Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Canada
Reload this Page >

CBC says some operators not recording snags in journey log

Canada The great white north. A BIG country with few people and LOTS of aviation.

CBC says some operators not recording snags in journey log

Old 1st Dec 2010, 14:43
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
CBC says some operators not recording snags in journey log

CBC News - Montreal - Some air taxis keeping maintenance snags off books

What else is new?
rotornut is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 16:47
  #2 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 39
Posts: 673
Oh My - you mean to tell me that pilots actively defer minor snags such as a passenger air flow vent or a standby to the standby something or other???

How could we as an industry allow this to happen?

I'd like to ask the reporter if he drives his car with full air in the tires, if his lights work every second of every day and would love to know if he actually sticks to the manufacturers recommended service schedule after the warranty runs out. Does he always drive the speed limit and merge like a zip; does he always look in his mirrors or over his shoulder before making a turn and Im sure he has never answered a phone call or sent a text while driving. Oh but look at me, I assume it was a male reporter, how sexist of me - that must be a problem in the industry too - all pilots are sexist.

Seriously, if you keep people afraid you keep them in line; what better way to scare the general public than to show an industry trying to kill them at every turn. Thats right CBC, my job since day one has been to make sure that Daddy does not make it home at night. Seriously, I sleep better that way!

Good job CBC...Canadians Broadcasting Crap...
+TSRA is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 18:05
  #3 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the dark side of the moon
Posts: 928
A passenger air vent is not an airworthiness item, so stop being overly dramatic. If a standby is required equipment and not covered under MEL relief, then it must be fixed. But how many standbys are there for standbys, especially in that segment of the industry?

Would your tone change if someone you cared about was hurt or killed in an incident that could have been avoided by complying with regulations?
J.O. is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 21:02
  #4 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 39
Posts: 673
Thats right CBC, my job since day one has been to make sure that Daddy does not make it home at night. Seriously, I sleep better that way!
You dont really understand sarcasm all that well do you J.O.

If you actually READ what I posted before deciding to take a pot shot, you'll see it. Or not...

Anyways, I digress,
There are snags and then there are maintenance issues. I'll fly with snags - I wont fly with maintenance issues. I would bet that most pilots are the same.

Just this morning I grounded my bird for a maintenance issue with no thought of how my boss would feel or what the company would say - I need not worry because I would have been fired on the spot if I had flown, and I would never, ever force another pilot to fly if they felt uncomfortable about the aircraft - not because Im trying to appease a regulator, but because its the right thing to do.

The article infers that pilots are made to continue flying aircraft with maintenance issues on their aircraft and that it is wide spread - that every aircraft you get on is a death trap.
Thats just not true - aircraft fly with snags all the time, which is why I want to know if the reporters tires are full of air, or if all the lights work. At the end of the day a snag is not going to make the airplane fall out of the sky, but a maintenance issue might.

Maybe I'm the only pilot in all of Canada who has had the luck of never working for a company that made me fly an airplane when I had doubts about the plane - but I dont think so.

Also... I've had three very close friends die in aircraft accidents because of maintenance related issues, but then they were catastrophic failures of components that no one saw coming...so you can bite your tounge.
+TSRA is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2010, 23:27
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
The news media are out to sell news, not truth.
rotornut is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 00:35
  #6 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the dark side of the moon
Posts: 928
What happened to your friends was tragic, but nowhere did you say that their deaths were a result of regulations being broken, so how is it relevant to the CBC story?

The CBC was approached by pilots in the air taxi business who are concerned about the unsafe actions of some operators. It should be troubling to know that in this day and age, where the safety benefits of running by the book are well known, that pilots feel they have to go to the CBC to have their safety concerns heard. Stop shooting the messenger and ask yourself if this is the way we want the air taxi business to run in this country.
J.O. is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 01:30
  #7 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 716
Remember one time we were at a remote location with our TC POI on board for the ride. Guess what? As we are getting ready to start, one of the ADI's toppled for good at our remote location on that crystal clear day. No MEL relief of course. The captain wanted to go as he was an old school type and I would not have had a problem except we have a Transport guy on board.

As I pulled out the MEL, the TC guy says "I think it failed on the way home".
And that is how it was written up, on the way home.
punkalouver is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2010, 03:15
  #8 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 58
Posts: 4,245
I once heard the saying "fix the problem, not the blame". I like that saying.

A pilot? (or a few, perhaps) felt that their opinion or unhappiness was not being taken seriously, so they went and complained to the CBC. Unfortunate that the whole of our industry could not either educate/take seriously/or mentor this (these) pilot(s) into feeling that their concern was being addressed. If this is a situation where the pilot ratted out his employer without taking all the correct responsibility first, that's sad.
If it is an "informed" passenger, I hope that they are proudly paying the true cost to operate a really well maintained aircraft, and not "dealing down" the ticket or charter price.

A pilot who really feels that it is necessary for safety's sake to ground an aircraft, has many ways to do that, from taking away the journey log or flight manual, to tagging the whole plane U/S at the controls.

Whether justified or not, getting the media involved is a poor way to address these concerns.

It is the prior pilot's legal and moral responsibility to assure that any defect is reported, so as to assure that manitenance action is taken, and the next pilot can make an informed decision to fly it or not next flight.

The next pilot has the responsibility to apply appropriate standards (MEL, Flight Manual, CAR's standards) to decide if the aircraft is adequately equipped for the intended flight. it is of no use whatever, having the media involved in that process.

Few of us can say that we have not flown an aircraft with a known defect. I hope that none of us have flown an aircraft when we felt a risk might result from the defect, or simply did not understand the risk.

I am guilty of not insisting that an aircraft be grounded, following my discovering an obscure defect in it during a test flight. I did immediately report the defect directly to TC, and I was told that TC would have the aircraft examined for the defect I had found. I also reported that defect to the pilot who took the aircraft, and he called back to confirm that he agreed about my observation. The defect was of a nature that a written "snag", though appropriate, would have been difficult to write up, and absolutely impossible for maintenance to rectify. Before he took it back for the planned examination, he killed himself, and an innocent person, in the aircraft. I hold the opinion that the defect was a contributing factor. I learned my lesson. I could have prevented further flight of the aircraft, and should have, but I was trying too not "rock the boat" and trusting in a system to take care of it, once I had reported it. It failed, and I learned. Next time, I'll be much more definate.

This subject will come up forever. The only thing that will stop it, is either training all pilots to high maintenance standards, and all maintainers to be pilots - or in the case of my old airline, carry a flight engineer on every flight - he does have the final say!

This will blow over, and come up again, but the underlying problem will never be completely solved, and someone will always gripe about it! All we can do is constantly remind outselves, take care of each other by communicating, and try harder to get it right next time.
Pilot DAR is online now  
Old 18th Dec 2010, 21:38
  #9 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 237
Snags Vs Maintenance issues, minor problems or urgent ones...since when is it subject to pilot's discretion before dispatch?? The manufacturer will have produced a MMEL for your aircraft and your operator will have produced a MEL based on it. That book clearly tells you what is major or not, and what can be deferred and for how long. Extensions are also possible. The operation can continue to run smoothly without delay or cancellations even if you do things properly.

So why not simply write down a airflow vent and have maintenance defer it?? Now, if the MEL says you can't fly without some inop items but you choose to do so anyway....time to reassess your judgment and contemplates the possible consequences....it's your signature and licence on the line.

carry a flight engineer on every flight - he does have the final say!
You wrote a good post, but just wanted to add to your above statement that it is the PIC that clearly always has the final say as to whether accept to aircraft or not, and not FE. You don't have to be a mechanic, but only be able to read the MEL...
bobrun is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.