Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: FCC (Flight Control Computer)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After 4-5 write ups over 3-4 days pertaining to autopilot pitch trim; autopilot deferred Cat B3 expires three days later. Airplane drops dead the third day and is ferried early am. HSTCU replaced. Airplane does not complete 4 flights; or 1 flight day requirement. Maintenance Control advised of ferry flight. Deferral mysteriously extended verbally for another 3 days. Maintenance Computer showed also FCC 1/2 Fault; codes = Repair. Maintenance Control did not address issue. Maintenance Control stated that airplane would end up in ZZZ and per Mr. X 'would remain grounded until it was fixed' over recorded line. Company wanted to fly airplane four legs and ground airplane based on convenience. Captain refused airplane based on known discrepancy of FCC 1 and 2 faults.Upper Management's desire to move the airplane at all cost. Maintenance Control needed to ferry the airplane to ensure it was fixed. However; the egregious use of the MEL to then ground the airplane based on a convenient location is clearly a violation of the preamble of the MEL. Furthermore; FAA Policy Letter 34 clearly states that 'MEL conditions and limitations do not relieve the operator from determining that the aircraft is in condition for safe operation with items of equipment inoperative.' The repeat write ups do not appear to have generated a Level 1 alert; a violation of the company GMM; and the airplane was dispatched with a known fault of FCC 1/2 as noted in the logbook.


Second narrative: Autopilot Pitch Trim Caution Message illuminated in flight during the descent at approximately 5;000 FT. I disconnected the autopilot. Minimal elevator retrimming was required. The QRH procedure for the malfunction was completed and I re-engaged the autopilot approximately three minutes later. When the gear was extended and flaps 30 was selected; the Autopilot Trim Caution Message illuminated a second time. I disconnected the autopilot two seconds later and experienced a severe pitch down; which I immediately corrected. The Captain completed the appropriate QRH procedure a second time. The remainder of the approach and landing was uneventful. Maintenance Control had attempted to correct this problem the previous day. They informed the Captain of their intent to have us operate the flight as scheduled; in violation of the MEL. The Captain refused the aircraft; and our crew continued to ZZZ as a ferry flight.Maintenance Control was using the MEL to allow the flight to operate as scheduled until it arrived at a maintenance base and could be fixed at the convenience of Maintenance Control; despite the fact that the problem persisted four legs or one day.


Synopsis: CRJ200 flight crew reports being asked to continue flying an aircraft with the autopilot deferred. This occurred over several days and the aircraft is eventually refused and ferried for maintenance.