Foxxster,
You raise an important point about long standing technical issues. It is not practical for an ordinary pilot to refuse to fly a particular aircraft, especially if he is the sole refusnik. The FAC likely became an "ongoing issue" requiring "further pilot reports and investigation"
Finally there is acceptance of the FAC problem as a bit annoying, but sort of routine. Gradually, less reports are made and perhaps there will be one bulldog who will not let go. Multiple reports by the bulldog captain relieve others from the need to report. He is doing such a good job and why should others risk their positions with repetitive reports? Perhaps he will get a hard time in the sim, have his long awaited leave cancelled or get a crappy roster with no overtime or allowances.
People don't want to have bad news pushed at them day after day. My experience like the scenario suggested, but with determination, saved an aircraft just in time. There was other case where determination was insufficient and an aircraft from another airline, with pax, was lost with just one or two survivors.
Being a bulldog can have its disappointments. How easy it is to just go with the flow!
I hope that this philosophy can be recognised and accepted. It is not taught by operators who are more interested in keeping their aircraft flying. It is not pushed in crew management courses and is very rarely, if ever, discussed. If 5000 pilots read this post, perhaps one or two will become a little more assertive until their job is at risk.
The clue is not to be found in flight control laws, but in determination to complete every flight safely.
There are so many considerations. A major one is to insist on sufficient fuel to give wiggle room for lower levels, TS avoidance, unexpected weather etc. Minimum flight plan reserves are often insufficient when all reasonably identifiable factors should be allowed for.