESTRICTING ANY OP INTO KNOWN ICING. THE FO ALSO WENT THROUGH THE EMER LAVATORY SMOKE DETECTOR CHKLIST AGAINST THE CAPT'S WISHES AFTER REPEATED SMOKE DETECTION WARNINGS.

Narrative: ON OCT/SAT/97, FLT XX ACFT ABC, A L AC GENERATOR WAS MELED INOP. A CONDITION OF THE MEL WAS NO FLT INTO ICING CONDITIONS. IT WAS THE CAPT'S LEG. WHEN IT WAS EVIDENT THAT WE WOULD BE FLYING INTO ICING, I (FO) SUGGESTED A LOWER ALT TWICE. I WAS OVERRULED BY THE CAPT, THEREBY FLYING AGAINST MEL PROC. DURING FLT WW TO AMA, ACFT DEF, WE GOT A LAVATORY SMOKE WARNING ON STEADY AND INTERMITTENTLY. I EXPRESSED MY CONCERN TO THE CAPT AND INITIATED THE EMER PROCS, WHICH HE OBJECTED TO, STATING IT WAS THE HUMIDITY CAUSING A FALSE WARNING. I HAD THE FLT ATTENDANT CHK THE LAVATORY, CHKED IT MYSELF, AND LATER IN THE FLT, THE CAPT CHKED IT. THE CAPT THEN TOLD ME TO RESET THE LAVATORY CIRCUIT BREAKERS (AGAINST OPS MANUAL PROCS). WHEN I OBJECTED HE DISPLAYED ANGER AND IRRITATION QUESTIONING HOW LONG I HAD BEEN AN AIRLINE PLT. I RESET THE CIRCUIT BREAKERS AND AGAIN THE WARNING SOUNDED. AGAIN I WENT THROUGH THE EMER PROCS AGAINST HIS WISHES. I AGAIN EXPRESSED MY CONCERN ABOUT THE LAVATORY WARNING, TELLING HIM I WAS EXTREMELY UNCOMFORTABLE FLYING WITH A LAVATORY SMOKE WARNING. I CITED THE OPS MANUAL WHICH STATES THAT YOU MUST TREAT ALL WARNINGS AS IF THEY ARE AN ACTUAL SIT. HE OVERRULED ME AND CONTINUED THE FLT. IT WAS THE SAME CAPT IN BOTH SITS (ACFT GENERATOR AND LAVATORY SMOKE WARNING).

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.