Putting up with defects

[Dude~]

I've been reading an old thread about PPL hirers discussing the variable state of club aircraft and the apparent lax attitude towards minor defects. This got me thinking - since becoming an FI I have had to put up with many small defects including missing or inop nav equipment, balding tyres, dead lights, knackered seats, the list goes on.

Obviously the overriding issue is safety but on the other hand if I refuse to fly because a nav light is not working then I can't afford to pay the rent so that would be silly. But drawing the line is tricky - imagine having an MEL to refer to like the big boys or a ground engineer to ask!

Anyway, I've definitely flown with problems that I wouldn't have put up with as a 100hr PPL, but it depends on the type of flight and the conditions and so many other variables.

What is the worst defect you have put up with?

[QNH 1013]

Worst defect? Difficult to choose, but I recently refused to send a student solo because the stall warner was u/s. I do worry about the casual attitude of some schools.
However, the "defect" that really annoys me is missing paperwork. I now refuse point blank to fly any aircraft with any of the paperwork missing. I'm fed up of hearing "the engineer says its ok and has done the 50h check but he was too busy to do the paperwork before the aircraft came back".

[Centaurus]

Dude Read a post called "Culture of Fear" in the Australian General Aviation and Questions forum on Pprune. It mirrors your concerns.

[foxmoth]

imagine having an MEL to refer to like the big boys
That is what we had in one school I worked for, best way of doing it generally, though I think some (such as Stall Warner which was down as no go), could have been a little less strict if not a solo student.:D

[porridge]

Yes, I know the dilemma well. Once was at a place where the owner/CFI would do running repairs when the engineer was away. Woe betide anyone who challenged his authority to do it as he so blatantly remarked – “If anything happens my Engineer will sign it off!” Scared the ‘Pants’ off most of us so we didn’t ‘hang-ar’ound too long!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

So ... having spotted something not quite right and decided you can live with it, what do you instructors do when the student spots the same thing and draws it to your attention?

(An answer along the lines of "well done, I didn't think you'd notice that, but don't worry, you'll be OK with me in the aircraft" might not be unexpected ...)

On the other hand ... solo PPL hirer finds that the beacon isn't working, goes and finds duty instructor. Duty instructor says "are the strobes working? Well, in that case, seeing as how we don't have any other plane for you to take today, how's about you fail to notice the u/s beacon until you land, then report it on your return?" Seemed reasonable to me!

[alpha_lover]

Seems to me like there is a simple criteria...

Is it safe and is it legal?

If the answer to both is yes, then take the aircraft.

There are many defects that affect neither safety or legality and are probably best described as irritations or inconvenient! Of course, there are always considerations regarding value for money if you are hiring.

AL

[Johe02]

Just another 'Captains decision' based on the situation. .

[foxmoth]

what do you instructors do when the student spots the same thing and draws it to your attention?

Personally I will always point out any defects to a student even if he does not see them, as Johe02 says it is good captaincy training. A defect will either be Go/no go or, "given my experience I am happy to accept this, but at your level more consideration needs to be given and is probably no go for solo flight" A good example is again the stall warner, any instructor who cannot recognise an approaching stall without a warner should not really be in the job (and many aircraft do not have a warner of course!), but for a PPL student with only 10-20 hours this may be a different matter.

[john_tullamarine]

One of the problems is that the pilot may not know the reason why the bit of kit is there in the first place and this, often, is a straight certification reason.

Thus, if you go with it busted and no MEL or similar permission, then you have compromised the certification basis for the Type and, sequentially, invalidated the CofA for the aircraft.

Best have a very good story for the inquiry if it turns to custard ....

Looking to stall warners, for instance, they are there, generally, because the stall characteristics are deficient in some respect ... the old story applies .. you can fool all the people some of the time etc ... but, every now and again, the chickens come home to roost with a vengeance and you may have egg on face syndrome and a difficult time with the coroner/police and the insurance company.

[DFC]

A good example is again the stall warner, any instructor who cannot recognise an approaching stall without a warner should not really be in the job (and many aircraft do not have a warner of course!), but for a PPL student with only 10-20 hours this may be a different matter.

The fitting of a stall warner is often a certification issue. i.e. the aircraft needed a stall warner to be certified. A reason for this could be a lack of aerodynamic warning or other issues that can be worked round by giving the pilot a clear warning of an approaching stall.

Most pilots inlcuding instructors are not in a position to know why that particular aircraft has a stall warner - was is an essential part of the certification or was it simply something nice to have fitted. Thus if the stall warner is u/s then the aircraft is u/s.

The CAA publish master minimum equipment lists for various aircraft and these can be used to gain approval for an MEL.

Without an MEL, unless the equipment is optional then it has to be fully serviceable for flight.

References include the Type certification data sheet, FAR23 and JAR23 and the Master Minimum Equipment Lists for the particular aircraft.

----------

Very importantly, a major misconception is that an instructor could fly an aircraft that would not be considered serviceable (safe) for a student or low hours PPL. The pilot experience or skill does not enter into the decision as to if an aircraft is serviceable or not.

If the aircraft is serviceable then every pilot can fly it. If it is not serviceable then no pilot can fly it.

Regards,

DFC

[foxmoth]

A reason for this could be a lack of aerodynamic warning or other issues that can be worked round by giving the pilot a clear warning of an approaching stall.

Whilst I agree that it can be a certification issue and limiting for this reason,there are very few modern training aircraft that are lacking in aerodynamic warning (how many instructors would be unhappy in a modern Piper or Cessna with the warner u/s?). The only aircraft I have flown that was lacking in aerodynamic warning was the Emeraude and that did not have a warner fitted anyway! This does show though that a proper MEL is a good system and takes the guesswork out of it.:hmm:

[Steevee]

I'm not an instructor, just a PPL, who recently took off with another PPL in an aircraft in which there was a slight smell of fuel in the cockpit. We had agreed during the checks that the smell had been caused by a spillage onto his clothing when he was refuelling. Half an hour later we were both feeling seriously woozy from breathing in fumes. We ended up declaring an emergency and landing at an RAF base. It turned out that the fuel primer line was leaking. We’d done the A check and everything had checked out as fine. I have since wondered whether and how we could have known about the defect before departing.

[What time is ECT?]

The bread and butter of General Aviation is people who have money and want to spend it flying with their friends and family. However, their passengers may not have done much flying in light aircraft.

To a newbie (be it a guest or student) what do minor defects indicate? Do they not indicate that there is a "couldn't care less" attitude, or a "shee'll be right" attitude? Unless you have been hooked or indoctrinated otherwise, it is far easier to NOT fly if you value your life.

In the long run, you will find that there is far more customer satisfaction and repeat custom with those who FEEL that the aircraft are maintained to a very high standard. With all the negative hype that the media expounds, we all know that flying is NOT SAFE. Therefore it is our job to convince otherwise.

It might be a small cost to replace a light bulb, or have that funny noise checked out, but I feel that in the long run, it will actually increase the profits through increased flying hours and word-of-mouth referrals.

The same goes for the state of the offices and facilities. First impressions count.

ECT?

[BigEndBob]

My biggest irritation is interior panels that are cracked and falling apart.
They are relatively, in aviation terms, cheap to buy and make a lot of difference to the overall feeling of an aircraft being well maintained.

[foxmoth]

ECT.
It does not matter how well maintained a fleet is, you are still at times going to end up with minor defects - half way through the day someone may check a landing light and the bulb blows, or the pitot heat burns out etc. etc. Whilst it may be ideal to get these sorted straight away, even the simplest job will take the aircraft out of service for half an hour or so - not ideal on a fully booked sunny Sunday even if you have the engineers and parts available, which is often not the case. Some defects are inevitable at times and you need to know what you can and can't accept when this happens.

[What time is ECT?]

FOXMOTH - I agree totally. The big picture is important. However, simple items placarded U/S for months or no perceived action is a turn off. Good observation though.

BIGENDBOB - Unfortunately a complete set of panels will set you back financially a LONG way. The alternative is to repair or make your own. If you dissolve some panel scraps in MEK and use it as glue, then you can stick the panels back together. Some silver tape on the inside for strength and spray paint outside completes the look. If you need to mould a missing part, the plastic that they use is available in sheets and mouldable with a heat gun on low heat. Hope this helps. P.S. interior mouldings come under pilot maintenance in New Zealand (CAR Part 43, appendix G)

ECT?

[Genghis the Engineer]

It's buried in the paperwork somewhat, but you do have an MEL.

If you dig into the TCDS, it (or one of the referenced documents) should list the minimum instrument fit on the aircraft. If you don't have that list serviceable then legally the CofA is invalid.

A lot of faff to prove it, and arguably you're better playing the safety card, but that's the legality of the situation.

G

[BigEndBob]

ECT

http://www.planeplastic.com/index.asp

Don't seem too expensive.

Its only the few around the doors, door panels that usually break up.

[Centaurus]

If you experienced severe nose wheel shimmy which stopped if you use back elevator to keep the nose in the air (take off or landing) - would you write up the defect if there were more bookings that day on that aircraft? Discuss. Can severe nose wheel shimmy cause potentially other serious effects if allowed to continue? Cracked Engine mountings maybe? Torsion twisting of the fin perhaps?

Or would you keep quiet about it and let the next pilot find out for himself, just like you did.

[Whopity]

All aircraft used in flying clubs and available for hire must be maintained to Public Transport standards. There is a very useful document, CAP 520 http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP520.PDF in which Part 1 explains the owners responsibilities. It also provides guidance on Technical Logs and defect sheets.

[huv]

Had an examiner fail a PPL-applicant because he did not abort a takeoff when oil pressure crept up past redline, by about a needle-width. We (instructors) were annoyed with that at first, but then realised we had been teaching the students that engine instrument reading a bit outside "green" could be acceptable. A lesson for the school - the applicant paid deerly.

[IO540]

As a mere former PPL student, my experience is that defects are a way of life, and one is in a poor position to query them, short of walking out and going to another school. There is a lot of politics involved in that, because schools tend to stick together and don't like students doing this.

The previous school might "lose" some previously passed exam results, to make a point :)

The CAA 50hr checks mean nothing. I have flown planes with bare-end wires hanging in in the engine compartment, and the FI didn't give a damn. The checks just make sure the controls work and the wings are screwed on, more or less. The service firms are under pressure from schools to do a quick job and do it cheap, so only the absolute minimum gets done.

The industry gets away with it because structural/control failures are extremely rare in fixed-wing planes and as a result the planes are just about impossible to get to crash by themselves - the pilot has to do it himself :) Even the most battered 1970 C150 will be safe to fly, and it would probably be safe even if it didn't the inside of a workshop for many years; with just a squirt of WD40 here and there. And if you started with a new plane, it's unlikely that it would develop a dangerous fault for 10+ years.

Same with cars; structural failures barely feature in accident stats. The real difference between aviation and the motor trade is that the former cowboys are tighly regulated.

[LD Max]

I, personally, do not have a problem writing up an aircraft if it deserves it.

However, a couple of cautionary tales...

As a 35 Hr PPL, I was off on my QXC. When taxiing to the hold, I applied the brakes and "felt" something go "ping" through the pedals. :ooh: (Sorry but that's the best description I have). So I taxied back and reported in to the engineer. There followed many :rolleyes: a few := and a couple of :mad: . Eventually after taxiing the plane once around the ramp, said engineer pronounced it :ok: .

First land away, I almost came off the runway as the Stbd brakes were almost totally ineffective in the rollout.

Now, I KNEW there was something wrong - even after the engineer had coerced me into taking the aircraft anyway. But I bowed to his greater experience and very nearly came unstuck. It turned out that one of the two bolts which holds the brake caliper together had sheared.

Student 1, Engineer 0.

From that point on, I vowed to have the courage of my convictions, and that was sorely tested about 2 years later.

Now as a fully qualified CPL/IR, I was undertaking my JAA FI instructor course in the US. The aircraft was parked overnight away from base. Upon walking out to the PA28 to do my morning checks before the FIC arrived, I noticed a "creak" coming from the Port wing. It so happened that I had left the brakes on - actually due to my earlier incident 2 years previously, so that I could visually identify a sheared caliper bolt. I'd got as far as the prop and was giving it a good push/pull to check for any play in the crankshaft. The aircraft was, of course, rocking back and forth on the brakes.

Well this creak caught my attention so, of course, I checked the brakes first. But the creak was coming from above, apparently within the wing itself. Curious, I lifted the "gas" cover above the oleo strut on top of the wing and while rocking the plane back and forth, observed slight movement of the gas nipple on top of the oleo. It was very slight but was best observed when referenced against the edge of the hole in the skin where the cover was supposed to fit. The creak apparently corresponded with the location and the small amount of displacement. In turn, this suggested that the oleo appeared to have some movement. Was this normal when rocking on the brakes? I had no idea.

So I called over a friendly engineer from a nearby hanger. He checked both sides. Definate movement in the port side with a creak. No visible movement in the starboard side and no creak.

His opinion was that it needed proper inspection before flight, which meant getting it up on jacks and removing some panels. This, of course, was a problem because the plane was not at it's home base. When the FIC arrived, (15,000 Hrs + experience), he looked at it and pronounced it unsatisfactory also.

Phone call to the flight school, explaining the problem in as much detail as possible. "Fly it back and we'll look at it", was the response. "No way", I said. Eventually, they sent their own engineer - accompanied by a PPL pilot, (not a student). Guess what? Engineer kicks the tyres, say's it's okay and gets the PPL to fly it back to base while HE drives back in the truck.

Next evening, same plane is out on the line ready to be hired.

So, I kick up a fuss. The engineer kicks up a :mad: :mad: :mad: fuss, going on about his 30 years of engineering experience against my 2 years as a pilot. Threatens to "make sure I never fly at that school again"! The flight school owner tries his best to calm things down and assures me that it will be looked at. However, to make sure... the problem gets "written up". In FAA world, that (should) ground the plane until the engineeer signs it off.

The engineer then says there's nothing to stop him just tearing up the report and binning it!!! :eek: It is worth pointing out that the owner knows absolutely NOTHING about aircraft and depends 100% on his engineer's competance. Since I now have substantial reason to doubt the engineer's competance, accordingly I make discreet enquiries with an FAA Engineering inspector at the local safety center. The FAA inspector promptly calls the owner, and the owner bars me from the school for "shopping them to the FAA". Another FAA inspector then attends the school and inspects the plane.

After all that... the FAA agree that there's nothing wrong with the plane. The engineer is "vindicated" and I am the villain!

Engineer: 10 Student: 1

Moral of the story?

Beats me.

[BigEndBob]

Any mechanical device will give plenty of warning of inpending doom.
Might be unusual vibration, sound, etc.
Could be excessive oil burn, plugs fouling.
I instructed on a PA28 with an engine that didn't quite sound right.
Sure enough several hours later i was in a field.
Go with your gut instinct, if it don't feel right..don't fly it.

[SNS3Guppy]

This got me thinking - since becoming an FI I have had to put up with many small defects including missing or inop nav equipment, balding tyres, dead lights, knackered seats, the list goes on.

Obviously the overriding issue is safety but on the other hand if I refuse to fly because a nav light is not working then I can't afford to pay the rent so that would be silly.


As a flight instructor, not only do you NOT have to put up with these things, you have an obligation to set an example for your student by insisting that these problems are properly deferred, or repaired, or you merely refuse the aircraft. Set and live by the standards of a professional NOW.

You can't afford to pay the rent because you insist on operating professionally? You don't need to refuse to fly the airplane because a nav light is inop...you need to insist it gets fixed.

[martinidoc]

The PoH or Manual will contain details of defects which may be deferred and what flight conditions are permissible. At our FTO, this is supplemented for local operations and includes details of what defects may be deferred for PPLs,FIs and Students (e.g. U/S stall warner No students). This is good risk management practice and gets round the problem of making decisions on an ad hoc basis, implying to students that there is a carefree attitude toward A/C servicability, whilst still permitting flights to be undertaken safely.

[Surestick]

One thing that hasn't been noted here is the danger in getting used to seeing stuff U/S on a school's fleet of planes.
I remember renting the C152 Aerobat from my flight-school a few years ago & during preflight noticing that the G meter hand that stays at the max # of Gs pulled was a bit over the max rated & dismissed it with a "huh, must be broken" (which wouldn't have been unusual for that school).
After coming back from my flight my instructor asked me about it as he was concerned as to why I hadn't said anything about it. Turns out that someone had apparently scared themselves a bit a week or so before in it. The aircraft had been inspected & was safe but he was a bit concerned as to why I had flown it w/o checking.

I think that had that school's fleet been in better shape I would probably have said something.

[Whopity]

Since engineering responsibility moved to EASA, the CAA Surveyors have started walking into flying schools and inspecting the aircraft and documentation; one or two schools have already had a nasty shock!

[BEagle]

And haven't you made yourself popular in the process of doing so!