Narrative:

My first officer entered the FBO in msy to report to me that he had smelled smoke in the cockpit during the preflight. He stated that a lineman had confirmed the smell also. He secured the switches and came to tell me the problem. Upon entering the aircraft; I confirmed the smell of smoke and also saw the smoke near the instrument panel. I placed a call to the aircraft owner to report our mechanical problem. He had me power up the electrical system to troubleshoot the problem. After a few mins; I again noted the smell of smoke and stated that we should power down the aircraft before the problem grew worse. At this point; he wanted me to power up the plane again and attempt to isolate the problem with a combination of switch placement and pulling circuit breakers so that we could fly the aircraft home for maintenance. I declined by stating that I wasn't qualified or comfortable to perform what is essentially a maintenance procedure on the aircraft and that the aircraft would still be unable to fly. He became irritated that I was unwilling to deviate from the maintenance regulations. He said he would see what he could do and call me back but he didn't think there was any qualified maintenance in msy. He called me back to inform me that he had no choice and was sending a mechanic down to look at the aircraft. A few hours later the mechanic arrived and quickly found the problem in the captain's side audio control panel. He was on the phone with the owner who said we could fly the plane home to memphis now that the panel had been removed. I said that we were unable to as the airplane was in an unairworthy condition (panel removed) and this item was not covered in our MEL/cdl list for deferred maintenance. Trying to be helpful and worried about where this conversation had been and where it was headed; I told the owner that we could solve this problem easily with a ferry permit from the FAA. This would make it legal again to operate the aircraft. His response was that this would take too long and that he wanted the aircraft home now. I declined to operate the airplane in an illegal manner even though his anger was growing and I began to worry about what would happen to my job upon my return. This would be my last direct contact with the owner until my return. He no longer wanted to work with me in order to solve this dilemma. I was informed by maintenance that the company might have found a replacement part so we waited at the airport for a little longer hoping to avoid the extra expense of rooms. We learned that a part had been found and would be shipped in tomorrow for replacement. We received part; installed it and completed paperwork. Departed msy at XA45 local time. Arrived mem at XB50 local time. At approximately XC15 local time; the aircraft owner came through and told me to come into his office after I was done. I entered his office and he told me to close the door. I did. He asked me if I thought I had done the right thing in this situation. I responded; 'yes.' he was clearly agitated at my response and asked; 'really?' to which I again responded yes. He then asked 'why?' I said that to have handled it in any other manner would have been unsafe and illegal. He said that he knew I was technically correct; however he felt that it would have been safe to operate the aircraft anyway. He then lectured me on how much it had cost him that I had refused to budge; on the maintenance regulations. He stated that he knew that one day I wanted to move on to a major airline and he wanted that for me but he couldn't spend this kind of money to help me get there. He explained his side of the situation by stating that this was a game we played with the FAA and the inspectors were all former charter pilots who understood how the regulation game was played. He also stated that they were a 'normal business hours' operation and would not be here to ramp check me on my arrival so I didn't need to worry about them enforcing the regulations. At this point; he told me that due to our previous conversations and this most recent event; he worried about my willingness to budge on maintenance issues. He said that he understood if it was a flat tire or something like that but that in this situation he expected the flight to go with no write-ups. He then said that in order for me to continue working for him; he would require a firm commitment from me that in the future I would be willing to fly aircraft under these conditions without insisting on the maintenance and that I defer what I considered safe to his judgement. He again stated that it was too costly for him to comply with the maintenance regulations and that he could not afford it. I stated that I understood and would need time to think about what he had said. He said fine but he would need an answer soon to which I said he would have it. I faxed in my resignation the following morning.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPTAIN OF A LJ35 RESIGNS RATHER THAN COMPLY WITH DEMANDS BY THE OPERATOR THAT HE IGNORE MAINTENANCE REGULATIONS.

Narrative: MY FO ENTERED THE FBO IN MSY TO RPT TO ME THAT HE HAD SMELLED SMOKE IN THE COCKPIT DURING THE PREFLT. HE STATED THAT A LINEMAN HAD CONFIRMED THE SMELL ALSO. HE SECURED THE SWITCHES AND CAME TO TELL ME THE PROB. UPON ENTERING THE ACFT; I CONFIRMED THE SMELL OF SMOKE AND ALSO SAW THE SMOKE NEAR THE INST PANEL. I PLACED A CALL TO THE ACFT OWNER TO RPT OUR MECHANICAL PROB. HE HAD ME PWR UP THE ELECTRICAL SYS TO TROUBLESHOOT THE PROB. AFTER A FEW MINS; I AGAIN NOTED THE SMELL OF SMOKE AND STATED THAT WE SHOULD PWR DOWN THE ACFT BEFORE THE PROB GREW WORSE. AT THIS POINT; HE WANTED ME TO PWR UP THE PLANE AGAIN AND ATTEMPT TO ISOLATE THE PROB WITH A COMBINATION OF SWITCH PLACEMENT AND PULLING CIRCUIT BREAKERS SO THAT WE COULD FLY THE ACFT HOME FOR MAINT. I DECLINED BY STATING THAT I WASN'T QUALIFIED OR COMFORTABLE TO PERFORM WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A MAINT PROC ON THE ACFT AND THAT THE ACFT WOULD STILL BE UNABLE TO FLY. HE BECAME IRRITATED THAT I WAS UNWILLING TO DEVIATE FROM THE MAINT REGS. HE SAID HE WOULD SEE WHAT HE COULD DO AND CALL ME BACK BUT HE DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS ANY QUALIFIED MAINT IN MSY. HE CALLED ME BACK TO INFORM ME THAT HE HAD NO CHOICE AND WAS SENDING A MECH DOWN TO LOOK AT THE ACFT. A FEW HRS LATER THE MECH ARRIVED AND QUICKLY FOUND THE PROB IN THE CAPT'S SIDE AUDIO CTL PANEL. HE WAS ON THE PHONE WITH THE OWNER WHO SAID WE COULD FLY THE PLANE HOME TO MEMPHIS NOW THAT THE PANEL HAD BEEN REMOVED. I SAID THAT WE WERE UNABLE TO AS THE AIRPLANE WAS IN AN UNAIRWORTHY CONDITION (PANEL REMOVED) AND THIS ITEM WAS NOT COVERED IN OUR MEL/CDL LIST FOR DEFERRED MAINT. TRYING TO BE HELPFUL AND WORRIED ABOUT WHERE THIS CONVERSATION HAD BEEN AND WHERE IT WAS HEADED; I TOLD THE OWNER THAT WE COULD SOLVE THIS PROB EASILY WITH A FERRY PERMIT FROM THE FAA. THIS WOULD MAKE IT LEGAL AGAIN TO OPERATE THE ACFT. HIS RESPONSE WAS THAT THIS WOULD TAKE TOO LONG AND THAT HE WANTED THE ACFT HOME NOW. I DECLINED TO OPERATE THE AIRPLANE IN AN ILLEGAL MANNER EVEN THOUGH HIS ANGER WAS GROWING AND I BEGAN TO WORRY ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO MY JOB UPON MY RETURN. THIS WOULD BE MY LAST DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE OWNER UNTIL MY RETURN. HE NO LONGER WANTED TO WORK WITH ME IN ORDER TO SOLVE THIS DILEMMA. I WAS INFORMED BY MAINT THAT THE COMPANY MIGHT HAVE FOUND A REPLACEMENT PART SO WE WAITED AT THE ARPT FOR A LITTLE LONGER HOPING TO AVOID THE EXTRA EXPENSE OF ROOMS. WE LEARNED THAT A PART HAD BEEN FOUND AND WOULD BE SHIPPED IN TOMORROW FOR REPLACEMENT. WE RECEIVED PART; INSTALLED IT AND COMPLETED PAPERWORK. DEPARTED MSY AT XA45 LCL TIME. ARRIVED MEM AT XB50 LCL TIME. AT APPROX XC15 LCL TIME; THE ACFT OWNER CAME THROUGH AND TOLD ME TO COME INTO HIS OFFICE AFTER I WAS DONE. I ENTERED HIS OFFICE AND HE TOLD ME TO CLOSE THE DOOR. I DID. HE ASKED ME IF I THOUGHT I HAD DONE THE RIGHT THING IN THIS SITUATION. I RESPONDED; 'YES.' HE WAS CLRLY AGITATED AT MY RESPONSE AND ASKED; 'REALLY?' TO WHICH I AGAIN RESPONDED YES. HE THEN ASKED 'WHY?' I SAID THAT TO HAVE HANDLED IT IN ANY OTHER MANNER WOULD HAVE BEEN UNSAFE AND ILLEGAL. HE SAID THAT HE KNEW I WAS TECHNICALLY CORRECT; HOWEVER HE FELT THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFE TO OPERATE THE ACFT ANYWAY. HE THEN LECTURED ME ON HOW MUCH IT HAD COST HIM THAT I HAD REFUSED TO BUDGE; ON THE MAINT REGS. HE STATED THAT HE KNEW THAT ONE DAY I WANTED TO MOVE ON TO A MAJOR AIRLINE AND HE WANTED THAT FOR ME BUT HE COULDN'T SPEND THIS KIND OF MONEY TO HELP ME GET THERE. HE EXPLAINED HIS SIDE OF THE SITUATION BY STATING THAT THIS WAS A GAME WE PLAYED WITH THE FAA AND THE INSPECTORS WERE ALL FORMER CHARTER PLTS WHO UNDERSTOOD HOW THE REG GAME WAS PLAYED. HE ALSO STATED THAT THEY WERE A 'NORMAL BUSINESS HRS' OP AND WOULD NOT BE HERE TO RAMP CHK ME ON MY ARR SO I DIDN'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THEM ENFORCING THE REGS. AT THIS POINT; HE TOLD ME THAT DUE TO OUR PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS AND THIS MOST RECENT EVENT; HE WORRIED ABOUT MY WILLINGNESS TO BUDGE ON MAINT ISSUES. HE SAID THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IF IT WAS A FLAT TIRE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT BUT THAT IN THIS SITUATION HE EXPECTED THE FLT TO GO WITH NO WRITE-UPS. HE THEN SAID THAT IN ORDER FOR ME TO CONTINUE WORKING FOR HIM; HE WOULD REQUIRE A FIRM COMMITMENT FROM ME THAT IN THE FUTURE I WOULD BE WILLING TO FLY ACFT UNDER THESE CONDITIONS WITHOUT INSISTING ON THE MAINT AND THAT I DEFER WHAT I CONSIDERED SAFE TO HIS JUDGEMENT. HE AGAIN STATED THAT IT WAS TOO COSTLY FOR HIM TO COMPLY WITH THE MAINT REGS AND THAT HE COULD NOT AFFORD IT. I STATED THAT I UNDERSTOOD AND WOULD NEED TIME TO THINK ABOUT WHAT HE HAD SAID. HE SAID FINE BUT HE WOULD NEED AN ANSWER SOON TO WHICH I SAID HE WOULD HAVE IT. I FAXED IN MY RESIGNATION THE FOLLOWING MORNING.

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.