Narrative:

Upon very late receipt of the flight papers for this flight (dispatch busy with diverts and very clearly understaffed); I found that the aircraft had a deferred item; egpws inoperative. The deferred item listed the reason for deferral was a needed software reload. As we were to fly over mountainous terrain at night; I entered a refusal of the aircraft. After some time we got a message to contact operations on the radio. An angry and frustrated maintenance supervisor started lecturing me on the radio that he did not have a part in stock. Apparently the deferral had nothing to do with a software reload; but in reality it was a piece of hardware that needed replacement. Then he told me that air carrier Y had the part; but that they would charge us excessively for this part. He told me that air carrier would not authority/authorized the purchase of this part; and that; therefore; I would personally be causing a cancellation or other delay to this flight. I informed this misguided employee that I had no interest in his dollar figures; only his input on safety and the repair status of my aircraft. I also informed him that he was confusing my role in this scenario as I am not the one who makes cancellation decisions. This is yet another example of the pilot pushing and the decline of safety concerns here at air carrier.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757-200 CAPTAIN IS DRESSED DOWN BY MAINT FOR REFUSING AN ACFT DUE TO A DEFERRAL OF THE EGPWS DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE NATURE OF THE FLT.

Narrative: UPON VERY LATE RECEIPT OF THE FLT PAPERS FOR THIS FLT (DISPATCH BUSY WITH DIVERTS AND VERY CLRLY UNDERSTAFFED); I FOUND THAT THE ACFT HAD A DEFERRED ITEM; EGPWS INOP. THE DEFERRED ITEM LISTED THE REASON FOR DEFERRAL WAS A NEEDED SOFTWARE RELOAD. AS WE WERE TO FLY OVER MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN AT NIGHT; I ENTERED A REFUSAL OF THE ACFT. AFTER SOME TIME WE GOT A MESSAGE TO CONTACT OPS ON THE RADIO. AN ANGRY AND FRUSTRATED MAINT SUPVR STARTED LECTURING ME ON THE RADIO THAT HE DID NOT HAVE A PART IN STOCK. APPARENTLY THE DEFERRAL HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH A SOFTWARE RELOAD; BUT IN REALITY IT WAS A PIECE OF HARDWARE THAT NEEDED REPLACEMENT. THEN HE TOLD ME THAT ACR Y HAD THE PART; BUT THAT THEY WOULD CHARGE US EXCESSIVELY FOR THIS PART. HE TOLD ME THAT ACR WOULD NOT AUTH THE PURCHASE OF THIS PART; AND THAT; THEREFORE; I WOULD PERSONALLY BE CAUSING A CANCELLATION OR OTHER DELAY TO THIS FLT. I INFORMED THIS MISGUIDED EMPLOYEE THAT I HAD NO INTEREST IN HIS DOLLAR FIGURES; ONLY HIS INPUT ON SAFETY AND THE REPAIR STATUS OF MY ACFT. I ALSO INFORMED HIM THAT HE WAS CONFUSING MY ROLE IN THIS SCENARIO AS I AM NOT THE ONE WHO MAKES CANCELLATION DECISIONS. THIS IS YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE PLT PUSHING AND THE DECLINE OF SAFETY CONCERNS HERE AT ACR.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.