Tech log misunderstandings

[Genghis the Engineer]

This is a question posed to me as part of an ongoing research project - I'm working with a university english department asking some interesting questions about standardisation (or not!) of aviation English.


I'm sure that there have been plenty of occasions where written details about aircraft defects or work carried out have been misunderstood between aircrew and ground engineers.

Can anybody give me any good examples I can go off and think about? Also, can anybody offer any useful opinions about what environments (country, aircraft class, military.v.civil, operation type...) these misunderstandings tend to occur most, or least?

G

[grounded27]

The best example I can think of but may be slightly off topic would be flight crew not stating their phase of flight when a failure or abnormality occured, often it can be critical information to properly diagnose or troubleshoot the problem.

If abbreviations are used they should be specific as defined by the company or aircraft manufacturers.

I will keep this in mind for you if any specific examples come to me.

Civil commercial aviation.

[Bus429]

Not specifically, Ghengis but I can give an example that demonstrates a certain mindset.

UK line maintenance organisation, mid-90s: 767 had just arrived from the US. The captain had written up a suspected defect:

"Passenger (ex-RAF ground engineer) sitting at rear right of aircraft reports that panels on the top of the starboard wing move up an down during the flight".

[Hasherucf]

Coming from a small aircraft background pilots would sometimes put 'Blah Blah system U/S' giving us no assistance whatsoever in troubleshooting.

Favourite was '70% chance of passenger pissing on seat number 6' . Our reply was '100% chance your cleaning it'

Another pet hate is a pilot not reporting the fault was fixed .If you never hear about it again you can assume it was fixed . But you cant assume so you need to chase them :ugh:

[Runaround Valve]

When I did my B747 course way back in 1971 we were told about a defect with an american airline. The B747 could have a cargo deck galley, accessed by a personnel and a cart lift. Defect the pilots wrote up was about the elevator. A lot of time was spent trying to find a defect in the elevators.
The defect was about the lift to the lower deck galley that was described as an elevator in the write up. Later on a directive came out to only describe the lift to the lower deck galley as a lift, and not an elevator.

[2close]

A fairly (very in some cases) common practice in the Flight Training environment is the use of the abbreviation " ", i.e. nothing, the direction from senior management being that nothing is to be written in the Deferred Defects section of the Tech Logs, especially on a weekend, in case that grounds the aircraft and that you must always speak to maintenance first.

That is a double edged sword, the negative being that records of minor faults are at best inadequate, at worst non-existent, the positive being that a relationship develops between engineers and pilots (who learn that both sides are human ;) ) and the engineer gets a detailed, first line account of the problem from the person identifying it, not a meaningless jumble of words, rapidly scrawled by instructors between lessons.

It also helps to break down language differences, as I found working overseas.

Some of the best lessons I ever learned as a pilot were gained working with maintenance crews on minor defects.

:)

[h3dxb]

What does mean "NIL" .

I mean we all have our english skills, but some write ups are really strange. I saw guys, abbreviating the word "AND" into ND. On Airbus ND is Navigation Display. We should look for the future for failure codes , given by the Aircraft. open for any inputs :hmm:

What does mean: FIO (For Info Only) should I work or not ? Is a write up in the techlog autimaticaly a workorder for us ?

just my 2 cents

H3

[spannersatcx]

4 engine piston aircraft - defect - no 4 engine missing - action - no 4 eng found on wing!

[stevef]

Twenty years or so back...
Four-engined piston freighter returns to base at quarter to dawn, tired F/E writes up a defect in tech log of 300 rpm mag drop and aways to his bed.
Early morning wake-up for local residents as engineering try to find out which engine, which magneto and which (of 144) plug is to blame.

We've all been there, one way or another. :)

[Perrin]

When working in USAF in California on B52's this was a good one.

Number 7?? engine EGT reads 20c high on take off OK rest of flight duration on flight 24 hours 30 minutes (cromedome).
Try and find that one to fix it!!!!!!!!!!

:ugh: Keep them up boys

[Golden Rivet]

My pet hate is pilots that prefix their defect write up with the words "for info only"

Its either a defect or its not.....

[Kiwiconehead]

My pet hate is pilots that prefix their defect write up with the words "for info only"

Its either a defect or its not.....

If it's in the book, it's a defect, no matter what they write in front of it.

[HubNuts]

Not Strictly a Tech.log issue, but have had a No. 1 cabin crew member from a Customer Airline my previous employer supported, wrote in the Cabin Defects Log,

Cabin Log Book Missing From Aircraft. :D and was verbally supported by the Captain indicating that one needed to be issued to the Aircraft.

We also used to get alot of, "Oh! and by the way", or "Just for your info", as the flight crew were stepping onto the bus to go home....

If they were that concerned why not stick it in the book.

To which alot of replies of "Ok, I'll bite check the So and So box", or "I'll Look into the TSM".

[TURIN]

That reminds me of a genuine write up many years ago.

DEFECT: Captain's Mars Bar fell off tray and was lost among rudder pedals.

ACTION: Mars Bar retrieved, Bite check satis! :ok:


RIP KF.

Also, the one about the 'miising' engine. It took me years to work that out as I have never been involved with piston engines. :O

[IFixPlanes]

DEFECT: Captain's Mars Bar fell off tray and was lost among rudder pedals.

ACTION: Mars Bar retrieved, Bite check satis!
is like:

DEFECT: Evidence of leak on left MLG.

ACTION: Evidence removed. :E

[woptb]

As well as the usual misunderstandings around acronyms,I've seen terrible handwriting (worse than my GP!) & some weird abbreviations just the "tick" symbol too "O C G I F",Ops check good in flight.
During the Falklands tif, RAF Harriers had Sidewinders fitted. I had a written defect "Winder FU£$Ked" I spent a fruitless 20 minutes playing with the stopwatch until the penny dropped (actually thats prolly me being thick!).
I'd concur with the phase of flight not recorded & perm any one from upto 4 different systems,engines - specific system not recorded.

[KBPsen]

What I have found most often causes problems in understanding what is meant by log entries is when the person who made the entry has no or little knowledge of English syntax. They are then using grammatical rules from their own language and are effectively writing in their own language but using English words.

"The engine left..." doesn't quite mean the same as "the left engine..." even though that might be what was meant.

[Plore]

Quote:
My pet hate is pilots that prefix their defect write up with the words "for info only"

Its either a defect or its not.....
If it's in the book, it's a defect, no matter what they write in front of it. Although it might not be the same with other airlines but at EK a Tech Log entry can be prefixed with LI, LP or LL.
LI= info only, no action (necessarily) required
LP= PIREP
LL= Line maintenance entry

When cabin defects such as "brewer inop" is made on an aircraft with 3 or 4 galleys that each has 3 or 4 brewer machines. Wich one is inop?!?!? Just to later find out that it did work, it was just over filling the jug.

"Lav xx not flushing on ground" .... try flushing it after toilet and water servicing, not during.

"Galley xx sink drain blocked" .... Try to not pour milk and orange juice down the same drain at the same time!!!

A single cabin entry containing
"Seat XXX video not working, seat YYY tray table inop and curtain at door XX stained" ... what happened to making three entries for three unrelated faults?

Sure I will have more fresh examples, multi national crew makes for interesting reading sometimes. :ugh:

[aveng]

I hate it when the sandwich chuckers get their left and right mixed up. They are looking aft most of the time.:ugh:

[itsresidualmate]

'If it's in the book it's a defect'

Not if you're a captain with a leading Brussels based airline! Numerous times I've seen defects such as flap faults, airbrake uncontrollable, etc in the tech log, prefixed with 'FOR INFO'. The crew then fly the aircraft back the following day. Illegal and dangerous, not sure I'd be happy with my kids flying on that leading Brussels based airline if that's their attitude to safety.

As far as misunderstandings go, I always use a continental style '7' with a line through it, seen 7s confused with 1s quite a lot; cue a defuel when that happens!

[Tom Sawyer]

Can't remember the actual defect, but I had another engineer write up a fault in FR8 bay. I read it as Frame 8 whereas he meant freight, and I spent 10 mins trying to fathom the actual defect until I heard myself saying FR8 in my head.

Also, had one where guys were writing "trash compactors removed for cleaning" until I pointed out that they weren't getting the compactors cleaned, but the stowage was being cleaned. So write up was then changed to "trash compactors removed for cleaning access".

[TURIN]

Although it might not be the same with other airlines but at EK a Tech Log entry can be prefixed with LI, LP or LL.
LI= info only, no action (necessarily) required
LP= PIREP
LL= Line maintenance entry

My understanding is that LI is only used for 'Nil Defects' or other 'non tech' entries. It is not a carte blanche prefix to 'avoid' investigation.


Speaking of Emirates, why do certain captains insist on using CM1 or CM2? What is wrong with P1/P2 or Capt/FO?

Took me another age to work it out.:mad:

[Krystal n chips]

Tech pilots are the worst offenders here.....more than once from one in particular....two pages of every single parameter possible ( irrespective of the relevance to the defect ! )

CDL..

"Fwd pax door grab handle needs to be relocated for cabin crew to get hold of " ( B737 ).....:ugh:

"Can the refuel panel be put on the other wing as using it delays pax boarding " ( B767)......of course, can be done on a night stop....:ugh:

"Catch broken in galley".....thus narrowing the location down at least..

"Boiler fails to fill with water. Boiler u/s"......Tap handle moved from "OFF" to "ON".

[419]

A few years ago, a pilot (very experienced on type) entered a defect into the tech log "PA no good". (It was on a Bell 212)

I went out and checked it and couldn't find anything wrong. The chime was working and the volume was more than sufficient for the passengers to hear what was being said to them.
When I informed the pilot of this he explained that he wasn't referring to the passenger address system, but he meant that the power assurance figures were too low!

[glhcarl]

GTE,

We had a similar problem some years on a production line. "Squawks" or minor defects/omissions were written up my the inspectors and the corrected by the mechanics. Many times the information on the "squawk" was so vague that the problem could not be found.

Situation, every inspector was sent to a short (two hour) class that explained the importance of correctly filling out the "squawk" and each student had to actually fill out several "squawks" which the instructor critiqued.

At the end of the class the student was given a small (shirt pocket size) card the showed what had to be included in each "squawk" written.

Same type of class could be held for the flight and cabin crew as cabin write ups can be just as confusing!

[ukv1145]

My personal favourite, to which I never worked out what the actual snag was.

CDL

'Toilet dark until light on'

Any ideas would be welcome, will bug me until I retire!!

UKV

[Plore]

My understanding is that LI is only used for 'Nil Defects' or other 'non tech' entries. It is not a carte blanche prefix to 'avoid' investigation.


True to an extent TURIN. I don't think it's to avoid investigation, actually more to aid in it. An example of LI for a technical matter would be to either give more info (or if 'please report further' had been noted) on an already existing deferred defect. I heard a crew member note one day that they have been told to not use LI as often as it had been at a stage.

I have to agree though, there are very few LI items that does not require some form of action, even if only a few tests has to be carried out on the CMS.

Speaking of Emirates, why do certain captains insist on using CM1 or CM2? What is wrong with P1/P2 or Capt/FO?

No idea, quite frustrating if you have to jump around between types and CM1 is written in such a way that it looks like CMI. Then I usually sit there and wonder what the :mad: CMI stands for, where did I loose an accronym somewhere between types? :uhoh:

[Dodo56]

As far as misunderstandings go, I always use a continental style '7' with a line through it, seen 7s confused with 1s quite a lot; cue a defuel when that happens!

This can be a real pain sometimes as continental (mainland European, not the airline!) folk often use a "1" with a very large oblique that can look like a "7" without the line through.

My pet hate is finding aircraft that arrive with a raft of deferred defects that apparently only just happened on the leg before scheduled maintenance. Right, like those weren't there before and the crew not wanting to be stuck down route or lose sectors isn't a factor...

[matkat]

Working for a certain Icelandic airline in Madrid several years ago the A/C (B747-200) returned from Las Palmas, the Captain wrote up 'a fly in the cockpit' in between laughing I penned it off by saying 'cockpit door opened, fly no longer apparent' still makes me smile 10 years on.

RIP Richard P.

[avionic type]

In days of yore when the old B.E.A. did the turn rounds of Olympic Airways Comets It used to leave L.H.R. defect free .fly to Athens ,do a load of local East Med flights completly snag free and on its return to L.H.R have 2 or more pages of defects . we called it "The white cliffs of Dover Syndrome " :{:{:{

[MATMAX]

CM does not stand for Coffee Maker ?
you told it yourself , crew member !
you are so clever ... some more "world leading airline" Engineers pfff ...

[Kuchan]

Here are some actual maintenance complaints submitted by UPS pilots (marked with a "P") and the solutions recorded by the maintenance engineers (marked with an "S").

P: Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.
S: Almost replaced left inside main tire.
*
P: Test flight OK, except auto-land very rough.
S: Auto-land not installed on this aircraft.
*
P: Something loose in cockpit
S: Something tightened in cockpit
*
P: Dead bugs on windshield.
S: Live bugs on back-order.
*
P: Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces a 200 feet per minute descent
S: Cannot reproduce problem on ground.
*
P: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear.
S: Evidence removed.
*
P: DME volume unbelievably loud.
S: DME volume set to more believable level.
*
P: Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.
S: That's what friction locks are for.
*
P: IFF inoperative in OFF mode.
S: IFF always inoperative in OFF mode.
*
P: Suspected crack in windshield.
S: Suspect you're right.
*
P: Number 3 engine missing.
S: Engine found on right wing after brief search
*
P: Aircraft handles funny. (I love this one!)
S: Aircraft warned to straighten up, fly right and be serious.
*
P: Target radar hums.
S: Reprogrammed target radar with lyrics.
*
P: Mouse in cockpit.
S: Cat installed.
*
And the best one for last
*
P: Noise coming from under instrument panel. Sounds like a midget pounding on something with a hammer.
S: Took hammer away from midget.

[HOVIS]

CM does not stand for Coffee Maker ?
you told it yourself , crew member !
you are so clever ... some more "world leading airline" Engineers pfff ...

Nope. I've read that a dozen times and still it don't make sense.

Anyone?

Kuchan, that lot have been around so long I thing Orville and Wilbur wrote them.

[Genghis the Engineer]

So Kuchan, what are your sources for the "genuine" nature of those, and what are your views with respect to English language useage?

G

[Kuchan]

It was post to me years ago with no solid proof.

Just thought it was really cool (Americano) instead of it was really great (Anglo English.

It does make me laugh.

[EW73]

(post #26) ukv1145....My personal favourite, to which I never worked out what the actual snag was.
'Toilet dark until light on'
Any ideas would be welcome, will bug me until I retire!!

What that means is that, at least in the Classic 747...
1/ with ext pwr or APU power supplying the ship, the toilet light(s) (the ones above the mirror) will be bright (fluro), whether the internal toilet door lock is latched or not.
2/ with normal engine driven generators powering the ship, the toilet lights (the ones above the mirror) will be dim (separate low wattage light bulb) until the toilet door is latched closed, then the 'normal' fluro light will illuminate.

What the guy was trying to tell you was that the low wattage bulb had blown, and the toilet internal (fluro) light only worked when the door was locked closed, whilst the airplane was in flight.

I believe it's the same in the 737NG, and probably in most Boeings!

Cheers...:ok:..EW73

[SeldomFixit]

Ground handling BUS ?

[WillDAQ]

'Toilet dark until light on'

Well the cubicles are always partially lit, but the bright lighting only comes on when you close the door. So presumably the 'mood' lighting was U/S?

[T.R Haychemu]

EW73 - That defect is a regular one on the 737s! Less enthusiastic engineers go to check it out on the ground "unable to fault", yet the crew only go on to report it again the next flight ;) Often caused by a sticky relay behind the mirror in the lav!

Ghengis, I can't think of any examples of techlog reporting that have caused problems due to the English. Only as stated by others usually a complete lack of concise information provided in the log by the flight and/or cabin crew. "Boiler Leaking in Galley" etc.

[Plore]

Nope. I've read that a dozen times and still it don't make sense.

Anyone?

I've stopped trying HOVIS, think it was aimed at me but couldn't care less.
Be glad it's not him making the entries! :}

[EW73]

Not so...WillDAQ

The fluro comes on (inflight) when the door is locked closed, not just closed!

[woptb]

Talking about problems with standardisation is putting the horse before the cart; when (in my experience) it’s the lack of a face to face debrief which causes most communication failures.
So the majority of problems we experience are symptoms of a less than effective debrief, rather than root causes in themselves. I do find it odd that there is standardised RT phraseology, but none in aviation technical English.

[itsresidualmate]

That list that Kuchan posted, is that the hilarious one that gets sent to me every now and then that ends with a statement something along the lines of;

'Remember! It takes a master's degree in quantum mechanics to become a pilot, but only a two week course in woodwork to be an engineer!'

...or some other such b*****ks.

[h3dxb]

Plore

Have you ever heard about RYFM ?

LI Could Be only given by Ground Crew eg. ENGINEER. We As high Trained and qualified Staff , with more types on our License , than a Pilot .

And yes Typing on a iPad will create typos . :eek:

[Plore]

As an engineer I have never used LI but have received several LI entries from flight crew so who's using/reading YFM?

Who said anything about iPad?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Talking about problems with standardisation is putting the horse before the cart; when (in my experience) it’s the lack of a face to face debrief which causes most communication failures.
So the majority of problems we experience are symptoms of a less than effective debrief, rather than root causes in themselves. I do find it odd that there is standardised RT phraseology, but none in aviation technical English.

Surprisingly this is not true: there is a standardised aviation technical English: see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_English).

I don't know if anybody else has come across it? - after 23 years in the flying machine game, I came across it for the first time last week. The concept is great, but if the majority of us are not trained in it, I can't see that it's doing any good?

G

N.B. Horse is usually before the cart! I think you meant "Cart before the Horse".

N.B.B. I agree absolutely about the benefits of face to face debrief. However, does every operating environment really make this possible?

[EW73]

Fact....When I flew 747 for Air Atlanta based in Lagos, not the nicest place in the world....the lead ground engineer was an Icelandic ***khead, who did whatever he wanted, because he knew he could get away with anything, and he didn't like either being at work or expat flight crew.

In afterflight debriefs he regularly swore at the flight crews for presenting him with added work, no probs, right out loud.
Near the end of my contract, he was caught (by me!....maybe there's a message there!), swapping componentary when the MEL time period ran out...and...then he did something that could have killed me, as well as nearly 300 others on board.

During a periodic engine boroscope inspection, he decided to sign off the independent inspection himself, as well as the supervisor of the work, I'm told, because the independent inspector would have taken too long to arrive at the airport from the company hotel.
Well, one of the covers was not properly refitted to the casing, and about 45 minutes into the next flight, with me and many others heading off to JFK, a quite long flight, the #4 engine fire warning illuminated and we were forced to shut it down, fire inds went out, we returned to Lagos, dumped mega kilos of fuel, uneventful landing, and where the (different) maintenance guys located the problem....

Certainly widened my eyes to some attitudes!

In another example, another Icelandic lead insisted that the minimum oxy level shown in the FPPM was OK for any flight (they had to change the bottles, no topping up allowed!)....trouble is, we were about to depart Madrid for Havana, quite some distance over water, though he didn't seem to care, it had the minimum, I'm talking outright raised voices argument, he wasn't going to do it, his attitude was, we had enough!
Note: I'm assuming you guys are familiar with the reasons for the minimum oxy level, and why it is used).
Had to summon the duty operations guy to sort it out, of course, by that time the forward cargo hold had been loaded.(that's where the oxy bottles are located in the '74)....so, many delayed minutes later, we departed with the oxy we required.
Both times, I didn't hear of any action taken, by the Icelandic ops management.

Sometimes in reflection, I consider myself quite lucky to have survived my years flying for AAI.

Cheers...EW73 :bored:

[IFixPlanes]

@ EW73
... and when will you start to talk about "Tech log misunderstandings"? :}

[itsresidualmate]

there's bad apples in every job!

[woptb]

Unfortunately no one uses's STE & fewer have heard of it! Is Carts & Horses in there?
Each manufacturer has standardised abreviations & acronyms,although if you happen to be working Airbus,Boeing & Embraer it can cause problems.
I've worked for many airlines & AMO's (pesky acronyms!) ,none of those specified STE.
There are obvious limitations on being able to conduct debriefs,its not beyond the wit of man,mobiles for instance. Lack of a good debrief is a safety issue,but has cost implications.

[Beeline]

I think there is some issue with communication and how this is conveyed in written and verbal form..

Pilots have CRM to communicate and fly alongside with each other.

When studying for my Licences there was nothing in any syllabi about interfacing between that of the Flight Deck and Ground Crew. I think that reflects within the 'whose aeroplane' 'us and them' syndrome you commonly see; Especially within Customer airlines.

Unfortunately If they keep downgrading the professional status as LAME; the gap will only widen and all respect and the professional bridge will be lost in hand with continuity of the handover.

On the subject of tech log handovers; how technical do you want a Pilot to be? If he knew the systems as well as I do he will be a liability in the sky, troubleshooting stuff so on, i know i would be :E

Concluding; the uniformity can only really be corrected within our professional attitude towards each other rather than our technical ability of recording defects, the ambiguous entries will always continue due to the divide of ability and technical know-how. Pilots are great at what they do, we are great at what we do!

[Genghis the Engineer]

I don't think that you'll find anything about liaising with ground crew in the CPL or ATPL syllabus either, nor on best practice in filling out tech logs.

I'd argue that's an omission on both sides.

G

[Plore]

I agree, a verbal debrief is usually best but it's not always possible.

Should an aircraft arrive at home base the engineer might only get to the aircraft quite some time after the crew has left, especially if the aircraft is due for a couple of hours on the ground prior to its next flight.
Try contacting a flight crew member 2 or 3 hours after landing if he just did a 8 or 9 hour night flight...:zzz:

[spannersatcx]

some crews are off before the pax as they are in a rush to get home by train plane or automobile!

If I get I didn't put it in the book but......I switch off straight away, if it's not in the book then there is no problem!

[Mike_s]

Not sure this is the kind of answer you were looking for, but I find the biggest cause for confusion in the tech log (and more commonly) in the CDL being item "U/S"

Ok, how is it U/S? IFE - no picture? No sound? Doesnt work on a certain channel? Crackly sound? Interminttent problems?

Saying something is U/S should be against procedures and a more detailed description given! Granted in some cases it's blatently obvious what is wrong with the component, but in many cases it just isn't!