Sadakin
So much speculations and disinformation. The powers that be do not want the cat out of the bag. Copy this down as it will not last long on this thread.
Interesting account, Sadakin. However, I would say that most aviation authorities are complicit in this game of charades.
In a previous aviation era we would put every intermittent defect in the deferred defect list, whether they were deferrable or not. So you would see things like 'rudder limiter occasionally drops out' as an ADD, and a comment 'please report further instances'. A list of pilot comments on when this problem occurred would follow, so that engineers could diagnose and trace the fault.
Then some lawyer came along and said: "that's not legal - all non-deferrable items must be cleared, even if intermittent". In legal terms this makes sense, but in aviation terms it is a calamity.
What the engineers now had to do is pretend that that fault had been fixed, when everyone knew it had not. (Hint - how do you instantly trace and rectify an intermittent fault covering a dozen complex components and 5 miles of wiring...? Which item is at fault? ) So engineers resorted to 'system reset' or 'tested found serviceable'. Sorry, 'system reset' has not fixed the problem, it has just given it to the next crew. This is the management equivalent of Pilate washing his hands - it absolves management of any responsibility for incidents and accident, but is of no use whatsoever.
Under the old system, the intermittent problem was known to everyone, because it was an open ADD, and suggestions were made to deal with it. Under the new system the problems get buried in old pages or a previous techlogs, and so the intermittent problem comes as complete surprise to the new crew. And I have seen many instances of new crew getting into difficulty with an old problem that was well known to many crews.
In one case an emergency descent was made because of a pressurisation failure, when the fault was a simple and known intermittent problem with an altimeter (work that one out...). In another case an altitude was bust and overspeed encountered because of a well-known intermittent altitude capture problem. In another case a diversion was made due to no ant-ice, when keeping the N1 at 60% would have cured the problem. And all because the crews had not been alerted to an intermittent fault. And the list goes on....
And before you all say 'well fix the damn problem then' - how many times do you test fly an empty aircraft, to check the previous day's repairs? So having filled the aircraft with pax, how do you know if the previous fix is really a fix? Declaring that any
intermittent fault is 'fixed' is pretend engineering of the most deceitful kind. Unless a whole week has passed with no further occurences, you have no idea if the fix is really a fix.
So what is preferable. The old honest reporting system? Or the new, legal, but completely dishonest and potentially dangerous reporting system?
Silver