A320
Dispatch Dispatcher
Workload; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
General Work Refused; General Maintenance Action
Aircraft; Procedure; Company Policy
Flight was originally assigned to aircraft number ABC. This aircraft had two CDLs (Configuration Deviation List) applied on it. CDL 27-13 and CDL 27-14 however the CDL manual shows under limitations 'No more than one part of one system may be missing except if otherwise specified. Parts of different systems may be simultaneously missing; unless otherwise specified in this list'. Since the CDLs are both under the same system; number 27; I determined the aircraft was not airworthy to Dispatch. I notified Maintenance Control and the Maintenance Manager. They both disagreed with my determination however; since I disagreed I refused to Dispatch Aircraft ABC. A Maintenance Manager; who said he was the boss of the Maintenance Manager [on the phone]; came to my Dispatch desk and began to argue and pressure me to Dispatch the aircraft. Maintenance also came to other Dispatcher to try to pressure to Dispatch the aircraft. Aircraft ABC was allowed to continue to fly another 2 flights in an unairworthy condition until it was finally put out of service and one of the CDLs was cleared.Policies and procedures need to be in place to support the Dispatcher and prevent Maintenance from pressuring them to Dispatch an aircraft they have refused or deem unairworthy.
A320 Dispatcher was coerced into releasing an aircraft with two section 27 CDL's even though the CDL limitation stated 'No more than one part of one system may be missing except if otherwise specified. Parts of different systems may be simultaneously missing; unless otherwise specified in this list.'