Narrative:

We were charged with a delay yesterday due to a refused deferral on the hot air valve. The history of this deferral goes beyond the minor temperature control problems normally associated with a bad hot air valve. One crew considered diverting (log item) because the cockpit was so cold. Cabin problems were also reported. (Maybe the same) crew exercised emergency authority to turn on the hot air trim valve (another log item). The original write-up said there were problems with temperature control and the hot air valve was deferred. This did not solve the problem. The temperature sense screens were cleaned; this also did not solve the problem. I had just printed the flight papers for our flight and tried to sign the release when I got the message there was no flight plan. I contacted dispatch who informed me there was an aircraft swap: we were being given the plane with the temperature control problem. Maintenance now had 2 separate deferrals regarding the same temperature control problem; both said the temperature was uncontrollable and both inop'ed the same hot air valve. The aircraft was now enroute. I asked dispatch to query the crew whether they could control the cockpit and cabin temperature and was informed that they could not. Dispatch put in the refusal. My understanding of the MEL/deferral process is that there needs to be a work-around or back-up system that will allow the aircraft to operate in a 'normal manner' or certain conditions must exist. Normally with the hot air valve deferred; the zone controller will keep the whole cabin reasonably comfortable. I have many times accepted an aircraft in this condition with no problems. In this case; I was informed the problem was not fixed and the backup system was not working properly. After the hot air valve was changed out; I accepted the aircraft and flew it with no problems. My questions are: 1) how can a system legally be deferred when the backup system is not working properly? And 2) how can I (or dispatch) legally accept such a condition? If maintenance tries something new; signs it off and asks us to try the new fix that is a different story. P.south. An example occurred last week where the aircraft was acceptable for one flight but not another. We had 1 pack inoperative and no problem on the turn: the weather was good; as were the rides at all altitudes. But on the next leg; at night; with meas above 16;000 ft; there is really no out for the loss of the second pack. Also; there was moderate turbulence forecast and reported below FL320 and we would be restricted to fly in that zone. I spoke to dispatch prior about my plan to go to ZZZ1 and back; and then switch aircraft in ZZZ2. He thought that was a good idea; there was plenty of time and he coordinated an aircraft swap and we experienced no delays. I believe this is how the system should work. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated his carrier has implemented a flight tracking system for pilots who refuse an aircraft with items that are legally deferrable. Reporter stated the flight tracking is used by his carrier to intimidate pilots from using their captain's authority to refuse an aircraft; even if the deferral is improper. Reporter stated the questions he raised in his report that ask 'how can a system be legally deferred when the back up system is not working properly; and how can he; or dispatch; legally accept such a condition?' have not been answered.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Captain reports that he and the First Officer were charged with a delay for refusing to accept two deferrals for the same hot air valve on an A320; with the temperature uncontrollable. Captain questions how can a system legally be deferred; when the back up system is not working properly?

Narrative: We were charged with a delay yesterday due to a refused deferral on the hot air valve. The history of this deferral goes beyond the minor temperature control problems normally associated with a bad hot air valve. One crew considered diverting (log item) because the cockpit was so cold. Cabin problems were also reported. (Maybe the same) crew exercised emergency authority to turn on the hot air trim valve (another log item). The original write-up said there were problems with temperature control and the hot air valve was deferred. This did not solve the problem. The temperature sense screens were cleaned; this also did not solve the problem. I had just printed the flight papers for our flight and tried to sign the release when I got the message there was no flight plan. I contacted dispatch who informed me there was an aircraft swap: we were being given the plane with the temperature control problem. Maintenance now had 2 separate deferrals regarding the same temperature control problem; both said the temperature was uncontrollable and both inop'ed the same hot air valve. The aircraft was now enroute. I asked dispatch to query the crew whether they could control the cockpit and cabin temperature and was informed that they could not. Dispatch put in the refusal. My understanding of the MEL/deferral process is that there needs to be a work-around or back-up system that will allow the aircraft to operate in a 'normal manner' or certain conditions must exist. Normally with the hot air valve deferred; the zone controller will keep the whole cabin reasonably comfortable. I have many times accepted an aircraft in this condition with no problems. In this case; I was informed the problem was not fixed and the backup system was not working properly. After the hot air valve was changed out; I accepted the aircraft and flew it with no problems. My questions are: 1) how can a system legally be deferred when the backup system is not working properly? And 2) how can I (or dispatch) legally accept such a condition? If maintenance tries something new; signs it off and asks us to try the new fix that is a different story. P.S. An example occurred last week where the aircraft was acceptable for one flight but not another. We had 1 pack inoperative and no problem on the turn: the weather was good; as were the rides at all altitudes. But on the next leg; at night; with MEAs above 16;000 FT; there is really no out for the loss of the second pack. Also; there was moderate turbulence forecast and reported below FL320 and we would be restricted to fly in that zone. I spoke to dispatch prior about my plan to go to ZZZ1 and back; and then switch aircraft in ZZZ2. He thought that was a good idea; there was plenty of time and he coordinated an aircraft swap and we experienced no delays. I believe this is how the system should work. Callback conversation with Reporter revealed the following information: Reporter stated his carrier has implemented a flight tracking system for pilots who refuse an aircraft with items that are legally deferrable. Reporter stated the flight tracking is used by his carrier to intimidate pilots from using their Captain's Authority to refuse an aircraft; even if the deferral is improper. Reporter stated the questions he raised in his report that ask 'How can a system be legally deferred when the back up system is not working properly; and how can he; or dispatch; legally accept such a condition?' have not been answered.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.