|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||0601 To 1200|
|Locale Reference||airport : atl|
|Altitude||agl bound lower : 0|
agl bound upper : 0
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng|
|Flight Phase||ground : preflight|
ground : parked
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Qualification||pilot : atp|
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 100|
flight time total : 8500
flight time type : 6000
|Function||other personnel other|
|Qualification||other other : other|
|Anomaly||aircraft equipment problem : less severe|
non adherence : far
|Independent Detector||other other : unspecified|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : unable|
|Air Traffic Incident||other|
Captain was scheduled to fly from dtw-atl. After confirming with MEL, WX and flight planning data that aircraft was legal to depart dtw, the aircraft was flown to atl per schedule. After arriving atl, maintenance pulled logbook and found that aircraft could not be dispatched out of altitude maintenance base with altitude alerter inoperative on MEL. Atl maintenance could not repair or replace altitude alerter prior to scheduled departure time. The captain talked with dispatcher about the situation. A few mins later in a conference call with dispatcher and supervisor of maintenance control, supervisor said he had gotten authorization from someone reputed to be an FAA maintenance inspector in msp to depart atl with inoperative altitude alerter on MEL, abrogating the dispatch limit of the aircraft MEL. At that time the captain advised both dispatch and maintenance that he would not accept such a release and the flight dispatcher concurred that he would stand with the captain on that decision. Captain advised that he would accept a maintenance ferry if the proper permits were issued by maintenance control (per flight operations manual). At this time. Supervisor of maintenance control refused to issue a maintenance ferry permit, stating that he felt that a verbal authorization from FAA inspector was a way to legally dispatch the flight. Captain and dispatcher did not concur. Atl operations gets a request for the captain to call company supervisor. He advised captain he was legal to leave atl with passenger per FAA inspector's verbal authorization. As maintenance control had demanded, the captain declined to accept such a release, but again offered to maintenance ferry the aircraft per flight operations manual. Atl operations gets a request for captain to call a chief pilot. The captain complied with request and talked to chief pilot for approximately 10 mins. Chief pilot asked the captain to accept the release as per maintenance control message. Captain declined such request citing MEL limitations as well as safety concerns regarding flight dir MEL and autoplt write up. The aircraft ron in atl maintenance base with captain and crew.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: CAPT REFUSED TO FLY MLG WITH INOP ALT ALERTER.
Narrative: CAPT WAS SCHEDULED TO FLY FROM DTW-ATL. AFTER CONFIRMING WITH MEL, WX AND FLT PLANNING DATA THAT ACFT WAS LEGAL TO DEPART DTW, THE ACFT WAS FLOWN TO ATL PER SCHEDULE. AFTER ARRIVING ATL, MAINT PULLED LOGBOOK AND FOUND THAT ACFT COULD NOT BE DISPATCHED OUT OF ALT MAINT BASE WITH ALT ALERTER INOP ON MEL. ATL MAINT COULD NOT REPAIR OR REPLACE ALT ALERTER PRIOR TO SCHEDULED DEP TIME. THE CAPT TALKED WITH DISPATCHER ABOUT THE SITUATION. A FEW MINS LATER IN A CONFERENCE CALL WITH DISPATCHER AND SUPVR OF MAINT CTL, SUPVR SAID HE HAD GOTTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM SOMEONE REPUTED TO BE AN FAA MAINT INSPECTOR IN MSP TO DEPART ATL WITH INOP ALT ALERTER ON MEL, ABROGATING THE DISPATCH LIMIT OF THE ACFT MEL. AT THAT TIME THE CAPT ADVISED BOTH DISPATCH AND MAINT THAT HE WOULD NOT ACCEPT SUCH A RELEASE AND THE FLT DISPATCHER CONCURRED THAT HE WOULD STAND WITH THE CAPT ON THAT DECISION. CAPT ADVISED THAT HE WOULD ACCEPT A MAINT FERRY IF THE PROPER PERMITS WERE ISSUED BY MAINT CTL (PER FLT OPERATIONS MANUAL). AT THIS TIME. SUPVR OF MAINT CTL REFUSED TO ISSUE A MAINT FERRY PERMIT, STATING THAT HE FELT THAT A VERBAL AUTHORIZATION FROM FAA INSPECTOR WAS A WAY TO LEGALLY DISPATCH THE FLT. CAPT AND DISPATCHER DID NOT CONCUR. ATL OPERATIONS GETS A REQUEST FOR THE CAPT TO CALL COMPANY SUPVR. HE ADVISED CAPT HE WAS LEGAL TO LEAVE ATL WITH PAX PER FAA INSPECTOR'S VERBAL AUTHORIZATION. AS MAINT CTL HAD DEMANDED, THE CAPT DECLINED TO ACCEPT SUCH A RELEASE, BUT AGAIN OFFERED TO MAINT FERRY THE ACFT PER FLT OPERATIONS MANUAL. ATL OPERATIONS GETS A REQUEST FOR CAPT TO CALL A CHIEF PLT. THE CAPT COMPLIED WITH REQUEST AND TALKED TO CHIEF PLT FOR APPROX 10 MINS. CHIEF PLT ASKED THE CAPT TO ACCEPT THE RELEASE AS PER MAINT CTL MESSAGE. CAPT DECLINED SUCH REQUEST CITING MEL LIMITATIONS AS WELL AS SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING FLT DIR MEL AND AUTOPLT WRITE UP. THE ACFT RON IN ATL MAINT BASE WITH CAPT AND CREW.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.