Date: 201703
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: During briefing the First Officer and I were made aware of the APU being inoperative. We discussed the short leg to [our destination] and; barring any other issues; felt we could safely operate without the APU. Then we saw the weather [at the destination] was reporting the visibility at 1 mile in snow and ceilings at 100 feet. I called our dispatcher and asked if in her opinion the forecast was going to hold. She informed me that the forecast would be holding and ceilings would stay right at 200 feet. At this point I asked to speak with both [maintenance control] and dispatch. During our conversation the dispatcher agreed that my concern regarding the low ceilings and visibility were valid and asked if I wanted to refuse the airplane. My first officer and I agreed we were both uncomfortable with taking the airplane with no APU and the weather as it was currently and the forecast being equally negative. At this point I made numerous announcements to passengers explaining why I decided as Captain to take the safer course and not take this airplane into those weather conditions. About 25 minutes later I received a call from the [duty manager]. She expressed to me how she had been an Airbus Captain for 17 years; I mentioned what a coincidence I too was a 17 year Captain on the Airbus. She went on to tell me that I could legally shoot a Cat3 approach with one generator. I agreed I could do that but said we were uncomfortable taking the airplane with the weather as it was. About 30 minutes later I received a call from the assistant chief pilot explaining to me what would happen with respect to my having refused the airplane. Ten minutes later we were informed we were to deadhead to [the original destination] and layover. Our pairings reflected just that. Not long after that my First Officer got a call from the flight office asking him if he would be agreeable taking the airplane if the weather improved. I was vexed by this question; considering I myself would be agreeable to that scenario yet they were not asking me. It was during this call; I was made aware I would be deadheading back and removed from the pairing all together. I also noticed my pay register reflected the loss of the pairing. The First Officer was told to return to the hotel; a different Captain would be deadheading out that afternoon. By then the weather would improve and they would fly the airplane. It was then that I realized I was being punished for my decision. If a Captain needs to worry about punitive action against him or her when making a decision on whether to take an airplane or not; then we have lost sight of what is most important. It was most telling when the new hire First Officer; who witnessed the whole event said to me; 'I thought we were better than this'.




Synopsis: The Captain of a Airbus A320 reported he refused to fly the aircraft with an inoperative APU due to CAT III weather conditions.