Scared of using the technical log?
Pilots' Pal
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scared of using the technical log?
In my capacity as CAM, QM and independent auditor over the last few years I note that some sectors of commercial and large private (CMPA) aircraft operations are very reluctant to use the technical log. Where it is required - and I'm referring mainly to corporate or GA type commercial ops - I can go through months worth of SRPs with absolutely no defect recorded where I know defects occurred or are extant. Email prior to the maintenance input appears to be the favourite method of relaying defects among the corporate operators; post-it notes or scraps of paper for the GA types. There is some misconception also that the technical log is required only for MEL items; not so! Part M, EU-OPS etc and the other international regs all require known defects to be recorded (and I am not that naive - most can occur on the inbound sector); OPS manuals also stipulate this. So, why is this?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Where the Money Takes Me
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tip of the iceberg if you ask me. There are major EU operators running their show so lean you´re lucky to find a sinew!
And these great names are so revered it makes one sick!
Me cynical? Absolutely!
And these great names are so revered it makes one sick!
Me cynical? Absolutely!
ECON cruise, LR cruise...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they then could be bothered to react to the emails etc - it wouldn't be a problem. Now it's reached the stage where things are ignored if you don't write them up - so in the log they go. Nothing like an ADD-limit about to expire to focus the minds in MX 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's easy to simplify the matter of open defects, but it does depend on the circumstances. For example, your C550 port nav light goes in Rennes in the evening. Not Deferable, and you have no licenced engineer available under the approval of your 145 company to fix it, but there is an engineer there, with a spare, who can fix the problem, but wouldn't be able to sign it off. So what do you do?
a) Put it in the tech log, tell the pax the A/C is tech and go to the hotel.
b) Don't put it in the tech log, and fly anyway
c) Pay the local engineer a tenth of the price it will cost otherwise, and fly a serviceable aircraft.
Trouble is with using common sense in this business is that many abuse it.
I think Empty Cruise has a point though. If MX keep failing to rectify the problems, use the power of the pen!
a) Put it in the tech log, tell the pax the A/C is tech and go to the hotel.
b) Don't put it in the tech log, and fly anyway
c) Pay the local engineer a tenth of the price it will cost otherwise, and fly a serviceable aircraft.
Trouble is with using common sense in this business is that many abuse it.
I think Empty Cruise has a point though. If MX keep failing to rectify the problems, use the power of the pen!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Mostly Western hemisphere
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feedback from a major bizjet manufacturer: regulations have become so strict that the number of aircraft flying with defects is going up.
In the past most people would choose answer (c). Now because of EASA regulations they will either choose (b), or enter the malfunction into the MEL -if appropriate- and fly with it.
Unfortunately there's no way we could figure out how many operators do this, how often, how serious are the malfunctions, what impact it has on accident statistics, etc. This is just one piece of a big puzzle. But still... It shows that tighter regulations don't necessarily mean better safety margins.
In the past most people would choose answer (c). Now because of EASA regulations they will either choose (b), or enter the malfunction into the MEL -if appropriate- and fly with it.
Unfortunately there's no way we could figure out how many operators do this, how often, how serious are the malfunctions, what impact it has on accident statistics, etc. This is just one piece of a big puzzle. But still... It shows that tighter regulations don't necessarily mean better safety margins.
ECON cruise, LR cruise...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most modern jets have a MEL thicker than my thigh - loads of redundancy built in, and most defects can indeed be transferred to the ADD records.
A few defects can't be deferred, and crew use safety evaluation to see if it's acceptable to fly with till we recover to base. E.g. "Fueling Door Open" triggers spuriously when we take gear down or landing flap - non-deferrable, so we both check fueling door closed before we close up, call MX and take it back to base and put pen to paper.
It's when we accept flying around with defects that can be deferred that the chain comes off - if we cannot be bovvered to ADD the item, we honestly can't blame mx or management. The majority of MEL items are Cat C or D, so it's not like we're springing a huge surprise on the company that they can't deal with in a timely fashion.
I know some jets live the lives of a tramp and rarely sees base - sometimes this is an economic necessity, but a "happy" by-product of this way of doing business is that the crews can be convinced to leave it out "just till we get home", full well knowing that this could be 2 months later. Sorry, but if you want to reap the benefits of tramping (ie no empties), part of the cost is roving engineering back-up.
A few defects can't be deferred, and crew use safety evaluation to see if it's acceptable to fly with till we recover to base. E.g. "Fueling Door Open" triggers spuriously when we take gear down or landing flap - non-deferrable, so we both check fueling door closed before we close up, call MX and take it back to base and put pen to paper.
It's when we accept flying around with defects that can be deferred that the chain comes off - if we cannot be bovvered to ADD the item, we honestly can't blame mx or management. The majority of MEL items are Cat C or D, so it's not like we're springing a huge surprise on the company that they can't deal with in a timely fashion.
I know some jets live the lives of a tramp and rarely sees base - sometimes this is an economic necessity, but a "happy" by-product of this way of doing business is that the crews can be convinced to leave it out "just till we get home", full well knowing that this could be 2 months later. Sorry, but if you want to reap the benefits of tramping (ie no empties), part of the cost is roving engineering back-up.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Geneva
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the other side of the fence
I think that flynowpaylater's answer A is about right; especially when the pax is the owner. How much courage does it take to tell the owner that he's not flying in his own plane that he spent millions buying just because a bulb has popped? Lots! So, note it down elsewhere other than the Techlog, and fix it next time the aircraft is back at base? Seems logical, no? I am looking at this from the maintenance perspective: I am one of the many that fix these wonderful little planes that you get to fly. I understand that you, as pilots, decide whether the airworthiness of he aircraft is really being called into question and make your decision accordingly BUT always with the knowledge that it's the boss's plane and it's the boss who pays you at the end of the month... So do as you see fit but please, if something really is broken, needs fixing and could potentially jepordise a future flight and you want it fixed, write it down and we'll do our best to fix it BUT give us the time to do it! Arriving at a maintenance facility with "one or two things to look at but we're leaving the day after tomorrow and could you also wash it and sometimes the DVD skips and the coffee machine is playing up and the seats don't swivel and, and, and etc etc..." please give us the time to do it and not complain afterwards. We as maintenance will always have different priorities (what we fix first) to you as pilots or operators so respect us and we'll respect you.
It wasn't meant to sound like a rant more like a gentle reminder!
Safe flying everyone!
1376
It wasn't meant to sound like a rant more like a gentle reminder!
Safe flying everyone!
1376
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: FL006
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..the last time a put a note that the beacon light is gone and 10 days period passed, without nobody spotted this...I was accused in sabotage...since then none puts even a single note inside, besides when the aircraft goes to the maintenance...Very improper and widespread practice!!!
MELs
Bus,
Being a pilot, manager and auditor this is a very difficult issue to tackle. But it comes down to the core lack of detailed training on the subject in the corporate world. Whilst all pilots believe they understand it there is no training to help them develop their skills in this area. In addition most MELs I have seen do not contain any O&M section which when coupled with lack of a maintenance infrastructure away from base leads to the status quo you mention. In addition many operators do not have a line engineer at their home base either so even minor rectification can be difficult to achieve without using the AOG section of their support contract.
To those pilots reading this I would encourage you to talk to your people about MEL O&M procedures if you do not have them, it could help you personally. In addition there is a considerable amount of pilot maintenance which is allowed under Part M, right up to changing batteries on small aircraft, if you are signed up under your maintenance providers quality programme. This would really solve the bulb issue mentioned above, you can do it yourself safely and legally if you are trained and signed up. MA.803 refers.
MM
Being a pilot, manager and auditor this is a very difficult issue to tackle. But it comes down to the core lack of detailed training on the subject in the corporate world. Whilst all pilots believe they understand it there is no training to help them develop their skills in this area. In addition most MELs I have seen do not contain any O&M section which when coupled with lack of a maintenance infrastructure away from base leads to the status quo you mention. In addition many operators do not have a line engineer at their home base either so even minor rectification can be difficult to achieve without using the AOG section of their support contract.
To those pilots reading this I would encourage you to talk to your people about MEL O&M procedures if you do not have them, it could help you personally. In addition there is a considerable amount of pilot maintenance which is allowed under Part M, right up to changing batteries on small aircraft, if you are signed up under your maintenance providers quality programme. This would really solve the bulb issue mentioned above, you can do it yourself safely and legally if you are trained and signed up. MA.803 refers.
MM
Last edited by Miles Magister; 13th May 2011 at 08:31.
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the other (small) end of the spectrum, I have more than once been told NOT to write anything in the Tech Log because it might ground the aeroplane.
Yes, right!
Yes, right!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: in the hotel
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't compare Bizjet OPS with airliners. Airlines are flying each day a to b and b to a. On Bizjet you often don't know in the morning where the aircraft will fly later the day. meaning all airlines have a line maintenance agreement at the airport they are flying to. bizjet don't have.
Pilots' Pal
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we take Part M/ EU-OPS (& JAR OPS 3) as typical regulations, there is no differentiation between large airline AOCs and corporate AOCs: the same rules apply to all. Miles Magister has hit the nail on the head: training, knowledge and more than a little commercial pressure.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MEL's
We do use the MEL, but the big difference betwen corporate and airline is that airlines have large departments and resources to "taylor" their MEL's to their operation. Corporates do not have this luxury, so broadly depend on the MMEL. The MMEL is generic and cannot cater for the myriad of defeciencies that may occur and generally only deal with the larger and more obvious items.
We had a specific problem a few month ago. An aircraft was in base mintenance and just as it was coming out to go on service an engineer broke a radio master switch ( it was stuck ON!). The simply "fix" was to pull that radio master switch CB thus taking out the switch and all you had to do was turn ON/OFF the radios individually. Because operation with an U/S masterswitch was not mentioned in the MEL (probably because it was an optional item) the engineer would not release the aircraft to service. It was Friday evening and it took a long time to track someone down in the CAA for an alleviation. Now if this defect had manifested itself away from base, in the middle of Africa, middle of the night and at a weekend; what is the correct course of action? Yes. of course, we would cancel an £80,000 charter and give the money back and fly home empty, 2 days later with an alleviation and fully serviceable radios.
I think some big airlines have in house authority from the CAA to issue alleviations
to operate outside the MEL, is this correct? What is needed is a 24 hour CAA hot line in order that items not mentioned in the MEL can be considered for MEL'ing.
We do use the MEL, but the big difference betwen corporate and airline is that airlines have large departments and resources to "taylor" their MEL's to their operation. Corporates do not have this luxury, so broadly depend on the MMEL. The MMEL is generic and cannot cater for the myriad of defeciencies that may occur and generally only deal with the larger and more obvious items.
We had a specific problem a few month ago. An aircraft was in base mintenance and just as it was coming out to go on service an engineer broke a radio master switch ( it was stuck ON!). The simply "fix" was to pull that radio master switch CB thus taking out the switch and all you had to do was turn ON/OFF the radios individually. Because operation with an U/S masterswitch was not mentioned in the MEL (probably because it was an optional item) the engineer would not release the aircraft to service. It was Friday evening and it took a long time to track someone down in the CAA for an alleviation. Now if this defect had manifested itself away from base, in the middle of Africa, middle of the night and at a weekend; what is the correct course of action? Yes. of course, we would cancel an £80,000 charter and give the money back and fly home empty, 2 days later with an alleviation and fully serviceable radios.
I think some big airlines have in house authority from the CAA to issue alleviations
to operate outside the MEL, is this correct? What is needed is a 24 hour CAA hot line in order that items not mentioned in the MEL can be considered for MEL'ing.
Pilots' Pal
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And pilots operating under AOCs should know this:
From EU-OPS (as an example):
OPS 1.030
Minimum equipment lists — Operator’s responsibilities
(a) An operator shall establish, for each aeroplane, a minimum equipment list (MEL) approved by the Authority. This shall be based upon, but no less restrictive than, the relevant master minimum equipment list (MMEL) (if this exists) accepted by the Authority.
(b) An operator shall not operate an aeroplane other than in accordance with the MEL unless permitted by the Authority. Any such permission will in no circumstances permit operation outside the constraints of the MMEL.
From EU-OPS (as an example):
OPS 1.030
Minimum equipment lists — Operator’s responsibilities
(a) An operator shall establish, for each aeroplane, a minimum equipment list (MEL) approved by the Authority. This shall be based upon, but no less restrictive than, the relevant master minimum equipment list (MMEL) (if this exists) accepted by the Authority.
(b) An operator shall not operate an aeroplane other than in accordance with the MEL unless permitted by the Authority. Any such permission will in no circumstances permit operation outside the constraints of the MMEL.
Last edited by Bus429; 15th May 2011 at 18:20. Reason: To correct an error pointed out by his dudeness
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: US
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We were in the South of the UK years ago. JAA ops AOC. there was a big and very good maintenance outfit but were FAA, not JAA approved. The O2 was low, Do you know what we had to do? I'll tell you what. The aircraft had to be flown to a JAA approved place to have the O2 topped up. If that is not stupidity, please tell me.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Screwballburling
That is extremely stupid but it is not the first time I have heard of such instances. Personally I think the Captain has the right to make his own mind upover non airworthiness issues. Low O2 is not a defect so do not write it up, just top it up and get on your way and if any one ever questions you (unlikely) just say you did an SMS evaluation and it was the most safe option. Once safety is mentioned no one will argue.
I was in Australia with a Hawker 700 and the batteries needed a cap check. The large local Hawker Bechcraft facility had the capability, were FAA, Aussie and EASA approved, but the EASA approval only covered 800's. I contacted our maintenance provider in the UK for advise. Their reply was no problem, we will send out two engineers club class to do a quality audit on the facility and provided they pass we can issue a one off approval for them to do the work! I think the bill would have been about £19,000.
I will let you guess how I got around the problem.
That is extremely stupid but it is not the first time I have heard of such instances. Personally I think the Captain has the right to make his own mind upover non airworthiness issues. Low O2 is not a defect so do not write it up, just top it up and get on your way and if any one ever questions you (unlikely) just say you did an SMS evaluation and it was the most safe option. Once safety is mentioned no one will argue.
I was in Australia with a Hawker 700 and the batteries needed a cap check. The large local Hawker Bechcraft facility had the capability, were FAA, Aussie and EASA approved, but the EASA approval only covered 800's. I contacted our maintenance provider in the UK for advise. Their reply was no problem, we will send out two engineers club class to do a quality audit on the facility and provided they pass we can issue a one off approval for them to do the work! I think the bill would have been about £19,000.
I will let you guess how I got around the problem.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
been there, done that.
Which highlights the whole EASA crap as what it really is: CRAP.
Let me guess: same batts on the 700 as on the 800?
Which highlights the whole EASA crap as what it really is: CRAP.
Let me guess: same batts on the 700 as on the 800?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only same batteries but procedures in the 700 and 800 mx manual identical! But the point was that their FAA and Aussie approvals included the 700!!!!!!! Occassionally one has to do what is logical and argue the toss later. But a word of warning, the maintenance organisation that got denied its boys trip out to Oz then refused to renew the ARC because "maintenance had been performed outside a controlled enviroment". Luckily the CAA took my side.