Defect Reports
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HF - This is exactly what I wanted to hear and the most likely scenario.
It supports our concern, that this MOD thing was introduced without thought, appropriate mechanisms or training. It would have meant that a breach still had occured by leaving Adl with the coupon not completed. This is a paperwork error.
If I get a chance I will post some of the very real incidents that have occured in last few months. I will de-identify everything, this is not meant to embarass, just a reality check thing.
The two that come to mind are the plane that flew for weeks with no fuel filter fitted to an engine and the aircraft that was about to push with ice above and below wing.
It supports our concern, that this MOD thing was introduced without thought, appropriate mechanisms or training. It would have meant that a breach still had occured by leaving Adl with the coupon not completed. This is a paperwork error.
If I get a chance I will post some of the very real incidents that have occured in last few months. I will de-identify everything, this is not meant to embarass, just a reality check thing.
The two that come to mind are the plane that flew for weeks with no fuel filter fitted to an engine and the aircraft that was about to push with ice above and below wing.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All licenced personnel must comply with the regs - end of story
Defects must be reported when and where they occur, regardless of nature, let the licenced professional decide how it is to be actioned.
Defects must be attended to, rectified (or put on hold or MEL) and signed off in the correct manner - no excuses.
All of us Pilots, Engineers, Flight Attendants, Ramp staff have set responsibilities - follow them - NO SHORT CUTS.
Last but not least - we are all in this boat together, like it or not, time to realise that SOLIDARITY IS THE ONLY ANSWER.
DO THE RIGHT THING,
FLY IT,REPORT IT AND SIGN IT,
AS IF YOUR FAMILY IS ON BOARD.
Defects must be reported when and where they occur, regardless of nature, let the licenced professional decide how it is to be actioned.
Defects must be attended to, rectified (or put on hold or MEL) and signed off in the correct manner - no excuses.
All of us Pilots, Engineers, Flight Attendants, Ramp staff have set responsibilities - follow them - NO SHORT CUTS.
Last but not least - we are all in this boat together, like it or not, time to realise that SOLIDARITY IS THE ONLY ANSWER.
DO THE RIGHT THING,
FLY IT,REPORT IT AND SIGN IT,
AS IF YOUR FAMILY IS ON BOARD.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"the warning light didn't go on until just after we took off" was the old phrase. Doesn't work though in the digital age and there should be traces somewhere if something went inop.
Last edited by Sunfish; 9th Nov 2012 at 22:27.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it smells like sh#t and looks like sh#t then it probably is sh#t.
I don't think some people here understand what I believe to be Steve's methods.
The system is f#cked, hundreds of jobs (and the majority are NOT redundant positions, they are being made to look redundant due to clever PR and spin) are going, along with hundreds before.
Planes have moving parts, moving parts break, broken parts need fixing. The rhetoric that all these jobs need axing due to more modern technological aircraft is crap. A restructuring perhaps, yes. Change is part of life. But mass redundancies based on more modern planes? Bollocks.
Bloody good point. The figures, if correctly analysed and trended are worrying, very worrying, and mathematically not possible under normal operating conditions.
It is ironic, not surprising, but ironic that CASA aren't worried. Doesn't the Regulator require an operator to do the following:
- Report
- Analyse
- Trend
- Mitigate
- Change
- Fix
- Review
etc etc etc?
All as proof that the internal operating system is being monitored, reviewed and improved. All as part of the 'change management' process and improvement, as per the operators SMS? Hmmm.
So let's think about it, Steve and friends have done this, yet CASA turn a blind eye and aren't interested?
It would also indicate the Human Factors training and education isn't working?
It would also indicate the 'Just Culture' component of the organisation isn't working?
Hang on - SMS, HF, Just Culture, all required under the Regulations. I didn't think it was acceptable to not comply with the Regulations?
Aren't Steve and friends identifying 'holes in the Swiss cheese? Latent conditions? And the Regulator and QF management aren't interested? It does beggar belief. And if Steve's data is accurate and QF and CASA won't even listen or act interested then I would say there are some very real concerns here. When was it that the FAA and ICAO were coming back?
The system is f#cked, hundreds of jobs (and the majority are NOT redundant positions, they are being made to look redundant due to clever PR and spin) are going, along with hundreds before.
Planes have moving parts, moving parts break, broken parts need fixing. The rhetoric that all these jobs need axing due to more modern technological aircraft is crap. A restructuring perhaps, yes. Change is part of life. But mass redundancies based on more modern planes? Bollocks.
Is it normal to allow 93% of defects to be reported one way and 7% the other? Even CASA didn't give a cods wad about this when we wrote to them. This industry needs oversight and nobody is providing it. Things need to change or we will lose our collective reputations.
It is ironic, not surprising, but ironic that CASA aren't worried. Doesn't the Regulator require an operator to do the following:
- Report
- Analyse
- Trend
- Mitigate
- Change
- Fix
- Review
etc etc etc?
All as proof that the internal operating system is being monitored, reviewed and improved. All as part of the 'change management' process and improvement, as per the operators SMS? Hmmm.
So let's think about it, Steve and friends have done this, yet CASA turn a blind eye and aren't interested?
It would also indicate the Human Factors training and education isn't working?
It would also indicate the 'Just Culture' component of the organisation isn't working?
Hang on - SMS, HF, Just Culture, all required under the Regulations. I didn't think it was acceptable to not comply with the Regulations?
Aren't Steve and friends identifying 'holes in the Swiss cheese? Latent conditions? And the Regulator and QF management aren't interested? It does beggar belief. And if Steve's data is accurate and QF and CASA won't even listen or act interested then I would say there are some very real concerns here. When was it that the FAA and ICAO were coming back?
Last edited by gobbledock; 10th Nov 2012 at 00:43.
Not if it is at a non maintenance port and considered a minor defect by the pilot in command.
I don’t see that as an exception to regulation 50:
(1) This regulation applies to each of the following persons:
(a) the holder of the certificate of registration for an Australian aircraft;
(b) the operator of an Australian aircraft;
(c) a flight crew member of an Australian aircraft.
(2) If:
(a) there is a defect in the aircraft; or
(b) …
a person mentioned in subregulation (1), who becomes aware of the defect …, must endorse the maintenance release of the aircraft or other document approved for use as an alternative for the purposes of this regulation, setting out the particulars of the defect … and sign the endorsement.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(a) the holder of the certificate of registration for an Australian aircraft;
(b) the operator of an Australian aircraft;
(c) a flight crew member of an Australian aircraft.
(2) If:
(a) there is a defect in the aircraft; or
(b) …
a person mentioned in subregulation (1), who becomes aware of the defect …, must endorse the maintenance release of the aircraft or other document approved for use as an alternative for the purposes of this regulation, setting out the particulars of the defect … and sign the endorsement.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
Last edited by Creampuff; 10th Nov 2012 at 00:43.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as a matter of interest, how does the pilot judge what's 'minor', and what airline permits this procedure?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not if it is at a non maintenance port and considered a minor defect by the pilot in command.
I don’t see that as an exception to regulation 50:
(1) This regulation applies to each of the following persons:
(a) the holder of the certificate of registration for an Australian aircraft;
(b) the operator of an Australian aircraft;
(c) a flight crew member of an Australian aircraft.
(2) If:
(a) there is a defect in the aircraft; or
(b) …
a person mentioned in subregulation (1), who becomes aware of the defect …, must endorse the maintenance release of the aircraft or other document approved for use as an alternative for the purposes of this regulation, setting out the particulars of the defect … and sign the endorsement.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(a) the holder of the certificate of registration for an Australian aircraft;
(b) the operator of an Australian aircraft;
(c) a flight crew member of an Australian aircraft.
(2) If:
(a) there is a defect in the aircraft; or
(b) …
a person mentioned in subregulation (1), who becomes aware of the defect …, must endorse the maintenance release of the aircraft or other document approved for use as an alternative for the purposes of this regulation, setting out the particulars of the defect … and sign the endorsement.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
However, for one airline in Aus, if it is considered a minor defect by the PIC at a non maintenance port then no action is required prior to departure. Rarely used because we prefer to ask our LAMEs.
Also remember that the flight crew can apply certain MELs that do not require maintenance action in certain circumstances.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes the defect has to be written in the Tech Log (CASA approved Alternate Maintenance Release), but the Maintenance Release only "ceases to be in force" if it is a Major Defect.
Like it or not, that is the Australian Regulation.
CAR(1988)47 refers.
If it is a minor defect the aircraft may be flown.
MP.
Like it or not, that is the Australian Regulation.
CAR(1988)47 refers.
If it is a minor defect the aircraft may be flown.
MP.
MEL/PUS is a different matter. Experts have already assessed the risks arising from the unserviceability, and the circumstances in which they can be appropriately mitigated.
Does the Ops Manual for the airline to which you refer include the procedure for the PIC to make a judgement call at a non-maintenance base?
Does the Ops Manual for the airline to which you refer include the procedure for the PIC to make a judgement call at a non-maintenance base?
For the benefit of MP:
[Bolding added, except in the heading.]
For my benefit: I request that all PICs who make the judgement call to carry a ‘minor’ defect that isn’t in the list of exceptions above, please make a PA announcement of the decision and the defect.
There's no reasonable ground on which to keep PAX in the dark. After all, it’s legal and zero risk, right?
10 Serviceability
10.1 In the case of a charter or regular public transport aircraft, all instruments and equipment fitted to the aircraft must be serviceable before take-off, unless:
(a) flight with unserviceable instruments or equipment has been approved by CASA, subject to such conditions as CASA specifies; or
(b) the unserviceability is a permissible unserviceability set out in the minimum equipment list for the aircraft and any applicable conditions under subregulation 37 (2) of the Regulations have been complied with; or
(c) CASA has approved the flight with the unserviceable instrument or equipment and any applicable conditions that CASA has specified in writing have been complied with; or
(d) the unserviceable instrument or equipment is a passenger convenience item only and does not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft.
10.1 In the case of a charter or regular public transport aircraft, all instruments and equipment fitted to the aircraft must be serviceable before take-off, unless:
(a) flight with unserviceable instruments or equipment has been approved by CASA, subject to such conditions as CASA specifies; or
(b) the unserviceability is a permissible unserviceability set out in the minimum equipment list for the aircraft and any applicable conditions under subregulation 37 (2) of the Regulations have been complied with; or
(c) CASA has approved the flight with the unserviceable instrument or equipment and any applicable conditions that CASA has specified in writing have been complied with; or
(d) the unserviceable instrument or equipment is a passenger convenience item only and does not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft.
For my benefit: I request that all PICs who make the judgement call to carry a ‘minor’ defect that isn’t in the list of exceptions above, please make a PA announcement of the decision and the defect.
There's no reasonable ground on which to keep PAX in the dark. After all, it’s legal and zero risk, right?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Report: A small amount of fluid found leaking from area at rear of left inboard aileron.
Action: Nil maintenance required before flt as defect is considered minor IAW Managers Perspective post on Pprnue dated 10 Nov at 14.33. To hold until whenever.
Action: Nil maintenance required before flt as defect is considered minor IAW Managers Perspective post on Pprnue dated 10 Nov at 14.33. To hold until whenever.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
She'll be right mate, she'll be right mate, export light mate, drink it all night.
Cockpit Voice Recorders: Transcripts: Lauda 004
Time: Source: Contents:
23.21:21 - [Warning light indicated]
23.21:21 FO: ****.
23.21:24 CA: That keeps, that's come on.
23.22:28 FO: So we passed transition altitude one-zero-one-three
23.22:30 CA: OK.
23.23:57 CA: What's it say in there about that, just ah...
23.24:00 FO: (reading from quick reference handbook) Additional system failures may cause in-flight deployment. Expect normal reverse operation after landing.
23.24:11 CA: OK.
23.24:12 CA: Just, ah, let's see.
23.24:36 CA: OK.
23.25:19 FO:
23.25:26 CA: Ah, you can tell 'em it, just it's, it's, it's, just ah, no, ah, it's probably ah wa... ah moisture or something 'cause it's not just, oh, it's coming on and off.
23.25:39 FO: Yeah.
23.25:40 CA: But, ah, you know it's a ... it doesn't really, it's just an advisory thing, I don't ah ...
23.25:55 CA: Could be some moisture in there or somethin'.
23.26:03 FO: Think you need a little bit of rudder trim to the left.
23.26:06 CA: What's that?
23.26:08 FO: You need a little bit of rudder trim to the left.
23.26:10 CA: OK.
23.26:12 CA: OK.
23.26:50 FO: (starts adding up figures in German)
23.30:09 FO: (stops adding figures)
23.30:37 FO: Ah, reverser's deployed.
23.30:39 - [sound of snap]
23.30:41 CA: Jesus Christ!
23.30:44 - [sound of four caution tones]
23.30:47 - [sound of siren warning starts]
23.30:48 - [sound of siren warning stops]
< starts and continues until the recording ends]
23.30:53 CA: Here, wait a minute!
23.30:58 CA: Damn it!
23.31:05 - [sound of bang]
Time: Source: Contents:
23.21:21 - [Warning light indicated]
23.21:21 FO: ****.
23.21:24 CA: That keeps, that's come on.
23.22:28 FO: So we passed transition altitude one-zero-one-three
23.22:30 CA: OK.
23.23:57 CA: What's it say in there about that, just ah...
23.24:00 FO: (reading from quick reference handbook) Additional system failures may cause in-flight deployment. Expect normal reverse operation after landing.
23.24:11 CA: OK.
23.24:12 CA: Just, ah, let's see.
23.24:36 CA: OK.
23.25:19 FO:
23.25:26 CA: Ah, you can tell 'em it, just it's, it's, it's, just ah, no, ah, it's probably ah wa... ah moisture or something 'cause it's not just, oh, it's coming on and off.
23.25:39 FO: Yeah.
23.25:40 CA: But, ah, you know it's a ... it doesn't really, it's just an advisory thing, I don't ah ...
23.25:55 CA: Could be some moisture in there or somethin'.
23.26:03 FO: Think you need a little bit of rudder trim to the left.
23.26:06 CA: What's that?
23.26:08 FO: You need a little bit of rudder trim to the left.
23.26:10 CA: OK.
23.26:12 CA: OK.
23.26:50 FO: (starts adding up figures in German)
23.30:09 FO: (stops adding figures)
23.30:37 FO: Ah, reverser's deployed.
23.30:39 - [sound of snap]
23.30:41 CA: Jesus Christ!
23.30:44 - [sound of four caution tones]
23.30:47 - [sound of siren warning starts]
23.30:48 - [sound of siren warning stops]
< starts and continues until the recording ends]
23.30:53 CA: Here, wait a minute!
23.30:58 CA: Damn it!
23.31:05 - [sound of bang]
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: sydney
Age: 76
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yet another thread from fed Sec that does nothing to promote the interests of LAME's, he has lost the plot . Go back to the founding fathers and understand why the Association was born.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day, the LAME who certified for the defect should raise an SDR on a Form 500, if he/she hasn't already? Also, a report should be made independently to CASA, followed up with a letter explaining what the situation is to both the Minister for Transport and the Opposition Shadow Minister. They can only ignore the alarm bells for so long.
For those who are unaware, the LAME owns the licence, not Qantas. We still have a duty to ourselves and the public, even if there are certain pilots(99% do the right thing,and have the highest ethical standards), and certain managers(reverse the last statement) wish to ignore the procedures as set out by said management.
If the LAME feels the system is failing, its time to step outside of the company procedures and alert CASA (who may not want to hear) and those who make the decisions, the politicians. If nobody wants to listen, then there is not much more that can be done apart from repeating those steps until an accident occurs and the ATSB gets involved.
For those who are unaware, the LAME owns the licence, not Qantas. We still have a duty to ourselves and the public, even if there are certain pilots(99% do the right thing,and have the highest ethical standards), and certain managers(reverse the last statement) wish to ignore the procedures as set out by said management.
If the LAME feels the system is failing, its time to step outside of the company procedures and alert CASA (who may not want to hear) and those who make the decisions, the politicians. If nobody wants to listen, then there is not much more that can be done apart from repeating those steps until an accident occurs and the ATSB gets involved.