Narrative:

We were scheduled to fly flts built for day 3 to have a 12 hour 13 min duty day with 7 hours 37 mins of scheduled flying. After sitting in ZZZ for a 3 hour scheduled ground situation between flts; I picked up our flight paperwork to discover that we had been given aircraft X with 4 items on MEL. The MEL'ed items were: 1) MEL -- autoland inoperative; 2) MEL -- both autoplt inoperative; (3) MEL -- first officer flight director system inoperative; and 4) MEL -- both flight director system inoperative. My first impression was this must be a joke; but then the reality of the situation set in so I called our dispatcher to inform him that I was not comfortable with aircraft X due to the MEL's. I then inquired as to whether it would be possible to have at least one of the autoplts repaired prior to departure. I explained that we had been awake since XA00; and due to the length of the duty day and the fact that we not only had to fly the airplane to ZZZ1 but back as well; I wasn't wishing to take the plane under the current circumstances. I also asked if it would be possible to get another airplane in the event it wasn't possible to repair the autoplt prior to departure. As a side note; when I first pulled the paperwork for flight xb; we had a different airplane; but no sooner than I removed the paperwork from the printer I received a call from our dispatcher informing me that I would need to re-pull the flight plan and release due to a last-min aircraft swap to tail #X. Unfortunately we were not able to solve the problem on the spot so I proceeded to the gate where I was met by several mechanics; as well as my first officer. The mechanics told me they had been sent out to add 2 more MEL's to the airplane before we departed. The additional MEL's were for: 1) yaw damper inoperative; and 2) windshear guidance inoperative. We were now looking at a total of 6 potential MEL's had we taken this airplane; and at this point my first officer expressed his concern over our acceptance of the plane. I assured him that we were not going to fly it as it was; and soon thereafter I received a call from the flight operations duty officer on duty. Needless to say; I was extremely disappointed in the content of the conversation with the flight operations duty officer. I was under the impression that the flight operations duty officer is there for the purpose of being an advocate for the captain; as a representative of the chief pilot's office; yet in this situation I found the flight operations duty officer to be anything but that. After a courtesy moment of listening to my side of the story; the flight operations duty officer wasted no time in letting me know that 'the MEL's are legal and you have no valid legal reason not to accept this aircraft.' I was also told that; 'this is what you're paid and trained to do.' I agreed with the flight operations duty officer on both of his statements and my response was that just because an MEL is 'legal' doesn't necessarily mean that it's safe; and that yes; I'm paid and trained for this; but more importantly I'm paid and trained to use good; sound judgement when it comes to safety of flight. The flight operations duty officer continued to disagree with me and when it became apparent that he wasn't going to successfully push me into accepting an aircraft I didn't feel safe accepting; he told me that he would; 'call back in a little while.' after about 10-15 mins of waiting; I received another call from the flight operations duty officer and was told they had found another airplane for the ZZZ1 turn and he wanted to know if that would be an acceptable solution to the problem. I told him that this was much better and the call ended with him asking me once more; 'are you still sure you don't want to take the plane that's already there?' after getting another airplane we went on to successfully complete our scheduled day of flying. The 2 major issues I had with the situation are the excessive number of MEL's on 1 airplane; as well as the length of our scheduled duty day. I have only been a captain with air carrier for not even 6 full months and yesterday's incident with the flight operations duty officer was my third incident of what I would consider 'pilot pushing' by air carrier mgrs sincei've been a captain. My first incident took place when I was faced with a pressurization problem on my third trip out of IOE. In that incident I was doing my best to accept the airplane and safely complete the flight assignment; yet the flight operations duty officer was completely uncooperative and not at all helpful. When I continued to express my concerns over a loss of pressurization; he replied; 'we're not talking about smoke; fire; or even fumes -- we're just talking about a simple loss of cabin pressure.' my second incident took place last monday when I expressed my concerns over another MEL to the flight operations duty officer. Overall; I'm extremely disappointed in what I see as nothing more than 'good ol' pilot pushing' by air carrier's mgrs. While my 3 incidents could be nothing more than extremely isolated incidents; I'm not comfortable knowing that I've had 3 such incidents in not even 6 months as a new captain; on a new airplane that I've never flown before entering training for upgrade. I was under the impression that safety was the #1 goal of air carrier; yet in my 3 conversations; with 3 different flight operations duty officers; it appears to me that safety is way down this airline's list of priorities.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MD80; WITH 6 RELATED MEL ITEMS; IS REFUSED BY THE CAPT.

Narrative: WE WERE SCHEDULED TO FLY FLTS BUILT FOR DAY 3 TO HAVE A 12 HR 13 MIN DUTY DAY WITH 7 HRS 37 MINS OF SCHEDULED FLYING. AFTER SITTING IN ZZZ FOR A 3 HR SCHEDULED GND SIT BTWN FLTS; I PICKED UP OUR FLT PAPERWORK TO DISCOVER THAT WE HAD BEEN GIVEN ACFT X WITH 4 ITEMS ON MEL. THE MEL'ED ITEMS WERE: 1) MEL -- AUTOLAND INOP; 2) MEL -- BOTH AUTOPLT INOP; (3) MEL -- FO FLT DIRECTOR SYS INOP; AND 4) MEL -- BOTH FLT DIRECTOR SYS INOP. MY FIRST IMPRESSION WAS THIS MUST BE A JOKE; BUT THEN THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION SET IN SO I CALLED OUR DISPATCHER TO INFORM HIM THAT I WAS NOT COMFORTABLE WITH ACFT X DUE TO THE MEL'S. I THEN INQUIRED AS TO WHETHER IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE OF THE AUTOPLTS REPAIRED PRIOR TO DEP. I EXPLAINED THAT WE HAD BEEN AWAKE SINCE XA00; AND DUE TO THE LENGTH OF THE DUTY DAY AND THE FACT THAT WE NOT ONLY HAD TO FLY THE AIRPLANE TO ZZZ1 BUT BACK AS WELL; I WASN'T WISHING TO TAKE THE PLANE UNDER THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES. I ALSO ASKED IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO GET ANOTHER AIRPLANE IN THE EVENT IT WASN'T POSSIBLE TO REPAIR THE AUTOPLT PRIOR TO DEP. AS A SIDE NOTE; WHEN I FIRST PULLED THE PAPERWORK FOR FLT XB; WE HAD A DIFFERENT AIRPLANE; BUT NO SOONER THAN I REMOVED THE PAPERWORK FROM THE PRINTER I RECEIVED A CALL FROM OUR DISPATCHER INFORMING ME THAT I WOULD NEED TO RE-PULL THE FLT PLAN AND RELEASE DUE TO A LAST-MIN ACFT SWAP TO TAIL #X. UNFORTUNATELY WE WERE NOT ABLE TO SOLVE THE PROB ON THE SPOT SO I PROCEEDED TO THE GATE WHERE I WAS MET BY SEVERAL MECHS; AS WELL AS MY FO. THE MECHS TOLD ME THEY HAD BEEN SENT OUT TO ADD 2 MORE MEL'S TO THE AIRPLANE BEFORE WE DEPARTED. THE ADDITIONAL MEL'S WERE FOR: 1) YAW DAMPER INOP; AND 2) WINDSHEAR GUIDANCE INOP. WE WERE NOW LOOKING AT A TOTAL OF 6 POTENTIAL MEL'S HAD WE TAKEN THIS AIRPLANE; AND AT THIS POINT MY FO EXPRESSED HIS CONCERN OVER OUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLANE. I ASSURED HIM THAT WE WERE NOT GOING TO FLY IT AS IT WAS; AND SOON THEREAFTER I RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE FLT OPS DUTY OFFICER ON DUTY. NEEDLESS TO SAY; I WAS EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED IN THE CONTENT OF THE CONVERSATION WITH THE FLT OPS DUTY OFFICER. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE FLT OPS DUTY OFFICER IS THERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING AN ADVOCATE FOR THE CAPT; AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CHIEF PLT'S OFFICE; YET IN THIS SITUATION I FOUND THE FLT OPS DUTY OFFICER TO BE ANYTHING BUT THAT. AFTER A COURTESY MOMENT OF LISTENING TO MY SIDE OF THE STORY; THE FLT OPS DUTY OFFICER WASTED NO TIME IN LETTING ME KNOW THAT 'THE MEL'S ARE LEGAL AND YOU HAVE NO VALID LEGAL REASON NOT TO ACCEPT THIS ACFT.' I WAS ALSO TOLD THAT; 'THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE PAID AND TRAINED TO DO.' I AGREED WITH THE FLT OPS DUTY OFFICER ON BOTH OF HIS STATEMENTS AND MY RESPONSE WAS THAT JUST BECAUSE AN MEL IS 'LEGAL' DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT'S SAFE; AND THAT YES; I'M PAID AND TRAINED FOR THIS; BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY I'M PAID AND TRAINED TO USE GOOD; SOUND JUDGEMENT WHEN IT COMES TO SAFETY OF FLT. THE FLT OPS DUTY OFFICER CONTINUED TO DISAGREE WITH ME AND WHEN IT BECAME APPARENT THAT HE WASN'T GOING TO SUCCESSFULLY PUSH ME INTO ACCEPTING AN ACFT I DIDN'T FEEL SAFE ACCEPTING; HE TOLD ME THAT HE WOULD; 'CALL BACK IN A LITTLE WHILE.' AFTER ABOUT 10-15 MINS OF WAITING; I RECEIVED ANOTHER CALL FROM THE FLT OPS DUTY OFFICER AND WAS TOLD THEY HAD FOUND ANOTHER AIRPLANE FOR THE ZZZ1 TURN AND HE WANTED TO KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE AN ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION TO THE PROB. I TOLD HIM THAT THIS WAS MUCH BETTER AND THE CALL ENDED WITH HIM ASKING ME ONCE MORE; 'ARE YOU STILL SURE YOU DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE PLANE THAT'S ALREADY THERE?' AFTER GETTING ANOTHER AIRPLANE WE WENT ON TO SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE OUR SCHEDULED DAY OF FLYING. THE 2 MAJOR ISSUES I HAD WITH THE SITUATION ARE THE EXCESSIVE NUMBER OF MEL'S ON 1 AIRPLANE; AS WELL AS THE LENGTH OF OUR SCHEDULED DUTY DAY. I HAVE ONLY BEEN A CAPT WITH ACR FOR NOT EVEN 6 FULL MONTHS AND YESTERDAY'S INCIDENT WITH THE FLT OPS DUTY OFFICER WAS MY THIRD INCIDENT OF WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER 'PLT PUSHING' BY ACR MGRS SINCEI'VE BEEN A CAPT. MY FIRST INCIDENT TOOK PLACE WHEN I WAS FACED WITH A PRESSURIZATION PROB ON MY THIRD TRIP OUT OF IOE. IN THAT INCIDENT I WAS DOING MY BEST TO ACCEPT THE AIRPLANE AND SAFELY COMPLETE THE FLT ASSIGNMENT; YET THE FLT OPS DUTY OFFICER WAS COMPLETELY UNCOOPERATIVE AND NOT AT ALL HELPFUL. WHEN I CONTINUED TO EXPRESS MY CONCERNS OVER A LOSS OF PRESSURIZATION; HE REPLIED; 'WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SMOKE; FIRE; OR EVEN FUMES -- WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT A SIMPLE LOSS OF CABIN PRESSURE.' MY SECOND INCIDENT TOOK PLACE LAST MONDAY WHEN I EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS OVER ANOTHER MEL TO THE FLT OPS DUTY OFFICER. OVERALL; I'M EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED IN WHAT I SEE AS NOTHING MORE THAN 'GOOD OL' PLT PUSHING' BY ACR'S MGRS. WHILE MY 3 INCIDENTS COULD BE NOTHING MORE THAN EXTREMELY ISOLATED INCIDENTS; I'M NOT COMFORTABLE KNOWING THAT I'VE HAD 3 SUCH INCIDENTS IN NOT EVEN 6 MONTHS AS A NEW CAPT; ON A NEW AIRPLANE THAT I'VE NEVER FLOWN BEFORE ENTERING TRAINING FOR UPGRADE. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT SAFETY WAS THE #1 GOAL OF ACR; YET IN MY 3 CONVERSATIONS; WITH 3 DIFFERENT FLT OPS DUTY OFFICERS; IT APPEARS TO ME THAT SAFETY IS WAY DOWN THIS AIRLINE'S LIST OF PRIORITIES.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.