Narrative:

After departure; the first officer; as the non-flying pilot; made a call to dispatch to inquire regarding the filed altitude of 24;000 as we were encountering stronger headwinds and icing conditions that; if continued would leave our landing fuel in question. The altitude was considerably lower than the 32;000 listed in the deferral; so we suspected that there were anticipated stronger headwinds at higher altitudes along our route of flight. Upon inquirey we were informed that the 24;000 limit was set by maintenance in an attempt to prevent APU failure. In as much as the APU operation is required full time with an idg deferral; I was somewhat surprised to discover that there was a known problem with the APU. During the ensuing extensive conversations with maintenance and dispatch they determined that somehow getting a chief pilot involved would .....solve my problem. How this was supposed to do more than possibly intimidate me; I have no idea; and suspect that may have been the intent. While they were off getting a chief pilot; the APU automatically shut down. We attempted one start which was unsuccessful. At this time I; as the captain; informed all involved that I would be diverting to ZZZ; and that I would be declaring an emergency due to the fact that we were operating with a deferred idg; no operable APU; in icing conditions; and there was no checklist to consult for the conditions that they had placed this crew and passengers in.. During this event I expressed major concern; and confusion; that I would be dispatched with a questionable APU which was required due to the idg deferral; let alone without any conversations being generated between the captain and dispatch or maintenance. The dispatcher's answer to this was to direct me to the 'flight notes' on my release which only states - lower altitude is to prevent possible overheating on the APU. There was no mention that the 24;000 would be a max APU altitude limitation. There was; however; more than one comment that; 'that it was a legal deferral'; and at least one statement that they were trying to just milk it to keep it in revenue service until they could get the plane home to a maintenance base for repairs this evening. This aircraft had flown several previous flights with the deferred idg; however I have no knowledge of the flight conditions or the use of the anti-icing equipment. There was a previous maintenance entry concerning an auto shutdown in-flight; however the resolution stated that the problem was for low oil levels and after the servicing of the oil the problem was supposedly solved.in my 20 years with this company; of which 16 have been as a captain; I have never encountered a situation in which I was dispatched with a known possible malfunction that would force me into an emergency situation. I can only surmise that this is but one more example of a management that is more concerned with the almighty dollar and not the safety and security of our passengers. This was not a simple mistake. Nor; can it be explained away as an additional malfunction in addition to the already deferred maintenance issue. This was an intentional disregard for the safety of the lives that I have been entrusted with to transport safely. For that reason; I have no suggestion for avoiding a recurrence of this event; and can only pray that the outcome will be as uneventful and without injury; although I suspect that the law of averages will not always be on our side.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ900 Flight Crew reports being dispatched with an inoperable generator and a questionable APU. The APU's questionable status is discovered during a radio call to dispatch and by its failure shortly thereafter. The crew declares an emergency and diverts to the nearest suitable airport.

Narrative: After departure; the First Officer; as the Non-Flying Pilot; made a call to dispatch to inquire regarding the filed altitude of 24;000 as we were encountering stronger headwinds and icing conditions that; if continued would leave our landing fuel in question. The altitude was considerably lower than the 32;000 listed in the Deferral; so we suspected that there were anticipated stronger headwinds at higher altitudes along our route of flight. Upon inquirey we were informed that the 24;000 limit was set by Maintenance in an attempt to prevent APU failure. In as much as the APU operation is required full time with an IDG deferral; I was somewhat surprised to discover that there was a known problem with the APU. During the ensuing extensive conversations with Maintenance and Dispatch they determined that somehow getting a Chief Pilot involved would .....solve my problem. How this was supposed to do more than possibly intimidate me; I have no idea; and suspect that may have been the intent. While they were off getting a Chief Pilot; the APU automatically shut down. We attempted one start which was unsuccessful. At this time I; as the Captain; informed all involved that I would be diverting to ZZZ; and that I would be declaring an emergency due to the fact that we were operating with a deferred IDG; no operable APU; in icing conditions; and there was no checklist to consult for the conditions that they had placed this crew and passengers in.. During this event I expressed major concern; and confusion; that I would be dispatched with a questionable APU which was required due to the IDG deferral; let alone without any conversations being generated between the Captain and Dispatch or Maintenance. The Dispatcher's answer to this was to direct me to the 'Flight Notes' on my Release which only states - Lower Altitude is to prevent possible overheating on the APU. There was no mention that the 24;000 would be a max APU altitude limitation. There was; however; more than one comment that; 'That it was a Legal Deferral'; and at least one statement that they were trying to just milk it to keep it in revenue service until they could get the plane home to a Maintenance Base for repairs this evening. This aircraft had flown several previous flights with the deferred IDG; however I have no knowledge of the flight conditions or the use of the Anti-icing equipment. There was a previous maintenance entry concerning an auto shutdown in-flight; however the resolution stated that the problem was for Low oil levels and after the servicing of the Oil the problem was supposedly solved.In my 20 years with this company; of which 16 have been as a captain; I have never encountered a situation in which I was dispatched with a known possible malfunction that would force me into an emergency situation. I can only surmise that this is but one more example of a Management that is more concerned with the almighty dollar and not the safety and security of our passengers. This was not a simple mistake. Nor; can it be explained away as an additional malfunction in addition to the already deferred maintenance issue. This was an intentional disregard for the safety of the lives that I have been entrusted with to transport Safely. For that reason; I have no suggestion for avoiding a recurrence of this event; and can only pray that the outcome will be as uneventful and without injury; although I suspect that the law of averages will not always be on our side.

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.