Narrative:

Refused to depart for flight from sbgl to ZZZ because cax VOR was out of service and runway being used for departure this night was runway 15. The engine out T procedure for this runway requires raw data cax DME fix of 8.5 DME. 1) air carrier NOTAMS did not have cax VOR listed as out of service...and neither did airport sbgl ATIS (until 1 hour after we first made inquiry). Had reported VOR not working previous week while airborne; after departure. Asked sbgl tower if they knew about it and they said 'yes.' tested VOR while on ground on date of this flight; and when could not get identification or signal; asked sbgl clearance if it was still out; they said 'yes.' then informed them as well as air carrier dispatch that we could not accept departure clearance as given because of engine out procedure. This resulted in approximately a 3 hour delay on ground while we waited for sbgl or our dispatch to come up with a substitute procedure. We did not solicit them; and merely stated that the current procedure would not work without cax VOR DME being operational; since there was no published alternate radial of co located navigation aid. During this time sbgl ATC gave us several 'options' ranging from general vectors to using a NDB to turn. We politely told them that the procedure was based on our aircraft's single engine performance; in a 15 degree bank; and that they had no business bending our arms to get us out of town; or to tell us in any way what we could use. Then we received some arm twisting from our own dispatch. This was even more blatant and suggested that no procedure was even required. Here is the ACARS I received from dispatch (we were having a debate via ACARS; and had just pointed out for about 2ND or 3RD time that fom requires us to fly T procedure and that all associated navaids and raw data facilities be operational). Operations manual also says 'visual cues where terain / obstacle is obvious.' would that work??? When I asked what this was supposed to mean? That we should blow off the whole T procedure requirement; and this was not how I interpreted the operations manual; got the following 'clarification' from dispatch: 'I'm just trying to solve this problem... And throwing out any possibilities that may work for you.' there were many other such interesting and what I call 'arm twisting' ACARS. Finally; the issue went to air carrier engineering an hour or more later; received the following: alternate procedure: off of runway 15 turn left at 400 ft AGL to intercept the pcx VOR right 260 degrees. Reviewed and approved by flight operations and dispatch. I protested this procedure; because it did not give a specific heading to turn to; nor a precise route to get to the pcx VOR right 260 degree radial. I again was told in no uncertain terms that this procedure was 'approved by engineering; duty manager and dispatch.' having been 'ordered to fly it' as such; I did. Flight left shortly after receiving this 'clarification' and within 30 or 40 minutes of crew going illegal for duty time. I strongly resented the whole high pressure way that this was handled and feel that my safety concerns were being over ruled for the purposes of getting flight out before crew went illegal or additional delays resulted.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B767-300 CAPTAIN REPORTS PRESSURE FROM COMPANY TO DEPART SBGL WITH CAX VOR OTS. SPECIAL ENGINE FAIL PROCEDURE REQUIRED RAW DATA FROM CAX.

Narrative: REFUSED TO DEPART FOR FLT FROM SBGL TO ZZZ BECAUSE CAX VOR WAS OUT OF SERVICE AND RUNWAY BEING USED FOR DEPARTURE THIS NIGHT WAS RUNWAY 15. THE ENGINE OUT T PROCEDURE FOR THIS RUNWAY REQUIRES RAW DATA CAX DME FIX OF 8.5 DME. 1) ACR NOTAMS DID NOT HAVE CAX VOR LISTED AS OUT OF SERVICE...AND NEITHER DID AIRPORT SBGL ATIS (UNTIL 1 HOUR AFTER WE FIRST MADE INQUIRY). HAD REPORTED VOR NOT WORKING PREVIOUS WEEK WHILE AIRBORNE; AFTER DEPARTURE. ASKED SBGL TOWER IF THEY KNEW ABOUT IT AND THEY SAID 'YES.' TESTED VOR WHILE ON GROUND ON DATE OF THIS FLIGHT; AND WHEN COULD NOT GET ID OR SIGNAL; ASKED SBGL CLEARANCE IF IT WAS STILL OUT; THEY SAID 'YES.' THEN INFORMED THEM AS WELL AS ACR DISPATCH THAT WE COULD NOT ACCEPT DEPARTURE CLEARANCE AS GIVEN BECAUSE OF ENGINE OUT PROCEDURE. THIS RESULTED IN APPROXIMATELY A 3 HOUR DELAY ON GROUND WHILE WE WAITED FOR SBGL OR OUR DISPATCH TO COME UP WITH A SUBSTITUTE PROCEDURE. WE DID NOT SOLICIT THEM; AND MERELY STATED THAT THE CURRENT PROCEDURE WOULD NOT WORK WITHOUT CAX VOR DME BEING OPERATIONAL; SINCE THERE WAS NO PUBLISHED ALTERNATE RADIAL OF CO LOCATED NAV AID. DURING THIS TIME SBGL ATC GAVE US SEVERAL 'OPTIONS' RANGING FROM GENERAL VECTORS TO USING A NDB TO TURN. WE POLITELY TOLD THEM THAT THE PROCEDURE WAS BASED ON OUR AIRCRAFT'S SINGLE ENGINE PERFORMANCE; IN A 15 DEGREE BANK; AND THAT THEY HAD NO BUSINESS BENDING OUR ARMS TO GET US OUT OF TOWN; OR TO TELL US IN ANY WAY WHAT WE COULD USE. THEN WE RECEIVED SOME ARM TWISTING FROM OUR OWN DISPATCH. THIS WAS EVEN MORE BLATANT AND SUGGESTED THAT NO PROCEDURE WAS EVEN REQUIRED. HERE IS THE ACARS I RECEIVED FROM DISPATCH (WE WERE HAVING A DEBATE VIA ACARS; AND HAD JUST POINTED OUT FOR ABOUT 2ND OR 3RD TIME THAT FOM REQUIRES US TO FLY T PROCEDURE AND THAT ALL ASSOCIATED NAVAIDS AND RAW DATA FACILITIES BE OPERATIONAL). OPS MANUAL ALSO SAYS 'VISUAL CUES WHERE TERAIN / OBSTACLE IS OBVIOUS.' WOULD THAT WORK??? WHEN I ASKED WHAT THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO MEAN? THAT WE SHOULD BLOW OFF THE WHOLE T PROCEDURE REQUIREMENT; AND THIS WAS NOT HOW I INTERPRETED THE OPS MANUAL; GOT THE FOLLOWING 'CLARIFICATION' FROM DISPATCH: 'I'M JUST TRYING TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM... AND THROWING OUT ANY POSSIBILITIES THAT MAY WORK FOR YOU.' THERE WERE MANY OTHER SUCH INTERESTING AND WHAT I CALL 'ARM TWISTING' ACARS. FINALLY; THE ISSUE WENT TO ACR ENGINEERING AN HOUR OR MORE LATER; RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING: ALTERNATE PROCEDURE: OFF OF RUNWAY 15 TURN LEFT AT 400 FT AGL TO INTERCEPT THE PCX VOR R 260 DEGS. REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY FLT OPS AND DISPATCH. I PROTESTED THIS PROCEDURE; BECAUSE IT DID NOT GIVE A SPECIFIC HEADING TO TURN TO; NOR A PRECISE ROUTE TO GET TO THE PCX VOR R 260 DEG RADIAL. I AGAIN WAS TOLD IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT THIS PROCEDURE WAS 'APPROVED BY ENGINEERING; DUTY MANAGER AND DISPATCH.' HAVING BEEN 'ORDERED TO FLY IT' AS SUCH; I DID. FLIGHT LEFT SHORTLY AFTER RECEIVING THIS 'CLARIFICATION' AND WITHIN 30 OR 40 MINUTES OF CREW GOING ILLEGAL FOR DUTY TIME. I STRONGLY RESENTED THE WHOLE HIGH PRESSURE WAY THAT THIS WAS HANDLED AND FEEL THAT MY SAFETY CONCERNS WERE BEING OVER RULED FOR THE PURPOSES OF GETTING FLIGHT OUT BEFORE CREW WENT ILLEGAL OR ADDITIONAL DELAYS RESULTED.

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.