Flying with 'open items'

[MaxBlow]

I'm interested to hear how your company deals with 'open items'.

Let's say the airplane leaves its mainbase for a rotation with 3-4 stops before it returns to main base. At these outstations there's no line maintenance available and crews enter snags in the tech log. Currently we are allowed to fly home with these entries as long as they're in line with the MEL.

This is causing quite some confusion amongst crew and no proper guidlines have yet been published by the operator.

[Henry VIII]

In "my" company any entry MUST be closed by maintenance.

If acft is dispatchable within MEL without maintenance action(s) and we do not have maintenance agreement outstation we are allowed to close the entry ONLY with a written authorization from the engineering dpt.

Otherwise acft is AOG.

[763 jock]

Providing no maintenance action is required, make entry stating defect. In "action taken" column, raise "B" or "C" defect with appropriate MEL reference. Enter said defect in "B" or "C" list with reference to the page that you raised the defect on.

[411A]

At the present outfit, we have no open items...everything is fixed at outstation, if necessary.
Now, we do ad-hoc and 'scheduled' charter ops to rather remote places, so carry two ground engineers everywhere, and the fly-away kit is quite large.
A nice arrangement.

[Henry VIII]

carry two ground engineers everywhere, and the fly-away kit is quite large.Lucky guy... ;)

[411A]

Lucky guy...

Yes, I would agree.
However, it really is a need for operational flexibility and reliability, as the contracts have penalty clauses, for non-performance.
We may be late on departure occasionally, but the flight does depart, simply because the defect gets fixed, not just deferred...if at all possible.

[Wodrick]

The two ground engineers are Joe Patroni and his brother !

[411A]

A thirty year old Tristar with no defects.....Hmmmmmm

Actually, 25 years.
I strongly suspect that your company, ASFKAP, simply did not have the technical expertise.

The two ground engineers are Joe Patroni and his brother !
Ahhh, no, we had those folks on the B707...:}:ok:

[Flight Detent]

..Errr...what was that about not needing a flight engineer!

He can and will fix a lot of things, what he can't he will be conversant with both the MEL and handling all aspects of the maintenance log!

Even to the extent of 'correcting' the occasional oversight by the signitory of the maintenance release...been there..done that!

Whomever or whatever your 2nd officer is, he's never anywhere near as good as a professional flight engineer, we're talking another league here!

It's OK, I'll calm down shortly....

Cheers..FD..:}

[Reimers]

So, why do manufacturers put all this redundancy into the systems?
Isn't the reason for this that it has proven to be cheaper to carry the "spare parts" along in the aircraft, all fixed and wired into its proper place, ready to go, rather than have an engineer work the aircraft during todays thirty minute turnarounds? Thus, should anything fail, this "fail operational" system redundancy allows us to depart after consulting the books, confirming we are indeed safe to depart with one generator/one flight control computer/one radio receiiver INOP?
Why fix one of three COM sets and be proud of the resulting three hour delay because it was not the COM set itself that had failed, but the wiring someplace unreachable? Just refer to the MEL, which had a lot of effort put into by people who had all the time in the world to think about all those remote possibilities thar might occur, and when it said it is OK to depart, off you go.
The reason we today carry more devices of the same kind is not that modern equipment fails more often, but rather to be able to schedule time consuming work when the aircraft rotation allows.
Yes, the tristar was a great aircraft back then, but there is a reason why airlines today operate the aircraft that we see on todays airports.

[Swedish Steve]

We have two log books, Technical and Cabin.
The cabin log book may carry open items to the night stop if they are not airworthiness related.
The technical log book may not.
However we have a let out in the MEL that says, that if the defect is in the MEL, and no maintenance procedure is required, the crew may accept the defect and rewrite it on the next log page for action at the next stop.

[spannersatcx]

At these outstations there's no line maintenance available

Then get some would be the answer.:eek:

[OldCessna]

411A if you are flying for Air Rum they are always looking for bits and a lot of those bits are quite important bits!

[BigJoeRice]

The other way to do it is by having a maintenance control organization that co-ordinates the defect with the crew. If the defect is in fact non-airworthy or even an MEL item, after reviewing it with MC, an MC Control order is issued and the crew defers it to the carry over list using that number This can be done via radio/landline/fax. The defect is closed on the log page but open in the B defect/carry over log. If the defect creates an AOG situation, then MC and consequently the airline are appraised of the situation and co-ordinated recovery action can quickly begin. The cabin logs can invariably carry open items unless they relate to emergency equipment in which case they get an MC control number or fixed.

[merlinxx]

Well flying shagged out & knackered 1011s with 2 flying spanners and a large 'fly away kit' just shows how far back in the 60s/70s you operate Old Chap. Hey and don't patronise me with a numpty reply, I do have experience of working for a US 121 Supplemental.

[411A]

...I do have experience of working for a US 121 Supplemental.

Rather little, it would appear...:}

[B737NG]

ZERO DEFECTS that is the goal for our maintenance in capital letters on the hangar. In case we have one to bring the Airplane back home the company is very careful due to history........

Fly safe and land happy

NG