Narrative:

On apr/mon/05, while en route from ord to lax on flight X, I checked the status of my next segment through ACARS. I discovered that flight XXX from lax to dfw, with plane n-xxab had multiple cabin deferrals along with a maintenance deferral for an inoperative APU. I sent a message to dispatch via ACARS requesting the APU be repaired prior to the scheduled departure time of XA50. This provided maintenance more than 2 1/2 hours to repair, replace or substitute aircraft prior to departure. Dispatch responded with a request for more information as to why the aircraft was not acceptable for the flight. I responded with a brief message stating that it simply needed to be repaired for safety issues. There were no further communications from dispatch. I assumed the item would be handled as per my request. Upon arrival at lax, I received a telephone call from a flight manager. We briefly discussed my request and its rationale. He strongly advised me to accept the aircraft with the deferral and that the aircraft would be properly repaired that evening at sfo. I voiced my concerns once again, and we discussed the ramifications of canceling the flight along with the limited options and alternatives available to me. I then advised him that I truly felt the flight was not safe for the following reasons: 1) the APU serves as a back-up for pressurization. As the flight route would have taken us over mountainous terrain, this would have placed the aircraft in a dangerous position should there be an engine failure. Following the driftdown emergency procedures in the A319/A320 flight manual, 'consider APU for pressurization to increase performance. Thrust, airspeed and vertical speed may be adjusted as necessary when a safe path to selected landing airport is ensured.' 2) the APU is the back-up for a generator as stated in the irregular procedures in the A319/A310 flight manual. 3) the APU is the back-up started in case of dual engine failure as stated in the A319/A320 flight manual. 4) the APU is the source for ground temperature regulation. 5) using captain's authority/authorized and responsibility as stated in the fom, 'the captain serving as PIC has full responsibility and is the final authority/authorized for the safe operation of the airplane.' following our discussion of the above itemized issues the flight manager thanked me and ended the telephone call. As there were no further questions or directions from the flight manager, I proceeded directly to the assigned gate. Upon checking in with the gate agent, I discovered that I had been replaced as captain of a flight to dfw. I left the gate area and called crew scheduling and was advising that I was to fly to ord as a passenger on the XB00 departure. Upon arrival at ord, the flight manager's office was locked and I found that the remainder of my trip had been dropped without comment and without pay.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN A319 CAPT DEMANDED THE ACFT'S APU BE OPERATIONAL PRIOR TO A FLT ACROSS THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS FOR SAFETY. THE ACR DID NOT COMPLY AND REMOVED PLT FROM THE TRIP.

Narrative: ON APR/MON/05, WHILE ENRTE FROM ORD TO LAX ON FLT X, I CHKED THE STATUS OF MY NEXT SEGMENT THROUGH ACARS. I DISCOVERED THAT FLT XXX FROM LAX TO DFW, WITH PLANE N-XXAB HAD MULTIPLE CABIN DEFERRALS ALONG WITH A MAINT DEFERRAL FOR AN INOP APU. I SENT A MESSAGE TO DISPATCH VIA ACARS REQUESTING THE APU BE REPAIRED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED DEP TIME OF XA50. THIS PROVIDED MAINT MORE THAN 2 1/2 HRS TO REPAIR, REPLACE OR SUBSTITUTE ACFT PRIOR TO DEP. DISPATCH RESPONDED WITH A REQUEST FOR MORE INFO AS TO WHY THE ACFT WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE FLT. I RESPONDED WITH A BRIEF MESSAGE STATING THAT IT SIMPLY NEEDED TO BE REPAIRED FOR SAFETY ISSUES. THERE WERE NO FURTHER COMS FROM DISPATCH. I ASSUMED THE ITEM WOULD BE HANDLED AS PER MY REQUEST. UPON ARR AT LAX, I RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM A FLT MGR. WE BRIEFLY DISCUSSED MY REQUEST AND ITS RATIONALE. HE STRONGLY ADVISED ME TO ACCEPT THE ACFT WITH THE DEFERRAL AND THAT THE ACFT WOULD BE PROPERLY REPAIRED THAT EVENING AT SFO. I VOICED MY CONCERNS ONCE AGAIN, AND WE DISCUSSED THE RAMIFICATIONS OF CANCELING THE FLT ALONG WITH THE LIMITED OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO ME. I THEN ADVISED HIM THAT I TRULY FELT THE FLT WAS NOT SAFE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1) THE APU SERVES AS A BACK-UP FOR PRESSURIZATION. AS THE FLT RTE WOULD HAVE TAKEN US OVER MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN, THIS WOULD HAVE PLACED THE ACFT IN A DANGEROUS POS SHOULD THERE BE AN ENG FAILURE. FOLLOWING THE DRIFTDOWN EMER PROCS IN THE A319/A320 FLT MANUAL, 'CONSIDER APU FOR PRESSURIZATION TO INCREASE PERFORMANCE. THRUST, AIRSPD AND VERT SPD MAY BE ADJUSTED AS NECESSARY WHEN A SAFE PATH TO SELECTED LNDG ARPT IS ENSURED.' 2) THE APU IS THE BACK-UP FOR A GENERATOR AS STATED IN THE IRREGULAR PROCS IN THE A319/A310 FLT MANUAL. 3) THE APU IS THE BACK-UP STARTED IN CASE OF DUAL ENG FAILURE AS STATED IN THE A319/A320 FLT MANUAL. 4) THE APU IS THE SOURCE FOR GND TEMP REG. 5) USING CAPT'S AUTH AND RESPONSIBILITY AS STATED IN THE FOM, 'THE CAPT SERVING AS PIC HAS FULL RESPONSIBILITY AND IS THE FINAL AUTH FOR THE SAFE OP OF THE AIRPLANE.' FOLLOWING OUR DISCUSSION OF THE ABOVE ITEMIZED ISSUES THE FLT MGR THANKED ME AND ENDED THE TELEPHONE CALL. AS THERE WERE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS OR DIRECTIONS FROM THE FLT MGR, I PROCEEDED DIRECTLY TO THE ASSIGNED GATE. UPON CHKING IN WITH THE GATE AGENT, I DISCOVERED THAT I HAD BEEN REPLACED AS CAPT OF A FLT TO DFW. I LEFT THE GATE AREA AND CALLED CREW SCHEDULING AND WAS ADVISING THAT I WAS TO FLY TO ORD AS A PAX ON THE XB00 DEP. UPON ARR AT ORD, THE FLT MGR'S OFFICE WAS LOCKED AND I FOUND THAT THE REMAINDER OF MY TRIP HAD BEEN DROPPED WITHOUT COMMENT AND WITHOUT PAY.

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.