Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Procedure; MEL; Logbook Entry; Aircraft; Human Factors
On Date; I was assigned as the Captain of Aircraft X; an Company flight with scheduled service from ZZZ to ZZZ1. The aircraft was Aircraft X. The scheduled departure time for the flight was XA:37 local time and we had all crew members present for an on-time departure. On the day of the flight; I had come on duty as a short call reserve at XA:00 AM local time in ZZZ. The reserve day that I was working had been picked up as an overtime shift due to short staffing in the base. At the time of this flight; I had already flown two previous legs and was fit for duty to conduct the round trip flight to ZZZ1.As I settled into the flight deck to perform my preflight routine; I noted that the left side window of the aircraft was suffering from de-lamination. At the time I estimated that the de-lamination was approximately 4 inches tall and 18 inches wide on the bottom side of the window. After speaking with my First Officer; I consulted the Company standard operating procedure manual for the CRJ 700 aircraft. The SOPM states de-lamination and/or cracking is allowed two inches from the edge of the windshield around the entire periphery with four inches of penetration in the corners. Later on I was able to take pictures of the de-lamination and I used a takeoff and landing data card as a measuring tool and determined the de-lamination was approximately 3.75 Inches tall. The width of the de-lamination was approximately 18 inches but was not measured. I checked the maintenance log for the aircraft and found multiple previous write ups by Captains who had believed that the de-lamination exceeded standards. In each instance I found that Maintenance had signed off the window as being within standards and not a problem. I phoned ZZZ Maintenance Supervisor Name and told him that I would have no choice but to write up the window again. He said that was not a problem and they would come out and sign off on the window. When Maintenance arrived the A&P looked at the window from the jet bridge and began the process of returning the aircraft to service without taking any measurements or further inspecting the damaged area. I was standing in the jet bridge at the time an observed a copy and paste from a previous write up stating that the window was still within limits per CRJ700 CMM 56-11-02. At that time; I was not satisfied with the return to service an asked to see they see CRJ700 CMM 56-11-02. When Maintenance pulled up the section it had a picture that exactly described what is in the standard operating procedure manual for the CRJ 700. It clearly states that the limit on de-lamination is 2 inches from the bottom of the window which we already knew had been exceeded. At that point Maintenance agreed with me that the aircraft could not be returned to service and called his supervisor. Name1 from ZZZ Maintenance came out to the aircraft and showed me in what I was told is the PPG windows manual a section that states the following.'Allowable de-lamination is two inches from the edge of the daylight opening around the entire print and four inches in the corners. Localized areas of de-lamination are allowed to exceed the continuous peripheral limit as long as pilot visibility is not impaired'. Name1 told me that localized is any one side of the window. Believing that localized should be a defined term I asked for any documentation on what exactly localized means in that statement but was unable to get a written answer from any available manual. At that point we reached an impasse where I along with my First Officer was not willing to take the aircraft in an un-airworthy status and outside of the limits of the standard operating procedure for the CRJ 700. Name1 stated that they would find another crew.I contacted my dispatcher for the flight and told him that I would be unable to accept the aircraft as airworthy and would need a replacement aircraft. Around that time Maintenance was communicating with someone in ZZZ2 that the aircraft was airworthywhich further complicated the situation where a flight crew was saying it is not and maintenance is saying that it is airworthy.Approximately 2 hours later with the same aircraft still assigned to the flight I was removed as the Captain due to my refusal to take it and the fact that I was now up against duty limitations. I was replaced by another reserve Captain. At that point I was still sitting next to my First Officer who was not comfortable either taking the aircraft. He called crew support and informed them he could not take the aircraft and was then transferred to the OCC Coordinator. I overheard during the conversation that the coordinator told him that in 25 years with the company she had never had a crew refuse an aircraft due to window de-lamination.Shortly after that a new aircraft was found to complete the flight with the remaining crew members.When I completed my drive home; I looked at the flow board and found that the aircraft had been returned to service and was now completing a flight to ZZZ3 with an entirely different crew.In conclusion despite every attempt at talking with Maintenance and getting a satisfactory resolution or answer on why the aircraft was airworthy my entire crew ended up believing that the aircraft was not airworthy. I also had a major financial incentive to complete the flight as it would have paid 150% had I completed it. Despite the pressure that I received from maintenance and the financial loss from refusing the flight I simply could not determine the airworthiness at that time.Most of the things that we find wrong with an aircraft are either deferrable or are not deferrable. Very few things have ambiguous statements like it's okay if it's localized even though it's outside of the standard operating procedures manual for the CRJ 700.Most of the things that we find wrong with an aircraft are either deferrable or are not deferrable. Very few things have ambiguous statements like it's okay if it's localized even though it's outside of the standard operating procedures manual for the CRJ 700.It goes against the safety culture of this airline to make attempts to bully a flight crew into flying an aircraft that is not airworthy. It is my belief that Maintenance has become accustomed to signing off de-lamination that is outside of standards despite not being able to clearly define what localized means. This is known as the normalization of deviance and has resulted in numerous fatal accidents in aviation.
Captain reported refusing the aircraft because of disagreement over ambiguities and conflicting information in reference data used to determine the limits for cockpit window delamination.