Narrative:

Aircraft had MEL for inoperative pack (2101). I called dispatch to inquire about additional fuel to plan for routing to alternate (srq) because there are 10000 ft mountains to cross en route. The dispatcher's comment was 'we don't plan for the wings to fall off do we?' he also specifically instructed me not to take the aircraft to pop as the haitians would be arrested upon landing. At the time my thought was that if the single pack had failed and as pap is single runway, we might have been required to proceed to the alternate for a number of reasons. I don't have the charts before me as I write this, but I believe the MEA was 11000 ft and sector altitudes were in the vicinity of 12200 ft. As I think back, I reasoned that with an en route failure, 14000 ft is an allowable altitude. Now I think maybe a new alternate of provo might have been prudent. Is this planning for 'the wings to fall off' or is it similar to the reasoning we do not take single pack operations to central and south america? I ran into a similar situation on flight XXX mia-pop on jun/xa/01 and this has prompted me to rethink the pap flight also. On the pop flight as with the pap flight fuel and load were factors. It seems to me additional consideration may be in order for single pack operation in parts of the caribbean.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B727 PIC RPT ON ARGUMENTATIVE DISPATCHER THAT DISAGREED WITH THE CAPT'S REQUEST FOR EXTRA FUEL TO FLY AROUND MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN IN CASE OF LOSS OF CABIN PRESSURE AT MIA, FL.

Narrative: ACFT HAD MEL FOR INOP PACK (2101). I CALLED DISPATCH TO INQUIRE ABOUT ADDITIONAL FUEL TO PLAN FOR ROUTING TO ALTERNATE (SRQ) BECAUSE THERE ARE 10000 FT MOUNTAINS TO CROSS ENRTE. THE DISPATCHER'S COMMENT WAS 'WE DON'T PLAN FOR THE WINGS TO FALL OFF DO WE?' HE ALSO SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTED ME NOT TO TAKE THE ACFT TO POP AS THE HAITIANS WOULD BE ARRESTED UPON LNDG. AT THE TIME MY THOUGHT WAS THAT IF THE SINGLE PACK HAD FAILED AND AS PAP IS SINGLE RWY, WE MIGHT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PROCEED TO THE ALTERNATE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. I DON'T HAVE THE CHARTS BEFORE ME AS I WRITE THIS, BUT I BELIEVE THE MEA WAS 11000 FT AND SECTOR ALTS WERE IN THE VICINITY OF 12200 FT. AS I THINK BACK, I REASONED THAT WITH AN ENRTE FAILURE, 14000 FT IS AN ALLOWABLE ALT. NOW I THINK MAYBE A NEW ALTERNATE OF PROVO MIGHT HAVE BEEN PRUDENT. IS THIS PLANNING FOR 'THE WINGS TO FALL OFF' OR IS IT SIMILAR TO THE REASONING WE DO NOT TAKE SINGLE PACK OPS TO CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA? I RAN INTO A SIMILAR SIT ON FLT XXX MIA-POP ON JUN/XA/01 AND THIS HAS PROMPTED ME TO RETHINK THE PAP FLT ALSO. ON THE POP FLT AS WITH THE PAP FLT FUEL AND LOAD WERE FACTORS. IT SEEMS TO ME ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION MAY BE IN ORDER FOR SINGLE PACK OP IN PARTS OF THE CARIBBEAN.

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.