Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Weather Radar
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During taxi out; we decided to turn on the Radar during our taxi out to make sure that it was operating correctly as we were going to be flying in an area were there was widespread heavy rain and embedded T-Storms. At this point in time we discovered that the Radar was only displaying STBY on the MFD and would not 'paint any weather or ground returns.' Since we were now aware that a piece of equipment on the aircraft wasn't working properly I followed the proper procedure and notified Dispatch that our Radar wasn't working and that we would need to return to the gate to call Maintenance via landline. The Dispatcher returned an ACARS message that there was nothing convective in the area and we should deal with it in the next station. This Dispatcher had no concern about what I considered a safe operation nor was he concerned with the legal standpoint of entering a maintenance discrepancy in the logbook and performing a proper MEL procedure. He wanted me to just go without a write-up.  We returned to the gate to complete the maintenance logbook entry at which point in time Maintenance wanted to MEL it. The Maintenance Controller found it objectionable that I didn't feel it was safe to be flying the aircraft in the current weather conditions without an operable weather Radar; he went to switch me over to connect us with the Dispatcher for a conference call and did not realize that I was on the line while they discussed how I wouldn't fly the aircraft. The tone from the Maintenance Controller as well as the Dispatcher was not conducive to safety. It amounts to pilot pushing and creates a very unsafe work environment. They replaced the Radar control panel and the Radar worked perfectly all day after that. Dispatchers need to realize that when there is some sort  of maintenance anomaly; that once it is known it  needs to be addressed at that point in time by making the proper maintenance logbook entry and either applying an MEL or performing some sort of repair/reset function under the guidance of Maintenance Control. Also all parties need to realize that just because there is an MEL for a particular aircraft system such as the weather Radar; there are certain circumstances when that MEL provides no relief such as today. Some pilots; such as myself; require operating Radar when flying in conditions such as today with low ceilings; heavy rain; and embedded T-Storms. The Dispatcher's statement of 'it is just rain showers;' doesn't satisfy my safety requirements for avoiding convective activity without an operable Radar when I can't see and avoid the T-Storms due to solid IFR conditions.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reports returning to the gate after discovering the Radar is inoperative with heavy weather in the forecast. This action is met with some resistance by Dispatch and Maintenance Control. The Radar Control Panel was replaced and the Radar worked perfectly after that.