|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1201 To 1800|
|Locale Reference||airport : zzz.airport|
|Altitude||agl single value : 0|
|Controlling Facilities||artcc : zse.artcc|
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||B767-300 and 300 ER|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 121|
|Navigation In Use||other|
|Flight Phase||ground : preflight|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Anomaly||non adherence : company policies|
non adherence : far
non adherence : published procedure
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
other other : 1
|Resolutory Action||none taken : unable|
|Problem Areas||Flight Crew Human Performance|
Maintenance Human Performance
I received a call from ZZZ maintenance wanting to defer the left SELCAL HF (placard 2321B). I initially agreed to defer it, but reviewing more about the problem, I learned that the entire HF system was inoperative. I refused to allow ZZZ to defer but moments later, they did defer. I received a call from maintenance office within mins of the deferral saying he had called ZZZ and told them to fix it also. He also stated that the item would be cleared shortly and we would be ready to go very shortly. The captain of the flight then called and said the HF SELCAL checked out ok finally and he was ready to go if I could get ZZZ to restart the boarding process. I observed the MEL item to be cleared by ZZZ's maintenance office. I called the load planner for the flight since I did not know the correct zone control number and was xferred to someone who said she was the correct controller. I said the maintenance issue had been resolved and we were ready to go. She asked me who had the authority/authorized over there (meaning dispatch?) to refuse an airplane. I told her I did. She replied that she didn't know that (matter of factly) and I hung up. I then saw that a di delay was assigned. I also received a phone call from the B767 controller who said that I had to issue a refusal for the deferral if I expected to get it fixed. I told him that maintenance headquarters told me that it was deferred only because ZZZ's maintenance had started the process and that they would be removing the item shortly because the captain said it was fixed. I told my boss about what had transpired and he called ZZZ and talked with the supervisor who allegedly told my boss he understood what transpired but couldn't understand how we could refuse an aircraft that the captain says is ok to continue and he refused to change the di code. He also stated that ZZZ said this would require a 3 hour fix and that I should consider alternative routing. I told my boss the aircraft was ready to go now and that maintenance headquarters told me it was going to be a very quick fix. I called the supervisor and I told him I was filing this report about the incident. He became incredibly upset. The bottom line here is that I have the authority/authorized to refuse aircraft for maintenance issues whether or not the captain agrees and I don't expect to have station operations or customer service representatives telling me otherwise. Nor do I expect to be yelled at as we all have an equal interest in departing on-time. It is unprofessional and unsafe. It is my opinion that ZZZ maintenance did not want to fix this problem to begin with. It is possible that the captain knew the system worked before either I or maintenance headquarters but this is irrelevant to the process. This appeared to occur also on the next flight out of ZZZ, with a window squeal problem that was not worked until departure time. This report was filed as a result of a continuing concern with ZZZ operations and maintenance policies regarding operational authority/authorized and the deferral process. I found it unusual that despite me saying not to defer an item, that because maintenance was already in the deferral system, that the item must get deferred and then cleared.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A B767-300 DISPATCHER EXPRESSED DISMAY WITH HIS COMPANY'S OPS, IN GENERAL, AT ZZZ.
Narrative: I RECEIVED A CALL FROM ZZZ MAINT WANTING TO DEFER THE L SELCAL HF (PLACARD 2321B). I INITIALLY AGREED TO DEFER IT, BUT REVIEWING MORE ABOUT THE PROB, I LEARNED THAT THE ENTIRE HF SYS WAS INOP. I REFUSED TO ALLOW ZZZ TO DEFER BUT MOMENTS LATER, THEY DID DEFER. I RECEIVED A CALL FROM MAINT OFFICE WITHIN MINS OF THE DEFERRAL SAYING HE HAD CALLED ZZZ AND TOLD THEM TO FIX IT ALSO. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE ITEM WOULD BE CLRED SHORTLY AND WE WOULD BE READY TO GO VERY SHORTLY. THE CAPT OF THE FLT THEN CALLED AND SAID THE HF SELCAL CHKED OUT OK FINALLY AND HE WAS READY TO GO IF I COULD GET ZZZ TO RESTART THE BOARDING PROCESS. I OBSERVED THE MEL ITEM TO BE CLRED BY ZZZ'S MAINT OFFICE. I CALLED THE LOAD PLANNER FOR THE FLT SINCE I DID NOT KNOW THE CORRECT ZONE CTL NUMBER AND WAS XFERRED TO SOMEONE WHO SAID SHE WAS THE CORRECT CTLR. I SAID THE MAINT ISSUE HAD BEEN RESOLVED AND WE WERE READY TO GO. SHE ASKED ME WHO HAD THE AUTH OVER THERE (MEANING DISPATCH?) TO REFUSE AN AIRPLANE. I TOLD HER I DID. SHE REPLIED THAT SHE DIDN'T KNOW THAT (MATTER OF FACTLY) AND I HUNG UP. I THEN SAW THAT A DI DELAY WAS ASSIGNED. I ALSO RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM THE B767 CTLR WHO SAID THAT I HAD TO ISSUE A REFUSAL FOR THE DEFERRAL IF I EXPECTED TO GET IT FIXED. I TOLD HIM THAT MAINT HEADQUARTERS TOLD ME THAT IT WAS DEFERRED ONLY BECAUSE ZZZ'S MAINT HAD STARTED THE PROCESS AND THAT THEY WOULD BE REMOVING THE ITEM SHORTLY BECAUSE THE CAPT SAID IT WAS FIXED. I TOLD MY BOSS ABOUT WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED AND HE CALLED ZZZ AND TALKED WITH THE SUPVR WHO ALLEGEDLY TOLD MY BOSS HE UNDERSTOOD WHAT TRANSPIRED BUT COULDN'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE COULD REFUSE AN ACFT THAT THE CAPT SAYS IS OK TO CONTINUE AND HE REFUSED TO CHANGE THE DI CODE. HE ALSO STATED THAT ZZZ SAID THIS WOULD REQUIRE A 3 HR FIX AND THAT I SHOULD CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE ROUTING. I TOLD MY BOSS THE ACFT WAS READY TO GO NOW AND THAT MAINT HEADQUARTERS TOLD ME IT WAS GOING TO BE A VERY QUICK FIX. I CALLED THE SUPVR AND I TOLD HIM I WAS FILING THIS RPT ABOUT THE INCIDENT. HE BECAME INCREDIBLY UPSET. THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS THAT I HAVE THE AUTH TO REFUSE ACFT FOR MAINT ISSUES WHETHER OR NOT THE CAPT AGREES AND I DON'T EXPECT TO HAVE STATION OPS OR CUSTOMER SVC REPRESENTATIVES TELLING ME OTHERWISE. NOR DO I EXPECT TO BE YELLED AT AS WE ALL HAVE AN EQUAL INTEREST IN DEPARTING ON-TIME. IT IS UNPROFESSIONAL AND UNSAFE. IT IS MY OPINION THAT ZZZ MAINT DID NOT WANT TO FIX THIS PROB TO BEGIN WITH. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE CAPT KNEW THE SYS WORKED BEFORE EITHER I OR MAINT HEADQUARTERS BUT THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE PROCESS. THIS APPEARED TO OCCUR ALSO ON THE NEXT FLT OUT OF ZZZ, WITH A WINDOW SQUEAL PROB THAT WAS NOT WORKED UNTIL DEP TIME. THIS RPT WAS FILED AS A RESULT OF A CONTINUING CONCERN WITH ZZZ OPS AND MAINT POLICIES REGARDING OPERATIONAL AUTH AND THE DEFERRAL PROCESS. I FOUND IT UNUSUAL THAT DESPITE ME SAYING NOT TO DEFER AN ITEM, THAT BECAUSE MAINT WAS ALREADY IN THE DEFERRAL SYS, THAT THE ITEM MUST GET DEFERRED AND THEN CLRED.
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.