A flight crew and dispatcher reported that the flight crew were pressured into flying a B737 with in...

Attributes
ACN	1426019
Time
Date	201702
Local Time Of Day	1801-2400
Place
Locale Reference	ZZZ.Airport
State Reference	US
Environment
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	B737-800
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Parked
Component
Aircraft Component	Cockpit Lighting
Person 1
Function	Dispatcher Captain Pilot Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 126 Flight Crew Type 10000
Person 2
Function	Pilot Not Flying First Officer
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 183 Flight Crew Type 5000
Events
Anomaly	Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe Deviation - Procedural MEL Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Narrative:

MEL 33-1-xy was effective. Aircraft flew for nine days with this MEL; and transited at least eight maintenance bases in the previous five days. In captain and first officer opinions; remaining lighting system lights may not have been sufficient to clearly illuminate all required instruments; controls; and other devices for which it is provided. Also; lighting configuration and intensity from alternate sources may not have been acceptable to the flight crew. Dispatch agreed with captain on these concerns; and provided link to maintenance. After directing captain in several unsuccessful circuit breaker resets; and without advising captain and dispatch; maintenance brought in chief pilot on call. Chief pilot did not provide safer alternatives for crew to consider in operating the aircraft. Rather; chief pilot said crew could be replaced with somebody who was willing to fly the aircraft one more leg. Chief pilot also stated that nine other captains operated that aircraft; and implied I should; as well. After thoroughly evaluating cockpit lighting conditions during engine start and taxi; crew decided it could safely operate aircraft. Crew used overhead flood light in combination with bulkhead lighting to operate the area affected by MEL; however; lighting in many areas was very marginal.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A flight crew and Dispatcher reported that the flight crew were pressured into flying a B737 with inadequate cockpit lighting.

Narrative: MEL 33-1-XY was effective. Aircraft flew for nine days with this MEL; and transited at least eight Maintenance bases in the previous five days. In Captain and First Officer opinions; remaining lighting system lights may not have been sufficient to clearly illuminate all required instruments; controls; and other devices for which it is provided. Also; lighting configuration and intensity from alternate sources may not have been acceptable to the flight crew. Dispatch agreed with Captain on these concerns; and provided link to Maintenance. After directing Captain in several unsuccessful circuit breaker resets; and without advising Captain and Dispatch; Maintenance brought in Chief Pilot on Call. Chief Pilot did not provide safer alternatives for Crew to consider in operating the aircraft. Rather; Chief Pilot said Crew could be replaced with somebody who was willing to fly the aircraft one more leg. Chief Pilot also stated that nine other Captains operated that aircraft; and implied I should; as well. After thoroughly evaluating cockpit lighting conditions during engine start and taxi; Crew decided it could safely operate aircraft. Crew used overhead flood light in combination with bulkhead lighting to operate the area affected by MEL; however; lighting in many areas was very marginal.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.

A flight crew and dispatcher reported that the flight crew were pressured into flying a B737 with inadequate cockpit lighting.