A B767-300 captain refused to accept dispatch's unilateral deferral of the APU for his ETOPS flight;...

Narrative:

Half an hour before schedule departure I called for the windshields to be washed. Fifteen minutes later the APU auto-shutdown. Five minutes after a mechanic shows up; even though he was said to be 'unavailable' to clean the windshields 20 minutes earlier (I suspect due to under staffing. Apparently a windshield wash was not as important as addressing a dispatch item that prevents an 'on-time' departure).the mechanic restarted the APU and it appeared to be operating normally. He then left the cockpit to 'bite-check' the APU computer to determine the cause of the auto-shutdown. Near departure time I received an ACARS message from dispatch stating 'APU deferred inoperative!' this was done unilaterally by a station maintenance supervisor with no concurrence; input or discussion with the captain; directly opposed to established protocol for international flights! I called dispatch to clarify 'what the heck was going on' inasmuch as the APU had been operating normally yet was now deferred inoperative! This deferral requires captain's concurrence. I believe the station maintenance supervisor tried to directly circumvent the captain's authority and erode that authority in the name of schedule efficiency or other 'cost-saving' policy established by management. Without our back-up generator (one third of our capacity) or alternative pressurization source supplied by the APU in an ETOPS arena; I had every right to know why the APU shutdown and if there was a possibility of fixing it with minor maintenance efforts. They tried to circumnavigate my authority as PIC. After determining the cause of the shutdown (only at my insistence); and after discussion with other flight officers; we; collectively; determined it was safe to accept the deferral and departed about: 40 minutes late. It seemed that station management was more interested in getting the plane gone; than addressing safety and authoritative; collective protocol.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B767-300 Captain refused to accept Dispatch's unilateral deferral of the APU for his ETOPS flight; citing the requirement for the Captain's concurrence to do so.

Narrative: Half an hour before schedule departure I called for the windshields to be washed. Fifteen minutes later the APU auto-shutdown. Five minutes after a mechanic shows up; even though he was said to be 'unavailable' to clean the windshields 20 minutes earlier (I suspect due to under staffing. Apparently a windshield wash was NOT as important as addressing a dispatch item that prevents an 'on-time' departure).The Mechanic restarted the APU and it appeared to be operating normally. He then left the cockpit to 'bite-check' the APU computer to determine the cause of the auto-shutdown. Near departure time I received an ACARS message from Dispatch stating 'APU DEFERRED INOP!' This was done unilaterally by a station Maintenance Supervisor WITH NO CONCURRENCE; INPUT OR DISCUSSION WITH THE CAPTAIN; directly opposed to established protocol for international flights! I called Dispatch to clarify 'what the heck was going on' inasmuch as the APU had been operating normally yet was now DEFERRED INOP! This deferral REQUIRES CAPTAIN'S CONCURRENCE. I believe the station Maintenance Supervisor tried to DIRECTLY CIRCUMVENT THE CAPTAIN'S AUTHORITY and ERODE THAT AUTHORITY IN THE NAME OF SCHEDULE EFFICIENCY OR OTHER 'COST-SAVING' POLICY ESTABLISHED BY MANAGEMENT. Without our back-up generator (one THIRD OF OUR CAPACITY) or alternative pressurization source supplied by the APU in an ETOPS arena; I had every right to know why the APU shutdown and if there was a possibility of fixing it with minor maintenance efforts. They tried to circumnavigate my authority as PIC. After determining the cause of the shutdown (ONLY AT MY INSISTENCE); and after discussion with other flight officers; we; collectively; determined it was safe to accept the deferral and departed about: 40 minutes late. It seemed that station management was more interested in getting the plane gone; than addressing safety and authoritative; collective protocol.

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.

Attributes
ACN	965519
Time
Date	201108
Local Time Of Day	0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference	ZZZZ.Airport
State Reference	FO
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	B767-300 and 300 ER
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Parked
Flight Plan	IFR
Component
Aircraft Component	APU
Person 1
Function	Captain Pilot Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 160 Flight Crew Total 23000 Flight Crew Type 8000
Events
Anomaly	Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical Deviation - Procedural FAR Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown

A B767-300 captain refused to accept dispatch's unilateral deferral of the APU for his ETOPS flight; citing the requirement for the captain's concurrence to do so.