No RPT LAME requirement
airsupport, if I were doing MEL-SYD-BNE-TSV overnight, then TSV-BNE-SYD-MEL the next day. I would have been operating the systems on that aircraft for two days, monitored the instruments for eight or so hours, performed six walk-arounds and at least one daily (I don't understand your comment about a daily not being required for the second day). If there were anything wrong with the aircraft, I would know it. If anything was about to go wrong - and it could be picked up in a pre-flight inspection - I would have a better chance of catching it, IMHO, that a LAME inspecting the aircraft once.
Now none of this is to say or imply that I don't trust or respect the professionalism of LAMEs. I simply think that, as pilots perform pre-flight inspections as a matter of course, it is a waste of resources having a highly qualified technician wandering about an aircraft repeating the performance.
As to tradition, I would say that the daily inspection is traditionally the pilot in command's job. Pilots daily the aircraft, even if the job has already been done by a LAME. Pilots daily the aircraft from the time they start their first flying lesson.
I don't know why you would have grave concerns that only I was checking the Aircraft for 2 days.
Trust me, I'm a pilot
Now none of this is to say or imply that I don't trust or respect the professionalism of LAMEs. I simply think that, as pilots perform pre-flight inspections as a matter of course, it is a waste of resources having a highly qualified technician wandering about an aircraft repeating the performance.
As to tradition, I would say that the daily inspection is traditionally the pilot in command's job. Pilots daily the aircraft, even if the job has already been done by a LAME. Pilots daily the aircraft from the time they start their first flying lesson.
I don't know why you would have grave concerns that only I was checking the Aircraft for 2 days.
Trust me, I'm a pilot
Last edited by Checkboard; 20th May 2002 at 04:22.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Checkboard,
I realise that you included a at the end of your post, but with respect, your reply is exactly the sort of arrogance that puts people off Pilots.
In the make believe example I used, I said there was no Daily Inspection required in TSV, just to make it so that nobody else checked the Aircraft, like LAMEs, only you, nothing sinister, just to make the example work?
You obviously have little understanding of what CAN go wrong, if you honestly believe NOTHING is wrong with the Aircraft because everything in the Cockpit is okay, and you do not find anything on a walkround.
Pilots may do Dailys on puddle jumpers, I do not know, but after a lifetime in Airlines, I have yet to see even one Pilot do a proper full Daily Inspection.
I repeat that I would have grave concerns that you were the only person checking the Aircraft for 2 days....... Equally, I would be concerned if the same LAME was the ONLY one. ( you seemed to miss my point in the previous post re "different LAMEs noticing a defect".)
My point was I think it would be much safer to have different LAMEs in all these Ports checking the Aircraft, rather than only one Pilot (or one LAME). To put it another way, IF this ridiculous idea ever comes in, I sincerely hope Operations or someone arrange the rosters so Crews change Aircraft regularly, then at least different Pilots will check each Aircraft.
Cheers,
airsupport.
I realise that you included a
at the end of your post, but with respect, your reply is exactly the sort of arrogance that puts people off Pilots.In the make believe example I used, I said there was no Daily Inspection required in TSV, just to make it so that nobody else checked the Aircraft, like LAMEs, only you, nothing sinister, just to make the example work?
You obviously have little understanding of what CAN go wrong, if you honestly believe NOTHING is wrong with the Aircraft because everything in the Cockpit is okay, and you do not find anything on a walkround.
Pilots may do Dailys on puddle jumpers, I do not know, but after a lifetime in Airlines, I have yet to see even one Pilot do a proper full Daily Inspection.
I repeat that I would have grave concerns that you were the only person checking the Aircraft for 2 days....... Equally, I would be concerned if the same LAME was the ONLY one. ( you seemed to miss my point in the previous post re "different LAMEs noticing a defect".)
My point was I think it would be much safer to have different LAMEs in all these Ports checking the Aircraft, rather than only one Pilot (or one LAME). To put it another way, IF this ridiculous idea ever comes in, I sincerely hope Operations or someone arrange the rosters so Crews change Aircraft regularly, then at least different Pilots will check each Aircraft.
Cheers,
airsupport.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airsupport
You're banging your head against a brick wall with this bloke. He has been indoctrinated to the attitude that because he can kick the tyres, move the flight controls up and down and pull the birds nest out of the intake of a bugsmasher, he is now qualified to make airworthiness decisions regarding vastly more sophisticated and complicated machines and with far more at stake. The pilot carrying out the daily is traditional in GA not RPT. If he doesn't see the difference then you've got to wonder.
Some people seem to think this is just an exercise in exerting industrial muscle. That is absolute bull$hit and to suggest so is to approach the argument with your head firmly embedded up your @rse . There certainly is a lot of concern amongst engineers about their futures, but the crux of this argument is safety and whether or not safety is being compromised by removing LAMEs from the transit inspection (which by the way checkerboard is TRADITIONALLY done by a LAME in RPT) and attempting to make airworthiness determinations with people not qualified to do so - no matter how qualified they 'think' they may be. All to save some dollars.
As the saying goes, ' if you think safety is expensive, try having an accident'
You're banging your head against a brick wall with this bloke. He has been indoctrinated to the attitude that because he can kick the tyres, move the flight controls up and down and pull the birds nest out of the intake of a bugsmasher, he is now qualified to make airworthiness decisions regarding vastly more sophisticated and complicated machines and with far more at stake. The pilot carrying out the daily is traditional in GA not RPT. If he doesn't see the difference then you've got to wonder.
Some people seem to think this is just an exercise in exerting industrial muscle. That is absolute bull$hit and to suggest so is to approach the argument with your head firmly embedded up your @rse . There certainly is a lot of concern amongst engineers about their futures, but the crux of this argument is safety and whether or not safety is being compromised by removing LAMEs from the transit inspection (which by the way checkerboard is TRADITIONALLY done by a LAME in RPT) and attempting to make airworthiness determinations with people not qualified to do so - no matter how qualified they 'think' they may be. All to save some dollars.
As the saying goes, ' if you think safety is expensive, try having an accident'
So AN Lame with all these highly qualified LAMEs doing pre-flight/daily inspections, how come parts still keep falling off RPT aircraft at various places around Australia?
Also, does anyone go up on the wing? The top of the horizontal stabiliser?
Also, does anyone go up on the wing? The top of the horizontal stabiliser?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The party.
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICARUS,thanks for the response.
Now here comes the truth.
"parts keep falling off............"
This is under the present system.
Will bigger parts have the same fate under the proposed dilution of the preflight inspection standards we have been trusting for so long.
I remember the term "preventative maintanance' somewhere.
What regulation would have to be changed to have a one man cockpit in Aus.When was the last time a second pilot was really needed.Maybe the bean counters should look at this possible cost saving.French computer language skills would help.
Change the safety exit crew numbers as well,save even more.it's only a reg!!
Do you wax that lipline moustache?.
Now here comes the truth.
"parts keep falling off............"
This is under the present system.
Will bigger parts have the same fate under the proposed dilution of the preflight inspection standards we have been trusting for so long.
I remember the term "preventative maintanance' somewhere.
What regulation would have to be changed to have a one man cockpit in Aus.When was the last time a second pilot was really needed.Maybe the bean counters should look at this possible cost saving.French computer language skills would help.
Change the safety exit crew numbers as well,save even more.it's only a reg!!
Do you wax that lipline moustache?.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would seem that some Pilots are determined to do this work, no matter who suffers, and no matter how much safety is compromised.
IF this is the case, then PLEASE make sure you always have with you "The Pilot's Essential Tool Kit":-
HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer is used as a kind of divining rod to locate expensive parts not far from the object we are trying to hit.
ELECTRIC DRILL:
Normally used for spinning rivets in their holes until you die of old age, but it also works well for drilling mounting holes just above a fuel line.
PLIERS:
Used to round off bolt heads.
HACKSAW:
One of a family of cutting tools based on the chaos principle. It transforms human energy into a crooked, unpredictable motion, and the more you attempt to influence its course, the more dismal your future becomes.
VISE-GRIPS:
Used to round off bolt heads if nothing else is available, they can also be used to transfer intense welding heat to the palm of your hand.
WHITWORTH (Metric) SOCKETS:
Once used for working on older British engines and airplanes, they are now used mainly for impersonating that 9/16-inch or 1/2-inch socket for which you've been searching the last 15 minutes.
WIRE WHEEL:
Cleans rust off old bolts and then throws the bolt somewhere under the workbench with the speed of light. Also removes fingerprint whorls and hard-earned guitar calluses in about the time it takes you to say, "Ouch!"
TROUBLE LIGHT:
The Engineer's own tanning booth. Sometimes called drop light, it is a good source of vitamin D, "the sunshine vitamin," which is not otherwise found under airplanes at night. Health benefits aside, its main purpose is to consume 40-watt light bulbs at about the same rate that 105-mm howitzer shells might be used during, say, the first few hours of the Battle of the Bulge. More often dark than light, its name is somewhat misleading.
PHILLIPS SCREWDRIVER:
Normally used to stab the lids of old-style paper-and-tin oil cans and splash oil on your shirt; can also be used, as the name implies, to round off Phillips screw heads.
CROW BAR:
A tool used to crumple the metal surrounding the clip or bracket you needed to remove in order to replace a 50-cent part.
HOSE CUTTER:
A tool used to cut hoses 1/2-inch too short.
And last but most important probably, MOBILE PHONE:
To call for Engineers when all else fails.
IF this is the case, then PLEASE make sure you always have with you "The Pilot's Essential Tool Kit":-
HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer is used as a kind of divining rod to locate expensive parts not far from the object we are trying to hit.
ELECTRIC DRILL:
Normally used for spinning rivets in their holes until you die of old age, but it also works well for drilling mounting holes just above a fuel line.
PLIERS:
Used to round off bolt heads.
HACKSAW:
One of a family of cutting tools based on the chaos principle. It transforms human energy into a crooked, unpredictable motion, and the more you attempt to influence its course, the more dismal your future becomes.
VISE-GRIPS:
Used to round off bolt heads if nothing else is available, they can also be used to transfer intense welding heat to the palm of your hand.
WHITWORTH (Metric) SOCKETS:
Once used for working on older British engines and airplanes, they are now used mainly for impersonating that 9/16-inch or 1/2-inch socket for which you've been searching the last 15 minutes.
WIRE WHEEL:
Cleans rust off old bolts and then throws the bolt somewhere under the workbench with the speed of light. Also removes fingerprint whorls and hard-earned guitar calluses in about the time it takes you to say, "Ouch!"
TROUBLE LIGHT:
The Engineer's own tanning booth. Sometimes called drop light, it is a good source of vitamin D, "the sunshine vitamin," which is not otherwise found under airplanes at night. Health benefits aside, its main purpose is to consume 40-watt light bulbs at about the same rate that 105-mm howitzer shells might be used during, say, the first few hours of the Battle of the Bulge. More often dark than light, its name is somewhat misleading.
PHILLIPS SCREWDRIVER:
Normally used to stab the lids of old-style paper-and-tin oil cans and splash oil on your shirt; can also be used, as the name implies, to round off Phillips screw heads.
CROW BAR:
A tool used to crumple the metal surrounding the clip or bracket you needed to remove in order to replace a 50-cent part.
HOSE CUTTER:
A tool used to cut hoses 1/2-inch too short.
And last but most important probably, MOBILE PHONE:
To call for Engineers when all else fails.
Hmm, a few misconceptions here:
Not true! If you read my post, I included a caveat that I would notice anything about to go wrong which could be noticed on a walkaround.
I understand that - and the pilots on board usually alternate walkarounds to some extent, and crews change so it would be rare for a single pilot (or single LAME) to complete a series of inspections. I thought that the discussion here wasn't about individuals checking their own work, but wether pilots were competent to conduct a daily. Obviously you don't think that they are, and AN Lame agrees in that he is concerned with "attempting to make airworthiness determinations with people not qualified to do so ".
I disagree, and in truth I am somewhat disappointed that you hold pilots in such low regard that you don't think they are competent in knowing if their aircraft is serviceable or not. A little shocked, even, as it is such a large part of a pilot's job (and legal responsibility).
As to tradition - I don't know if you have noticed, but I don't know of a single operation where the pilot doesn't perform a walkaround on each sector. Regardless of whether a LAME is present or not (and in many cases LAME's simply aren't present). You guys may see it as traditionally a LAME's job, but only because you never see the aircraft at a port without LAMEs! (being LAMEs your self, that is.)
You obviously have little understanding of what CAN go wrong, if you honestly believe NOTHING is wrong with the Aircraft because everything in the Cockpit is okay, and you do not find anything on a walkround.
it would be much safer to have different LAMEs in all these Ports checking the Aircraft, rather than only one Pilot (or one LAME).
I disagree, and in truth I am somewhat disappointed that you hold pilots in such low regard that you don't think they are competent in knowing if their aircraft is serviceable or not. A little shocked, even, as it is such a large part of a pilot's job (and legal responsibility).
As to tradition - I don't know if you have noticed, but I don't know of a single operation where the pilot doesn't perform a walkaround on each sector. Regardless of whether a LAME is present or not (and in many cases LAME's simply aren't present). You guys may see it as traditionally a LAME's job, but only because you never see the aircraft at a port without LAMEs! (being LAMEs your self, that is.)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am new to PPRuNe, and think I have been sucked in by a wind up merchant you could not possibly be a Pilot on Commercial Airliners, but hey I fell for it, you had me going there.
In the unlikely event that you are serious
in which case I think I will never fly again.
You say the discussion was about whether Pilots were competent to conduct a Daily. IF you mean to physically carry out a full Daily Inspection on a Commercial Airliner, of course they are NOT. This is not an insult, it is NOT their job, there are people specifically trained for that, LAMEs.
I have had the pleasure to work with many Pilots, all over the World, most of them are fantastic blokes and excellent Pilots, but I have NEVER seen one of them do a Daily, and I know most of them would NOT want to.
Several Pilots have tried to show me how to fly an Aircraft even though I did NOT want to, mainly on ferry flights. I could not do it very well, I have had little or no training at it, and it is not my job. The same applies in reverse, I would not expect even a Check Captain to know how to do my job that I have trained for all my Life.
Anyway, good wind up, I will have to be more careful in future.
you could not possibly be a Pilot on Commercial Airliners, but hey I fell for it, you had me going there. In the unlikely event that you are serious
in which case I think I will never fly again. You say the discussion was about whether Pilots were competent to conduct a Daily. IF you mean to physically carry out a full Daily Inspection on a Commercial Airliner, of course they are NOT. This is not an insult, it is NOT their job, there are people specifically trained for that, LAMEs.
I have had the pleasure to work with many Pilots, all over the World, most of them are fantastic blokes and excellent Pilots, but I have NEVER seen one of them do a Daily, and I know most of them would NOT want to.
Several Pilots have tried to show me how to fly an Aircraft even though I did NOT want to, mainly on ferry flights. I could not do it very well, I have had little or no training at it, and it is not my job. The same applies in reverse, I would not expect even a Check Captain to know how to do my job that I have trained for all my Life.
Anyway, good wind up, I will have to be more careful in future.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Qld, Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the world of regional airlines, esp those serving the bush, it is very common for pilots to carry out daily inspections. The pilots undergo training by a LAME and are approved under the maintenance control system to carry out daily inspections and servicing (oil, fuel replenishment and suchlike). I am a LAME and have no problem with the standard of daily inspections being carried out by pilots. When you think about it logically they have a vested interest in making sure the inspection is done properly, and with proper training are more than capable of carrying out the task.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some more fuel for the fire. There will be no maintenance release any more, only the return to service which according to the previously referenced proposals needs to be signed prior to each flight, except when they don't have to!
Enjoy
Maintenance release
6.6 A maintenance release issued in accordance with CAR (1988), regulation 43, is acceptable to continue in use as the aircraft flight and technical record and is taken to be a maintenance release under Part 121A or Part 121B until the maintenance
release expires.
6.7 Once the current maintenance release expires, the next return to service under Part 43 and as required by the aircraft's AMP will be considered to be the maintenance release. In addition a specific Maintenance Release will be needed to be
issued prior to each flight under Part 121A or 121B where the aeroplane’s maintenance program has been based on MSG methodology or the flight is an ETOPs or RVSM flight.
GTG - You have me at a disadvantage!?
Enjoy
Maintenance release
6.6 A maintenance release issued in accordance with CAR (1988), regulation 43, is acceptable to continue in use as the aircraft flight and technical record and is taken to be a maintenance release under Part 121A or Part 121B until the maintenance
release expires.
6.7 Once the current maintenance release expires, the next return to service under Part 43 and as required by the aircraft's AMP will be considered to be the maintenance release. In addition a specific Maintenance Release will be needed to be
issued prior to each flight under Part 121A or 121B where the aeroplane’s maintenance program has been based on MSG methodology or the flight is an ETOPs or RVSM flight.
GTG - You have me at a disadvantage!?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I pointed out before, I do NOT know what happens with bug smashers, or for that matter regional airliners serving the bush?
However I do know what happens with Airliners (things from say DC9s up to B747s). As I also pointed out before, I have actually been involved in the training of Pilots, for several Airlines, to obtain CASA approvals for them to carry out and certify for refuelling and preflight checks (including overnights) carried out at non Engineering Ports, but NEVER for Daily Inspections.
I have no doubt that some Pilots could do the Daily, just as some Engineers could fly the Aircraft, however I still honestly believe in leaving the Piloting of the Aircraft to the Pilots, and the Engineering to the Engineers.
However I do know what happens with Airliners (things from say DC9s up to B747s). As I also pointed out before, I have actually been involved in the training of Pilots, for several Airlines, to obtain CASA approvals for them to carry out and certify for refuelling and preflight checks (including overnights) carried out at non Engineering Ports, but NEVER for Daily Inspections.
I have no doubt that some Pilots could do the Daily, just as some Engineers could fly the Aircraft, however I still honestly believe in leaving the Piloting of the Aircraft to the Pilots, and the Engineering to the Engineers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airsupport
And that is what it boils down to. As you stated erlier, some of us may think we CAN fly an aircraft having flown simulators, but we are not competent. The exact same argument holds true in reverse - some pilots may think they know what they are looking at but they are not competent. Checkboard notice I did not say INcompetent.
And that is what it boils down to. As you stated erlier, some of us may think we CAN fly an aircraft having flown simulators, but we are not competent. The exact same argument holds true in reverse - some pilots may think they know what they are looking at but they are not competent. Checkboard notice I did not say INcompetent.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THE FORGOTTEN MAN
Author Unknown
Through the history of world aviation
Many names have come to the fore,
Great deeds of the past in our memory will last
As they're joined by more and more.
When the first man started his labor
in his quest to conquer the sky
He was a designer, mechanic and pilot,
and he built a machine that would fly.
The pilot was everyone's hero
He was bold, he was brave, he was grand,
As he stood by his battered old biplane
With his goggles in his hand.
But for each of our flying heroes
There were thousands little renown,
And these were the men who worked on the planes
But kept their feet on the ground.
We all know the name of Lindbergh,
And we've read of his flight into fame,
But think, if you can, of his maintenance man,
Can you remember his name?
Now, pilots are highly trained people
And wings are not easily won.
But without the work of the maintenance man
Our pilots would march with a gun.
So when you see the mighty jet aircraft
As they mark their path through the air,
The grease-stained man with the wrench in his hand
Is the man who put them there.
Author Unknown
Through the history of world aviation
Many names have come to the fore,
Great deeds of the past in our memory will last
As they're joined by more and more.
When the first man started his labor
in his quest to conquer the sky
He was a designer, mechanic and pilot,
and he built a machine that would fly.
The pilot was everyone's hero
He was bold, he was brave, he was grand,
As he stood by his battered old biplane
With his goggles in his hand.
But for each of our flying heroes
There were thousands little renown,
And these were the men who worked on the planes
But kept their feet on the ground.
We all know the name of Lindbergh,
And we've read of his flight into fame,
But think, if you can, of his maintenance man,
Can you remember his name?
Now, pilots are highly trained people
And wings are not easily won.
But without the work of the maintenance man
Our pilots would march with a gun.
So when you see the mighty jet aircraft
As they mark their path through the air,
The grease-stained man with the wrench in his hand
Is the man who put them there.
