Golden Rivet

Punter gets sick prior to dispatch.

Aircraft delayed due to replacement of mandatory medical equipment.

To whom should the delay be attributed to ?

Thanks.

747-436

Tricky one that, I would put the delay down to PS - Passenger Convenience, ties in the fact that it was a passenger problem and also that the medical equipment is for the passengers.
I suppose you could put it down to aircraft equipment but I would be more inclined to use the above.

tescoapp

As flight crew I would go for 99 and stick the reason in on the flight report. But I know alot though would put it down as 32 which is a bit unfair.

But 41 covers it. But as soon as you put 41 in and anyone from engineering see's it all hell will let loose. Especially if they just swap a first aid kit and don't do the tech log.

99 and a story will let the ops officer make thier own mind up. And stop any politics.

KNT544

I would struggle to use 32.

41 I would believe is more appropriate, and, like 99 you can still annotate the movement should there be a query later down the line.

Golden Rivet

you've found me out, and no, I dont believe it should be coded as tech.

tescoapp

Well its failure to dispatch due to being outside MEL.

And if its been put in the techlog it will need a signature.

Its a bit unfair though for the gingers especially if it goes against your stats.

I just realised what a totally wrong link I posted

opps it was meant to be the delay codes list.

KiloMIke

Surely it would only be a 41/TD if the kit wasn't there in the first place??

Agree is should be down to PS/PH or perhaps even the code 62 Operational Requirements.

Have to agree that any delay to 41 and engineers go mad! probably because of the all the paperwork they have to fill in!

older_wiser

I tend to agree that 41/TD would be the likeliest however 43 or 44 would be better than 41.

As KiloMike says 62 Operational Requirements is also good, if the equipment is mandatory which Golden Rivet says it is !

No way would i consider 32, but i also think that tescoapp gives the fairest view that 99/MX covers a mulitude of reasons, just stick an SI on the movement and let the accounts and contract bods argue over the finer points.

I guess GR that some office bod at an airline has put a delay done to you ? ? ?

tescoapp

I can't be bothered with the politics of delay codes unless its clear cut. And I know there are huge arguments which we never see about the codes.

From a CRM point of view with the engineers I wouldn't put down 41 without discussing it first. And if I did I would proberly stick in the comments "tech due to MEL shortage of first aid equipment MEL xx.xx (used for onboard emergency at gate -5 OC doors shut) thanks to the sterling efforts of Golden Rivet the flight departed only 15 mins late. Please see ASR number xxx."
And if it was ages before getting a replacemeant I would stick in times etc but I would tell, if not show the engineer what I had written.

We have our own engineers not contracted out. So in all likely hood a phone call to the Captain of the flight would have it all sorted through the CP pretty sharpish. And no doudt we would all hear about it in the next CRM course. Might be still down as 41 but you wouldn't hear about it again.

EK4457

Delay codes - guaranteed to cause a fight or two at the xmas party!

A golden rule for allocating delay codes:

You can't always say what code it IS, but you CAN always say what code it ISN'T.

In other words, when it looks like it could be lots of codes, the process of elimination will leave you with the right one. Hasn't failed me yet.

We have so far had codes 16, 32, 41, 43, 44, 62 and 99 suggested.

Lets eliminate:

16- pax convenience. It certainly was very convenint for the passenger to have medical equipment / assistance! Can't rule that out!

32- Loading. Are you mad? Ruled out. No explination needed.

41- Aircraft defects. Absolutely no defect to speak of. Equipment was servicable, used and needed replacing. Ruled out. (people usually call this code 'tech reasons' which is misleading/wrong).

43- Non scheduled maintainance. Replacing medical equipment is not maintainance on the aircraft. Ruled out.

44- Lack of spare equipment. There was't a lack of equipment, it just took time to replace it. Ruled out.

62- operational requirements. The MEL states LEGAL requirements. It is a legal issue preventing the tech log sign off, not operational. The situation is completely independent of whatever operational purposes/requirements the flight is fulfilling.

Indeed, the requirements of the the flight were (I assume) to carry out a flight to a scheduled destination at a scheduled time. Just like 99% of all other flights. Hardly reason for a delay. Ruled out.

99- misc. Waste of space. Most airlines don't use this code and even if they do, management reallocate the correct code at a later date after an investigation. Not appliccable.

So there you go,

16 / PS is the last one standing.

In my humble opinion.

EK

Low life

1) If there is a slightest hint you can blame Engineering, it would be rude not to
2) If Eng fight back then Blame Cust Svc, they will sniff the hint of oflaoding the blame and you have an allie in the fight to blame Engineering.

Wipeout

Bad day in the (front) office, Tescoapp?

Low life

More like one of those naughty Trolls sitting under the bridge waiting for Mr gruff and family.

What are Pax
What sort of pallets do you load them on

Wipeout

Pax are a funny sort of creature. Most common on charter airlines is a particular species called 'pax inebriatus'.

Low life

Don't like the sound of them

boredcounter

Well put, PS sums it up a treat.
Mind you, if the Purser sent a crew member off the bomber to the bone wagon with said pax......................... Surely a clear cut case of 63, late crew boarding.
PS, classic case.
Low, Check your books mate, pax are deemed DG to us freight doggy dogs. Must be carried in a position accessable to flight crew, humane killer a viable option on all bloodstock trips.
BTW, anyone use delay code for Auth reschedule of flight (01 i think, but dont quote me) ? Auth reschedule = no bloody delay, surely.
Bored

tescoapp

Sorry for ranting I have now removed it.

Another golden rule of delay codes is always make sure that everyone submits a different one for the same delay.

Although EK your method has some very strong arguments for its use. Thankyou I will use it in the furture.

low life your post did make me smile about it being rude not to.

Low life

Bored me old mucker, takes me back to those hours of fun, we had, having to explain stupidly small delays to the wicked witch.

suppie

Had the same a few weeks ago on AC and we gave code 41 as its
considered as a part of the aircraft.
We had approx 3.5hrs delay due to this as no medical kit oh at AMS so maintenance had to make one with approved items

SAGG...SUCKS

Just to agree with EK4457 DL/16 for pax conveince would be spot on. Even without the process of elimnation the punter as he or she was refered to is the root cause. Although some pax service managers would disagree It seems these days you can't send a msg with a delay on without consulting the rest of the airport just so you don't tread on anybodys toes.