Narrative:

Departed lax with a deferred item for one antiskid system inoperative with a brake deactivated. I thought we understood all the elements of the deferral. The ACARS takeoff data reflected the MEL item with appropriate weight penalties. En route to sfo (52 min flight time); I reviewed the ACARS landing data and was unable to determine the correct landing weight limits. The ACARS data contained a large; boxed area of print directing me to refer to the mrd for landing weight calculations. The mrd made reference to a 10% increase in runway limit; and directed me to refer to the flight manual. The flight manual; to my knowledge; has no chart anywhere that refers to this condition. Based on my 28 yrs of flying experience; 18 yrs of which are out of sfo; I determined that we could safely land the airplane in its current condition and with the data available to us. We landed uneventfully on runway 28L and taxied to the gate. After arrival; I called the dispatcher to discuss the correct calculation of landing data reference the MEL item. After 15 mins of searching and discussion with his manager; he could not figure it out either. This MEL card and associated ACARS and flight manual references need a major going over to make this deferral a workable alternative for line crews. Until that happens; the next occurrence for this captain will result in a significant delay or aircraft refusal. Better yet; how about fixing some of these items; instead of defer; defer; defer? As a side note; this aircraft was then rted sfo to ZZZ. That's right; a 6500 ft runway in ZZZ. It also had inoperative potable water in the galleys and lavatories. The airplane was refused by that captain; so the crew desk reassigned me. I refused it as well. Flight operated 2 hours late in another aircraft. Then dispatch shopped it around to the captain on another flight. They finally got a buyer; but they turned back once airborne for maintenance issues as well and that flight operated 2 hours late. Give me a break already. Someone in senior management is not getting the picture here on the current sorry state of our parts; labor; and scheduling issues in the aircraft maintenance division; and every other operational division for that matter as well.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757-200 FLT CREW WAS DISPATCHED WITH ONE BRAKE DEACTIVATED. WEIGHT PENALTIES WERE TO BE APPLIED FOR LNDG; BUT FLT CREW DETERMINED AFTER AIRBORNE THAT THEY HAD NO GUIDANCE OR CHARTS FOR THESE LIMITATIONS.

Narrative: DEPARTED LAX WITH A DEFERRED ITEM FOR ONE ANTISKID SYS INOP WITH A BRAKE DEACTIVATED. I THOUGHT WE UNDERSTOOD ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE DEFERRAL. THE ACARS TKOF DATA REFLECTED THE MEL ITEM WITH APPROPRIATE WT PENALTIES. ENRTE TO SFO (52 MIN FLT TIME); I REVIEWED THE ACARS LNDG DATA AND WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE CORRECT LNDG WT LIMITS. THE ACARS DATA CONTAINED A LARGE; BOXED AREA OF PRINT DIRECTING ME TO REFER TO THE MRD FOR LNDG WT CALCULATIONS. THE MRD MADE REF TO A 10% INCREASE IN RWY LIMIT; AND DIRECTED ME TO REFER TO THE FLT MANUAL. THE FLT MANUAL; TO MY KNOWLEDGE; HAS NO CHART ANYWHERE THAT REFERS TO THIS CONDITION. BASED ON MY 28 YRS OF FLYING EXPERIENCE; 18 YRS OF WHICH ARE OUT OF SFO; I DETERMINED THAT WE COULD SAFELY LAND THE AIRPLANE IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION AND WITH THE DATA AVAILABLE TO US. WE LANDED UNEVENTFULLY ON RWY 28L AND TAXIED TO THE GATE. AFTER ARR; I CALLED THE DISPATCHER TO DISCUSS THE CORRECT CALCULATION OF LNDG DATA REF THE MEL ITEM. AFTER 15 MINS OF SEARCHING AND DISCUSSION WITH HIS MGR; HE COULD NOT FIGURE IT OUT EITHER. THIS MEL CARD AND ASSOCIATED ACARS AND FLT MANUAL REFS NEED A MAJOR GOING OVER TO MAKE THIS DEFERRAL A WORKABLE ALTERNATIVE FOR LINE CREWS. UNTIL THAT HAPPENS; THE NEXT OCCURRENCE FOR THIS CAPT WILL RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT DELAY OR ACFT REFUSAL. BETTER YET; HOW ABOUT FIXING SOME OF THESE ITEMS; INSTEAD OF DEFER; DEFER; DEFER? AS A SIDE NOTE; THIS ACFT WAS THEN RTED SFO TO ZZZ. THAT'S RIGHT; A 6500 FT RWY IN ZZZ. IT ALSO HAD INOP POTABLE WATER IN THE GALLEYS AND LAVATORIES. THE AIRPLANE WAS REFUSED BY THAT CAPT; SO THE CREW DESK REASSIGNED ME. I REFUSED IT AS WELL. FLT OPERATED 2 HRS LATE IN ANOTHER ACFT. THEN DISPATCH SHOPPED IT AROUND TO THE CAPT ON ANOTHER FLT. THEY FINALLY GOT A BUYER; BUT THEY TURNED BACK ONCE AIRBORNE FOR MAINT ISSUES AS WELL AND THAT FLT OPERATED 2 HRS LATE. GIVE ME A BREAK ALREADY. SOMEONE IN SENIOR MGMNT IS NOT GETTING THE PICTURE HERE ON THE CURRENT SORRY STATE OF OUR PARTS; LABOR; AND SCHEDULING ISSUES IN THE ACFT MAINT DIVISION; AND EVERY OTHER OPERATIONAL DIVISION FOR THAT MATTER AS WELL.

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.