Narrative:

We (the captain, first officer and second officer) arrived at the aircraft and found the following items placarded inoperative. 1) APU, 2) both packs, 3) #3 gen, 4) #4 EPR. We asked maintenance to come out and clarify the write-ups and they informed us the aircraft was scheduled to fly unpressurized. The first officer and I reviewed the MEL and found that none of the write-ups individually grounded the aircraft. Despite that, we both advised the captain that the combination of malfunctions would compromise the safety and comfort of the passengers and recommended we do not fly the aircraft in its present condition. The captain chose to continue with the round trip flight and called dispatch to obtain a flight plan at 9000'. We took off west/O getting a revised clearance and was told by departure control to maintain FL230. We told them we filed for 9000' and they said they didn't have that request, but granted the clearance to 9000'. The rest of the flight to jan was uneventful. Upon arrival back to dfw we had to hold on the ramp for 55 mins because of a delay of the entire complex. We advised ramp that we had no packs to provide air conditioning to the passengers but there was no gate we could go to. The temperature in the cabin reached 91 degrees F and many passenger complained. I believe there was an error in judgement on the part of the captain to take an aircraft with compounded mechanical problems. It was inadvisable to fly unpressurized because of the difficulty to regulate rates of climb and descent in the areas we were flying. With the APU inoperative we were unable to control the atmosphere of the cabin on the ground and caused significant passenger discomfort. Finally, because we failed to get a revised altitude clearance before takeoff, we caused complications with departure control (fort worth center later informed us that they had the revised clearance on file and they didn't perceive a problem). Supplemental information acn 137498. The large transport was unpressurized which resulted in a cruise altitude below 10000' with no air conditioning resulting in a cabin temperature above 95 degree F. When it became apparent that the captain intended to press on, I did as our flight manual dictates, and advised the captain that as first officer I felt that the current condition of the aircraft was such that we should not accept the aircraft. The captain chose to disregard my advice. We were trying to climb around 1000 FPM so as not to hurt the passengers ears, and departure was expecting us to climb faster than that. Unknowingly our slower than normal rate of climb must have come close to causing a traffic conflict, because departure very abruptly told us to expedite to 8000'. When we tried to explain our situation and ask for a vector or a slower climb he quickly told us he didn't have time due to traffic and again to expedite to 8000'. I think this whole situation resulted from this captain's perception that he would face retribution from the company if he disrupted schedule integrity by refusing to take the airplane. While I don't think that would have been the case, something needs to be done to insure that the authority of the PIC is not abrogated by fear of retribution from management.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR LGT DISPATCHED WITH TWO AIR CONDITIONING PACKS INOPERATIVE ALONG WITH OTHER MISC ITEMS INOPERATIVE.

Narrative: WE (THE CAPT, F/O AND S/O) ARRIVED AT THE ACFT AND FOUND THE FOLLOWING ITEMS PLACARDED INOP. 1) APU, 2) BOTH PACKS, 3) #3 GEN, 4) #4 EPR. WE ASKED MAINT TO COME OUT AND CLARIFY THE WRITE-UPS AND THEY INFORMED US THE ACFT WAS SCHEDULED TO FLY UNPRESSURIZED. THE F/O AND I REVIEWED THE MEL AND FOUND THAT NONE OF THE WRITE-UPS INDIVIDUALLY GNDED THE ACFT. DESPITE THAT, WE BOTH ADVISED THE CAPT THAT THE COMBINATION OF MALFUNCTIONS WOULD COMPROMISE THE SAFETY AND COMFORT OF THE PAXS AND RECOMMENDED WE DO NOT FLY THE ACFT IN ITS PRESENT CONDITION. THE CAPT CHOSE TO CONTINUE WITH THE ROUND TRIP FLT AND CALLED DISPATCH TO OBTAIN A FLT PLAN AT 9000'. WE TOOK OFF W/O GETTING A REVISED CLRNC AND WAS TOLD BY DEP CTL TO MAINTAIN FL230. WE TOLD THEM WE FILED FOR 9000' AND THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE THAT REQUEST, BUT GRANTED THE CLRNC TO 9000'. THE REST OF THE FLT TO JAN WAS UNEVENTFUL. UPON ARR BACK TO DFW WE HAD TO HOLD ON THE RAMP FOR 55 MINS BECAUSE OF A DELAY OF THE ENTIRE COMPLEX. WE ADVISED RAMP THAT WE HAD NO PACKS TO PROVIDE AIR CONDITIONING TO THE PAXS BUT THERE WAS NO GATE WE COULD GO TO. THE TEMP IN THE CABIN REACHED 91 DEGS F AND MANY PAX COMPLAINED. I BELIEVE THERE WAS AN ERROR IN JUDGEMENT ON THE PART OF THE CAPT TO TAKE AN ACFT WITH COMPOUNDED MECHANICAL PROBS. IT WAS INADVISABLE TO FLY UNPRESSURIZED BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY TO REGULATE RATES OF CLB AND DSCNT IN THE AREAS WE WERE FLYING. WITH THE APU INOP WE WERE UNABLE TO CONTROL THE ATMOSPHERE OF THE CABIN ON THE GND AND CAUSED SIGNIFICANT PAX DISCOMFORT. FINALLY, BECAUSE WE FAILED TO GET A REVISED ALT CLRNC BEFORE TKOF, WE CAUSED COMPLICATIONS WITH DEP CTL (FORT WORTH CTR LATER INFORMED US THAT THEY HAD THE REVISED CLRNC ON FILE AND THEY DIDN'T PERCEIVE A PROB). SUPPLEMENTAL INFO ACN 137498. THE LGT WAS UNPRESSURIZED WHICH RESULTED IN A CRUISE ALT BELOW 10000' WITH NO AIR CONDITIONING RESULTING IN A CABIN TEMP ABOVE 95 DEG F. WHEN IT BECAME APPARENT THAT THE CAPT INTENDED TO PRESS ON, I DID AS OUR FLT MANUAL DICTATES, AND ADVISED THE CAPT THAT AS F/O I FELT THAT THE CURRENT CONDITION OF THE ACFT WAS SUCH THAT WE SHOULD NOT ACCEPT THE ACFT. THE CAPT CHOSE TO DISREGARD MY ADVICE. WE WERE TRYING TO CLB AROUND 1000 FPM SO AS NOT TO HURT THE PAXS EARS, AND DEP WAS EXPECTING US TO CLB FASTER THAN THAT. UNKNOWINGLY OUR SLOWER THAN NORMAL RATE OF CLB MUST HAVE COME CLOSE TO CAUSING A TFC CONFLICT, BECAUSE DEP VERY ABRUPTLY TOLD US TO EXPEDITE TO 8000'. WHEN WE TRIED TO EXPLAIN OUR SITUATION AND ASK FOR A VECTOR OR A SLOWER CLB HE QUICKLY TOLD US HE DIDN'T HAVE TIME DUE TO TFC AND AGAIN TO EXPEDITE TO 8000'. I THINK THIS WHOLE SITUATION RESULTED FROM THIS CAPT'S PERCEPTION THAT HE WOULD FACE RETRIBUTION FROM THE COMPANY IF HE DISRUPTED SCHEDULE INTEGRITY BY REFUSING TO TAKE THE AIRPLANE. WHILE I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CASE, SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE TO INSURE THAT THE AUTHORITY OF THE PIC IS NOT ABROGATED BY FEAR OF RETRIBUTION FROM MGMNT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.