A320 captain refuses aircraft with APU on MEL due to temperature and WX considerations.

Attributes
ACN	796180
Time
Date	200807
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : zzz.airport
State Reference	US
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Environment
Weather Elements	Thunderstorm
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	A320
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground : preflight
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 12000 flight time type : 2000
ASRS Report	796180
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	flight crew : took precautionary avoidance action
Consequence	other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Aircraft Company Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Ambiguous

Narrative:

After pulling up the paperwork the aircraft had a deferral for an APU inoperative. When we were looking over the proposed flight we determined that this was unacceptable for a safe flight with passenger due to temperature and WX considerations. We contacted dispatcher who agreed with us and sent a refusal for the aircraft and then asked if the previous dispatcher had contacted us prior to dispatching the aircraft out of a maintenance base with an inoperative APU. We said no this was the first we heard of it. After refusing the aircraft the station manager called me on the phone and was questioning my decision to refuse the aircraft and I politely told her that I didn't need her to try and push me into taking an aircraft I didn't feel was acceptable and safe for passenger operations. I tried to work with maintenance and the dispatcher to get local maintenance out to try and fix the aircraft when this didn't work our maintenance asked us if we would ferry the aircraft back to ZZZ so it would be fixed upon arrival. I conferred with our dispatcher and we determined this would be acceptable. Upon arrival in ZZZ there was a crew there to fly the aircraft out with passenger when I talked with the outbound captain he knew nothing of the requirement from maintenance to fix the aircraft before returning to passenger service. This sounds like aircraft shopping at its worse and pilot pushing to me.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A320 CAPT REFUSES ACFT WITH APU ON MEL DUE TO TEMP AND WX CONSIDERATIONS.

Narrative: AFTER PULLING UP THE PAPERWORK THE ACFT HAD A DEFERRAL FOR AN APU INOP. WHEN WE WERE LOOKING OVER THE PROPOSED FLT WE DETERMINED THAT THIS WAS UNACCEPTABLE FOR A SAFE FLT WITH PAX DUE TO TEMP AND WX CONSIDERATIONS. WE CONTACTED DISPATCHER WHO AGREED WITH US AND SENT A REFUSAL FOR THE ACFT AND THEN ASKED IF THE PREVIOUS DISPATCHER HAD CONTACTED US PRIOR TO DISPATCHING THE ACFT OUT OF A MAINT BASE WITH AN INOP APU. WE SAID NO THIS WAS THE FIRST WE HEARD OF IT. AFTER REFUSING THE ACFT THE STATION MGR CALLED ME ON THE PHONE AND WAS QUESTIONING MY DECISION TO REFUSE THE ACFT AND I POLITELY TOLD HER THAT I DIDN'T NEED HER TO TRY AND PUSH ME INTO TAKING AN ACFT I DIDN'T FEEL WAS ACCEPTABLE AND SAFE FOR PAX OPS. I TRIED TO WORK WITH MAINT AND THE DISPATCHER TO GET LCL MAINT OUT TO TRY AND FIX THE ACFT WHEN THIS DIDN'T WORK OUR MAINT ASKED US IF WE WOULD FERRY THE ACFT BACK TO ZZZ SO IT WOULD BE FIXED UPON ARR. I CONFERRED WITH OUR DISPATCHER AND WE DETERMINED THIS WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. UPON ARR IN ZZZ THERE WAS A CREW THERE TO FLY THE ACFT OUT WITH PAX WHEN I TALKED WITH THE OUTBOUND CAPT HE KNEW NOTHING OF THE REQUIREMENT FROM MAINT TO FIX THE ACFT BEFORE RETURNING TO PAX SVC. THIS SOUNDS LIKE ACFT SHOPPING AT ITS WORSE AND PLT PUSHING TO ME.

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.