Narrative:

Upon arriving at operations the first officer and I printed and reviewed the paperwork for the flight. The maintenance history for showed several mels for the fuel quantity indicating system. There are four fuel tanks on an A320. Two of the four tanks had fuel quantity indicators (fqi) that was in a degraded condition and a third fqi was inoperative. The flight crew actions section of that MEL included a restriction that all other fqis must operate normally. I called dispatch and maintenance control. The controller informed me that the aircraft had been in all night; but that he needed me to refuse the airplane in order for local maintenance to fix the discrepancies. He was polite and understanding; but seemingly helpless to effect repairs. He even agreed with the dispatcher and me that the airplane was illegal for dispatch. I told him that I recently viewed an e-note from flight operations management that said I wasn't supposed to hear this sort of thing from maintenance; and that our pilot managers consider it a 'myth' that a captain must refuse an airplane in order for it to be fixed. He just chuckled. The dispatcher said it was understandable to refuse the aircraft.this sort of conversation is common and I personally encounter this situation once a month on average. The requirement for a captain to refuse an aircraft in order to affect repairs is commonplace and hardly a myth. Our company consistently tells employees and customers that safety is our number one priority. This program is simply a form a pilot-pushing. The law of averages is such that management will inevitably convince a weak-willed captain to take an unairworthy airplane into an unfortunate circumstance. The pressure put on pilots in this regard is an unnecessary intrusion into our safety margin. Will pilot management and maintenance management wait for a hull loss to react? Does a mechanic really need an a&P license to know that pilots need to know how much fuel is on the aircraft? My 11-year old; upon over-hearing my conversation on this matter asked; dad don't you need to know how much fuel you have? Has common sense been sacrificed for the sake of expediency? The passengers expect a certain level of safety from an airline. Perhaps I've grown cynical; but I suspect this is about making the pilots look bad. Customer service made an announcement at the gate that the pilots were refusing to fly the airplane. The passengers blamed us for their missed connections and their inconvenience. Or perhaps; this is simply manufactured evidence in a lawsuit against the pilots for engaging in a 'job action'. If so; the company is sacrificing passenger safety for legal advantage. In conclusion; maintenance management and senior pilot management have become far removed from the customer experience and more importantly; are not upholding their legal and moral obligations to aviation safety. This program of [requiring an] aircraft refusal to generate a maintenance action must be stopped immediately.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An A320 Captain reported the aircraft provided for his flight had three of four fuel quantity indicators that were either failed or in degraded condition. These items had been written up and MEL'd. The Captain was told that he must refuse the aircraft for service before maintenance would be allowed to rectify the anomalies.

Narrative: Upon arriving at operations the first officer and I printed and reviewed the paperwork for the flight. The maintenance history for showed several MELs for the fuel quantity indicating system. There are four fuel tanks on an A320. Two of the four tanks had Fuel Quantity Indicators (FQI) that was in a degraded condition and a third FQI was inoperative. The flight crew actions section of that MEL included a restriction that all other FQIs must operate normally. I called Dispatch and Maintenance Control. The Controller informed me that the aircraft had been in all night; but that he needed me to refuse the airplane in order for local maintenance to fix the discrepancies. He was polite and understanding; but seemingly helpless to effect repairs. He even agreed with the Dispatcher and me that the airplane was illegal for dispatch. I told him that I recently viewed an e-note from Flight Operations Management that said I wasn't supposed to hear this sort of thing from maintenance; and that our pilot managers consider it a 'myth' that a Captain must refuse an airplane in order for it to be fixed. He just chuckled. The Dispatcher said it was understandable to refuse the aircraft.This sort of conversation is common and I personally encounter this situation once a month on average. The requirement for a Captain to refuse an aircraft in order to affect repairs is commonplace and hardly a myth. Our company consistently tells employees and customers that safety is our number one priority. This program is simply a form a pilot-pushing. The law of averages is such that Management will inevitably convince a weak-willed Captain to take an unairworthy airplane into an unfortunate circumstance. The pressure put on pilots in this regard is an unnecessary intrusion into our safety margin. Will Pilot Management and Maintenance Management wait for a hull loss to react? Does a mechanic really need an A&P license to know that pilots need to know how much fuel is on the aircraft? My 11-year old; upon over-hearing my conversation on this matter asked; Dad don't you need to know how much fuel you have? Has common sense been sacrificed for the sake of expediency? The passengers expect a certain level of safety from an airline. Perhaps I've grown cynical; but I suspect this is about making the pilots look bad. Customer Service made an announcement at the gate that the pilots were refusing to fly the airplane. The passengers blamed us for their missed connections and their inconvenience. Or perhaps; this is simply manufactured evidence in a lawsuit against the pilots for engaging in a 'job action'. If so; the company is sacrificing passenger safety for legal advantage. In conclusion; Maintenance Management and Senior Pilot Management have become far removed from the customer experience and more importantly; are not upholding their legal and moral obligations to aviation safety. This program of [requiring an] aircraft refusal to generate a maintenance action must be stopped immediately.

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.