Narrative:

This report is being filed in response to the practice of sending a flight office manager to confront and interrogate captains during the critical moments following determinations regarding the mechanical safety of flight. While conducting preflight planning as the first officer for this flight in flight operations; I noticed several pilots gathering at the window. Then I witnessed the reason as a large thick plume of smoke was emanating from the tail section of an A319 at a visible gate. It was over in about 20 seconds; but it was at this point I realized this was the aircraft scheduled for our flight. The inbound log for the aircraft had an open write-up for 'excessive smoke' from the APU. After this the log history contained no less than 5 repeat indications for avionics smoke reported in the past 5 days with 'tests okay' recorded in each instance. The captain who is a 23-year veteran with over 10 years as a captain on the airbus; and 8 as a check pilot; elected to proceed to the gate to discuss the situation with the mechanic. The mechanic informed us that the APU had some sort of 'massive oil leak' and was going to be deferred as inoperative. When asked about the repeated avionics smoke indications the mechanic replied that they did not know if it was related to APU and had no idea why they kept occurring. The captain phoned dispatch and refused the aircraft for this flight based on lack of information on this chronic and unsettling trend of smoke indications in the forward avionics bay coupled with unknown APU faults. When heading back to operations; we were met by a flight manager on his way down to the aircraft. He had come to immediately and directly question the captain regarding his decision to refuse this aircraft. Flight managers at this station have been directed to confront and interrogate captains if they refuse an aircraft or incur a delay working with maintenance. These confrontations are often taking place in the cockpit in front of the first officers; flight attendants; customer service; and passengers. This is the 3rd time in the past 2 months I have had someone from the flight office confront and interrogate the captain in front of me for taking a safer course of action. Twice this happened less than 10 minutes prior to pushback. I believe this is an unsafe practice and informed the flight manager of this. These confrontations violate the very instructions the company has provided regarding flight safety and captains authority. The atmosphere and tone set in the flight deck are critical to maintaining the elements at the heart of our company's crew resource management program. Flight manger discussions need to take place in the flight office; not the flight deck before push back. These are challenging times and the decreasing level of safety is putting many pilots to the test. While these confrontations may not directly cause an accident; in this increasingly toxic operating environment it may very well be a link in the chain of a disaster. This direct disregard for captains authority and disregard for safety must be addressed now by the company and the FAA before it ends up with the NTSB.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: After witnessing billowing smoke from the tail of the aircraft during preflight preparation; an A319 flight crew was confronted by a Flight Manager questioning their refusal of the aircraft. Extenuating circumstances included multiple previous write-ups regarding avionics smoke and the deferral of the APU due to a fire fueled by hydraulic fluid from the APU.

Narrative: This report is being filed in response to the practice of sending a Flight Office Manager to CONFRONT and INTERROGATE Captains during the CRITICAL MOMENTS FOLLOWING DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE MECHANICAL SAFETY OF FLIGHT. While conducting preflight planning as the First Officer for this flight in flight operations; I noticed several pilots gathering at the window. Then I witnessed the reason as a large thick plume of smoke was emanating from the tail section of an A319 at a visible gate. It was over in about 20 seconds; but it was at this point I realized this was the aircraft scheduled for our flight. The inbound log for the aircraft had an open write-up for 'excessive smoke' from the APU. After this the log history contained no less than 5 repeat indications for AVIONICS SMOKE reported in the past 5 days with 'tests okay' recorded in each instance. The Captain who is a 23-year veteran with over 10 years as a Captain on the Airbus; and 8 as a check pilot; elected to proceed to the gate to discuss the situation with the Mechanic. The Mechanic informed us that the APU had some sort of 'massive oil leak' and was going to be deferred as inoperative. When asked about the repeated AVIONICS SMOKE indications the mechanic replied that they did not know if it was related to APU and had no idea why they kept occurring. The Captain phoned Dispatch and refused the aircraft for this flight based on lack of information on this chronic and unsettling trend of smoke indications in the forward avionics bay coupled with unknown APU faults. When heading back to operations; we were met by a Flight Manager on his way down to the aircraft. He had come to immediately and directly question the Captain regarding his decision to refuse this aircraft. Flight Managers at this station have been directed to confront and interrogate Captains if they refuse an aircraft or incur a delay working with Maintenance. These confrontations are often taking place in the cockpit in front of the first officers; flight attendants; customer service; and passengers. This is the 3rd time in the past 2 months I have had someone from the flight office confront and interrogate the Captain in front of me for taking A SAFER COURSE OF ACTION. Twice this happened less than 10 minutes prior to pushback. I believe this is an unsafe practice and informed the flight manager of this. These confrontations violate the very instructions the company has provided regarding flight safety and Captains authority. The atmosphere and tone set in the flight deck are critical to maintaining the elements at the heart of our company's crew resource management program. Flight manger discussions need to take place in the flight office; not the flight deck before push back. These are challenging times and the decreasing level of safety is putting many pilots to the test. While these confrontations may not directly cause an accident; in this increasingly toxic operating environment it may very well be a LINK IN THE CHAIN OF A DISASTER. This direct disregard for Captains authority and disregard for safety must be addressed now by the company and the FAA before it ends up with the NTSB.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.