Narrative:

Arriving at the departure gate in sbgl we were greeted by the station manager with a maintenance message concerning our particular aircraft. This message addressed the possible wiring problem associated with flat panel screen 767's and the center DCU. It further went on to say what system failures are associated with this failure (autopilot and auto throttle disconnects; manual pressurization reversion; among others). Finally it discusses what actions should be taken by the flight crew should DCU failure occur. I read it and both the first officer and relief pilot read it as well. The relief pilot had no problems with it however; the first officer had grave concerns about it. He felt that no FAA exceptions had been given to us specifically flying this flight and that as a minimum; the flight should be delayed until such time as one could be given. He further felt that since the MEL didn't cover it and we were still at the gate that precluded us from leaving the gate as well. Concerning the latter; I felt that since the DCU was working properly at this time; the MEL did not apply. I also felt that since a maintenance message had been sent; it implied that FAA concurrence had already been received by our company. Talking to the chief pilot on duty via the sat communication; he stated that the maintenance message had been sent to give a 'heads-up' to crews involved with that particular aircraft that had not yet been corrected. He further stated that 'only' three aircraft in the past two years had had any problems with the center DCU. I felt that my reasoning for accepting the aircraft were sound and well thought out. However; there is always one percent of 'monday morning quarterbacking' that asks: 'was the reasoning indeed sound; or was I just trying to move 200+ passengers to their destination recklessly and should have cancelled the flight?'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A maintenance message detailing possible problems with a B767 display control unit led to a difference of opinion between crew members on whether or not the aircraft was airworthy and legal to fly.

Narrative: Arriving at the departure gate in SBGL we were greeted by the Station Manager with a maintenance message concerning our particular aircraft. This message addressed the possible wiring problem associated with flat panel screen 767's and the center DCU. It further went on to say what system failures are associated with this failure (autopilot and auto throttle disconnects; manual pressurization reversion; among others). Finally it discusses what actions should be taken by the flight crew should DCU failure occur. I read it and both the First Officer and Relief Pilot read it as well. The Relief Pilot had no problems with it however; the First Officer had grave concerns about it. He felt that no FAA exceptions had been given to us specifically flying this flight and that as a minimum; the flight should be delayed until such time as one could be given. He further felt that since the MEL didn't cover it and we were still at the gate that precluded us from leaving the gate as well. Concerning the latter; I felt that since the DCU was working properly at this time; the MEL did not apply. I also felt that since a maintenance message had been sent; it implied that FAA concurrence had already been received by our company. Talking to the Chief Pilot on duty via the Sat COM; he stated that the maintenance message had been sent to give a 'heads-up' to crews involved with that particular aircraft that had not yet been corrected. He further stated that 'only' three aircraft in the past two years had had any problems with the center DCU. I felt that my reasoning for accepting the aircraft were sound and well thought out. However; there is always one percent of 'Monday morning quarterbacking' that asks: 'Was the reasoning indeed sound; or was I just trying to move 200+ passengers to their destination recklessly and should have cancelled the flight?'

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.