Narrative:

Aircraft was refused for an inoperative first officer pfd in the interest of safety. This item had been deferred for 2 days and had gone through maintenance stations without being repaired. It also arrived in ZZZ the night before. This would have given maintenance control over 8 hours to have the item repaired. Once the part was received in ZZZ; it took the FBO mechanic less than 10 mins to replace the display. Instead; you ask me to accept an airplane that will be flying into an area of 'sharply rising terrain' and 'extensive uncontrolled traffic' (to quote the commercial chart page for ZZZ) while at the same time flying a demanding takeoff profile and having my first officer completely out of the loop with respect to terrain and traffic situational awareness. In my opinion this is beyond unsafe. It is true that the item is deferrable but I do not think the intent of that deferral was to continue to fly the aircraft until forced to fix it. As pilots you are also asking us to make a financial decision when we refuse an unsafe aircraft. My first officer and I lost over 4 hours of pay and I do not take that lightly either. I will; however; venture to guess that crews are accepting these marginal aircraft so not to have their pay docked prior to the deadline of each month. Safety has been compromised. Pay should 'never' enter into the decision making process as to whether an aircraft is suitable for flight or not; yet that is the hand you have dealt us. I would like a question answered on this aircraft: 1) why was our pay docked for making the right decision when it came to safety? (Yes; we did know we would lose our ZZZ3 turn due to the delay.)

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN A320 PILOT REPORTS REFUSING AN ACFT WITH AN INOP ND BEFORE DEPARTING AND DESTINED FOR HIGH DENSITY AND HIGH TERRAIN ARPTS.

Narrative: ACFT WAS REFUSED FOR AN INOP FO PFD IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY. THIS ITEM HAD BEEN DEFERRED FOR 2 DAYS AND HAD GONE THROUGH MAINT STATIONS WITHOUT BEING REPAIRED. IT ALSO ARRIVED IN ZZZ THE NIGHT BEFORE. THIS WOULD HAVE GIVEN MAINT CTL OVER 8 HRS TO HAVE THE ITEM REPAIRED. ONCE THE PART WAS RECEIVED IN ZZZ; IT TOOK THE FBO MECH LESS THAN 10 MINS TO REPLACE THE DISPLAY. INSTEAD; YOU ASK ME TO ACCEPT AN AIRPLANE THAT WILL BE FLYING INTO AN AREA OF 'SHARPLY RISING TERRAIN' AND 'EXTENSIVE UNCTLED TFC' (TO QUOTE THE COMMERCIAL CHART PAGE FOR ZZZ) WHILE AT THE SAME TIME FLYING A DEMANDING TKOF PROFILE AND HAVING MY FO COMPLETELY OUT OF THE LOOP WITH RESPECT TO TERRAIN AND TFC SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. IN MY OPINION THIS IS BEYOND UNSAFE. IT IS TRUE THAT THE ITEM IS DEFERRABLE BUT I DO NOT THINK THE INTENT OF THAT DEFERRAL WAS TO CONTINUE TO FLY THE ACFT UNTIL FORCED TO FIX IT. AS PLTS YOU ARE ALSO ASKING US TO MAKE A FINANCIAL DECISION WHEN WE REFUSE AN UNSAFE ACFT. MY FO AND I LOST OVER 4 HRS OF PAY AND I DO NOT TAKE THAT LIGHTLY EITHER. I WILL; HOWEVER; VENTURE TO GUESS THAT CREWS ARE ACCEPTING THESE MARGINAL ACFT SO NOT TO HAVE THEIR PAY DOCKED PRIOR TO THE DEADLINE OF EACH MONTH. SAFETY HAS BEEN COMPROMISED. PAY SHOULD 'NEVER' ENTER INTO THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS AS TO WHETHER AN ACFT IS SUITABLE FOR FLT OR NOT; YET THAT IS THE HAND YOU HAVE DEALT US. I WOULD LIKE A QUESTION ANSWERED ON THIS ACFT: 1) WHY WAS OUR PAY DOCKED FOR MAKING THE RIGHT DECISION WHEN IT CAME TO SAFETY? (YES; WE DID KNOW WE WOULD LOSE OUR ZZZ3 TURN DUE TO THE DELAY.)

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.