Defect Reports
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh BTW to echo a famous US General during the Normandy invasion observed to his staff when he was faced with a similar cluster, "I wouldn't want you to think I am just simply angry......"
short flights long nights
Oh for the days of the DCA and the AFAP tech committee.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all very interesting. Glad this doesn't go on in Europe. Whatever next, we will have patients telling doctors which illnesses are serious and which not.
Big respect for flyers but please just fly.
Big respect for flyers but please just fly.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a prior poster pointed out...There are two groups of people in aviation who hold licences. Pilots and engineers.
The pertinent point is that both licences entitle the holder to declare an aircraft unserviceable...Only one licence entitles the holder to declare an aircraft serviceable.
The pertinent point is that both licences entitle the holder to declare an aircraft unserviceable...Only one licence entitles the holder to declare an aircraft serviceable.
Last edited by Gas Bags; 12th Nov 2012 at 23:40.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAR1988 - CAR 51 stipulates who, what, where and when a major defect is to be reported.
Surprises some that the LAME does not refer to CASA, his employer or the Cof R holder has that responsibility.
Not withstanding, is interesting that CASA won't take a MDR from Steve.
Surprises some that the LAME does not refer to CASA, his employer or the Cof R holder has that responsibility.
Not withstanding, is interesting that CASA won't take a MDR from Steve.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Airborne
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is varied in it's relevance to the original post, but given many of the responses here it is probably relevant to note the following:
The 93% vs 7% report statistic is just that... a statistic. Statistics can be used or misused for an agenda. So far no evidence has been posted on this thread that identifies a real issue with respect to aircraft maintenance in or out of a "non-maintance port". The argument of a pilot not being qualified to determine whether or not a "defect" affects the airworthiness of his/her aircraft has been blown way out of proportion.
How many of those 93% vs 7% tech log reports were of an airworthiness nature? For example, would you write in a tech log that the windscreen needs cleaning when inbound to a non-maintenance port? Would you write that the ACARS printer paper needs replacing? Would you write that a light bulb needs changing when your ops manual says you can replace it yourself if need be? Would you write that a bit of plastic trim is working loose in the cabin? Would you write that the carpet is dirty? Would you write that a bit of black paint has been worn off the glare shield?
Most tech log reports are of a non-airworthiness nature. The fact that 7% of reports are actually written inbound to non-maintenance ports indicates to me that the pilots ARE doing the right thing and writing issues up when they are of an airworthiness nature.
I haven't personally seen any evidence that pilots in my company are fudging their way through non-maintenance ports with airworthiness defects. If Fed Sec has evidence to the contrary I would fully support him taking that up through the appropriate channels.
Pilots and Engineers are the team that keeps the air safe. Let's work together on this - please no more us/them attitudes between pilots and engineers.
The 93% vs 7% report statistic is just that... a statistic. Statistics can be used or misused for an agenda. So far no evidence has been posted on this thread that identifies a real issue with respect to aircraft maintenance in or out of a "non-maintance port". The argument of a pilot not being qualified to determine whether or not a "defect" affects the airworthiness of his/her aircraft has been blown way out of proportion.
How many of those 93% vs 7% tech log reports were of an airworthiness nature? For example, would you write in a tech log that the windscreen needs cleaning when inbound to a non-maintenance port? Would you write that the ACARS printer paper needs replacing? Would you write that a light bulb needs changing when your ops manual says you can replace it yourself if need be? Would you write that a bit of plastic trim is working loose in the cabin? Would you write that the carpet is dirty? Would you write that a bit of black paint has been worn off the glare shield?
Most tech log reports are of a non-airworthiness nature. The fact that 7% of reports are actually written inbound to non-maintenance ports indicates to me that the pilots ARE doing the right thing and writing issues up when they are of an airworthiness nature.
I haven't personally seen any evidence that pilots in my company are fudging their way through non-maintenance ports with airworthiness defects. If Fed Sec has evidence to the contrary I would fully support him taking that up through the appropriate channels.
Pilots and Engineers are the team that keeps the air safe. Let's work together on this - please no more us/them attitudes between pilots and engineers.
Most tech log reports are of a non-airworthiness nature. The fact that 7% of reports are actually written inbound to non-maintenance ports indicates to me that the pilots ARE doing the right thing and writing issues up when they are of an airworthiness nature.
It's my personal belief that M/W shouldn't be providing technical advice to pilots at an unmanned port where a pilot has determined that 1) there is a defect and 2) seen fit to contact M/W to seek further advice when M/W engineers don't have to put pen to paper after verbally telling a pilot it's fit to fly.
Otherwise wouldn't the company put it in the official procedures like MEL's the pilot can apply ? How about a section about ramp equipment impact damage allowable limits ? How about a section flight controls not returning to neutral positions ? A section on how to clear thrust reverser faults ?
The reason the above don't exist is because no one is brave/stupid enough to approve them without an engineer doing further investigation as to WHY the problem happened in the first place. Ask Mr Purvinas if he has proof of the above examples. I'd bet my left one he does.
At the end of the day, if something goes wrong you won't be held in high esteem because of your heroic efforts to get the plane and pax back home because some bloke in SYD said it was ok.
Last edited by 600ft-lb; 13th Nov 2012 at 16:12.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Airborne
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree completely with what you say.
As far as I am aware, in my company, a phone call to MW does not let you depart a non-maint port with any defect that requires maintenance attention.
The only time you CAN depart a non-maint port is when you have a defect that does NOT require maint action.
The phone call to MW is required when any defect is recorded in the tech log. If that defect requires maint action then a phone call to MW does not let you depart the port.
However, there are situations where an airworthiness defect does not ground the aircraft, and the aircraft is still allowed to depart after a phone call. For example, an oxygen cylinder is used inbound to Kalgoorlie. That requires an entry in the tech log. The aircraft is down 1 oxy cylinder on departure. The crew are required to phone MW prior to departure and get approval to apply an MEL to depart. That can be done over the phone. The MEL allows flight with one oxy bottle used. Does anyone here have a problem with that? We are not talking about a thrust reverser inop.
As far as I am aware, in my company, a phone call to MW does not let you depart a non-maint port with any defect that requires maintenance attention.
The only time you CAN depart a non-maint port is when you have a defect that does NOT require maint action.
The phone call to MW is required when any defect is recorded in the tech log. If that defect requires maint action then a phone call to MW does not let you depart the port.
However, there are situations where an airworthiness defect does not ground the aircraft, and the aircraft is still allowed to depart after a phone call. For example, an oxygen cylinder is used inbound to Kalgoorlie. That requires an entry in the tech log. The aircraft is down 1 oxy cylinder on departure. The crew are required to phone MW prior to departure and get approval to apply an MEL to depart. That can be done over the phone. The MEL allows flight with one oxy bottle used. Does anyone here have a problem with that? We are not talking about a thrust reverser inop.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Christmas Island
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fascinating thread.... For my 2 bobs worth it's not about the ability of the people concerned , it's about the rules we are professionally bound to follow.
As I understand it, all defects are to be recorded in either the cabin or tech log. The pilot / lame will ensure all airworthiness defects ( MEL ITEMS) are entered into the tech log.
The crew may apply the intent of any MEL that does not have an (M) requirement.
A permissible defect will be covered by an MEL, EA or MM/SRM/TSM REFERENCE.
This applies to manned or unmanned ports..
Yes.. Always good to run it by MAINT WATCH either way if its an unmanned port. Even if just to give the next port a heads up.
Simple as that isn't it?????
As for pilot maintenance, if the rules allow it, you can do it . BUT, it does state that u will have been trained to do it. Within the QF SYSTEM I presume that would involve classroom training and some prac training by a qualified instructor , and a record of that training available for any audit or legal purpose.
Not to mention any possible recurrent training.
Can any pilot out there eg 737/A330/767/744/380 shed any light on that for us, as I really don't know what u have or have not been trained on.
We never had this problem when we had Flight Engineers on board hey ;-)
As for engineers, for them to get what was known as a "transit authority" on a type they were not rated on, it was an approved course and prac training with an approved trainer, which allowed only certification of transit check items. No application of MEL, no defect rectification.
We are all bombarded with legislation, regulations, policies, procedures etc etc. I fully appreciate that. It's a minefield of ambiguities, grey areas and conflicts.
These forums are a good place to throw it out there for discussion. I may learn a thing or two from u guys.
We are all going through tough times and frustrations are showing on all sides. Pilots and engineers are on the same team. We have a common enemy. Lets work as a team.
Cheers.
As I understand it, all defects are to be recorded in either the cabin or tech log. The pilot / lame will ensure all airworthiness defects ( MEL ITEMS) are entered into the tech log.
The crew may apply the intent of any MEL that does not have an (M) requirement.
A permissible defect will be covered by an MEL, EA or MM/SRM/TSM REFERENCE.
This applies to manned or unmanned ports..
Yes.. Always good to run it by MAINT WATCH either way if its an unmanned port. Even if just to give the next port a heads up.
Simple as that isn't it?????
As for pilot maintenance, if the rules allow it, you can do it . BUT, it does state that u will have been trained to do it. Within the QF SYSTEM I presume that would involve classroom training and some prac training by a qualified instructor , and a record of that training available for any audit or legal purpose.
Not to mention any possible recurrent training.
Can any pilot out there eg 737/A330/767/744/380 shed any light on that for us, as I really don't know what u have or have not been trained on.
We never had this problem when we had Flight Engineers on board hey ;-)
As for engineers, for them to get what was known as a "transit authority" on a type they were not rated on, it was an approved course and prac training with an approved trainer, which allowed only certification of transit check items. No application of MEL, no defect rectification.
We are all bombarded with legislation, regulations, policies, procedures etc etc. I fully appreciate that. It's a minefield of ambiguities, grey areas and conflicts.
These forums are a good place to throw it out there for discussion. I may learn a thing or two from u guys.
We are all going through tough times and frustrations are showing on all sides. Pilots and engineers are on the same team. We have a common enemy. Lets work as a team.
Cheers.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Christmas Island
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This pretty well sums it up.....
AMC 42.030 (2) (e) - Continuing airworthiness requirements — all aircraft
An acceptable means of compliance with this paragraph is to ensure that the flight crew of the aircraft does not commence a flight with defect in the aircraft unless:
operation of the aircraft for the flight with the defect is permitted by the MEL or the CDL for the aircraft;
a special flight permit;
the rectification of the defect is deferred in accordance with CASR Subdivision 42.D.6.1
by an individual on behalf of an AMO; or
the defect is in an item of operational or emergency equipment that is not required by the
certification basis for the aircraft and is not required by or under these Regulations for the operation of the aircraft for the flight.
The procedures for flight crew to ensure this may be included in the flight technical log for the aircraft or in case of an AOC holder, in the AOC holder’s operations manual.
GM 42.030 (2) (f) - Continuing airworthiness requirements — all aircraft
The registered operator of an aircraft is to enter in the flight technical log for the aircraft, the following defects, before the aircraft commences a flight:
• any defect the rectification of which is not required under the MEL or the CDL for the aircraft; and
• a defect in an item of operational or emergency equipment fitted to the aircraft.
AMC 42.030 (2) (e) - Continuing airworthiness requirements — all aircraft
An acceptable means of compliance with this paragraph is to ensure that the flight crew of the aircraft does not commence a flight with defect in the aircraft unless:
operation of the aircraft for the flight with the defect is permitted by the MEL or the CDL for the aircraft;
a special flight permit;
the rectification of the defect is deferred in accordance with CASR Subdivision 42.D.6.1
by an individual on behalf of an AMO; or
the defect is in an item of operational or emergency equipment that is not required by the
certification basis for the aircraft and is not required by or under these Regulations for the operation of the aircraft for the flight.
The procedures for flight crew to ensure this may be included in the flight technical log for the aircraft or in case of an AOC holder, in the AOC holder’s operations manual.
GM 42.030 (2) (f) - Continuing airworthiness requirements — all aircraft
The registered operator of an aircraft is to enter in the flight technical log for the aircraft, the following defects, before the aircraft commences a flight:
• any defect the rectification of which is not required under the MEL or the CDL for the aircraft; and
• a defect in an item of operational or emergency equipment fitted to the aircraft.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Christmas Island
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And this....
GM 42.115 (1) - Rectification of defect to aircraft before flight - all aircraft
If there is a defect in an aircraft then the defect must be rectified before the next flight unless continued operation is permitted or rectification of the defect may be deferred.
GM 42.115 (1) - Rectification of defect to aircraft before flight - all aircraft
If there is a defect in an aircraft then the defect must be rectified before the next flight unless continued operation is permitted or rectification of the defect may be deferred.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Christmas Island
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It gets better....
GM 42.360 - When qualified individual may defer rectification of defect
Paragraph 42.360 (3) (a) should only be applied to items that are not required for flight, for example, passenger convenience items and cabin interior items that are only decorative.
Defects in aircraft structure or flight related systems, no matter how minor, may only be deferred in accordance with the maintenance data for the aircraft or affected aeronautical product.
Furthermore, the defect must be the primary consideration for application of paragraph 42.360 (3) (a) with the system or part as secondary. If there is a defect in a system that is not related to flight, but the defect has the potential to affect another system or structure that is related to flight, then paragraph 42.360 (3) (a) may not be applied. If the defect in the non-flight related system requires maintenance action to isolate the defect from other systems and structure, then paragraph
42.360 (3) (a) may not be applied.
Several examples have been provided to illustrate the intent of the regulations with regards to when paragraph 42.360 (3) (a) may be applied and when it may not. Note that the examples are generic in nature and any maintenance must always be carried out in accordance with the relevant maintenance data.
GM 42.360 - When qualified individual may defer rectification of defect
Paragraph 42.360 (3) (a) should only be applied to items that are not required for flight, for example, passenger convenience items and cabin interior items that are only decorative.
Defects in aircraft structure or flight related systems, no matter how minor, may only be deferred in accordance with the maintenance data for the aircraft or affected aeronautical product.
Furthermore, the defect must be the primary consideration for application of paragraph 42.360 (3) (a) with the system or part as secondary. If there is a defect in a system that is not related to flight, but the defect has the potential to affect another system or structure that is related to flight, then paragraph 42.360 (3) (a) may not be applied. If the defect in the non-flight related system requires maintenance action to isolate the defect from other systems and structure, then paragraph
42.360 (3) (a) may not be applied.
Several examples have been provided to illustrate the intent of the regulations with regards to when paragraph 42.360 (3) (a) may be applied and when it may not. Note that the examples are generic in nature and any maintenance must always be carried out in accordance with the relevant maintenance data.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing appears obvious here. Pilots are not readily able to access Engineering manuals or may not understand our Regs. Engineers on the other hand know little about pilot Regs and manuals.
I have a couple of questions for the Tech Crews who fly 738's into unmanned ports. I know where to find these answers in Engineering manuals but am genuinely interested in how much and how you guys know.
What level does the oil quantity on the cockpit gauges need to drop below before you need to add oil?
How much canvas can show on a tire before you need a wheel change?
What reference do you use to check this?
I have a couple of questions for the Tech Crews who fly 738's into unmanned ports. I know where to find these answers in Engineering manuals but am genuinely interested in how much and how you guys know.
What level does the oil quantity on the cockpit gauges need to drop below before you need to add oil?
How much canvas can show on a tire before you need a wheel change?
What reference do you use to check this?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damage limits
Gday Steve
I am sure you have a good reason to ask those 2 questions.
A couple of more challenging ones would be the length and depth of a cut tyre, fly on damage limits for fan blades, dent and damage limits, and engine drain leak limits.
I guess a call to MW would find an answer to most of the above, in the heat of the moment?
I am sure you have a good reason to ask those 2 questions.
A couple of more challenging ones would be the length and depth of a cut tyre, fly on damage limits for fan blades, dent and damage limits, and engine drain leak limits.
I guess a call to MW would find an answer to most of the above, in the heat of the moment?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've posted the two easy questions for a reason. I know crew will read this, it shouldn't take long to get an answer. As the conversation develops I will ask something more complicated and then have a look at the MW role. Just for now though the simple questions are -
What level does the oil quantity on the cockpit gauges need to drop below before you need to add oil?
How much canvas can show on a tire before you need a wheel change?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve,
I don't fly the 737, however the answer for the aircraft I fly is, it's not written in any of our manuals & we are not trained to make that assessment.
I only know the required oil quantity cause I asked an engineer when I was checking out on my current aircraft type.
I don't fly the 737, however the answer for the aircraft I fly is, it's not written in any of our manuals & we are not trained to make that assessment.
I only know the required oil quantity cause I asked an engineer when I was checking out on my current aircraft type.