Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: We arrived at the aircraft approximately 45 minutes prior to departure. While conducting preflight we noticed that the aircraft had been in maintenance upon arriving the previous night. We began looking through the maintenance history and noticed several duplicate write-ups to the entry of the previous night. The first was a month and a half ago; pressurization problem; specifically noting passenger discomfort and nosebleeds during descent. At that time; the Pressure Controller #1 was replaced and aircraft was returned to service. Once again about two weeks later; the pressurization system was written up with the same issue. At that time Maintenance elected to sign off the aircraft as 'Ops checked good - OK for service'. Same day another crew wrote up the same issue and performed a crew deferral of both pressurization controllers. Meanwhile; the problem was now passed onto us and placed firmly onto our shoulders. I believe Maintenance had failed to properly diagnose the issue and take appropriate actions to repair the broken system. I contacted our Dispatcher and relayed my concerns to him regarding our flight. We were scheduled to fly an aircraft; unpressurized; on three legs at 10;000 FT. We loaded the route into the FMS and the flight time was 2 hours and 15 minutes for the first leg. With the cold weather in the North East we could expect a 3;000 FPM initial climb rate since there is no unpressurized takeoff profile. Along the way; there was a forecast of a layer as well as a cold front we were passing through that would cause significant turbulence and passenger discomfort. The Dispatcher was great and said that he shared the same concerns and would talk to the Sector Manager to weigh our options. I called back 15 minutes later and the Dispatcher informed me that the Sector Manager was to have us operate the flight as planned. I had the Dispatcher connect me to the Sector Manager and once again plead our case to him. He informed me that there was pressure from the Duty Manager above him to operate the flight and in a hushed tone asked 'are you refusing this aircraft?' almost as if that person was close by. At that time I once again offered up some solutions to our situation as follows: 1. Have a qualified maintenance technician look at our airplane before our departure. 2. Reposition the airplane to a maintenance station so that it may be looked at by a qualified maintenance technician. 3. Reposition a spare to us to complete the flights as scheduled. I was told that I would get a call back. I received a call back from the Duty Manager whom I proceeded to start once again from the top and explain our entire situation to yet another person. I once again reaffirmed my statement that I was not refusing to fly the airplane; but refusing to fly the airplane with passengers on board. This was not a pleasant conversation and I was told to expect a call from my Chief Pilot who was on duty. Unfortunately for both of us; that person was unavailable and unable to be reached for counsel. Approximately 15 minutes later; I was called by my Chief Pilot. Once again I started from the top and voiced my concerns. We came to a mutual agreement that Maintenance would inspect the outflow valves to verify their position and alleviate any concerns that I had at that time; and the flight would continue as scheduled. It was my understanding that he was speaking with someone with our maintenance team and that personnel would be in touch with me concerning our issue. At this time I was contacted by our Dispatcher and he said that they now wanted us to reposition us to a maintenance station and then continue on the 2 other flights as previously scheduled with passenger on board. I reiterated my previous statements for the ninth time and informed him of our agreement with the Chief Pilot concerning the maintenance personnel. He told me to let him know what Maintenance says and I agreed to keep him in the loop. A Manager in maintenance in Operations Control phoned me. Again I started from the beginning of my situation. He felt that 'we do this all the time' and could not side with my concerns. I asked him when Maintenance would arrive and was told that no one was coming. When queried he responded that no calls had been made to him by the Chief Pilot on our behalf and that there was nothing more he could do. In the meantime I decided to call my Union Safety and use him as a sounding board. I explained the entire situation to him in explicit detail and was told that my concerns were reasonable. We were in agreement regarding the insufficient attention given to maintenance repairs and the problematic passenger discomfort that we would subject my passengers to. I now received a call from the Chief Pilot at another destination. Once again; the entire situation was explained and I was told that my concerns were baseless. I explained the many options I had offered to the Company to alleviate the situation. I also voiced issue with the strong pressure I felt upon me to go against my decision. Additionally; he was unaware of any agreement with his coworker; my Chief Pilot; regarding the maintenance inspections. Also; I was told that if I refused to fly I could expect possible investigation and punishment by the Company. He told me that he would be unable to stand behind me in my decision. He ended our conversation with 'MAINTENANCE WILL NOT BE CALLED - take the plane or refuse it.' I once again passed this information along to my Union Safety Representative. The options I had presented were discounted and/or disregarded leaving myself and my crew with little recourse. How can a Captain requesting maintenance be refused maintenance by the company? I called the Chief Pilot back and refused the aircraft. I called Dispatch and refused the aircraft. Unaware to us; approximately 20 minutes later; a Contract Maintenance personnel arrives at the aircraft to check the outflow valves. Although we were surprised to see him; I began to ask him specific questions concerning the pressurization system and other possible troubleshooting questions. He replied that he had 'no idea' and was just there to identify the placement of the outflow valves for us. In accordance with procedures; I made an entry into the maintenance log so that the history would accurately reflect work performed on the aircraft. He told me that he was unable to sign the write up that I entered off and would have to consult with maintenance in the Operations Control. He was there 'just to check the outflow valves'. I once again fielded more questions from Maintenance in Operations Control; discussed the write-up I had entered; and reviewed the options available. He told me that he would be in touch. Our Dispatcher contacted us and informed us that we would be repositioning the aircraft to a maintenance base so that they may work on the pressurization problem. On a side note; the aircraft was subsequently scheduled to be flown on a revenue flight later that day to receive maintenance in a major maintenance station. Upon arrival at our maintenance base; we were met by that base's Chief Pilot and asked to explain our decision process yet once again. We complied happily explaining our diagnosis of the events that day and answered all questions to his satisfaction. Before ending our conversation; we asked him why a Captain requesting maintenance was told 'Maintenance will not be called'. He responded to us by nodding his head and just smiling providing us with zero explanation as to his previous comment and the companies' position on this matter. Denial of maintenance to a Captain on a Part 121 aircraft is a direct violation of a FAR and will never be tolerated. This event; as many similar events are handled; has turned into who's right; not what's right. When presented with reasonable options to alleviate the situation; by a crew who is compassionate to passenger comfort; we were discounted and pressured by seven different members of the management team. There is no one empowered to make appropriate decisions without fear of reprimand; based upon crewmember concerns that combine with the company's fiscal needs and operational requirements.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 had no additional information.]


Synopsis: A flight crew who refused an aircraft with a MEL'ed pressurization system because of concerns about passenger safety and comfort in worsening weather were then questioned by the Company about the refusal after ferrying the aircraft to a maintenance station.