Originally Posted by
SpecialTracking
I realize this question this paints with a broad stroke but I ask it with all sincerity.
There is a maintenance issue with an airplane that can be legally deferred. The Captain is wants to accept the plane, but the F/O(s) is/are genuinely uncomfortable flying with the deferral. Is the prevailing sentiment at sCAL to tell the F/O's to fly the plane or get off the ID since the Captain will not refuse it, or will the Captain refuse the aircraft out of the F/O(s) concern?
Excellent discussion point.
Here's an example: #1 Pack MEL'd on a 757. Hot day.
Another: APU Gen inop/MEL'd on a 737/320. IFR or night trip.
Another: Lav 3 on a 757 MEL'd unusable. IAD-CUN turn. Full both ways.
So...if an FO is uncomfortable with the aircraft--and says so to the captain (the captain is fine with the aircraft), how does the conversation go?
And what if the FO thinks it's prudent to add more gas, but the captain does not? (both understanding the performance limitations, of course)
I used to keep track of these "crew refusals" (as UAL called them) or "crew precautionary" (as CAL called them) while working in the NOC. Other than the disparity in aircraft age, there were a hell of a lot more of these on the UAL side than the CAL side. More MEL's, too. Just don't think there's a direct correlation between the two groups.
What say you all?
SCR