We have many histories where a fault cannot be found, hides for a week or two, jumps out to say "hi" and so on.
And this is the very scenario where crews need to be aware of the 'grey' fault that is lying low for a while, via the open ADD system
We have a small team at XXX Airlines, so we just email each other with the latest odd 'grey' snag,
in my view, a silly system and very prone to missing out the guy who has the subsequent problem and need. Why can't the crews review all the recent history ? If they can't then that is a real problem
The recent history of faults will not always be in the book, hence the backdoor methodology.
If you have a problem with a major item - (for instance we had one airframe with stiff controls, one with a slow-to-activate deice system and another with a tendency not to follow LNAV) - the 'black or white' requirement for the techlog dictates that the fault cannot go in the techlog.
If the system lies outside the MEL (as most major items are) you will end up with a grounded airframe. But the system has not necessarily failed, it just has a small glitch, and the MEL cannot deal with such instances (how much extra control force is 'failed' as opposed to 'operative'?).
And if the fault CAN go into the techlog, you will just get a T.F.S. and a needless delay to the next flight. Hence the verbal complaints to engineering and the emails to crews saying 'yeah, controls still stiff but only with flap xx'.
I think I need some philosophical guidance on what your system is setting out to do ? as that statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The techlog needs to be a living record .. tells me what the originator thought he/she saw etc ... tells me what the maintainer did to investigate and acquit the snag .. and is available to all and sundry for review .. indeed, anyone can go back to the very first flights on the fleet and read up on the history for any given tail ... just a matter of digging out the archived techlog copy from the filing cabinet.
See above. Small glitches with major systems cannot go in the techlog, because the MEL cannot deal with them. The MEL is a black or white document - it details failed systems and working systems. There is no allowance in the MEL for a system that works fine, but has a small glitch once in every 5 flights.
I want to have an open ADD saying "controls stiffer than normal with flap xx deployed - please report further". But you try getting that past maintenance control. They would blow a fuse - "you cannot put that in the techlog". But it happens to be the truth.
.