Defect Reports
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve,
The 737 would be the same as other aircraft types.
The Pilot manuals will say something like:
Exterior Inspection:
Tyres, Brakes and wheels..........Check
Nose Gear Assembly..........Check
Fan Blades, Probes and Spinner..........Check
Ask a pilot then an engineer what the dispatch limits are & the answers will be way different.
The 737 would be the same as other aircraft types.
The Pilot manuals will say something like:
Exterior Inspection:
Tyres, Brakes and wheels..........Check
Nose Gear Assembly..........Check
Fan Blades, Probes and Spinner..........Check
Ask a pilot then an engineer what the dispatch limits are & the answers will be way different.
Last edited by Mstr Caution; 14th Nov 2012 at 11:10.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I ask what the point is?
The point is just like your answer. There is no documentation for crew to refer to for instructions on even the most basic of maintenance tasks.
I quite often read or hear an answer like - but if in doubt we can always call maintenance watch. What triggers the call to maintenance watch? When are you in doubt? When does another pilot call maintenance watch?
You see every single task or inspection carried out by an Engineer is referenced to documents where the limits are black and white. It is called approved data. Qantas has introduced a system where some of these checks are now happening without approved data.
The clock is being turned back here and you really are flying by the seat of your pants. An aviaition term that in its true sense left us in the 20's.
But oil quantity was never checked by engineers every turnaround on the 737 I don't see what has changed?
If a pilot notices canvas on a tyre he or she will call an Engineer or send a photo to Maintenance Watch and wait to be told "it will be changed tonight".
Pilots are a conservative bunch, if doubt exists clarification is sought.
If a pilot notices canvas on a tyre he or she will call an Engineer or send a photo to Maintenance Watch and wait to be told "it will be changed tonight".
Pilots are a conservative bunch, if doubt exists clarification is sought.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cloudcuckooland
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps a cabin fume event would be a good example.. How does the captain determine whether a burnt smell in the galley was a defective door area heater, or light balast in the ceiling cavity above the galley, or just over cooked fish? Maintenance watch advises that there is no history of similar events... I hope he doesn't look out the window and realise that there is no suitable accomodation, look at his watch and realise he is not getting paid, and decide the wife's roast chicken at home sounds like a much better option...
Last edited by Hugh Mungous; 14th Nov 2012 at 13:08.
Interesting hypothetical HM...
Perhaps Cabin Crew reported a smell in the cabin. Now was this odour a smell or a fume? I imagine there is a subtle difference. Did the Captain conduct an operational debrief to assertain any symptoms such as dizziness, nausea etc experienced? Did he then gather more info from Maint Watch as to any recent history? I imagine Professional Aircrew are paid to make judgement calls every day. I imagine the Capt was doing his best to get the job done Safely, Legally and judging by the comments from his Engineering Bretheren on this thread:- additionally covering his arse lest an ASIR be raised against his actions...
Perhaps Cabin Crew reported a smell in the cabin. Now was this odour a smell or a fume? I imagine there is a subtle difference. Did the Captain conduct an operational debrief to assertain any symptoms such as dizziness, nausea etc experienced? Did he then gather more info from Maint Watch as to any recent history? I imagine Professional Aircrew are paid to make judgement calls every day. I imagine the Capt was doing his best to get the job done Safely, Legally and judging by the comments from his Engineering Bretheren on this thread:- additionally covering his arse lest an ASIR be raised against his actions...
Last edited by CaptCloudbuster; 14th Nov 2012 at 14:40.
Even a mug like me knows that there has to be " approved data" in black and white for everything and anything done to a certified aircraft. ALAEA Fed. Sec. is absolutely correct.
If reference can not be made to printed approved data, then you are flying an experimental aircraft, period. No ifs, no buts. You are your own test pilot.
This is at the core of the problem with engineering management. They see some engineer look at something and pass it, then make the wild assumption that the airline is paying far too much money for what they think of as a jumped up car mechanic.
My bible is AC43-13b
If reference can not be made to printed approved data, then you are flying an experimental aircraft, period. No ifs, no buts. You are your own test pilot.
This is at the core of the problem with engineering management. They see some engineer look at something and pass it, then make the wild assumption that the airline is paying far too much money for what they think of as a jumped up car mechanic.
My bible is AC43-13b
Last edited by Sunfish; 14th Nov 2012 at 15:32.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cloudcuckooland
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt CB, I have another hypothetical scenario..
An aircraft is on the ground at an unmanned outstation. During the Crew's pre departure inspection they notice a large fuel puddle under the number 2 engine.
There is a 'hold' coupon in the technical log that describes a fuel leak from an engine control component that is within the manufacturers limits at 28 drops per minute. However, due to the volume of fuel on the tarmac, the crew determine it is significantly greater that the documented leak rate, and have concerns that they may be observing a new defect.
Maintenance watch is contacted, and inform the Crew that there is no static leak rate limit for the original, documented fuel leak. The annotated leak rate of 28 drops per minute is measured with the engine running, and they declare the aircraft serviceable..
What then is the Crew's thought process in regards to evaluating this situation? Where by the only way to determine the origin and rate of the leak is by opening the engine cowling and carrying out a maintenance procedure.
Capt CB, I'm not trying to pick a fight. I genuinely appreciate your response. I have numerous other "hypothetical scenarios" from birdstrikes and lightning strikes to flight control and thrust reverser anomalies, but I'll try not to bore you with any more of my "imagination" today...
An aircraft is on the ground at an unmanned outstation. During the Crew's pre departure inspection they notice a large fuel puddle under the number 2 engine.
There is a 'hold' coupon in the technical log that describes a fuel leak from an engine control component that is within the manufacturers limits at 28 drops per minute. However, due to the volume of fuel on the tarmac, the crew determine it is significantly greater that the documented leak rate, and have concerns that they may be observing a new defect.
Maintenance watch is contacted, and inform the Crew that there is no static leak rate limit for the original, documented fuel leak. The annotated leak rate of 28 drops per minute is measured with the engine running, and they declare the aircraft serviceable..
What then is the Crew's thought process in regards to evaluating this situation? Where by the only way to determine the origin and rate of the leak is by opening the engine cowling and carrying out a maintenance procedure.
Capt CB, I'm not trying to pick a fight. I genuinely appreciate your response. I have numerous other "hypothetical scenarios" from birdstrikes and lightning strikes to flight control and thrust reverser anomalies, but I'll try not to bore you with any more of my "imagination" today...
Last edited by Hugh Mungous; 17th Nov 2012 at 01:19.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But oil quantity was never checked by engineers every turnaround on the 737 I don't see what has changed?
If a pilot notices canvas on a tyre he or she will call an Engineer or send a photo to Maintenance Watch and wait to be told "it will be changed tonight".
Pilots are a conservative bunch, if doubt exists clarification is sought.
How many erroneous pilots does it take to bring a plane down?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Downunder
Age: 74
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never a first time ?
I see many references to the fact that a pilot can call maintenance watch and ask if there is a "history" of the defect he has just noticed.
In our hypothetical example the burning smell is actually Hugh Mungous's defective door area heater, that has just failed, yet of course when Capt CloudBuster telephones Maintenance Watch they (correctly) tell him there is no history of that airplanes door area heater failing, so it can't be the door area heater !
Capt....."Hey Maintenance Watch, I'm in Karratha and my #1 engine has just blown up"
MW...."Hang on, I'll just check the history, {insert pause and sounds of keyboard typing} no, it's OK, it can't be that, there's no history of that engine blowing up".
Meanwhile, in the aft galley ceiling, the door area heater that has never failed before has just burst into flames !
ST
Originally Posted by CaptCloudBuster
Did he then gather more info from Maintenance Watch as to any recent history?
Originally Posted by Hugh Mungous
How does the captain determine whether a burnt smell in the galley was a defective door area heater, or light balast in the ceiling cavity above the galley, or just over cooked fish? Maintenance watch advises that there is no history of similar events...
Capt....."Hey Maintenance Watch, I'm in Karratha and my #1 engine has just blown up"
MW...."Hang on, I'll just check the history, {insert pause and sounds of keyboard typing} no, it's OK, it can't be that, there's no history of that engine blowing up".
Meanwhile, in the aft galley ceiling, the door area heater that has never failed before has just burst into flames !
ST
Last edited by SpannerTwister; 14th Nov 2012 at 20:35.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another Hypothetical:
During the preflight procedure the Flight Crew Notice the "CARGO HEAT ON" light is NOT illuminated preflight with the switch in the ON position.
Flight Crew conduct a Annunciator Light Test & the light does not illuminate.
With the absence of any EICAS massage indicating a fault with the cargo Heat System the aircraft departs with the reasoning the bulb is failed & it will be written up and changed on return to a main port.
During the preflight procedure the Flight Crew Notice the "CARGO HEAT ON" light is NOT illuminated preflight with the switch in the ON position.
Flight Crew conduct a Annunciator Light Test & the light does not illuminate.
With the absence of any EICAS massage indicating a fault with the cargo Heat System the aircraft departs with the reasoning the bulb is failed & it will be written up and changed on return to a main port.
HM, I'm glad you are not trying to pick a fight. Your other hypotheticals are excellent examples of what we flight crew are faced with every single day.
I can assure you I am fully cognicent of the threat posed by "get home itis". We Pilots are Human after all. Please continue to respect the fact 99% of us are genuinely doing our level best to perform our role Safely and Legally.
Roast Chicken dinners, woeful QF leadership and the ongoing war against Engineering excellence replaced by worlds best practice I consciously forget whilst doing my job with the tools I'm given.
I can assure you I am fully cognicent of the threat posed by "get home itis". We Pilots are Human after all. Please continue to respect the fact 99% of us are genuinely doing our level best to perform our role Safely and Legally.
Roast Chicken dinners, woeful QF leadership and the ongoing war against Engineering excellence replaced by worlds best practice I consciously forget whilst doing my job with the tools I'm given.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ozsync,
Maybe not "stupid" for you, I'm sure some have heard of similar examples.
Strange things do happen, takeoff with IRS in ALIGN as an example.
Maybe not "stupid" for you, I'm sure some have heard of similar examples.
Strange things do happen, takeoff with IRS in ALIGN as an example.
Last edited by Mstr Caution; 15th Nov 2012 at 00:16.
The term 'best' is subjective.
For bean counters it means as little money as possible.
For management it means as little money as possible whilst still staying within the realm of legality.
For Engineers at least it means having the resources available to do the job properly and safely.
possible conflict of interest at play ?
For bean counters it means as little money as possible.
For management it means as little money as possible whilst still staying within the realm of legality.
For Engineers at least it means having the resources available to do the job properly and safely.
possible conflict of interest at play ?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Airborne
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
How much canvas can show on a tire before you need a wheel change?
What reference do you use to check this?
2. We don't know. It's not in the documentation. I asked an engineer once and he told me, but I still call an engineer to verify tyre damage when I see it because "some guy told me" is not something that will stand at the subsequent inquiry.
3. If in doubt call Maintenance Watch. If not satisfied with their answer, we still have the legal responsibility not to depart until we are completely satisfied with the airworthiness of the aircraft. If that results in tea and bickies then so be it, but I've never heard of a pilot in my company subject to disciplinary action for grounding an aircraft.
Last edited by HF3000; 15th Nov 2012 at 01:46.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Airborne
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way, I'm not attempting to defend the system, I'm just advising what the system is. I would love to have an engineer at every transit at every port.
I note however that every component on an aircraft has NEVER been checked on every transit EVER. There are many bits on an aircraft you just can't get to without pulling the whole thing apart. I remember we all got a bit scared when 738 fuel pumps started failing causing possible fuel tank fires. It was too impractical to check the fuel pumps all the time so Boeing issued an AD requiring a minimum fuel quantity in the tank at all times. Then they issued an AD requiring modifications to the fuel pump wiring. Then they started installing Nitrogen generators in new model aircraft.
It's the system as a whole that keeps the skies safe - from manufacturer to regulator to operator to engineer to pilot. What they've done now is cut a little bit of that chain out - pilots are not happy about it, engineers are not happy about it, the operator says if other operators are doing it they must too or they can't compete, the manufacturer allows it because it's a marketing edge for their product and the regulator allows it for some reason.
Steve is looking for any holes in the swiss cheese that we should all be concerned about - keep it up Steve.
I note however that every component on an aircraft has NEVER been checked on every transit EVER. There are many bits on an aircraft you just can't get to without pulling the whole thing apart. I remember we all got a bit scared when 738 fuel pumps started failing causing possible fuel tank fires. It was too impractical to check the fuel pumps all the time so Boeing issued an AD requiring a minimum fuel quantity in the tank at all times. Then they issued an AD requiring modifications to the fuel pump wiring. Then they started installing Nitrogen generators in new model aircraft.
It's the system as a whole that keeps the skies safe - from manufacturer to regulator to operator to engineer to pilot. What they've done now is cut a little bit of that chain out - pilots are not happy about it, engineers are not happy about it, the operator says if other operators are doing it they must too or they can't compete, the manufacturer allows it because it's a marketing edge for their product and the regulator allows it for some reason.
Steve is looking for any holes in the swiss cheese that we should all be concerned about - keep it up Steve.
Last edited by HF3000; 15th Nov 2012 at 01:44.