Narrative:

When I arrived at the original aircraft at ZZZ1 maintenance personnel told me that they had been waiting for me. They showed me the aircraft logbook and pointed out that the right air conditioning pack had been written up for the 7TH time. It would not cool the aircraft below outside air temperature at the gate, again. Then they pointed out that it had an 8TH write-up on that same pack from the same flight. In that write-up the pack had automatic-shutoff in-flight repeatedly. The conscientious maintenance personnel at the gate had called a supervisor (long before I arrived at the gate) to see if the aircraft should be taken OTS for repair, but the supervisor had refused. I told them that as usual the aircraft either had to be repaired or the item placarded. I then asked if they had delayed placarding the pack to first see if I would refuse the aircraft. The more I thought about it the more that appeared to be the case. I knew that with 1 pack placarded, we would be restr to FL250 for the 4 hour flight. At that lower altitude we would burn about 3000 pounds of extra fuel and cost the company an extra $625 to operate the flight. I also knew that this flight would be sandwiched between the cool front from the west and the hurricane ivan to the south and east. This situation was causing some cloud buildups and rough air that I would not now fly over, but through. I had just worked a flight from ZZZ2 and I knew the ride would certainly not be any better at FL250 than FL350. At that point I returned to the maintenance personnel and told them that I was refusing the aircraft. In the logbook write-up, I specifically stated that 'this aircraft needs to be properly analyzed and repaired.' the flight was delayed about 1 hour and 15 mins to get a different aircraft and continue to ZZZ1. I have subsequently talked to 2 other pilots that have flown this aircraft and was told that in their personal experiences with it they had cooked the passenger on the flight and the passenger were 'fighting mad,' when they got off the aircraft. This is not exactly the fine service I would expect from this airline. This situation is the second in 2 months where it became all too clear that maintenance supervisors were feeling significant pressure from management to keep aircraft flying that should be in a hangar getting repaired. I don't think it is a good idea to keep cutting costs at any expense. If maintenance keeps signing off the pack on this aircraft and keeps depending on the automatic shutdown feature, sooner or later the automatic shutdown will fail and this aircraft will have a serious emergency either on the ground or in the air. If the airline continues to operate like another airline once did, an accident is inevitable.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MD80 CAPT RPTS REFUSING AN AIRPLANE WITH CHRONIC R AIR CONDITIONING PACK PROBS. PACK RPTED EIGHT TIMES AND NOT REPAIRED.

Narrative: WHEN I ARRIVED AT THE ORIGINAL ACFT AT ZZZ1 MAINT PERSONNEL TOLD ME THAT THEY HAD BEEN WAITING FOR ME. THEY SHOWED ME THE ACFT LOGBOOK AND POINTED OUT THAT THE R AIR CONDITIONING PACK HAD BEEN WRITTEN UP FOR THE 7TH TIME. IT WOULD NOT COOL THE ACFT BELOW OUTSIDE AIR TEMP AT THE GATE, AGAIN. THEN THEY POINTED OUT THAT IT HAD AN 8TH WRITE-UP ON THAT SAME PACK FROM THE SAME FLT. IN THAT WRITE-UP THE PACK HAD AUTO-SHUTOFF INFLT REPEATEDLY. THE CONSCIENTIOUS MAINT PERSONNEL AT THE GATE HAD CALLED A SUPVR (LONG BEFORE I ARRIVED AT THE GATE) TO SEE IF THE ACFT SHOULD BE TAKEN OTS FOR REPAIR, BUT THE SUPVR HAD REFUSED. I TOLD THEM THAT AS USUAL THE ACFT EITHER HAD TO BE REPAIRED OR THE ITEM PLACARDED. I THEN ASKED IF THEY HAD DELAYED PLACARDING THE PACK TO FIRST SEE IF I WOULD REFUSE THE ACFT. THE MORE I THOUGHT ABOUT IT THE MORE THAT APPEARED TO BE THE CASE. I KNEW THAT WITH 1 PACK PLACARDED, WE WOULD BE RESTR TO FL250 FOR THE 4 HR FLT. AT THAT LOWER ALT WE WOULD BURN ABOUT 3000 LBS OF EXTRA FUEL AND COST THE COMPANY AN EXTRA $625 TO OPERATE THE FLT. I ALSO KNEW THAT THIS FLT WOULD BE SANDWICHED BTWN THE COOL FRONT FROM THE W AND THE HURRICANE IVAN TO THE S AND E. THIS SIT WAS CAUSING SOME CLOUD BUILDUPS AND ROUGH AIR THAT I WOULD NOT NOW FLY OVER, BUT THROUGH. I HAD JUST WORKED A FLT FROM ZZZ2 AND I KNEW THE RIDE WOULD CERTAINLY NOT BE ANY BETTER AT FL250 THAN FL350. AT THAT POINT I RETURNED TO THE MAINT PERSONNEL AND TOLD THEM THAT I WAS REFUSING THE ACFT. IN THE LOGBOOK WRITE-UP, I SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT 'THIS ACFT NEEDS TO BE PROPERLY ANALYZED AND REPAIRED.' THE FLT WAS DELAYED ABOUT 1 HR AND 15 MINS TO GET A DIFFERENT ACFT AND CONTINUE TO ZZZ1. I HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY TALKED TO 2 OTHER PLTS THAT HAVE FLOWN THIS ACFT AND WAS TOLD THAT IN THEIR PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH IT THEY HAD COOKED THE PAX ON THE FLT AND THE PAX WERE 'FIGHTING MAD,' WHEN THEY GOT OFF THE ACFT. THIS IS NOT EXACTLY THE FINE SVC I WOULD EXPECT FROM THIS AIRLINE. THIS SIT IS THE SECOND IN 2 MONTHS WHERE IT BECAME ALL TOO CLR THAT MAINT SUPVRS WERE FEELING SIGNIFICANT PRESSURE FROM MGMNT TO KEEP ACFT FLYING THAT SHOULD BE IN A HANGAR GETTING REPAIRED. I DON'T THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO KEEP CUTTING COSTS AT ANY EXPENSE. IF MAINT KEEPS SIGNING OFF THE PACK ON THIS ACFT AND KEEPS DEPENDING ON THE AUTOMATIC SHUTDOWN FEATURE, SOONER OR LATER THE AUTOMATIC SHUTDOWN WILL FAIL AND THIS ACFT WILL HAVE A SERIOUS EMER EITHER ON THE GND OR IN THE AIR. IF THE AIRLINE CONTINUES TO OPERATE LIKE ANOTHER AIRLINE ONCE DID, AN ACCIDENT IS INEVITABLE.

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.