B737-800
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 126; Flight Crew Type 10000
Communication Breakdown
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Aircraft; Human Factors; MEL
MEL 33-1-XY was effective. Aircraft flew for nine days with this MEL; and transited at least eight Maintenance bases in the previous five days. In Captain and First Officer opinions; remaining lighting system lights may not have been sufficient to clearly illuminate all required instruments; controls; and other devices for which it is provided. Also; lighting configuration and intensity from alternate sources may not have been acceptable to the flight crew. Dispatch agreed with Captain on these concerns; and provided link to Maintenance. After directing Captain in several unsuccessful circuit breaker resets; and without advising Captain and Dispatch; Maintenance brought in Chief Pilot on Call. Chief Pilot did not provide safer alternatives for Crew to consider in operating the aircraft. Rather; Chief Pilot said Crew could be replaced with somebody who was willing to fly the aircraft one more leg. Chief Pilot also stated that nine other Captains operated that aircraft; and implied I should; as well. After thoroughly evaluating cockpit lighting conditions during engine start and taxi; Crew decided it could safely operate aircraft. Crew used overhead flood light in combination with bulkhead lighting to operate the area affected by MEL; however; lighting in many areas was very marginal.
Aircraft flood lights physically do not illuminate the FMC keyboards requiring the use of hand held flash lights; creating a safety issue during critical phases of flight. Turning the flood lights up to full bright in order to provide enough and sufficient illumination for the pedestal was so bright it created night vision and glare issues requiring the further use of flash lights and said safety issues during critical phases of flight. The threat here is the Maintenance on Call person and the Chief Pilot on Call. The Captain called Dispatch to work through this issue and MEL. The Dispatcher brought Maintenance into their conversation; who was unable to resolve the issue. At that point Maintenance hung up; and the Captain and the Dispatcher continued to talk. Then the Captain's phone rang while talking to the Dispatcher; it was the Chief Pilot on Call. The Maintenance on Call person (without advising the Captain or the Dispatcher) took it upon himself to bring in the Pilot on Call to pressure; bully and all but brow-beat the Captain into agreeing the aircraft was ok to fly. On Call [with] Maintenance person circumventing the process by going VFR direct to the Chief Pilot on Call; he directly affected; in negative manner; the ability of the Captain and the Dispatcher to properly and thoroughly work through this safety issue and MEL (which may have eventually led them to the Chief Pilot on Call anyway). By abruptly bringing the Chief Pilot into the conversation; in mid-thought process; completely destroyed their safety thought process of working through an issue as professionals.
A flight crew and Dispatcher reported that the flight crew were pressured into flying a B737 with inadequate cockpit lighting.