Narrative:

Inbound crew had written up an EICAS message 'engine probe heat.' maintenance placarded item per MEL. MEL states; quote; 'airplane is not operated in known or forecast icing conditions.' ord WX was 6000 ft broken and forecast to be 6000 ft broken for the next 3-4 hours. Broken constitutes a ceiling. Dispatch acknowledged that the freezing level was approximately 5000 ft MSL and did not say anything about not being able to depart until I questioned the ceiling and freezing level. Dispatch quoted the meteorology department saying clouds were scattered while all reports had broken layer. Dispatch suggested that I fly at 4000 ft MSL until mli; 120 mi west of ord where there isn't a ceiling and then climb to cruise altitude. There were no other aircraft available to switch with until later flts arrived. Dispatch told me they were waiting for me to decide to depart or improvement in WX. I felt there was subtle pressure for me to depart (pilot pushing). WX reports in ord clearly had a ceiling which was ignored; hoping I would depart anyway. Dispatch even sent me PIREPS that had ceiling 6000 ft; -5 degrees C; negative ice. The MEL states 'known or forecast icing;' nothing about using PIREPS. The suggestion that I fly at 4000 ft MSL with 188 passenger for 120 mi is beyond belief. Can you imagine ground observers calling national news agencies reporting an airliner flying low over their community full well knowing there is not a commercial airport nearby. Or how do I explain the lower cruise altitude to the passenger? I seriously believe that this incident is a subtle form of pilot pushing to get the job done. Ord WX clearly had a ceiling and nothing was said or done until I questioned the limitations imposed by the MEL.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPTAIN OF LGT REPORTS PERCEIVED COERCION BY DISPATCH AND MAINT TO DEPART IN ICING CONDITIONS WITH A DEFERRED PT PROBE HEAT SYSTEM IN CONTRADICTION TO MEL RESTRICTIONS.

Narrative: INBOUND CREW HAD WRITTEN UP AN EICAS MESSAGE 'ENG PROBE HEAT.' MAINT PLACARDED ITEM PER MEL. MEL STATES; QUOTE; 'AIRPLANE IS NOT OPERATED IN KNOWN OR FORECAST ICING CONDITIONS.' ORD WX WAS 6000 FT BROKEN AND FORECAST TO BE 6000 FT BROKEN FOR THE NEXT 3-4 HRS. BROKEN CONSTITUTES A CEILING. DISPATCH ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE FREEZING LEVEL WAS APPROX 5000 FT MSL AND DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO DEPART UNTIL I QUESTIONED THE CEILING AND FREEZING LEVEL. DISPATCH QUOTED THE METEOROLOGY DEPT SAYING CLOUDS WERE SCATTERED WHILE ALL RPTS HAD BROKEN LAYER. DISPATCH SUGGESTED THAT I FLY AT 4000 FT MSL UNTIL MLI; 120 MI W OF ORD WHERE THERE ISN'T A CEILING AND THEN CLB TO CRUISE ALT. THERE WERE NO OTHER ACFT AVAILABLE TO SWITCH WITH UNTIL LATER FLTS ARRIVED. DISPATCH TOLD ME THEY WERE WAITING FOR ME TO DECIDE TO DEPART OR IMPROVEMENT IN WX. I FELT THERE WAS SUBTLE PRESSURE FOR ME TO DEPART (PLT PUSHING). WX RPTS IN ORD CLRLY HAD A CEILING WHICH WAS IGNORED; HOPING I WOULD DEPART ANYWAY. DISPATCH EVEN SENT ME PIREPS THAT HAD CEILING 6000 FT; -5 DEGS C; NEGATIVE ICE. THE MEL STATES 'KNOWN OR FORECAST ICING;' NOTHING ABOUT USING PIREPS. THE SUGGESTION THAT I FLY AT 4000 FT MSL WITH 188 PAX FOR 120 MI IS BEYOND BELIEF. CAN YOU IMAGINE GND OBSERVERS CALLING NATL NEWS AGENCIES RPTING AN AIRLINER FLYING LOW OVER THEIR COMMUNITY FULL WELL KNOWING THERE IS NOT A COMMERCIAL ARPT NEARBY. OR HOW DO I EXPLAIN THE LOWER CRUISE ALT TO THE PAX? I SERIOUSLY BELIEVE THAT THIS INCIDENT IS A SUBTLE FORM OF PLT PUSHING TO GET THE JOB DONE. ORD WX CLRLY HAD A CEILING AND NOTHING WAS SAID OR DONE UNTIL I QUESTIONED THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY THE MEL.

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.