Defect Reports
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 119
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.
Be careful - make too many unsubstantiated accusations, accuse too many of the 99% (pilots) of illegal activities, and I give you about 10 minutes before you drive a wedge between our groups that will take years to remove.
LAMEs are not perfect either but I accept their word when they tell me that they mistakenly wrote the wrong date in the Check 2 and they don't need to do another one with 5 minutes prior to pushback because "it really was only done just last night."
The pilots want you around - word of advice - don't alienate them.
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
Fed Sec. Very good post. Let's hope the Rat never gets to feel that occur in it's lifetime. And if it does happen I can only hope she is full of managers and executives on there way to some rort somewhere.
Bug-a-lugs, that is the post of this thread.
Bug-a-lugs, that is the post of this thread.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need to write anything in the action field, the flight crew can assess and if satisfied it is a minor defect they can continue.
No need for some meddling engineer to come along and impose their self beliefs.
MP.
No need for some meddling engineer to come along and impose their self beliefs.
MP.
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
No need for some meddling engineer to come along and impose their self beliefs
Seems like one of the 'Magnificent 11' is bored tonight!!
Last edited by gobbledock; 10th Nov 2012 at 10:45.
No need to write anything in the action field, the flight crew can assess and if satisfied it is a minor defect they can continue.
No need for some meddling engineer to come along and impose their self beliefs.
MP.
No need for some meddling engineer to come along and impose their self beliefs.
MP.
What about when they see fit to seek the advice of maintenance watch and write as such in the report field on the way back.
What about when they fly back with the above such statement and the aircraft is grounded on arrival with a major defect ?
What about when they write words to the effect of 'this happened on the way over and also on the way back' ?
What about when an MEL is applied and the (M) action is carried out by the pilot ?
I've seen all of the above.
Is that a meddling engineers self belief to say that something here is not right ?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lauda
The Lauda aircraft had numerous previous reports of TR defects.
A lot of work had been carried out to no avail.
What is the relevance of this accident to this discussion?
Are you implying that a pilot had not reported something and the aircraft crashed because of this?
A lot of work had been carried out to no avail.
What is the relevance of this accident to this discussion?
Are you implying that a pilot had not reported something and the aircraft crashed because of this?
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cloudcuckooland
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MP, those "self beliefs" are generally referred to as training and experience. The only employee group that is qualified to determine the severity of a defect and the ability to wade through numerous documents in order to find the correct supporting data to aid their evaluation are the Engineers. Not the tech crew who are in an unmanned port somewhere and who are only paid per their industrial agreement when they are flying, not the cabin crew and certainly not some bloke sitting in an ivory tower in Sydney thousands of km's away from the job, declaring an aircraft serviceable, operating with plausible deniability and never putting their name on paper.
Last edited by Hugh Mungous; 10th Nov 2012 at 12:42.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need for some meddling engineer to come along and impose their self beliefs
What about when they see fit to seek the advice of maintenance watch and write as such in the report field on the way back.
What about when they fly back with the above such statement and the aircraft is grounded on arrival with a major defect ?
What about when they write words to the effect of 'this happened on the way over and also on the way back' ?
What about when an MEL is applied and the (M) action is carried out by the pilot ?
What about when an MEL is applied and the (M) action is carried out by the pilot ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about when they write words to the effect of 'this happened on the way over and also on the way back' ?
What about when an MEL is applied and the (M) action is carried out by the pilot ?
What about when an MEL is applied and the (M) action is carried out by the pilot ?
Both inexcusable and worthy of tea and bickies with the boss.
The combination of CASA, Qantas and a useless Govt. are an accident waiting to happen.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having a mind of their own
You are driving a modern car, that requires near to no maintenance, and it has tried, 7 times to cross over into on coming traffic. What do you do? You call the service centre. They will know. They will know the last time this happened and how. The driver says he's happy to continue.........
That is the documented procedure. There appears to be a lot of argy bargy between the LAMEs and maintenance watch. If that is a problem then that is an internal engineering issue and nothing to do with flight crew - sort it out.
I'm happy to be proven wrong - I've never seen that procedure you speak of..
But
Are you sure the procedure allows a verbal instruction from someone sitting in Sydney to allow further flight with an aircraft with an open defect in lieu of what the LAME would do in the same situation ? As in that's the entire reason why LAME's exist in the first place and have a licence granted to them by CASA.
I can imagine a procedure exists so that any defects that occur en route/at an unmanned port need to be reported to maintenance watch for liasing with IOC, engineering rescue support etc. But that's it.
I think pilots need to be aware, a verbal instruction is as good as it never happening. One of the major facets of our trade is and one of Qantas's stated Maintenance Error Reduction Beliefs they like to display everywhere, is to 'only accept written instruction'.
Happy to be proven wrong though. Maybe its just my self belief failing me again.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need to write anything in the action field, the flight crew can assess and if satisfied it is a minor defect they can continue.
No need for some meddling engineer to come along and impose their self beliefs.
MP.
No need for some meddling engineer to come along and impose their self beliefs.
MP.
I don't like my cups of tea being interrupted for fear of meddling in the service and maintenance of aircraft defects. I'm of an age where meddling engineers fixed aeroplanes and discussed problems with the flight crew. You're of an age where bag chuckers and pilots can assess defects on an aircraft and continue on their way.
I'm with you. I'll just go back and have another cuppa.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beginning of the year I spent several months researching and closing the purchase of a Gulfstream.
CASA Part A maintenance requirement as for Qantas.
I had the privilege of working alongside one of the most experienced US engineers in the business and with whom I have worked for many years.
There was much poring over log books and reconciling of flight records.
The vast majority of the operators were as expected 100%, no short cuts, 100% integrity, outside MEL grounded wherever, until fixed.
What was important for us to establish was the integrity of the "signature", pilot and engineers alike, on the flight and maintenance documentation.
Sounds self evident, but sadly not necessarily so. Forensic analysis, experienced listening and a bit of a chat generally gave up the lie if there was one.
We had the notion reinforced beyond any doubt that at the end of the day this whole business depends absolutely like no other on the integrity of that process. I have never had an Australian LAME act otherwise.
I used to think that the Austalian system was right up there at this level.
This thread suggests a breakdown of this integrity on the pilot, management, regulatory side.
Are we at risk of adding an Australian high capacity airline to the list of Royal Commisions, that includes, Seaview, Monarch, Whyalla, Lockhart River and so on.
CASA Part A maintenance requirement as for Qantas.
I had the privilege of working alongside one of the most experienced US engineers in the business and with whom I have worked for many years.
There was much poring over log books and reconciling of flight records.
The vast majority of the operators were as expected 100%, no short cuts, 100% integrity, outside MEL grounded wherever, until fixed.
What was important for us to establish was the integrity of the "signature", pilot and engineers alike, on the flight and maintenance documentation.
Sounds self evident, but sadly not necessarily so. Forensic analysis, experienced listening and a bit of a chat generally gave up the lie if there was one.
We had the notion reinforced beyond any doubt that at the end of the day this whole business depends absolutely like no other on the integrity of that process. I have never had an Australian LAME act otherwise.
I used to think that the Austalian system was right up there at this level.
This thread suggests a breakdown of this integrity on the pilot, management, regulatory side.
Are we at risk of adding an Australian high capacity airline to the list of Royal Commisions, that includes, Seaview, Monarch, Whyalla, Lockhart River and so on.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Twilight Zone
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MP...we get your point of view and understand exactly what you're suggesting. Cover it up....shut your mouths.....turn a blind eye.....deny any knowledge....etc etc etc.
This forum has always been an avenue to post rumours, facts, conspiracies, and evidence amongst other things. If you feel uncomfortable about some of the content contained here, I'd suggest you subscribe to something more to your liking such as How to deal with bad bosses, problem supervisors and difficult managers
This forum has always been an avenue to post rumours, facts, conspiracies, and evidence amongst other things. If you feel uncomfortable about some of the content contained here, I'd suggest you subscribe to something more to your liking such as How to deal with bad bosses, problem supervisors and difficult managers
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 74
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Professional Responsibility
Steve said:
I beg to differ.
I reckon the union has a responsibility to not defend the indefensible - the tenets of "just culture" apply equally to representative bodies as they do to employers.
If the crew was being "operationally clever" in order to get home or not inconvenience their employer, a suggestion not in any way substantiated, then the union should make sure that those pilots know that their actions are illegal and, more importantly, may cover the start of a defect sequence that can bite them in the arse before they get home. If the System of Maintenance, the Maintenance Control Manual and the Defect Rectification Procedures do not adequately cater for the problem occurring at a non-maintenance base, then the problem is for the operator to solve, not the pilots.
The union is there to protect its members and their system of work when both do the right thing. The union is there to protect its members from their system of work when the latter does not do the right thing, but not vice versa.
PS I can't believe that anyone would seriously respond to the troll MP!
I don't expect AIPA to have a crack at their members, that's not their job.
I reckon the union has a responsibility to not defend the indefensible - the tenets of "just culture" apply equally to representative bodies as they do to employers.
If the crew was being "operationally clever" in order to get home or not inconvenience their employer, a suggestion not in any way substantiated, then the union should make sure that those pilots know that their actions are illegal and, more importantly, may cover the start of a defect sequence that can bite them in the arse before they get home. If the System of Maintenance, the Maintenance Control Manual and the Defect Rectification Procedures do not adequately cater for the problem occurring at a non-maintenance base, then the problem is for the operator to solve, not the pilots.
The union is there to protect its members and their system of work when both do the right thing. The union is there to protect its members from their system of work when the latter does not do the right thing, but not vice versa.
PS I can't believe that anyone would seriously respond to the troll MP!
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
Are we at risk of adding an Australian high capacity airline to the list of Royal Commisions, that includes, Seaview, Monarch, Whyalla, Lockhart River and so on.
Tick tock
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have log coupons of several examples of each of these. The LAMEs are reporting it internally on form 500's. They tick a box to make it an SDR (reportable to CASA). Management overule and don't report to CASA. We do anyway and CASA do not act.
Were you able to provide these form 500's, SDR,s (and coupons if necessary) as evidence to any senator sitting on this enquiry for CASA to provide a response?
CASA's job is obvious to all and with evidence presented to them, a response to the senators could be interesting.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Past the rabbit proof fence
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a way of verifying avionic faults and what leg they occurred on 737NG's - the hud computer stores 99 flt legs of faults and it would indicate if the fault was both sectors.
"We have ways" in german accent
"We have ways" in german accent
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gobbledygook
I do not doubt fo a moment that LAMEs do right thing, usually under more pressure Han s acceptable.
The fact that you/we (and we might include pilots here but they are hopelessly conflicted) need a union to protect them from their employer and the regulator says it all.
If you cant rely on the regulator to protect your back against commercial and political agenda when you you are simply enforcing the regulatory requirements, then we are all lost.
Slow motion train smash. Innocents will be injured or die, the actors will go to goal or be sent to Coventry, there will be much hand wringing and renting of garments by the actual culprits who will be promoted or rewarded in he usual manner. The legal buzzards will as usual wax rich on the subsequent commission/ enquiry as ever and we will go back to the future.
The circus surrounding the Norfolk accident is evidence of just how totally f!cked is the whole system. As another in these halls observed the bona fide regulators worldwide must be falling of their chairs laughing.
Ban ex RAAF/airline persons from the regulator, contract the service to FAA NZ/CAA, require yearly forensic financial viability audits, reinstate closed skies policy.
Tell him he's dreamin.
I do not doubt fo a moment that LAMEs do right thing, usually under more pressure Han s acceptable.
The fact that you/we (and we might include pilots here but they are hopelessly conflicted) need a union to protect them from their employer and the regulator says it all.
If you cant rely on the regulator to protect your back against commercial and political agenda when you you are simply enforcing the regulatory requirements, then we are all lost.
Slow motion train smash. Innocents will be injured or die, the actors will go to goal or be sent to Coventry, there will be much hand wringing and renting of garments by the actual culprits who will be promoted or rewarded in he usual manner. The legal buzzards will as usual wax rich on the subsequent commission/ enquiry as ever and we will go back to the future.
The circus surrounding the Norfolk accident is evidence of just how totally f!cked is the whole system. As another in these halls observed the bona fide regulators worldwide must be falling of their chairs laughing.
Ban ex RAAF/airline persons from the regulator, contract the service to FAA NZ/CAA, require yearly forensic financial viability audits, reinstate closed skies policy.
Tell him he's dreamin.