Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; MEL; Procedure; Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: My attention was drawn to what appeared to be a lack of understanding by the aircraft engineer of the use of MEL and DDG [Dispatch Deviation Guide] with regards to dispatching the aircraft with a defect (relating to an intermittent L PACK FAULT indication); and a reluctance to enter such defects in the AML. I raised these issues with (Head of Operations) via a phone call; after operating the aircraft to ZZZ. After not receiving any feedback regarding my concerns; I requested what the outcome of his investigation had been; and the only feedback I received was that 'They are licensed mechanics.' I responded that this is not answering the concerns I raised and again asked what discussion was had with them regarding their ability to perform actions in accordance with the MEL. My message was not responded to. At this time I was unable to substantiate my concerns further. A few weeks later; the aircraft presented a L PACK FAIL defect upon power up (power up performed by engineers at home base). When we arrived at aircraft and were advised of the defect; I asked the engineer if the DDG items had been performed to enable Dispatch under the MEL. His answer was 'Yes.' I advised the engineer to ensure the defect was entered in the AML at which point he called [Head of Operations] and advised he wanted to 'wait until you get back' (from the 5 day trip) to enter the defect in the MEL. I advised him that I would not operate the aircraft if the known defect was not entered in the AML. During aircraft preparation prior to engine start it became apparent some DDG items had not been performed (e.g. TRIM AIR had not been selected off) and we configured the switch to the required position (as per the MEL direction). From my understanding; part of the DDG procedure requires an engine run; which should have been performed prior to the defect being signed off in the AML. As the defect had been entered in the AML; and dispatched in accordance with the MEL; I was under the impression that the operation was being conducted in accordance with the MEL. Upon commencement of normal engine start for departure; we noted there was no 'ROTOR BOW START' which would indicate the engines had been running in the past 5 hours. This aroused my suspicions further that the DDG had not been followed in its entirety however at this point I had no positive confirmation of this. During the flight (ZZZ1-ZZZ2) I raised my concerns with the aircraft owner and stated that I have reasonable cause to believe that the engineers were not performing required actions on the aircraft despite declaring they had been performed verbally and in the AML; and I stated that I would not work for an organization that did not conduct operations in accordance with FAA regulations. Upon completion of the flight I rang [Head of Operations] to raise my concerns again; and share my views on the execution of the DDG items as shown in the AML. His response was dismissive and he attempted to redirect my direct request for confirmation that the DDG items had been completed. During the next flight (returning to home base ZZZ2-ZZZ1) I again highlighted my concerns with the owner and provided him with a written explanation of my concerns regarding flight safety and my belief that the DDG items were not being performed in accordance with the DDG. After landing I confronted the Engineer as to whether he had completed the DDG actions in their entirety and he admitted that the DDG procedures had not been performed as stated; in fact only 1 item had been performed (Safety the AVIONICS FAN via CB opening). When asked why he didn't do the required actions he stated that he was worried about a delay to the passengers. I emphasized that not only had his actions been wrong; but also unsafe as the aircraft had not been configured correctly for the fault. Approximately 30 minutes after this I was asked to come to the management company's office to meet with [Head of Operations]. Upon arrival in the office I was asked what comments I had made to the aircraft owner during the flight; to which I responded that I had raised concerns over the safety of the operation due to my belief that the DDG had not been followed; contrary to the entry in the AML. The [Director of Operations] stated that 'we cannot work together' and that he was 'asking you to leave' at which point he stated he was 'sacking' me. Because 'obviously we have serious communication problems.' I believe the action of terminating my contractual engagement was a direct result of my unwillingness to operate the aircraft; and my action of highlighting this to the aircraft owner. I attempted to conduct operations in compliance with the FARs as I understand them.




Synopsis: Pilot reported being allegedly terminated for raising airworthiness issues to company director of operations.