Tech Log Pressure

[coopervane]

Have you ever been put under pressure not to write defects in the Tech Log?

Be interesting to hear your comments.

Coop & Bear

[Yorky Towers]

Only when I couldn't find another Fag packet!:D

[Nineiron]

Many many times. The problem comes from management being paranoid about crew having some sort of control over what happens to their aircraft once on the ground. A snag in the book is a very powerful veto on their planning. There is no real answer to this. How many times have we heard " If you won't take it, I'll find a crew that will" or to a ground engineer "If you won't sign it I'll get someone that will". I just think we have to do our best to demonstrate that the tech log is a line of communication with maintenance. If you are sufficiently qualified, it is a good idea to write snags and transfer to 'B' defects at the same time where you can. It shows that you are not trying to deck the aircraft, but use the system as it is intended.
There is no such thing as a verbal snag.

[coopervane]

Interesting! You say the Company pressure can push people to omit entries from the book. Not being nieve to worldly ways and experience as a spanner on the ground, I am sure this is widespread throughout aviation. Some outfits better than others.
But where do you draw the line?
And what do you do when the pressure comes from another source? From the very people who teach you that flight safety is paramount?
Well that's when I draw the line.
Ok, if the forward toilet packs up when you are down route, you aint going to deck the beast in some far off backwater. A bit of common sense must prevail I agree.
I am talking about pushing it far beyond what is regarded a sensible and safe.
We all want to keep our jobs and tow the company line to a point. After all, that is why we sold our souls to the bank manager to get where we are today. But this must never be a reason to be pushed into a corner.
Despite Ian Flemmings claims regarding Mr. Bond. You really do only live once!

Coop & Bear

[GlueBall]

There is a rather large manual (book) called MEL/CDL which stands for Minimum Equipment List and Configuration Deviaton List. This legal document allows for dispatch with multiple DMIs...Deferred Maintenance Items. (For example: the B74 can be dispatched with two inoperative or removed brakes).

[coopervane]

M.E.L./CDL mmmmmmmmmmm know all about those. But perhaps some people need reminding that if the defect is not in there then you are on sticky ground!

Coop & Bear

[Nineiron]

The MEL is primarily for crew use. Management types should be discouraged from reading it otherwise it can be converted into the MML - Maximum Maintenance List.
Use of the MEL/CDL requires a certain skill. I think its called airmanship. If you are flying in some odd part of the world where there is not much regulation, you have to rely on experience gained elsewhere.
If the manuals were a comprehensive set of instructions on how to operate the aircraft, anyone that could read could fly.

[coopervane]

I agree Nine, but when you are far from the madding crowd,it is not a licence to forget all the rules and play macho man!

Airmanship yes, sensibility yes. Lets get the thing round the route regardless..............Time to walk.

Coop & Bear

[classjazz]

Going back to the original question - Yes, I was put under considerable pressure not to put what I thought was a serious defect in the Tech Log.
I was supervising Flight Engineers in this particular "outfit" and we were inbound to base. I discovered a crack in a cabin window which was running right across the glazed area. I wrote the defect up and then discovered once on the ground (after having already briefed the Captain) that the page had been removed on the grounds that a window change would delay the aircraft. I pointed out that as we had returned to base (where the facilities existed to accomplish a window change) it was better to do the job there than suffer a pressurisation failure above some inhospitable terrain necessitating a diversion. We had a very animated discussion over the rights and wrong of the situation but I lost the argument. We had flown from Europe to the Middle East that day and the two pilots had already exceeded the number of forgiveable "mistakes" that day so I resigned shortly afterwards.
Another colleague of mine (same profession) was instructed to "carry" a wheel and tyre that in his well experienced knowledge was dangerous. He didn't and paid for his own fare home. I am not going to identify the region or outfit more closely as I still have colleagues flying there. But it does happen. Shortly after spending 25 years as a flight engineer I took up a position as a Training Manager - much safer!

[coopervane]

A lot of folks may not like to express their views on here as they may not want to suffer the consequences. Understandable.


Anyone who does tell a tale has my upmost admiration.

It's about time these kinds of incidents were clamped down upon harshly by the respective CAA's of the countries concerned.
A few more ramp checks and independent inspections would make all concerned sit up and listen.

I have seen aircraft come in for C checks with a book full of nil furthers only to be found lacking in the most obvious ways.Defects that have been ignored or turned a blind eye to during service mainly due to operational cost or the fact that the lease company is picking up the C check tab.

Interesting to hear more . Not just Tech Log but incidents involving CRM decisions regarding not going or turning back.



Coop & Bear

[GAZIN]

Obviously not reporting defects does still go on but I don't think it's as bad as it used to be. In the eighties I met a cargo jet that had been flying between Europe & Africa for several weeks, with 'Nil Further'. On the maintenance positioning flight, between the Netherlands & the UK, there were 52 write ups!

[Nineiron]

It is no coincidence that this thread is running on the Freight Dogs forum (in case the moderator was thinking of moving it!). Do I get the impression that there is a greater reluctance to log defects by operators of aircraft that have had a lot of original equipment removed for a freighter conversion? ( all those clipped breakers!). As part of safe design, aircraft have a great deal of systems redundancy. The problem comes when it is decided to use that redundancy for commercial purposes.
I too resigned from a company shortly after deciding it wasn't a good idea to cross the pond with only one gyro working. That was after demonstrating how the transfer system worked.
The crew that took it, got away with it. So I was the one with the problem.

[CR2]

Nineiron

Funnily enough I was thinking about moving this thread over to Tech Log, where I guess it really belongs. I however decided to leave it, guessing that (without prejudice) certain operators in our industry may have lower standards. I'm fortunate that our a/c are maintained to the highest level. If something is wrong, it gets fixed.

That also applies to the cargo systems on the airplanes - if part of the cargo system is bust, it takes longer to load which in turn causes delays, which in turn is a loss of revenue etc etc.

What do you others think? Leave it here or move it?

[coopervane]

If U don't mind, leave it here. The forum probably gets more readers than Tech Log.

Coop & Bear

[PPRuNe Towers]

No problem in placing a copy of this in the tech forum and letting the threads develop independently. Tech log does get significant traffic and the pressures can be just as intense on pax crew and engineers.

CDL, Mel, deferrred defect discussion alone would make it worthwhile.

Regards
Rob

[coopervane]

OK sounds good

Coop & Bear thnks

[Nineiron]

Probably right. The Tech log Forum is about five times the size of Freight dogs.
What answers do we have to this problem of being pressurised into not making tech log entries, other than resignation?
I once had a boss who was convinced that the more snags that were recorded in the tech record history of the aircraft actually lowered the resale value.

[mainwheel]

Interesting thread to read.

With all the DDPG's available the aircraft should be able to fly with multiple defects. Commonsense should play a big part when something is not covered by it.

The line? Where do you draw it. Good question.

Is a reported missing life jacket in the cabin of a B747-400 full of fuel and punters just about to push back make the flight illegal?

Whats the other end of the scale.......

[Flight Detent]

Yeees, this sure is a 'pet' subject for me!

Operating B747-100/200/300s for AAI for more than five years, one can't help but be in the firing line reasonably often.

Other than straightforward trying to talk me out of writing up defects, and there were a few, there was the practise of 'fixing' MEL items on the last day of their repair period.
Only to have them written up again the very next flight (because there had been no actual work done!), and the same MEL applied for another repair period, this sort of thing is common practise, and the Ground 'Engineers' think that its quite OK.

I've had mechanics actually swear at me when I've written up a problem, they wanted to get back to the pub!

I had enough one day about 18 months ago in KL on the Malaysian freighter contract, and blew my top at the Ops people for their continuing mis-handling of just about everything, it all just came together one day.

Consequently, I'm doing something else now, and loving it!

Cheers