Defect Reports
 

Hey guys I just wanted to open a bit of discussion on something that is concerning me. Here we are at a time when Qantas are trying to shaft any employee under the sun and today we are sent in something like this. It appears to be an example of us, "employees", digging our own graves by bending rules to make the unworkable Qantas system work. Can any crew or Engineer reading this explain how it could be legally explained away. We have already reported it to CASA btw, it sits with another dozen we reported last week.


First sector - Aircraft defected by crew into Adl. At some point crossed out as entered in error. No Engineers called.



http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/1245/13426564.png




Second Sector - Almost exact defect that was entered in error was reported into Syd.




http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/2151/49514929.png



How could this be? Unless I am missing something, this is what is costing Engineers jobs and an airline, its safety reputation.

Look at the rego, its one of AJ's new gen aircraft that fix themselves.

The crew may have entered it on the wrong page, and the database entry only may have been done for both coupons in SYD.

Thought about that scenario. The coupons are entered into a database by an Engineer directly from what is written on the log coupons.

Prior to a flight if there was no defect, the crew must write "Nil" or "Nil Defects". So if this was the case and done properly, why would the crew accidently enter a defect into an already used coupon?

Steve,

I respect you, but it's probably not too bright posting that on a public forum. I'm sure if you emailed the guys at AIPA or any of the tech guys privately you'd get the response you required.

"Prior to a flight if there was no defect, the crew must write "Nil" or "Nil Defects"."

I think you mean post flight.

"So if this was the case and done properly, why would the crew accidentally enter a defect into an already used coupon? "

If you are saying that no engineer was called in ADL, then one would have to assume both coupons were entered on return to SYD. The crew would have had both pages. Would not be the first time someone opened up the the wrong page, or even skipped a page.

"but it's probably not too bright posting that on a public forum"

I agree, esp when tracking who views database records is so easily tracked these days. It might cost someone their job.

Yes you are right, post flight. Is pre the next flight though.

About posting it here. We aren't having any luck going through official channels. I don't expect AIPA to have a crack at their members, that's not their job. I've posted it here so at least the crews who read it can understand the impact of what is taking place. I really just want the message to get out there, please report defects as they occur wherever you are.

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.

If this coupon leads to a pilot being disciplined or sacked (unlikely but possible), then so be it. 500 Engineers are about to lose their jobs partially because all of us are bastardising a flawed system to make Alan Joyce look like a hero. Tough love is required before it is too late.

ATA 9980?? No MAINT staff??
In ADL? That's a manned port isn't it?

Not for LAME less trainsits

Stinks of peanut pilots to piss weak to do their jobs and write up defects when they happen. More concerned about losing their jobs than losing peoples lives.

:mad:

Without any evidence to the contrary, I quote Commissioner Logan in a recent determination;

"were not the acts of men faithful to their trade responsibilities"

It's not about any of us doing something deliberately wrong. It's about a flawed system. In this case I fully suspect a paperwork mistake, if not the rules have been bent in an alarming manner. We all make mistakes because of the high pressure environment. If they go unchecked, they become norms.

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.

I'm sorry if some poor bastard is fronted by management over this, I will be the first to help them but I think for all of us, something needs to change and it must start somewhere and somehow. We need to reverse the rot.

If your sphere of influence is such that you can't go through the official channels with something as small as this then it's no wonder your members are getting smashed.

If that's what you want then great motives but completely inappropriate method.

Very poor form.

This is nothing but a slur on the professionalism of the flight crew.

Dragging everyone down with you is not a credible survival strategy.

It is this behaviour that stops key decision makers listening to your proposals, that is not the best outcome for your members.

MP.

Was the defect there or not? that is the only important question??

Should there be a aircraft related fatality or an aircraft related accident that a Coroner deems to be in the "public interest', then the person or persons that change or alter an Aircraft Maintenance Report that leads to an aircraft incident, then watch out.

Mike

Of course I don't expect someone viewing things from a managers perspective to agree with this. Most managers want to sweep things under the carpet. More importantly I'd like to highlight a small snippet from a previous comment.


How big does an aviation error need to be before you address the problem? We don't know if this is a paperwork issue or a greater one. I find the bigger danger is complacency and it has crept into so many aspects of Australian Aviation because some people couldn't give a damn.

So how small is this? Is it the sign of a systemic problem? Should we turn a blind eye because it is only small? How do you even measure how small it is? How big does an error have to get before a plane is brought down?

There is another important question. Should the tech-log be scanned and posted on a public forum in order to further the aims of the union when nobody is sure if anyone has erred? Half of QF domestic will look at their rosters and figure out who was flying the aircraft that day and form an opinion about the crews actions even though the crews actions might have been fine.worse still, it will probably force public follow up action.
Basically one of two ILS receivers was poked.For all we know it was a gin clear day in both ADL and Sydney, with a multitude of different approaches available at either end, the DDG probably would have let them depart anyway......and now someone's career could be on the line because of politicking? ......rubbish.
There is probably a wife and kids relying on that salary, I doubt SP will be popping around to help out if someone does lose their job, I also doubt that posting it will help his cause because it indicates he's lost touch with real people doing real jobs in the real world, and is wholly wrapped up in the ego war that has developed.
Framer

I ask again, was the defect there or not? dont see why its a hard question, not interested in how many backups were available, the defect either existed or it didnt, if it did someone lied, simple as that!

Dont care if he/she has 10 kids at a private school

Precisely why you should have got more information before putting it in a public forum. If it is just a paperwork issue, and the fault occurred on the return sector, you have most likely caused someone a whole lot of grief in order to push your point.