SCOT AIRWAYS TECH LOGS/ENGINEERING

[Gentle Giant]

Rumours have been circulating with regard to Scot Airways possibly have a problem with the C.A.A. over Tech Log entries.

Can anyone throw any light on these rumours? Hopefully someone will deny rumour validity.

[ 08 January 2002: Message edited by: Gentle Giant ]</p>

[snooze_ya_lose]

There were a lot of stories going about regarding defects being entered in notebooks rather than in the tech log... no idea if they were true, though.

[Gentle Giant]

Thanks Snooze. That is what I haed heard as well!!
Sounds like a way of gaining a distict commercial advantage to me. Sure the C.A.A wouldn't see it that way.

ANYONE KNOW ANYTHING ELSE??

[Sick]

Easy - if that is the accusation, remember that it is not uncommon to write down snags on note paper whilst in flight so as not to forget them, then discuss them with the engineer on the ground before writing up the tech log. Often it's a case of being dense or something like that and the problem is sorted immediately. If someone later comes along and tries to compare discarded notes to whats in the tech log they could wrongly think something suss is afoot.

[Billy Whizz]

Aircraft 'Diaries' have been used at Scotair much to the discomfort of many but not all Captains. This had been pointed out to the CAA in the past but nothing changed.

[snooze_ya_lose]

Then of course there is the other scenario, where a company desperate to save money skimps on engineers and spares. The end result is pilots being persuaded to not record defects in the official document (the tech log), but instead in a notebook for eventual rectification. This is usually done on the basis of "if you don't it'll be your job".

This usually happens at outstations where tech delays can be disasterous if you have no engineering cover.

Worse still, it has been known for some pilots to carry out engineering work under the direction of an engineer at a remote base, by phone. Same reasons as above.

At least one airline is currently being investigated because, on inspection, the tech logs were found to contain a suspiciously low number of defects for the type, and what defects there were, were minor in nature and could be covered by the usual "system tests satis, please report further".

Naturally I have no idea which airline might be doing these things.

Seem to remember your operation being pretty good on the engineering side, Gentle Giant!

[Sick]

Quite right, obviously there's a big difference between using a note pad as an aide memoire, (I don't think many people would pull out a cumbersome tech log en route to fill in the defects) and the note pad taking the tech logs place for the engineers purposes. I am fortunate to work in an environment where there is no discouragement to make defect entries, but I guess this is not always the case elsewhere.

I feel discussion with an engineer is useful though; eg 'we have this problem with this and this, what do you think it is' - it can help make a more useful entry including say, info that otherwise would have been considered irrelevant.

[capt waffoo]

I suspect the implication here is not so much "note it on a fag packet until you get back" but one of "note it anywhere you like as long as it never appears in the tech log".

Just suppose. If a company were to have a culture where Capts are, shall we say, discouraged from entering defects in the tech log (the threat that might be used is quite obvious) then how else do they save their necks, and those of their colleagues? In todays dead employment market the pressure to comply with this sort of thing is very very strong indeed, and how many would knowingly put their job/career on the chopping block over this? Not many, I fear.

The really depressing thing is that if any of this is true then nothing has been learned in years and years, and that would be a bloody scandal.

[Raw Data]

I can't think of a single reason to note defects on bits of paper or in notebooks- the Tech Log is in the flight deck and is probably the easiest thing to enter defects in!

I suspect a lot of us have left stuff out of tech logs to keep an aircraft flying, it is to an extent a judgement call. A good guide to what you should do is imagining yourself explaining your actions to the AAIB at the subsequent board of enquiry.

Part of the problem is the way we use the MEL, which is not really a definitive document and itself requires interpretation.

However, some operators do take liberties and where this affects flight safety, should be jumped on from a great height.

[Greg Baddeley]

I could be a mile out here, as I'm not aircrew, but have been called on to write in the Tech.Log when an aircraft is in base maintenance - is it possible that the crew prefer to note findings during the flight, then summarise their findings in the Tech.Log once on the ground? Also, it's easier to write in the Log when you're not bumping around in the sky, as they have multi-sheet pages.

I'm more than willing to be corrected on this, naturally - as I said, I'm not aircrew.

[Raw Data]

It's all a matter of motivation.

I often write stuff down on the nav logs in flight, for example if we have an engine bleed problem I'll write all the engine parameters down on the nav log, and discuss them with an engineer on the ground. I also always discuss defects with an engineer before writing them up (if possible), as sometimes the way you write it up can make the difference between grounding an aircraft, or not. But, write them up I do.

However, the practice of not entering defects in the Tech Log to keep an aircraft flying, when it really shouldn't, is not acceptable in any situation. It does happen, and some airlines are worse than others; usually the smaller one with less resources.

[glider insider]

This might seem a bit naive, but does an open entry in the tech log ground the aircraft until the fault has been cleared by an engineer, or are captains allowed to fly the aircraft with acceptable deferred faults. i.e something that they are aware of but are happy that the aircraft is safe to fly.

i think the second option is how the military work, with acceptable faults signed for by the pilot to show understanding and that he / she is happy with the snag.

[DouglasDigby]

You have to work to what is called the Minimum Equipment List, otherwise known as the MEL. If you write up a snag in the technical log, the continued operation of the aircraft would depend very much on the MEL. For example, it might say that you MUST have the standby horizon working, but, with 2 independent pressurisation controllers, one might be permitted to be unserviceable. But, each snag will have a specific timescale by when it must be fixed.

[capt waffoo]

ASFKAP, you say that cost "should" never be a factor, thats fine, we all know that. Fact is that some outfits are just not as Professional as that and seek to hide /deny defects in an attempt to avoid the expense of rectification.

Hence the use of notes instead of tech log entries.

Hence the point of this thread.

It happens, and sadly lots of pilots go along with it for the all to obvious reasons I mentioned above. No, it "should" not happen, but it does. And the CAA seem to be somewhat ineffective in sorting it out. Thats the real scandal.

[HiSpeedTape]

I was appalled to discover this practice being adopted by a certain Canadian Charter operator, a subsidiary of a major British Charter operator. There existed two Tech Logs
One onboard the aircraft which usually had only minor snags entered and another in the form of an A4 notepad in their Engineering reps bottom drawer which was a much more accurate representation of the true technical state of the aircraft. It kind of makes you sick when the local management comment on how the Canadians had such a great technical despatch reliability compared to our own aircraft of the same type.

[Blacksheep]

As a LAME I'd rather have any defect written up and recorded. If its a fault I'll fix it, if it isn't I'll note it. It may be a bit embarrassing if the engineer points out that what you thought was a defect was in fact normal operation, but at least you might learn about flying from that. Remember, writing things in the Tech Log might very well cost you a job [but only with a less than reputable operator], not writing them in is a violation of the Air Navigation Order that could cost you your licence.

In any case, surely you prefer to fly serviceable machines? Its your @rse its strapped to, not mine.

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[Fr O'Blivien]

Wonder if this made it into the tech log?

Schipol
Winter 97?
G-BUXT?

http://images.fotki.com/free/1fce/3/39422/77427/spl-th.jpg


.

[M.Mouse]

Ah, the well known 'only put it in the Tech. log if we can fix it' syndrome under discussion.

I used to work for a company that operated on that basis. I needed the job and so, like most, put up with it.

The company CAA Ops. inspector was about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

[Gentle Giant]

SNOOZE
You have the advantage over me!Yes, we did have a squeaky clean operation as far as Engineering and other C.A.A. matters were concerning - pity about the lack of £££!!

Perhaps if we had cut a few corners, too???

Despite most of the replies on this thread make bad reading, I have to say that I do agree to a chat with the Engineers prior to Log entry on some occasions.

We had a Rookie F.O. who thought he saw a split second over-torque. The Capt. (one of those guys who thought he should be a 74 skipper) logged it and the aircraft was out of service for something like 3 weeks. That effectively finished the route the aircraft was operating and contributed heavily to our downfall.

The engineers believed the problem to be related to instruments. Indeed, the engine was obviously stripped and no fault found.

[Gentle Giant]

ASFKAP
I agree with you in principal. I would have been more impressed with the situation had the crew decided to abort the flight immediately rather than continue to the planned destination. Seemed to be a contradiction!
The engineers had no other choice but to deal with the snag as logged, although they did spend a couple of days trying to repeat it!!.

[crossfeedclosed]

There isn't an airline anywhere in the world that doesn't have problems in this area. Not-so-subtle pressure on Captains to record problems when back at base etc. CAA knows all about it and does fanny all. But whose licence goes into the bin? Not the CEO's because he usually doesn't have one and wouldn't recognise one or a real professional if it jumped up and bit him. And he's the one with all the share options as well! We're just in the wrong part of the operation I'm afraid.

[snooze_ya_lose]

Ah well Gentle Giant, 10/10 for engineering, 2/10 for paying your crews.

I knew a few of those who worked for you, they had 18 months from hell, never knowing whether they would be able to pay the rent or buy food. I'm surprised they managed to continue functioning under that sort of pressure.

Not suggesting this was entirely your fault of course, I'm sure you can't summon money up from thin air! Not sure you appreciated how hard it was on your crews though.

It is obviously to your credit that you never cut corners on engineering (or pressured your pilots to do so).

[ 16 January 2002: Message edited by: snooze_ya_lose ]</p>