Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Aircraft; Procedure; Company Policy
I experienced the continued maintenance pushback this evening on Aircraft X at ZZZ when documenting a severely worn tire to maintenance. The MX controller attempted to push me to not write up the mx discrepancy; insisting that he could judge the tires condition from an iphone picture (taken in the dark) from his cubicle in ZZZ1 vice my judgement with the aircraft in ZZZ. I was forced to tell him the tire was getting written up and AOG regardless of his opinion and that I would not operate the aircraft until the tire was addressed. This should not be necessary.This culture of mx controllers pushing pilots to not properly document AOG conditions and attempting to defer obvious safety items has got to stop. I understand that MX is under pressure to 'move the metal'; but [the company] sells safety to its customers; yet does not want to provide it because it is not convenient to do so. Furthermore; the next morning a mechanic contracted by the company validated the worn status of the tire and recommended replacement. I suggest that MX document and repair maintenance items reported by aircraft crew without arguing as to the MX discrepancy validity.A busy flight schedule does not affect aircraft airworthiness. We as flight crews should not be under pressure to operate non airworthy aircraft due to the company's failings to have enough lift to meet flight schedule demand.
Air taxi Captain reported writing up a maintenance discrepancy for a severely worn tire and grounding the aircraft while disregarding pressure by a Company Maintenance Controller to not.