Defect Reports

[unseen]

I assume you will let the flight crew know somehow when you report them?

A copy to the relevant fleet captain and AIPA perhaps.

Also, how do we report your guys/girls when they make mistakes? In the past I have just called them back and we would sort it out face to face.

There are always a number of ways to get your message across. Make sure you don't choose one that ruins what is currently one of the key safety structures in our business. That is what will happen if flight crew think that your members are waiting for us to make a mistake and then scurry off to report it to someone.

If you do so without telling the flight crew involved what their supposed crime is, then you will lose your greatest supporters in a heartbeat.

[CaptCloudbuster]

Also, how do we report your guys/girls when they make mistakes? In the past I have just called them back and we would sort it out face to face.

Not attaching appropriate MEL stickers, wrong UTC date in Check 2 box, attempting to visually indicate "cleared to pressurise" when positive interphone comms are required etc etc.... shall we go on?

Steve, We Pilots have admired your courage and tenacity in the past. Judging by your 1st post and subsequent replies from your fellow engineers like Empire 4 you run the risk of seriously damaging the goodwill, teamwork and esprit de corps built up over generations.

[600ft-lb]

Not attaching appropriate MEL stickers, wrong UTC date in Check 2 box, attempting to visually indicate "cleared to pressurise" when positive interphone comms are required etc etc.... shall we go on?

The first 2 are administrative with 2 additional paperwork systems we have to complete when we do a scheduled check, back in the office, easily producable upon request should a pilot so well ask.

The last one is possibly safety and both groups are guilty of that.

Believe me but, when one of us f**k's up good, the guys are put through the ringer. Stood down indefinitely until they're drug tested, interviewed and put up against a diminishing culpability chart to determine how they should be punished - ie the kangaroo court is alive and better then ever.

It's been many years since an engineering mistake has been swept under the rug. The consequences for doing that are far more serious in terms of employment if they are found out. It just doesn't happen anymore.

The focus here is unmanned ports, MOD aircraft and delayed reporting of SERIOUS issues that some bloke in Sydney said was ok to fly, cowboys, etc.

Having said all that, when was the last time a pilot was stood down for flying back an aircraft that was grounded upon arrival with a serious defect that was known at an unmanned port but flown back anyway ?

[Beg Tibs]

So what's a "serious" issue that was reported late in order to get the jet home ?

[CaptCloudbuster]

6000ft-lb, I'm fully supportive that the focus here should be

unmanned ports, MOD aircraft and delayed reporting of SERIOUS issues

As for

SERIOUS issues that some bloke in Sydney said was ok to fly

that, "some bloke", is Maintenance Watch, an ENGINEERING function we Pilots must rely on to give accurate, reliable and reputable guidance to make informed judgement calls out in the field.

As I've said we do our best with the tools we are given.

Insults such as "Cowboys", "Skygods" or "Peanut Pilots" do OUR cause no justice.

[Acute Instinct]

Beg Tibs

Answer. Two bugs on the windshield.........If it ostructs your vision, then report it. Two aircraft flying towards each other at cruise are all over each other in about 6 seconds from first sighting. Two bogan moths holding hands with their arseholes around their necks can literally conceal an entire squadron. (a quote taken from the book 'Oh Dear, My Career Is Over')

[600ft-lb]

CaptainCloudBuster

as quote from myself earlier on in this thread

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.

It's not a dig at the pilots, but at dig at the system that pushes a perceived pressure on pilots that what the M/W guy says over the phone is as good as a LAME putting their signature on a techlog coupon with an action carried out IAW with approved data.

Why are the rules different at unmanned ports ? You wouldn't take someones advice over the phone for clearing a logged fault or GSE impact damage in BNE/SYD/MEL/ADL/PER/CNS. So ask the question why is it acceptable for a M/W engineer to give advice over the phone without providing something in writing that he is taking responsibility for it ?

We have cowboys dispersed through engineering too CCB, it's not a dig at pilots, its a dig at everyone forgoing a proven safe approach to make things work.

[CaptCloudbuster]

600ft-lb

Thanks for the reasoned, polite and rational response. Keep that up and encourage your fellow engineers to do the same. Steve Purvinas could also take example from your style of communications.

One point I beg to differ,

a dig at everyone forgoing a proven safe approach to make things work.

We Pilots and Engineers aren't the ones driving and overseeing the change to "worlds best practice". We just get paid to get the job done completely within the approved rules as safely as we personally feel comfortable with. Aviation will never be 100% risk free.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

In this thread when have my responses been other than reasoned, polite or rational?

[CaptCloudbuster]

You lost my confidence when posting details from the Tech Log here on PPRuNe which identified specific Flight Crew

We did a survey of 1800 flts to/from unmanned ports. 93% of defects occured on the sectors back to the capital city. 7% only to Kgi, Kta, Zne etc.... This is statistically not possible unless people are bending the rules.

I think you have cast unreasonable aspersions with the above statement upon me and my fellow flight crew. Dammned lies and statistics...

Lets have all the data regarding exactly what the defects were (windshield clean / seat cover change / (insert minor defect here)) before we declare QANTAS Pilots are Cowboys who bend the rules.

I think your push to report any perceived deviation from the rules is a valid one and is to be applauded.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

You lost my confidence when posting details from the Tech Log here on PPRUNE which identified specific Flight Crew

Understood. Knew posting it would be a little confronting. All identifying marks are gone.

[aveng]

CCB
With respect to what is going on with MOD a/c and reporting in next base - IT IS HAPPENING!

Why? could it have anything to do with.....
Very junior Capts (especially in Perth base) with the Qantas command balloon about to burst.
An award that doesn't pay the pilot unless he flys (who the hell accepts that?)
Bad info over the phone - not hardcopy (with signature/licence #)

Whilst I accept that you may have the highest standards - some of your colleagues and mine do not. We as engineers have access to multiple aircraft/crew per day (of varying types), you are only aware of what is happening in your cockpit.

[CaptCloudbuster]

Aveng

I fully support the notion of reporting all breaches of SOPs or rule breaking.

[HF3000]

I'm getting confused now.

Is this thread about MOD or unmanned ports?

They are two completely different issues. I suggest a new thread to deal with whichever it is that we are not discussing here.

I can't work out which one we are discussing now. Both noble discussions.

[-438]

During a decade of flying QF 737's I never once had a Captain suggest we fly an aircraft from a non maintenance port without disclosing a problem with the aircraft. I have, however been grounded in non maintenance ports on many occasions due to U/S aircraft. On any of the occasions where maintenance watch were contacted, we would always ask for any advice received to be put in writing and forwarded to us prior to departing and only when we were completely satisfied all actions were within the rules.
I have flown with approx 150 QF Short haul Captains & have never seen the rules bent as you are suggesting.
If cowboys represent 1 per cent of the pilot body (I haven't seen them), he would need to be paired with another 1% FO who agrees to break the rules. Then also operate through a non maintenance port & have a defect. What are the chances?

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Is this thread about MOD or unmanned ports?

They are two completely different issues. I suggest a new thread to deal with whichever it is that we are not discussing here.

Well I started the thread, it is not specifically about either. It is about people not reporting defects in aircraft as per the Regs and/or Procedures. The reason MOD or unmanned ports has come into the debate is because these two situations appear to be having less reports made than prior.

MOD essentially makes a capital city an unmanned port so looking at trends from unmanned ports may give you an indication of problems.

If cowboys represent 1 per cent of the pilot body (I haven't seen them), he would need to be paired with another 1% FO who agrees to break the rules. Then also operate through a non maintenance port & have a defect. What are the chances?

About .01% on your figures. The theory is wrong though because our study found 7% of defects reported to unmanned ports as opposed to 93% on return sectors. Over a 2 month period tracking every single flight (1807) this cannot be explained away by chance, there is something systemically wrong here. Qantas of course have turned a blind eye.

[Terminalfrost]

Well, if I were a flight crew member thinking about whether or not I wrote up a defect that appeared to me to be "minor" I would be wise to consider the requirements of CAR 50 in relation to endorsing defects on the maintenance release and the penalty provisions for members of the flight crew. I would hate to be constantly worried about whether or not someone was going to put me in for breaking the law because I decided to "defer" reporting a defect until a more convenient time.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

CAR 50 is here -

50 Defects and major damage to be endorsed on maintenance release
(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) the aircraft has suffered major damage;
a person mentioned in subregulation (1), who becomes aware of the defect or damage, 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 or damage, as the case may be, and sign the endorsement.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.

[Terminalfrost]

How much is a penalty unit these days?

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

I think a unit is $110.