PDA

View Full Version : The Independent: Pilots ignore alerts over faulty planes


TheAmbler
18th Jul 2008, 09:37
Morning.

I usually let my colleague Shoey do the posting here, but I wondered what the forum made of this little number in the Independent today:

Pilots ignore alerts over faulty planes - This Britain, UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/pilots-ignore-alerts-over-faulty-planes-870832.html)

The AEI quotes a figure of 80-90% of faults unreported until the end of the day's sectors. Could any of these be serious enough in your experience to force an aircraft to go 'tech'.

Should a non-urgent fault be reported immediately? How does this work in practice?

Any advice gratefully received.

FL370 Officeboy
18th Jul 2008, 09:48
Is anybody stupid enough to believe that pilots would fly an aircraft they didn't deem safe?? I value my life rather highly thank you.

fireflybob
18th Jul 2008, 09:57
More unnecessary scaremongering by the newspapers - are they short of news at the moment?

Re-Heat
18th Jul 2008, 09:58
It states midway through the article that such claims have been made for a while, but no evidence found to support such claims.

It also glosses over / omits any understanding of minimum equipment or permitted deferred defects.

A fishing expedition by the Independent I would conclude.

TRIM-RUN
18th Jul 2008, 10:02
Quote:

found many pilots only reported faults such as brake fluid leaks and loss of cabin pressure after their homebound flight or after the day's flights.

......................

Quote:

The organisation behind the investigation said that the Helios airliner crash in 2005, when a Boeing 737 crashed into a Greek hillside, killing all 121 on board, was partly caused by a failure to report a fault. In a catalogue of errors in the run-up to the crash, the pilots failed to record an error in resetting a crucial air-conditioning switch. Soon after the airliner took off from Cyprus, the crew and passengers passed out because of a lack of oxygen.
:ugh::ugh:

I hope the people named in this fairytale (article) are aware of the context their comments are being used in.

foxmoth
18th Jul 2008, 10:08
In my experience the only occasion this really happens is when you get a problem at the end of a sector that is an acceptable defect but you do not have engineering at the airfield you are at, in these circumstances the Captain should enter the defect into the tech. log and defer it for rectification at base, many of course then just leave it until back at base anyway because entering it down route actually achieves very little apart from paperwork!:}

TheAmbler
18th Jul 2008, 10:22
Regarding the source of the story. Not an 'Independent' fishing trip/investigation but a press release from the AEI. Copied below.

I don't know this organisation well, hence my request for your responses

CAPELLE AAN DEN IJSSEL, The Netherlands, July 15 /PRNewswire/ -- Earlier
this year AEI the global body representing Aircraft Maintenance
Engineers requested its members to check as many aircraft logbooks as
possible within the airlines they work for, in order to investigate if Pilots
are reporting defects as they occur. As reported in earlier AEI Press
Releases http://www.airengineers.org/AEI-press-releases , it can now be
confirmed the majority of European Pilots do not always report defects as and
when they occur. They are delayed until it is more convenient for the
airlines to carry out repairs.


This selective reporting creates a situation where aircraft regularly
take-off in an unsafe condition. Great concern is the continuous
looking-in-the-opposite-direction behaviour by the regulators who despite
being informed about this practice choose not to act. In October 2007 AEI
challenged all European Authorities, to carry out a logbook review of the
airlines under their control. Not one single European authority indicated
that they would be prepared to take up our challenge, ignoring the safety
implication.


This shocking lack of response from the regulators makes it clear to us
that they do not want to open "Pandora's box" as it will reveal some unwanted
truths about abused regulation. AEI is concerned that European Authorities
and Inspectors have allowed themselves to become too close to those airlines
they should be regulating.


AEI last year suggested to the European Transport Committee that less
than 50% of audit findings uncovered in 2006 had actually been resolved.
Unfortunately AEI has strong reasons to believe that this year is no better.


Unfortunately the European regulatory structure to protect European
citizens is nothing more than a toothless tiger when called to react. The
system takes far too long to correct anomalies, is susceptible to politics
and the controlling organisation (the EU) does not have the flexibility to
act when actually needed. Furthermore the backbone of the regulatory
structure, accountability, is nonexistent. The recent investigation into the
Helios tragedy is an excellent example. The official report is critical of
the regulating authorities both national and international, but nothing of
any significance has really changed or improved and nobody has yet been held
accountable.


Such failings of regulatory oversight leaves the European Travelling
public unaware and uncertain if the airlines they use are in fact fulfilling
their obligations by operating to the required levels of safety. Such
failings also significantly increase the "risks" associated with flying.


At this year's AEI congress in Malmo, Sweden, AEI will again be
highlighting these failings and reminding the Authorities and EU Transport
Committee of their responsibilities.


It seems they may have lost sight of the fact that air safety is no
accident.

757_Driver
18th Jul 2008, 10:32
Its in the Independent - which is actually slightly to the left of the socialist worker, and has a well known editorial anti-aviation stance, and very poor standards of journolism (a bit like the BBC really)

Its a pity all these parasitic journos don't realise that they are reliant on the rest of the economy for their jobs and livelyhoods (as they are entirely parasitic and contribute nothing to the economy) and a such should really attempt to speak positivly of the industries that are suffering during these hard times. But nope, yet more attempts to bash the aviation industry.

PAXboy
18th Jul 2008, 10:36
Pax speaking

This is a pi$$ing contest between Aircraft Engineers International (AEI) and the companies that employ their members. AEI have involved the regulator so as to strengthen their position, ALEA are also in the game to promote their members.

The engineers, understandably, wish to demonstrate that their members have the best interests of the clients (pax) at heart and that cost cutting measures should not be made in engineering.

From the article:
CAA said it carried out inspections of logbooks and was satisfied with its safety measures. Richard Taylor, a spokesman, said: "The AEI have been making these claims for some time, but they have so far failed to provide us with specific examples. We have carried out our own checks and have found no discrepancies. If they do have any documentary evidence that anyone is failing to report faults, they have a duty to pass on this information to us. Information can be passed to us in complete confidence." But Robert Alway, head of Alea, which represents 2,000 maintenance engineers in the United Kingdom, said that his members had come under pressure from employers for revealing fault data.We shall never know the truth about this matter.

mad_jock
18th Jul 2008, 10:43
I think Carolyn sum's it up nicely

Balpa, which represents British pilots, said members were doing nothing wrong. Carolyn Evans, head of flight safety, said: "Planes are allowed to fly with certain minor defects and pilots make their report at the end of their operations for the day. For any major faults, the aircraft is grounded straight away."


Maybe someone needs to show a reporter what its like to defer a Cat D defect during a 30min turn round. Also the fact that leaving it to the end of the techlog sheet or the day finish on most time expired defects actually doesn't give any advantage to the crew or company as the expiry time starts at midnight.

yamaha
18th Jul 2008, 11:13
This seems to be like most "yes they do" "no they don't" scenarios.
The claim and counter claim's will continue for a while before the truth is revealed.

From where I am sitting though, why would anybody make such a claim if there is absolutely no truth in it?

Who has most to lose, who has most to gain?
Engineers would lose complete respect if untrue as would pilots if true.
As this seems to be engineers making claims (according to the Independent), my money would be on the claims being true.

Itswindyout
18th Jul 2008, 11:31
why enter a defect, if it grounds the aircraft away from base.

wait until you have a full sheet of paper, and then enter Tech Log, the day of your C check.



windy

Cyclone733
18th Jul 2008, 11:44
the pilots failed to record an error in resetting a crucial air-conditioning switch

How would this have prevented the accident? IIRC the conditioning switch was left out of postion after checks on the ground and therefore wasn't a defect left unreported for a couple of flights. You could of course use this to write an article on the dangers of reporting faults I suppose...

TyroPicard
18th Jul 2008, 12:11
foxmoth
because entering it down route actually achieves very little apart from paperwork!
And of course compliance with the law of the land, which is why aviation is so safe.
TP

Mercenary Pilot
18th Jul 2008, 12:16
the pilots failed to record an error in resetting a crucial air-conditioning switch

Nonsense. The engineer left the pressurisation control in manual. Short version: When the pilots did their checks, they didn't do them properly and the control was left in manual. When when the warnings went off due to the aircraft not pressurising properly, they did not follow procedures and ended up losing conscious due to the effects of hypoxia. Helios learnt the hard way that good pilots are cheaper in the long run.

Anyway, i'm digressing. Bottom line, The Helios accident has nothing to do with the rest of the article in the Independant, its just sloppy reporting.

I know what the article is getting at but it is sensationalism in the extreme. Pilots are probably the most trusted professionals in the public's eyes and there's a good reason behind it. We do not take chances with human lives and would certainly not risk our licences and careers by flying an aircraft which is not airworthy. If the engineers union want us to keep their members busy chasing up part numbers for speed-bugs, light bulbs and other non essential items during turn arounds then so be it. :p

yamaha
18th Jul 2008, 12:17
surprised this hasn't drawn a comment

The budget airline Ryanair said it had not seen the pattern of reporting AEI alleged but that it was "aware that it was a problem for other airlines".

So it's true

RED WINGS
18th Jul 2008, 15:14
Strange I would assume Ryanair to be the worst offender of such crimes! Lets face it most places they go dont have proper terminal or ATC facilities let alone engineering! Did hear from people that escaped that the pilots were made to perform certain engineering functions! Would you trust a pilot with a screwdriver? Doesnt really matter if you do or not pilots are not allowed to carry a screw driver through security anyway!:}

Day_Dreamer
18th Jul 2008, 18:53
Red Wings
Are you stupid or just plain ignorant.
Your statement concerning Ryanair and defects, airports, ATC etc are totally inaccurate.
Their standards (RYR) are some of the highest in the industry, the aircraft carry few if any deferred defects, and the engineering is excellent.
Smaller airports have limited facilities yes, that's normal for regional airports but they are licenced by their respective aviation authorities, and approved for Ryanair's operations by the IAA.
The airports are more cost effective than major hubs, that's why they are used for a low cost operation.
Flights can transit through these airports quicker than through a large airport and the same can be said for the passengers.
I fly (Flight Crew) for a living and travel with Ryanair on my European trips.

flt_lt_w_mitty
18th Jul 2008, 19:03
DDAre you stupid or just plain ignorant. - as ??'flight crew'?? you may wish to think again about that? The point RW was making was that ANY airline, with no engineering support contract at some of its destinations (ie engineer on 'call out'= expensive and big delay) MIGHT just have the odd defect 'carried' home?

Please note I have not used the 'R' word.

glad rag
18th Jul 2008, 19:24
RW, sorry but your way off the mark here.

NIMBLE
18th Jul 2008, 19:35
Its great to see the Ryanair knockers at work so quickly on this thread.Anyone who works for Ryanair and has worked in other companies will tell you from a maintenence point of view those airplanes are completely clean and you would never feel pressured to carry anything. Its the one area that money is no object.
Suppose Ryanair are to blame for the high price of oil too???????????

OFSO
18th Jul 2008, 19:54
I spent 25 years in the aerospace industry where good voice procedures from a professional mission control team could mean the difference between success or the loss of a spacecraft costing millions.

Applying those same standards to their ATC voice procedures at my local hub, Ryanair crew are excellently trained and highly professional.

Oh yes, and as a very frequent SLF with FR I don't have any complaints either.

Can we please cut the spurious snide remarks against Ryanair ? Or present facts to bolster your comments ?

RaF

tflier
18th Jul 2008, 20:18
In my opinion, for what it's worth, there's an awful lot of 'reduced' maintenance going on at the moment, with carriers that can ill afford it. Remember one incident to a lot of carriers these days will be their last, but i'm fed up with banging my head against the wall. As we all know safety is number one, and when engineering do not recognise this, its time for them to sit at FL350, with that rather odd smell permeating around them.............if you know what I mean. 25 years after my first solo I would have hoped that in the UK it would be getting better.:ugh:

Mr.Brown
18th Jul 2008, 21:25
This is a pi$$ing contest between Aircraft Engineers International (AEI) and the companies that employ their members. AEI have involved the regulator so as to strengthen their position, ALEA are also in the game to promote their members.


I would not describe it as a pi$$ing contest. The bean counters in every airline see engineering as a major drain on finances and if they had their way the engineer would be no longer. The airlines have been continuously attempting to dumb down the maintenance process in order to save money and reduce the influence of the licenced engineer.
To quote mercenary pilot Pilots are probably the most trusted professionals in the public's eyes and there's a good reason behind it.
The public are not as aware of how important the engineer is in the day to day safety of aircraft as they are the pilot. The AEI and ALAE are trying to protect its members by highlighting a very real issue. Regardless of how serious the defect is, it legally has to be entered in the tech log.
To quote MP again If the engineers union want us to keep their members busy chasing up part numbers for speed-bugs, light bulbs and other non essential items during turn arounds then so be it.
Thats excatly what they want so the airlines realise they do not have enough engineers to carry out all the required maintenance.

Commercial pressures are there every day in our jobs, and with airlines margins getting smaller and smaller with competition and fuel prices etc etc we all need to be aware of our responsibilities:

Flight Safety Foundation’s “Certifier’s Oath:
Upon My Honour, I swear that I shall hold in sacred trust the rights and privileges conferred upon me as a certifier. Knowing full well that the safety and lives of others are dependent upon my skill and judgement, I shall never knowingly subject others to risks which I would not be willing to assume for myself, or those dear to me. In discharging this trust, I pledge myself never to undertake work or approve work which I feel to be beyond the limits of my knowledge, nor shall I allow any non-certified superior to persuade me to approve aircraft or equipment as airworthy against my better judgement, nor shall I permit my judgement to be influenced by money or other personal gain, nor shall I pass as airworthy aircraft or equipment about which I am in doubt, either as a result of direct inspection or uncertainty regarding the ability of others who have worked on it to accomplish their work satisfactorily. I realise the grave responsibility which is mine as a certifier, to exercise my judgement on the airworthiness of aircraft and equipment. I therefore, pledge unyielding adherence to these ideals for the advancement of aviation and for the dignity of my vocation".

Jet II
19th Jul 2008, 09:54
Balpa, which represents British pilots, said members were doing nothing wrong. Carolyn Evans, head of flight safety, said: "Planes are allowed to fly with certain minor defects and pilots make their report at the end of their operations for the day. For any major faults, the aircraft is grounded straight away."

Strange thing for BALPA to say. When did the law change that allows Flight Crew discretion on when to report defects?

Does this also now apply at outstations? - can the write up of defects be deferred a couple of days until the aircraft gets home?

G.O.G.
19th Jul 2008, 11:56
Well Well as usual you lot just fell for it hook line and sinker some one publishes a little snippet and all you super heros are so busy putting your wonderful ideas to paper. why on earth dont you just ignore it ? I would not even soil my botty by using that grubby little newspaper in the bog house
G.O.G.

snarfel
19th Jul 2008, 16:52
Just as a reminder, aircraft maintenance experts from around the world were holding a conference in London in September 2007 to discuss what they describe as “a worrying downtrend in standards” in aircraft maintenance across Europe. More on Flight News | “Worrying downtrend“ in European aviation maintenance (http://www.easier.com/view/Travel/Flights/News/article-139295.htm).

Should their (above as “grubby” labelled) message be ignored? I don’t think, this is wise.

Two's in
19th Jul 2008, 18:14
The article fails to recognize the obvious flaw in the argument - if an aircraft was put at risk due to the Commander making a flawed or unauthorized engineering decision, the responsible person will arrive at the scene of the accident about 120ft before the unwitting pax.

As for this bunch of jokers (AEI) stirring up the usual tosh about the professionalism or integrity of Flight crew versus that of Engineers, it's the same as the old joke about the pig and the chicken's contribution to a bacon and egg breakfast - the pig is committed, the chicken is interested (Flt Engineers excepted).

The story itself is of course true. Of course snags are carried, of course the aircraft miraculously goes U/S upon RTB, but there is nothing random or unprofessional in the way it happens. Start telling 180 sun-seekers they are stopping in Malaga at 3am for a blown logo light and see how much the appreciation of the finer skills of licensed engineers versus a few thousand hours of line experience from the front seat works out for you.

Re-Heat
19th Jul 2008, 18:15
The bean counters in every airline see engineering as a major drain on finances and if they had their way the engineer would be no longer.
What tosh Mr Brown. Any "beancounter" (as you so disparagingly refer to them) worth his/her salt would know that the long-term costs can be lowered by higher maintenance standards today - such as ETOPS maintenance of non-ETOPS aircraft.

Go back in your box or evidence your defamatory remark.

MidgetBoy
19th Jul 2008, 18:16
How often are aircraft even being reported to have leaking cabin pressure?
For some reason I've always had more breathing problems in an airliner than in a C172 w/o oxygen at 10,000 ft.
Or at least the lack of oxygen is more noticeable.

FullWings
19th Jul 2008, 18:39
Strange thing for BALPA to say. When did the law change that allows Flight Crew discretion on when to report defects?
Hasn't changed - AFAIK you've always been allowed to carry forward certain classes of defect.

Does this also now apply at outstations? - can the write up of defects be deferred a couple of days until the aircraft gets home?
Depends. "non-airworthiness" or "no maintenance" actions can usually be legally brought home if it's going to be a problem documenting/fixing them at an outstation. Procedurally, *everything* should go in the tech. log at the end of the sector but *practically*, if an item is going to be deferred anyway, why delay a flight for what is only a paperwork exercise? The common ground here is safety: if writing up a problem leaves the aircraft in exactly the same state afterwards, apart from being late, I can see why things get reported nearer the end of the day...

1800ed
19th Jul 2008, 18:39
It's interesting to read just how much rubbish gets printed in these comics these days. As soo as I read the part about air conditioning providing oxygen I closed my browser window.

What a load of junk. Are all journalists completely incompitent at writing something factual, or do they believe that the average IQ in this country is so low that every single item in the news needs to be 'dumbed down'.

Rant over :}

Mr.Brown
19th Jul 2008, 21:27
What tosh Mr Brown. Any "beancounter" (as you so disparagingly refer to them) worth his/her salt would know that the long-term costs can be lowered by higher maintenance standards today - such as ETOPS maintenance of non-ETOPS aircraft.

Go back in your box or evidence your defamatory remark.

http://www.airengineers.org/docs/technical/mechanic_ranks_fall_drastically_at_northwest_airlines.pdf

http://www.airengineers.org/docs/internal/from_the_aei_secretary_general.pdf

http://www.airengineers.org/docs/news/aircraft_maintenance_engineer_shortage.pdf

Evidence suggests that although the "Beancounters" are fully aware of the problem, they are not doing much about it. So if you don't mind Re-Heat I'll stay on my "box" a little longer.

As for this bunch of jokers (AEI) stirring up the usual tosh about the professionalism or integrity of Flight crew versus that of Engineers

Actually Two's in they are trying to highlight the issue of Pilots being under commercial pressure also. If you read the article below from one of the AEI members; they are not trying to stirr it up between the two professions:
http://www.airengineers.org/docs/news/paper_tigers1.pdf

We are on the same side here, safety first ALWAYS
Its not about you or me, him, her, us or them. This is really about money and safety and where we should draw the line and in the current economic climate we are all coming under more and more pressure with less resources at our disposal. All I can say is "Watch your back" because some of these airlines may well be gone soon and lets hope we all at least still have our licences if not our jobs.

mrpinks
19th Jul 2008, 21:31
Are all journalists completely incompitent at writing something

probably but at least they can spall

exeng
20th Jul 2008, 00:11
I'll expand a little for the benefit of interested parties:

In all the airlines I've flown for since 1976 (which are very few - actually 3 directly and about 7 or 8 on ACMI - BA and QF being the main carriers I worked directly for) it was (and is) common practice to enter defects back into base where appropriate.

'Where appropriate' means that as the Captain I am not going to ground the aircraft for a defect that can be deferred by a simple signature with a biro - I fly the aircraft back to base and enter the defect on the leg back.

If the defect affects fllight safety it goes into the tech log immediately and the aircraft is grounded.

By not entering the defect that 'does not affect slight safety' into the tech log on the sector that the defect occurs I am tecnically 'breaking the law'. I have discussed this matter with two CAA Flight Ops Inspectors who a)recognise why it happens, and b) understand the need commercially.

The Engineers (I was an LAE) are kicking up a fuss about nothing that has been going on for years. All they may achieve is a rule change that allows these practices. Their fuss may prompt a rule change that allows Captains to make decisions on serviceabily regarding engineering - that would be a backwards step in regard to safety. BE VERY CAREFUL IN WHAT YOU WISH FOR ASI


Regards
Exeng

spotwind
20th Jul 2008, 02:04
Dear independant,

Just a thought, How many crashes, near misses, and throroughly scary headline grabbing events (close to schools and built up areas if you prefer) have you reported on since you came into print that were the direct result of flight crews flying with defects permitted under the MEL for that aircraft ? :rolleyes:


Dear Yamaha,

Ive read some of your other posts... you really do have a problem with airlines in general, eh? Give it a rest. ta.:ugh:

There may be paperwork etc etc however, I do not believe the professional guys I work with fly aircraft with problems that threaten lives of pax and crews alike. :=

end of.

foxmoth
20th Jul 2008, 05:54
why enter a defect, if it grounds the aircraft away from base.

Itswindyout - If the defect would ground the aircraft then it should be entered and the aircraft grounded, if it is not an ADD, then there is usually a reason for it and not entering this would justify the Independents article. Of course all defects should legally be entered but as many have said, something that the pilot himself can defer is often not done until back at base to keep things simple, and whilst strictly speaking it should be done downroute it makes no difference in practice.

FE Hoppy
20th Jul 2008, 06:45
How often are aircraft even being reported to have leaking cabin pressure?
For some reason I've always had more breathing problems in an airliner than in a C172 w/o oxygen at 10,000 ft.
Or at least the lack of oxygen is more noticeable.

Sounds like you don't like paxing!!

If your cabin alt was 10'000ft on an airliner you would hear the distant sound of cabin warnings from the cockpit.

I suggest you buy yourself a watch with altimeter function and monitor the cabin alt on your next flight. This should put you mind at rest and ease your breathing problems.

I would also recommend a trip to your flight doc to check your health.
:ugh:

411A
20th Jul 2008, 07:12
Personally, I have a very simple answer when the Flight Engineer mentions that a particular system has a fault...'put it in the tech log, now.'
If he, for some reason declines, I take the tech log and write it in, myself.
End of story.
It is then up to the company (or contract) maintenence engineers to either fix the defect -or- sign off the aircraft, in accordance with the MEL/CDL.

Ah ha, I can hear you say, 411A is a hard-nosed SOB.
Yep, sure am, where maintenance is concerned.
However, as we carry our own maintenence engineers, this seldom becomes a problem.

Yes, the company has to make a profit, but it will absolutely not do so at my (maintenance) expense.
Case closed.

OTOH, 411A has been known to be of great assistance to ground engineers.
Example.
No oil pressure light on the CAWP for engine number one.
No light test either.
GE goes out to have a look at the Cannon plug on the oil pressure transmitter.
I tell him not to bother, first go down in the FESC, pull out the relavant ILCB and use a soft pencil eraser to clean the contacts.
He does so, problem solved.

Make no mistake, pilots should (need) to get somewhat involved with the maintenance folks, at least to report defects properly, and lets face facts...it takes two to tango.
In short, give the guys a break, they work hard.

Mr.Brown
20th Jul 2008, 08:38
The Engineers (I was an LAE) are kicking up a fuss about nothing that has been going on for years. All they may achieve is a rule change that allows these practices. Their fuss may prompt a rule change that allows Captains to make decisions on serviceabily regarding engineering - that would be a backwards step in regard to safety. BE VERY CAREFUL IN WHAT YOU WISH FOR ASI
In all the airlines I've flown for since 1976 (which are very few - actually 3 directly and about 7 or 8 on ACMI - BA and QF being the main carriers I worked directly for) it was (and is) common practice to enter defects back into base where appropriate.

'Where appropriate' means that as the Captain I am not going to ground the aircraft for a defect that can be deferred by a simple signature with a biro - I fly the aircraft back to base and enter the defect on the leg back.


exeng, you already are making those decisions and you break the law now by not entering the defect. A law change to that effect is only going to move the goal posts, and make an illegal act legal, It would also highlight the real influence the airlines have on the decision making process in relation to passenger safety verses money. And that would really show everyone how the EASA and all the NAA's treat safety....

45989
20th Jul 2008, 12:32
G O G well said!! Then the wafflers need an outlet...............

The Real Slim Shady
20th Jul 2008, 15:17
Just to put TheAmbler, Shoey, Flt Lt W Mitty and everyone else's minds at ease regarding Ryanair, out of the way airports and no engineering cover........we don't have the option of carrying defects.

On shutdown the aircraft automatically "phones home" - we can't stop it - and downloads all the maintenance and FDM data.

Last time I had a defect away from base Maintrol had arranged for a 737 engineer from another company - the guy was waiting on the airbridge for the pax to get off - before I had the opportunity to call them and let them know the aircraft was tech. Ops had grounded the jet by the time I called asking for a flight plan delay.

northern boy
20th Jul 2008, 18:56
Sorry the Indy is a well known mouthpiece for the anti aviation brigade and have been for a number of years, I wouldn't belive them if they said Sunday is the day after Saturday when it comes to technical matters. They must be loving this column, pilots fighting each other, soon they will be able to claim that we can't agree on basic procedures and so we must be destroying the planet. The (in)dependent is only useful to wrap chips in or to use as bog roll afterwards.

PS if guardsman is reading this and feels compelled to have another pop at my sanity, give it your worst my son. I think we all know exactly what you represent.

cockney steve
20th Jul 2008, 19:55
I paxed last year, Ryanair, Limoges-Liverpool...the flight was completely full apart from about four seats which had "out of service" /"do not use this seat" or some similarly worded cards on them. I wound up being last seated, the window-seat next to me ,had such a notice and as far as I could ascertain, in all cases , the tray-table catch was broken. A bit of Gaffer-tape to hold them up, and MOL could have made a few bob more!

I saw no evidence of poor maintenance and was a damn sight happier than on a Viscount flight ,many years ago, where the rubber under a wing-patch was pulling out into the slipstream...the Stewardess was totally unfazed and no doubt the Captain was never told about the loosely rivetted patch.

We landed, I'm still here. I have absoloute faith in any western-world carriers' captains decision as to "what is safe"....As a previous poster remarked
He sees the results of his decisions about 120' before the pax.

Yes, journalism does have poor standards where the reality of these situations are concerned...if they didn't "sex it up" they'd sell less papers.

Therefore, it's not "sloppy" reporting,- more that they don't let reality spoil a good story.

drivez
20th Jul 2008, 20:29
The article sites the Helios crash as related to this apparent problem, the problem correct me if i'm wrong was reported as a faulty rear door to engineers who then presurised and de-presurised the cabin to check whether or not the door was indeed faulty the then apparently left the switch on manual not switch it back to auto, this was then missed in pre-flight and the rest is history. So this was not pilots not reporting a problem but a different problem. So why are they siting this.

Why is it always the independent that come out with these bull stories.

stator vane
20th Jul 2008, 20:45
i confess--both hands up.

i flew an airplane last week, my seat back wouldn't adjust far enough back to slump down into the usual pilot partially incapacitated attitude.

i flew the flights assigned and wrote it up when finished at night.

oh god, do i feel better now!

what i didn't write up was that silly number two engine that just keep shutting itself down at the strangest times--like takeoff!!! but everyone knows about it already and are used to it!!! ha.

Tako Yaki
22nd Jul 2008, 04:27
Of course it happens, we all know it happens, and it will no doubt continue to happen.

But, really there is no need. The ANO allows, and the majority of companies will have procedures based upon this, that when you have a defect at a station with no engineering support, the capt can defer said item(without the issue of a CRS) with the support and agreement of Maintenance Control to the next station where engineers are available, who will then carry out the the appropriate action and issue the required CRS.

On the legality of not entering a defect in the tlog, the ANO gives some wriggle room:

quote

15 Technical Log
.........
(4) Subject to paragraph (5), at the end of every flight by an aircraft to which this article applies the commander shall enter in the technical log or the approved record as the case may be:
(a) the times when the aircraft took off and landed;
(b) particulars of any defect which is known to him and which affects the airworthiness or safe operation of the aircraft, or if no such defect is known to him, an entry to that effect; and
(c) such other particulars in respect of the airworthiness or operation of the aircraft as the CAA may require;
and he shall sign and date the entries.

Of course this brings into question about what constitutes, and who makes the decision regarding, airwothiness and safe operation.

That this practise has come about is down to the reduction in engineering support around the world, in particular for shorthaul ops (no difference between low cost and full service operators), to save money.

The AEI are right to highlight this, is the way they have done it the right way, possibly not. But for the crew who think that this is an attack or indictment against them, it isn't. It is an attempt to highlight a practice which crew are being forced to adopt, that has been purely created by the constant reduction in engineering support, and which they shouldn't have to.

SIDSTAR
22nd Jul 2008, 16:01
From my experience there is a lot of pressure to not report "non-stopper" defects until back at base or in many instances the end of the day. This is mainly due to delays to schedules if engineers have to be called at outstations now that most carriers have the pilots carry out the turnaround checks.

This report is absolutely true in my experience but they are minor tech problems not big issues that no sane pilot would takeoff with. So what's the problem?

Vortechs Jenerator
23rd Jul 2008, 07:14
Safety Concerns.

you have obviously experienced a severe breach in safety with an operator to make you go down this path (I suspect it was in some gash European Member State as you didn't appear to have an MOR path open to you or CHIRPS etc).

I answered you in the techie section with what I believed you were referring to, maybe I did you a disservice, playing down what I thought were non airworthy defects you were bemoaning (which do get "carried" in most airlines and even in the Airforce).

There has most certainly been an impact in Engineering cost in the last 10 years, it has probably manifested itself in many ways at different places. The biggest thing I started noticing a few years ago were the lack of spares kept on the shelves - Logistic managers seemed under pressure from accounts managers to clear the tens of thousands of pounds worth of spares off the company books and into far off owned stock houses/pool agreements etc. This made Hangar checks go late as lead times for spares crept up but who got the blame for aircraft returning late into service? The lazy Engineers!

We do our best to keep things safe (and I also do my best to help the aircraft flying and making money) but safety is paramount.

Good luck with you endeavor.

(I'm also in the ALAE so look forward to the report in the Tech Log)

BYALPHAINDIA
24th Jul 2008, 00:03
Or what about = Journo's ignore the faulty wording in their half-baked stories.:}:ugh:

Never heard so much :mad: in my lifetime.

Best place for their papers are on November 5th.:D

keel beam
24th Jul 2008, 16:20
Best place for their papers are on November 5th.

Perhaps also for the journos that don't do proper research :}

CSilvera
25th Jul 2008, 03:48
when you see the accident reports of some of the crashes in lesser developed countries, sometimes ya gotta wonder (re pilots flying unsafe planes).

fireflybob
25th Jul 2008, 18:52
when you see the accident reports of some of the crashes in lesser developed countries, sometimes ya gotta wonder (re pilots flying unsafe planes).

That's a good point and I think we need to get some sense of perspective on this issue. Firstly, let me say I have the greatest of respect for all engineers who are highly qualified and an integral part of the team that keeps the show on the road safely.

Ok from a strict legal point of view if the logo light doesnt work when I land down route an entry should be made in the Tech Log etc. From a practical point of view I feel this is a waste of time and paperwork especially on short turnrounds where there are other much more safety critical items to attend to. Dare I say it but does some of the hierachy (and I am referring to the type of organisation mentioned in this thrad) need to be dragged into the 21st century. The days when you landed and there were dozens of engineers and other "staff" who descended on your aircraft to "service" same after the one hour turnround are long gone. The commander still has an obligation to enter an entry in the tech log anywhere if any defects affects flight safety and/or cannot be carried in accordance with the MEL.

I don't claim to be an expert and maybe there is the odd operator who breaks the rules but the practical evidence is that most operate safely and sensibly.

Alwaysairbus
26th Jul 2008, 10:35
I think the original article just about hits the nail on the head.

I've witnessed first hand defects being ignored by flight crews. I do believe this is driven by ignorance rather than negligence. I know the technical knowledge in current pilots isn't upto the old school pilots, through no fault of their own but via the new EASA regulations and what airlines think they need to know.

Todays aircraft are complex computer and system net works. The MEL takes this into account but it still requires engineers who can understand the intergration of the numerous systems to weigh up the numerous defects and to make the decision whether the plane is safe and serviceable.
With todays pressures for on time departures and max aircraft and crew rotations it doesn't do anyone any favours in the long run.

If i got a pound for everytime i've been asked whether a certain defect on a particular aircraft has ben fixed when there is no record / history in the log i wouldn't need to get oily anymore.

Another worrying trend is flight crew making decisions on serviceability down route where there isn't any engineering cover. To be fair they do normally speak to maintenance control who guide them through computer resets or inspections but this really isn't the way forward where safety is involved.

An example; A few years back the flight crew were talked through a lightning strike inspection. The lightning strike occurred on climb out from our main base but it was deemed operationally better to continue as no instrument or radio failures confirmed no system faults. Nothing was observed by the flight crew on their down route walkround and lightning inspection. However on arrival back home, with an open entry for a lightning strike, we found several rivet heads in the fuselage had been blown off, together with static dischargers and some other belly fairing damage requiring repairs befor next flight. Now the crew were not really at fault, thats the way most companies work but better awareness of the state of the aircraft and implications of defects and events might help safety standards.

Having a quick look through the tech logs, i woud say the figure of inbound to outbound defects is probably nearer 95% but as mentioned in an earlier post some discretion can be allowed for non airworthiness and cabin defects although flight crews still fail to transfer airworthiness related cabin defects into the tech log at an alarming rate.

A way forward would definately be to increase aircraft type ground school time, and better understanding of MEL's and multiple system defect implications and EASA part66 engineers available at line destinations.

Mr.Brown
26th Jul 2008, 12:17
Alwaysairbus
I too have had a lightnening strike incident that Maint cont instructed the pilots on the inspection and was then entered into the inbound tech log page (how the crew inspected the top and crown of the fuse is beyond me). Luckily there was no defects in the end.
I also had a bird strike on the eng intake that maint cont again instructed the pilots on and when aircraft returned it was immediately grounded for the inlet change.
way forward would definately be to increase aircraft type ground school time, and better understanding of MEL's and multiple system defect implications and EASA part66 engineers available at line destinations.
Unfortunately each of those ideas cost more money and as long as the bean counters have an input to EASA there will be too much influential opposition.

Alwaysairbus
26th Jul 2008, 13:48
Mr Brown,
Totally agree. Unfortunately it will take an accident or incident before anything gets looked into. The AAIB will then see in their investigations how the CAA really plays no part in regulating airlines and their engineering departments, how maintenance is ran from the operations department room and undue pressure is put on not just engineers but pilots and cabin crew for maximum savings, minimum costs and on time departures at almost any cost.

Maybe a CAA based on the US FAA may be a way forward where an active interest is taken continually on day to day operations and maintenance and fines are imposed when regulations broken rather than never seeing a surveyor at all?

Mr.Brown
26th Jul 2008, 14:33
It would be nice to see an unanounced audit from time to time. Every Audit the CAA do these days are all planned, so the staffing levels can be adjusted accordingly etc etc.
All the authorities do these days is make sure all the paper work is correct. I definetly agree that an active interest is the way.

pilotbear
26th Jul 2008, 21:41
well that is not entirely true, we arrived at Luton the other day to a very thorough CAA ramp check, admittedly we are a bizjet not an airliner but there is an ongoing ramp check operation at the moment by the CAA.

Mr.Brown
26th Jul 2008, 21:50
Pilotbear, I should have mentioned that I was talking about Audit's of the engineering setups. The ramp checks do happen alot even downroute.

pilotbear
27th Jul 2008, 09:10
oh, I see. thank you:ok: