An md super 80 flight crew refused to fly an aircraft with several electrical problems at ord.

Attributes
ACN	444500
Time
Date	199907
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : ord.airport
State Reference	IL
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Weather Elements	Thunderstorm
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	MD-80 Super 80
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground : parked
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
ASRS Report	443782
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : multi engine pilot : instrument
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Aircraft Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

This is a follow up to report where I refused aircraft because of an illegal MEL item. In that report I mentioned that I found the aircraft with an inoperative APU placard under MEL. But then I found several log items within the previous couple of days all dealing with electrical malfunctions to include a new CSD or two. Well, the following day, I called maintenance and informed them that I would need to fill out paperwork because I refused an aircraft. Maintenance's position was that the aircraft was fixed after the first electrical write-up, but then I asked why there was a second and third and fourth, etc, electrical write-up and that after each one the electrical problem was supposedly fixed. How could a placard have been issued for this aircraft, they became very defensive and said that the aircraft went to the hangar to get the APU replaced. Well, the other day I happened to be on a 3 day trip and the first officer and I were trading war stories. Come to find out he flew that very same day. It so happens that the captain he flew with was brand new and he told me that his captain was sold that aircraft by maintenance as being 100% ok, although he (the first officer) was not totally. This was for flight from ord to lga. What a small world. The aircraft really did not go to the hangar for an APU change after I refused the aircraft. Something is not right here. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: an interview with the reporter indicated he felt his refusal of the aircraft should have removed the aircraft from service when in fact it was flown by another crew that same day. It was his opinion that his company's maintenance people deceived the flight crew by not telling them of his refusal to fly the aircraft. Apparently there is no means to indicate the refusal in documents so as to alert other flcs. If the aircraft met the requirements to fly with deferred maintenance items there was no reason to remove it from service just because it had been refused by a flight crew.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MD SUPER 80 FLC REFUSED TO FLY AN ACFT WITH SEVERAL ELECTRICAL PROBS AT ORD.

Narrative: THIS IS A FOLLOW UP TO RPT WHERE I REFUSED ACFT BECAUSE OF AN ILLEGAL MEL ITEM. IN THAT RPT I MENTIONED THAT I FOUND THE ACFT WITH AN INOP APU PLACARD UNDER MEL. BUT THEN I FOUND SEVERAL LOG ITEMS WITHIN THE PREVIOUS COUPLE OF DAYS ALL DEALING WITH ELECTRICAL MALFUNCTIONS TO INCLUDE A NEW CSD OR TWO. WELL, THE FOLLOWING DAY, I CALLED MAINT AND INFORMED THEM THAT I WOULD NEED TO FILL OUT PAPERWORK BECAUSE I REFUSED AN ACFT. MAINT'S POS WAS THAT THE ACFT WAS FIXED AFTER THE FIRST ELECTRICAL WRITE-UP, BUT THEN I ASKED WHY THERE WAS A SECOND AND THIRD AND FOURTH, ETC, ELECTRICAL WRITE-UP AND THAT AFTER EACH ONE THE ELECTRICAL PROB WAS SUPPOSEDLY FIXED. HOW COULD A PLACARD HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR THIS ACFT, THEY BECAME VERY DEFENSIVE AND SAID THAT THE ACFT WENT TO THE HANGAR TO GET THE APU REPLACED. WELL, THE OTHER DAY I HAPPENED TO BE ON A 3 DAY TRIP AND THE FO AND I WERE TRADING WAR STORIES. COME TO FIND OUT HE FLEW THAT VERY SAME DAY. IT SO HAPPENS THAT THE CAPT HE FLEW WITH WAS BRAND NEW AND HE TOLD ME THAT HIS CAPT WAS SOLD THAT ACFT BY MAINT AS BEING 100% OK, ALTHOUGH HE (THE FO) WAS NOT TOTALLY. THIS WAS FOR FLT FROM ORD TO LGA. WHAT A SMALL WORLD. THE ACFT REALLY DID NOT GO TO THE HANGAR FOR AN APU CHANGE AFTER I REFUSED THE ACFT. SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT HERE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: AN INTERVIEW WITH THE RPTR INDICATED HE FELT HIS REFUSAL OF THE ACFT SHOULD HAVE REMOVED THE ACFT FROM SVC WHEN IN FACT IT WAS FLOWN BY ANOTHER CREW THAT SAME DAY. IT WAS HIS OPINION THAT HIS COMPANY'S MAINT PEOPLE DECEIVED THE FLC BY NOT TELLING THEM OF HIS REFUSAL TO FLY THE ACFT. APPARENTLY THERE IS NO MEANS TO INDICATE THE REFUSAL IN DOCUMENTS SO AS TO ALERT OTHER FLCS. IF THE ACFT MET THE REQUIREMENTS TO FLY WITH DEFERRED MAINT ITEMS THERE WAS NO REASON TO REMOVE IT FROM SVC JUST BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN REFUSED BY A FLC.

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.