About the preflight check.

[HeliEagle]

S-76 flight manual said the pilot will determine that the exterior preflight checks should be done before the first flight of the day. And there are around 100 items of the exterior prefilght check, the procedure in my company is that the mechanist do these checks everyday, and the pilot do it again after they finished. Also I heared some other helicompany are doing same.
Is this reasonable or necessary?
I really do not want to do this.

Cheers Helieagle

[Hidden Agenda]

We don’t operate the S76 but I believe the principle is the same regardless of type.

Our maintenance people carryout the pre-flight check on our helicopters and sign for it in the Technical Log. Personally I believe that this covers me from a legal aspect and I am comfortable that our maintenance personnel no more than I do about the mechanical aspects of the machine. In my pre-flight I do check that the panels are secure, fluid levels are correct (where they are visible through a sight glass without opening panels), and that there are no obvious signs of physical damage.

There is also an additional concern. It is not possible to inspect certain items on the checklist without climbing to a height of more than 2 metres above ground level. It is now illegal, in our jurisdiction, to work, permit, or require someone else to work at heights above 2 metres without a safety harness, or work platforms with safety rails. Obviously this is impractical on a flight-line.

It would seem to me that the days when pilots are seen clambering over their aircraft before flight are coming to an end.

[Fortyodd2]

"It would seem to me that the days when pilots are seen clambering over their aircraft before flight are coming to an end".

I'd rather clamber over my aircraft before flight to ensure it doesn't come to an end earlier than anticipated. Come to think of it, I'm sure my crew would want me to as well!

[ShyTorque]

We don’t operate the S76 but I believe the principle is the same regardless of type.
Our maintenance people carryout the pre-flight check on our helicopters and sign for it in the Technical Log. Personally I believe that this covers me from a legal aspect and I am comfortable that our maintenance personnel no more than I do about the mechanical aspects of the machine. In my pre-flight I do check that the panels are secure, fluid levels are correct (where they are visible through a sight glass without opening panels), and that there are no obvious signs of physical damage.
There is also an additional concern. It is not possible to inspect certain items on the checklist without climbing to a height of more than 2 metres above ground level. It is now illegal, in our jurisdiction, to work, permit, or require someone else to work at heights above 2 metres without a safety harness, or work platforms with safety rails. Obviously this is impractical on a flight-line.
It would seem to me that the days when pilots are seen clambering over their aircraft before flight are coming to an end.

You have maintenance people to do the preflight / check A and sign for it?
Great idea, must remember to mention it to our company. Once I've finished refuelling it, topping up the oils, putting it away for the night and cleaning it out. :ok:

[Hidden Agenda]

Shy Torque, I hear where you are coming from and I used to do all those things too. But I am not allowed to anymore…they are maintenance functions!

I am not allowed to remove the quick release dual controls, remove or refit the doors (which are held on by pins) or remove or refit the seat backs (which are attached with Velcro) they are maintenance functions and it is considered that I am not trained, qualified or licensed/certificated to do this.

I know, I know….but why should I when my employer rebukes me for it, and the regulatory authority can take action against me for doing it.

Fortyodd2, are you sure that your crew really want you to do it, wouldn’t they prefer that it was done by a specialist, a maintenance professional. I am not saying that pilots should totally ignore the procedure I am just saying that they should manage it.

Do we not use the auto-pilot / SAS / Flight Director even though we were trained to fly ‘hands-on’. I have come to believe that there are some things that pilots shouldn’t be doing when there is a better alternative, and that pre-flight inspections is perhaps one of them.

[Fortyodd2]

Hidden Agenda,

Yes, it would be lovely if an engineer was available to do it before every flight. However, in the real world there's me, (for me - read "the Duty Pilot"), - except on Mondays when our engineer has his weekly visit to make sure that any required maintenance is done and to check that I have not missed anything. And, with the possible exception of the Met, it's probably the same at all UK Police ASU's.

Yes, an on-site engineer would be a better alternative but, neither I nor the Police Authority nor the Maintenance Organisation are going to fund one.

[Hidden Agenda]

Fortyodd2,

It does seem that we are playing by different rules.

We are not allowed by the regulators to do a daily inspection although we can do the pre-flight check, so we cannot live without an engineer on-site. If he is sick and there is no replacement we are grounded.

It would be nice to have the flexibility that you have.

You say “it would be lovely if an engineer was available to do it before every flight”. So presumably you agree with me that when maintenance personnel are required to be available to conduct a daily inspection, that it is acceptable to let them get on with the pre-flight check simultaneously, and then not repeat the task?

HA

[170']

Most engineers I know would think I'd lost the plot if I didn't do a complete pre-flight myself. Nothing to do with manuals,releases and various regulations around the world etc.

Just that any seasoned team of Engineers/Pilots would never under estimate the ability of a human being to f*** up on a regular and ongoing basis.

The old scenario of a ' wrench laying near an inlet/control run' is for real sometimes, and the bazillion minor and not so minor problems I've found doing a pre-flight, didn't become major because I found them...Then a engineer guy fixed em...

As you'd appreciate an engineer running out to stop you backing into something you didn't see, or forgot about...He/she appreciates you double checking their work.

Trust isn't anywhere in the picture....They don't want you to trust them.

They want you to double check?...

At least that's the feedback I get from some of the great ones I've worked with...

[Hidden Agenda]

170’, the points you make are undoubtedly sound and steeped in tradition.

Part of the preflight check for a Bell 206, for example, calls for ‘Engine – condition, security of attachments …throttle linkage – condition, security, and freedom of operation…Hoses and Tubing – chafing, security and condition’ etc., etc.

Why do we have to go through such a check procedure when Maintenance personnel have just inspected the aircraft? I don’t see our distant cousins on fixed wing aircraft opening engine cowlings and poking around inside the engine bay prior to strapping an Airbus A 340 on to their backs for an 18-hour flight across the Oceans. Why do we consider it is necessary to do it immediately after a maintainer has checked our rotorcraft when our maximum flight duration is about three hours?

Today’s aircraft are supposed to be getting simpler and easier to fly and maintain. Do you think that part of that simplification should be extended to the Daily Inspection and Pre-flight check? Reviewing the Flight Manuals of the latest Eurocopter models I think that you could reasonably come to that conclusion.

[arismount]

As a non-mechanic pilot I may not be considered "a trained, professional technical specialist..." (????)....

...however....

...rather early in my career, after I'd found tools left behind and cotter keys left off "completed" work**, I learned that when the machine becomes "mine," I should look it over thoroughly. And yes, this means opening panels and such.

If your employer takes issue with this to the point of probition or discouragement of the practice, I would urge you to attempt to get them to change the practice, on the grounds of safety. If you are unable to get them to change, look for a job where management has their head on straight, and until you get it, hope that the mechs don't overlook anything that will "affect" you.

**Nothing personal against mechs here. The fact is, they make mistakes just like us pilots do. A professional mech won't mind somebody checking his work, or an extra set of eyes looking over the machine on a regular basis.

[PPRUNE FAN#1]

arismount:**Nothing personal against mechs here. The fact is, they make mistakes just like us pilots do. A professional mech won't mind somebody checking his work, or an extra set of eyes looking over the machine on a regular basis.As long as you don't mind mechanics riding along with you, looking over your shoulder and "checking your work," making sure you don't make any mistakes that {ahem} *might* go unrepo...err, unnoticed by you, eh?

Or does this "checking one's work" only flow in one direction?

[170']

Hidden Agenda

I can't argue the point with you, as I don't know enough about later model equipment. And as steeped in tradition as I am... Yes, I get the point :E

Certain things have stood the test of time. Pre-flight being one of them...

Dual/duplicate inspection is and has been a standard engineering practice for a long time.For excellent reasons!

I can't say where we're going with new developments, inspection protocols etc..but for the relatively short amount of time it takes to go over the ship yourself. I think the benefit is real and substantial...

Last point is subjective depending on your maintenance setup, but for most operations a daily inspection is carried out by a single person. Not a crew of highly motivated people who's raison d’être is to find that one cotter key that's missing...That's your job as person carrying out the duplicate inspection....:)

170

[brett s]

I've been on both sides of the fence - started off in helicopter maintenance, then learned to fly. It's nice to have a different set of eyes looking everything over, because we all screw up sometimes...

In my military days one motivator for maintenance crews to give a crap was knowing that they were all going for a ride just as soon as we finished the test flights after phase maintenance on CH-47's - whether they wanted to or not :)

[HOGE]

I can't understand why it ISN'T standard practice for the engineer who did the work to come and prove its integrity by riding in the aircraft.

If he doesn't want to sign for it, neither do I!

[Arm out the window]

I always feel a bit uneasy when someone else has done the daily, not because I think I know better than others, but because:

1. I'm then sure all the things that I always check before flight have been looked at.

2. It gets me into gear and thinking professionally before jumping in and taking off.

3. If I've looked at the machine carefully before flight, then I can see if anything's changed at the end of the day and maybe pick up a problem.

4. It can be a little tech lesson every time you notice something you haven't really seen properly before.

[nigelh]

I always do one on my 350......if there arent 3 blades and the tyres look low i just dont risk it :ok:

[paco]

Helieagle - why do you not want to do this?

At our place, the engineers (plural) swarm all over the machine, and we do a preflight every time, though I'm still not used to not having to untie the blades by myself :)

I can't ever see a point where I would not do my own preflight, no matter how many people have looked at it before. The preflight is not the same as a daily check, either - treat it as a last line of defence against a mistake before you fly - you can never check the machine enough beforehand, as long as you don't get obsessive about it.

We had the ridiculous situation in UK in my previous place where the CAA were quite happy for pilots to do daily checks away from base where there was no engineering support, but not do them at base where there was an engineer.

Phil

[arismount]

>>As long as you don't mind mechanics riding along with you, looking over your shoulder and "checking your work," making sure you don't make any mistakes that {ahem} *might* go unrepo...err, unnoticed by you, eh?

Or does this "checking one's work" only flow in one direction?<<

No, have never minded mechanics riding along...on the 1% of the flights on which they do....

No, have never minded a mech or anyone else, including copilots, med crews, and/or pax pointing out any mistakes I am making, or any mistakes they think I am making. And, yes, I have made mistakes and I expect to make them again...this is why I believe in and practice CRM.

No, the "checking one's work" does not flow only in one direction.

I thought all this went without saying from a professional pilot. Apparently not. Glad I had the opportunity to make this all clear to you.

Fly (and/or turn wrenches) safely, and have a nice day.

[Cyclic Hotline]

I can't understand why it ISN'T standard practice for the engineer who did the work to come and prove its integrity by riding in the aircraft.

If he doesn't want to sign for it, neither do I!

Likewise the individual writing a flight related snag in the book. I can't recall the number of "no fault found" ground runs and test flights that we pursued after they are put in the book. We changed our procedures, so that whoever writes the entry, is responsible for, at least, the first run or flight in the troubleshooting process so at least there was some possibility of replicating the deficiency.

Our number of wasted hours dropped, availability and expediency in resolving genuine snags increased dramatically.

And the person fixing it goes along too. Keeps everyone honest!

[Fortyodd2]

Hidden Agenda,

You say “it would be lovely if an engineer was available to do it before every flight”. So presumably you agree with me that when maintenance personnel are required to be available to conduct a daily inspection, that it is acceptable to let them get on with the pre-flight check simultaneously, and then not repeat the task?

Er, no - what I'm saying is that if we had an engineer to do the daily check every day then, whilst he was doing it, I could get on with the paperwork, briefing etc, and get the aircraft online quicker - increasing the availability for the customer, (ie - the bobby on the ground). The downside, for the engineer, is that being a single aircraft, single base operation, once the daily check has been done, what does he/she do for the rest of the day?? :hmm: If I have not done the daily check then the pre-flight is still my responsibility - I'm the one getting airborne in it.

[Hidden Agenda]

Fortyodd2,

Again I can’t disagree with any of your points, they are all valid.

One of the issues that I raised earlier, and which PACO also indicated was an issue in UK, is the legality of a pilot carrying out a Daily Inspection. Please note I use the phrase Daily Inspection not Daily Check. I have had it explained to me that an Inspection is a maintenance function and can only be conducted / certified by a licenced engineer / certified maintenance personnel. We too can get a special authorisation for a pilot to carryout a Daily Inspection if we are out of the country on an international flight, but only for a very few days before a licenced maintainer has to be parachuted in.

Like other contributors I too like to have a good look around after any intensive maintenance but the issue I raise is should I be/am I required to check for chafing, freedom of movement of linkages when it is has just been checked and signed for by some ‘high priced help’?

Some contributors have expressed concern about tools being left behind on the aircraft after maintenance, and I agree that this could be a concern if your maintenance department does not have a close control on such items, but again the control of tools is a quality / engineering issue. However when was the last time one of us (pilots) went down to Standard Aero or H & S or similar when we had an engine in their shop to check, before they closed it up, if they had left a tool or rag inside the engine? Where does one draw the line? Maybe I have been fortunate with the quality of the operations I have previously been a part of that, in the main, these traditional concerns are a thing of the past.

Another aspect of the pre-flight check I would like to throw open for discussion is the fuel check? As part of your pre-flight check do you drain a sample of fuel, do you test it with a capsule or chemical (that is in date) for water, do you save the sample at least until the end of the day? Is the batch number of the fuel recorded in the tech log? What do you do with the fuel after you have sampled it? If you spilt any fuel on the ground during the check do you call for decontamination? If you got it on your hands do you go wash, if you got it on your clothing do you go change? Or do you decide that it is not required or there is too much downside and potential for delay, or perhaps that it is an ‘engineering / maintenance function’ and that somebody else should have done it, or that it is covered by Daily Inspection or the Turnaround signature?

Signing for the turnaround is something else the licenced maintainer can do too. I take it that you have a slot on your Tech Log for a turnaround signature, or is it only us that are ‘blessed’ with such bureaucracy?

[SASless]

Brett,

In my Chinook unit in Vietnam....the entire maintenance crew went along for the first test flight after they worked on the old girls. Funny how things improved after that policy was implemented...funny thing to see the fellows swarming over the aircraft finding rolls of locking wire, the stray tool, and more than a few rags.

At my favorite British helicopter company we had the same policy...and still found rags and tools on the odd occasion. A 212 had a bed sheet sized rag once....and an S-58T had a drive shaft worn all but in half by a rubber covered torch (flashlight).

Thus no one,or no system is immune from those kinds of mistakes. It is the catching of them before something evil happens that makes the difference.

[Bertie Thruster]

Why shouldn't a pilot be trained and certified to issue the Certificate of Release To Service for a whole range of procedures? (including the daily inspection)

How else do you operate from a base that does not have a permanent engineer on site?

[paco]

Quite agree, Bertie - provided there is proper supervision. In Canada, the pilot does the 30 hour inspections on AS 350s and the 25s on 206s, including greasing the heads, etc, aside from being authorised to remove batteries, change bulbs, etc.

Can't see why it can't be done in UK myself, especially as the CAA seem to want the lesser qualified engineer to do the work on the aircraft anyway, with the more qualified one supervising. Myself, I would rather it be the other way round!

Phil

[800]

From reading the posts it seems to come down to a combination of;
The size of the company you work for,
The contract (client) the aircraft is on,
the country you operate in, &
whether you fly a Class B aircraft at a location with an engineer on site.
I agree, it would be great to have the Engineer (australian term meaning maintainer/mechanic that is used everywhere else) to do the daily inspection and sign the tech log and the pilot (us) do the pre-flight / fuel drain. But, going on the list above and the staffing levels and attitude of the "management / engineers" it just doesn't happen.
In Australia the CASA allows approved "pilot maintenance" to be carried out on Class B aircraft. http://www.casa.gov.au/download/CAAPs/ops/42zc.pdf
There is not supposed to be any pilot maintenance on Class A aircraft (ie Transport Category aircraft).
There used to be things called "Maintenance Authorities" where the pilot was trained to do specific things, like fit winches, hooks, duals and remove/inspect/reinstall chip plugs etc etc, by an engineer and then the application form presented to CASA for approval and finally issued. Have not seen one of these for a very long time. So techinically if it is not in the Class B aircraft approved list you cannot do it.
The Class A aircraft problem confuses everyone and no answers are gained.
Sometimes its a matter of if the engineer won't do it, you have to, (like topping up the oil springs to mind).
Don't talk to me about legalities!
800 :O :) :bored: :ugh: :* :{ :mad:

[Berten]

A number of things must be considered;

*The Mfc of the helicopter/aircraft has written a Flight Manual (FM) for the correct use of the aircraft by the user (Pilot). So all items mentioned in this FM can/must be done by a Pilot. There it stops! either if the aircraft is flying Privat or commercial. I can immagine that on large aircraft flying sheduled and regular flights there is a kind of maintenance doing the turn around/dailly/preflight/postflight or whatever, on the place the aircraft arrives. In my bussiness which is helicopters flying today to Geneve, tommorrow to Paris, Amsterdam, London, etc..... There is nobody to do all of this inspections. Do I have to send a Mechanic, in the seat next to the VIP, to add some oil and perform the PF??? Just think about, if you fly, you have to consider that sometimes you have to climb on your aircraft, it is part of the game!

[GLSNightPilot]

There is a difference between a small single-engine helicopter and a transport-category helicopter, at least in the eyes of the regulatory authorities. In the US, an S76 in Part 135 ops has to be dailied by a certificated A&P mechanic. We do a preflight check, but that is nowhere near as detailed as what the mechanics do. My preflight is mostly to check for obvious things, like rags and tools left lying around, and it's not a real daily inspection. It takes far too long to open every cowling on the aircraft, and get a large stand out to the aircraft to closely check the tail rotor. We have to trust the mechanics for the major stuff. Take a look at an airline pilot doing a preflight of the airliner you ride on - he's not doing any inspecting, he's just looking for all the big parts to be there. That's mostly what I do, check for the right number of big parts. When I flew 206s, I could, and often did, sign off the daily inspection, but that's a far cry from an S76. Anyone who is flying an S76 from a remote base without a certificated mechanic is setting himself up for real trouble.