No RPT LAME requirement
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with Checkers.
IMHO A properly trained and motivated pilot is or certainly shoud be competent to conduct a preflight walk around and inspection.
Whilst he may not be competent to fix it he has uses the same Mk1 eyeball as the LAME. Neither can see the defect hidden by non quick release inspection panels.
But if there is a stain or fluid that shouldn't be there, it sure is a good clue.
IMHO A properly trained and motivated pilot is or certainly shoud be competent to conduct a preflight walk around and inspection.
Whilst he may not be competent to fix it he has uses the same Mk1 eyeball as the LAME. Neither can see the defect hidden by non quick release inspection panels.
But if there is a stain or fluid that shouldn't be there, it sure is a good clue.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go again....... 
Checkboard himself said we were talking about carrying out a DAILY.
Pilots SHOULD be able to carry out a preflight inspection, it is just a visual walkround, whether they do it any better or worse than an LAME is not what we were talking about.
There is NO way most Pilots would be able to carry out a Daily Inspection on a high capacity Airliner as well as an LAME would. It is not their job, and they are not trained to carry it out, just as LAMEs are NOT trained to fly it........
Checkboard himself said we were talking about carrying out a DAILY.
Pilots SHOULD be able to carry out a preflight inspection, it is just a visual walkround, whether they do it any better or worse than an LAME is not what we were talking about.
There is NO way most Pilots would be able to carry out a Daily Inspection on a high capacity Airliner as well as an LAME would. It is not their job, and they are not trained to carry it out, just as LAMEs are NOT trained to fly it........
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
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
Here we go again.????
There is NO way most Pilots would be able to carry out a Daily Inspection on a high capacity Airliner as well as an LAME would. It is not their job, and they are not trained to carry it out, just as LAMEs are NOT trained to fly it
With respect it IS their job and they should be trained to carry it out, regardless of the capacity of the aircraft.
Further, most of the real pilots I know are quite capable of doing so thank you, however it is you who confuse the roles, they would no more think of carrying out the maintenance actions raised as a result, than you would attempt to fly it, although I suspect you may think you could do a better job.
You see it is a matter of having respect for each others roles and the tenor of your posts suggest that you have precious little of that for pilots as a participant in this aviation thing.
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.
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.
Let's see who else, the banker, the marketing guy, the stores guy, the travel agent, the check in lot, the despatcher person, the baggage handlers, the caterers, the ATC dudes, the manufacturer who bet the company, the shareholders, the regulator, the fuel people, the tyre mob, the avionics and computer nerds, have I forgotten anybody, oh and the passengers all working together, so that you can stand there, grease stained, with a wrench in your hand and have a fantasy that it is all your fault.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MEL,VIC,AUST
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am still waiting for AN LAME to support his argument with facts. I still haven't seen any, I suggest he is hoping that this topic just dies a natural death....
C'mon AN LAME, I am waiting.....
GTG!
C'mon AN LAME, I am waiting.....
GTG!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty,
I sincerely hope you are winding me up now too?
IF not, PLEASE tell me that you are not a Pilot on high capacity Airliners......
Also IF you must quote me PLEASE do it in full.......
(QUOTE)
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.
(ENDQUOTE)
I stand by EVERYTHING as quoted there.
I do NOT know anything about "bug smashers", but have spent a lifteime working with "Airliners" all over the World.
I have a very HIGH opinion of most of the Pilots I have ever worked with, as evidenced in the above quote, but I KNOW that they would be the first to admit that anything above a basic preflight (that is a Daily and up) is best left to the Engineers.
Also ss I am sure you realise, the items posted after that quote were jokes, because I thought it was a wind up.......
Cheers,
airsupport.
I sincerely hope you are winding me up now too?
IF not, PLEASE tell me that you are not a Pilot on high capacity Airliners......
Also IF you must quote me PLEASE do it in full.......
(QUOTE)
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.
(ENDQUOTE)
I stand by EVERYTHING as quoted there.
I do NOT know anything about "bug smashers", but have spent a lifteime working with "Airliners" all over the World.
I have a very HIGH opinion of most of the Pilots I have ever worked with, as evidenced in the above quote, but I KNOW that they would be the first to admit that anything above a basic preflight (that is a Daily and up) is best left to the Engineers.
Also ss I am sure you realise, the items posted after that quote were jokes, because I thought it was a wind up.......
Cheers,
airsupport.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTG Could you resubmit your questions as I've forgotten their exact nature. As my opening submission said, I want to know the opinion of my fellow forum contributors as to a proposal by CASA to allow operators relief from the requirement for LAMEs to carry out a preflight for HCRPT as stipulated by ICAO, which requires that the a/c have a valid maintenance release AND be determined as airworthy and serviceable - which as far as I'm concerned is the whole crux of the matter - it is an engineer's function to determine airworhtiness as opposed to the 'airmanship' walk around done by a pilot, when it is done in HCRPT.
And if you take note of my second last post, there will need to be a new mintenance release issued for EACH flight.
And you still have me at a disadvantage
And if you take note of my second last post, there will need to be a new mintenance release issued for EACH flight.
And you still have me at a disadvantage
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"fairly" = cool dude code for a lot, just didn't want to get his head swelling any more than is necessary as he is also a fairly modest soul. 
bu gger there's that word again.
When my son says something is "really sick" or "filthy" I was amazed to find that it is a huge superlative applied only to stuff that is really really good.
I give in.
bu gger there's that word again.When my son says something is "really sick" or "filthy" I was amazed to find that it is a huge superlative applied only to stuff that is really really good.
I give in.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTG
My argument is based on the determination of the aircraft being 'airworthy'(Annex 6, Part 1 Chapter 4.3.1). By listing all the applicable regs I could find following your request, the argument has gone off on a tangent, focussing on the MR. Currently the MR has to simply be current. The new regs DO require a new'RTS' to be issued prior to each RPT flight.
However, it is the determination of airworthiness which requires an LAME. And that is what I have seeking opinion about. It has certainly stirred up a few. Pilots taking umbrage that engineers don't have sufficient respect for them and engineers getting there noses out of joint by the perceived put down that a preflight and refuelling is 'not rocket science'.
In my humble opinion, pilots deserve all the respect they can get for what they are expert at - flying aircraft and operating the systems in a safe, efficient manner, particularly when the sh!t hits the fan blade. Equally, it is the engineers role and field of expertise to determine an aircraft's airworthiness and serviceability - both the overt and subtle. And it is the years of training and experience that qualifies the engineer to be competent in that task. Sure, a pilot will pick up the overt defects, but they are not always the one to worry about. I'll give you an example:
A couple of years ago, an AN B737 (CZL I think) came in to MEL. The crew reported a loud thump when the gear was lowered but they were not overly concerned as everything appeared normal. The captain, after having done the walk around said to the LAME attending the aircraft that he felt there was no problem and he was happy to go. The LAME did his preflight but was unwilling to let the aircraft go. After much debate the aircraft was towed to the hangar and the crew took another ship to ADL and back. The aircraft was jacked, and the gear was retracted.The right MLG did not move. Further investigation revealed that the right MLG actuator had broken off at both ends, severed the right wing spoiler control cables and interfered with the aileron cables.
The captain returned from ADL and enquired rather smugly (so I'm told) as to the status of the aircraft. When told he appeared to turn a somewhat pallid colour and beat a hasty retreat.
This, of course, is close to a worst case scenario, however at the end of the day, it is the worst case scenario that has to be guarded against. If the LAME is largely removed from the preflight then it will be the crew who are responsible for picking up the subtle defects - the one's that they are not qualified nor experienced enough ( read 'competent') to find.
My argument is based on the determination of the aircraft being 'airworthy'(Annex 6, Part 1 Chapter 4.3.1). By listing all the applicable regs I could find following your request, the argument has gone off on a tangent, focussing on the MR. Currently the MR has to simply be current. The new regs DO require a new'RTS' to be issued prior to each RPT flight.
However, it is the determination of airworthiness which requires an LAME. And that is what I have seeking opinion about. It has certainly stirred up a few. Pilots taking umbrage that engineers don't have sufficient respect for them and engineers getting there noses out of joint by the perceived put down that a preflight and refuelling is 'not rocket science'.
In my humble opinion, pilots deserve all the respect they can get for what they are expert at - flying aircraft and operating the systems in a safe, efficient manner, particularly when the sh!t hits the fan blade. Equally, it is the engineers role and field of expertise to determine an aircraft's airworthiness and serviceability - both the overt and subtle. And it is the years of training and experience that qualifies the engineer to be competent in that task. Sure, a pilot will pick up the overt defects, but they are not always the one to worry about. I'll give you an example:
A couple of years ago, an AN B737 (CZL I think) came in to MEL. The crew reported a loud thump when the gear was lowered but they were not overly concerned as everything appeared normal. The captain, after having done the walk around said to the LAME attending the aircraft that he felt there was no problem and he was happy to go. The LAME did his preflight but was unwilling to let the aircraft go. After much debate the aircraft was towed to the hangar and the crew took another ship to ADL and back. The aircraft was jacked, and the gear was retracted.The right MLG did not move. Further investigation revealed that the right MLG actuator had broken off at both ends, severed the right wing spoiler control cables and interfered with the aileron cables.
The captain returned from ADL and enquired rather smugly (so I'm told) as to the status of the aircraft. When told he appeared to turn a somewhat pallid colour and beat a hasty retreat.
This, of course, is close to a worst case scenario, however at the end of the day, it is the worst case scenario that has to be guarded against. If the LAME is largely removed from the preflight then it will be the crew who are responsible for picking up the subtle defects - the one's that they are not qualified nor experienced enough ( read 'competent') to find.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MEL,VIC,AUST
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AN LAME,
Good Post.
A couple of things though. Other people may have digressed on the MR subject, but I kept on your topic regarding pre-flights and re-fuelling checks and certifications. It is on this topic that I am still awaiting your response. I shall quote my earlier posts.
And there is nothing that I can find in Annex6 that STATES that a LAME has to carry out a pre-flight/walk-around and certify such either.
Now regarding CZL.
I remember it well. Yes, I know who bounced the aircraft. But even he didn't find anything 'out-of the ordinary' during his pre-flight. So a normal pre-flight would not have picked up the defect. (Kills your argument fullstop) After all, did YOU ever check those actuator lugs on EVERY pre-flight? Maybe the pilot might have been deficient in his duties for failing to write the entry in the tech-log when he became aware that something was not right. (A loud thump followed by the R/H gear immediately annunciating 'Gear Down and Locked' with an associated yaw to the right would account for 'something not quite right!') As you mention, he was happy to take the aircraft, so no defect was entered. But he mentioned his thoughts to the engineer. Even if at the time no pre-flight's were being done(hypothetically), the engineer, (indeed I would hope any engineer) I believe, would still have had enough concern to ground the aircraft and send it to the shed for further inspection.
I await your reply.
Regards,
GTG!
Good Post.
A couple of things though. Other people may have digressed on the MR subject, but I kept on your topic regarding pre-flights and re-fuelling checks and certifications. It is on this topic that I am still awaiting your response. I shall quote my earlier posts.
What I ask is where in the regulations does it STATE that LAME's HAVE to do pre-flight inspections before every flight and certify such?
I still believe (well, my interpretation,) that in the current CAR's that there is no requirement for LAME's to carry out or indeed certify for a walk-around/pre-flight inspection.
Now regarding CZL.
I remember it well. Yes, I know who bounced the aircraft. But even he didn't find anything 'out-of the ordinary' during his pre-flight. So a normal pre-flight would not have picked up the defect. (Kills your argument fullstop) After all, did YOU ever check those actuator lugs on EVERY pre-flight? Maybe the pilot might have been deficient in his duties for failing to write the entry in the tech-log when he became aware that something was not right. (A loud thump followed by the R/H gear immediately annunciating 'Gear Down and Locked' with an associated yaw to the right would account for 'something not quite right!') As you mention, he was happy to take the aircraft, so no defect was entered. But he mentioned his thoughts to the engineer. Even if at the time no pre-flight's were being done(hypothetically), the engineer, (indeed I would hope any engineer) I believe, would still have had enough concern to ground the aircraft and send it to the shed for further inspection.
I await your reply.
Regards,
GTG!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTG
As i have been trying to get across, the only time it is required is to determine airworthiness( which IS in Annex 6, Part 1 Chapter 4.3. A flight shall not be commenced until flight
preparation forms have been completed certifying that the
pilot-in-command is satisfied that:a) the aeroplane is airworthy. The current CARs do not require LAME involvement although I don't know about pre 1988. But since when have any of us thought the Australian regs were unquestionably correct? And once again we move away from the issue at hand - the current regs are NOT the issue.
And if there had been NO engineer present when CZL had its problem then it definitely would have gone in. Is that what you're waiting for - a smoking hole in the ground. If the current proposal was to go through then the operators would have the absolute minimum number of engineers employed that they could possibly get away with - and that is the long term problem. Incidents like CZL would only be assessed by LAMEs at the mai bases, i.e. MEL, SYD & BNE.
Thankfully CASA appear to be listening to reason now.
As i have been trying to get across, the only time it is required is to determine airworthiness( which IS in Annex 6, Part 1 Chapter 4.3. A flight shall not be commenced until flight
preparation forms have been completed certifying that the
pilot-in-command is satisfied that:a) the aeroplane is airworthy
. The current CARs do not require LAME involvement although I don't know about pre 1988. But since when have any of us thought the Australian regs were unquestionably correct? And once again we move away from the issue at hand - the current regs are NOT the issue.And if there had been NO engineer present when CZL had its problem then it definitely would have gone in. Is that what you're waiting for - a smoking hole in the ground. If the current proposal was to go through then the operators would have the absolute minimum number of engineers employed that they could possibly get away with - and that is the long term problem. Incidents like CZL would only be assessed by LAMEs at the mai bases, i.e. MEL, SYD & BNE.
Thankfully CASA appear to be listening to reason now.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MEL,VIC,AUST
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AN LAME,
That's right the PIC is satisfied the aeroplane is airworthy, not that a LAME has carried out a pre-flight and certified it.
End of argument.
True, but we are obliged BY LAW to abide by them.
First of all, the PIC would have called for an engineer to discuss the problem. (As by law, he/she is supposed to enter the fault in the techlog.) And no-one can say for sure that it "would have gone in."
Now, I have refrained from personal abuse. But this comment, quite frankly, I find offensive. How dare you even accuse me of thinking such things? As a fellow LAME, this is definately NOT what I want.
You yourself said that the current CAR's do not require LAME involvement. Hence there is no difference between the current and proposed (except simplification in the wording.)
Are they?
Regards,
GTG!
Edited to remove comment that would lower me to your level, and to fix up UBB code.
As i have been trying to get across, the only time it is required is to determine airworthiness( which IS in Annex 6, Part 1 Chapter 4.3. A flight shall not be commenced until flight
preparation forms have been completed certifying that the
pilot-in-command is satisfied that:a) the aeroplane is airworthy.
preparation forms have been completed certifying that the
pilot-in-command is satisfied that:a) the aeroplane is airworthy.
The current CARs do not require LAME involvement although I don't know about pre 1988.
But since when have any of us thought the Australian regs were unquestionably correct?
And if there had been NO engineer present when CZL had its problem then it definitely would have gone in.
Is that what you're waiting for - a smoking hole in the ground.
If the current proposal was to go through then the operators would have the absolute minimum number of engineers employed that they could possibly get away with - and that is the long term problem.
Thankfully CASA appear to be listening to reason now.
Regards,
GTG!
Edited to remove comment that would lower me to your level, and to fix up UBB code.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTG
If you think I'm indulging in personal abuse then I hope we never runacross each other in a pub!
And I am of the opinion - which I AM entitled to- that removing the LAME from the preflight WILL lower safety standards.
CZL's Captain stated he was happy to take it. If the engineer hadn't been there are you telling me that there would not have been an incident. This illustrates what I'm trying to get across - that the crew are NOT qualified to determine airworthiness. And there are numerous other examples.
You seem to base your argument totally on the regs and the law as a theoretical exercise- not on reality and what we all know happens.
Unless as airsupport suspects, you're just having a lend of us newbies? And thank you for the gratious editing - my thin skin could hardly stand it
If you think I'm indulging in personal abuse then I hope we never runacross each other in a pub!
And I am of the opinion - which I AM entitled to- that removing the LAME from the preflight WILL lower safety standards.
CZL's Captain stated he was happy to take it. If the engineer hadn't been there are you telling me that there would not have been an incident. This illustrates what I'm trying to get across - that the crew are NOT qualified to determine airworthiness. And there are numerous other examples.
You seem to base your argument totally on the regs and the law as a theoretical exercise- not on reality and what we all know happens.
Unless as airsupport suspects, you're just having a lend of us newbies? And thank you for the gratious editing - my thin skin could hardly stand it
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MEL,VIC,AUST
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AN LAME,
Correct you are entitled to your opinion, as am I, and everyone else in this forum.
No I am not, however you have failed to illustrate how a LAME carrying out a pre-flight would have prevented this, as the defect was found not during the pre-flight but during subsequent retracts.
Indeed there probably are other examples, you just picked a poor one. However I am not going to comment on the crew's ability/inability to determine airworthiness.
Hang-on a sec, wasn't this what the topic was originally about? You posted the proposed rules, expressed an opinion that it is a massive change to the current regs because LAME's will be no longer required to do pre-flights, and then asked for others opinions. I queried the basis of your assumptions (the current regs and ICAO annexes) and proved your assumption unfounded. I have simply proven to yourself, and everyone else who is reading this topic, that indeed IN THE CURRENT REGS, as in NOW, it DOES NOT STATE that LAME's are required to carry-out pre-flights.
I believe you may have led a rather sheltered life at AN. Don't believe just because what happened in MEL at AN happens in the rest of the country nor worldwide(in ICAO compliant countries anyway), and in saying that don't impress your AN'isms on the rest of the current operators either. By the way, you operated to the companies MSM. A CASA approved MSM. If CASA want to approve an MSM that states a LAME shall carryout and certify for a pre-flight, well great, it's extra work, not required by law, and "it's the way they have always dunnit" so sure knock yourself out.
But just because you did it, don't believe that it should be the same elsewhere. It is not in the CAR's. Period.
No, I am not having a lend of you. I get annoyed when someone gets out his soapbox, speels off "opinions" about out profession and can't back them up..... but then again it is just a Rumour Network.
By the way.......Is that what you're waiting for - a smoking hole in the ground?
Regards,
GTG!
And I am of the opinion - which I AM entitled to- that removing the LAME from the preflight WILL lower safety standards.
CZL's Captain stated he was happy to take it. If the engineer hadn't been there are you telling me that there would not have been an incident.
This illustrates what I'm trying to get across - that the crew are NOT qualified to determine airworthiness. And there are numerous other examples.
You seem to base your argument totally on the regs and the law as a theoretical exercise-........
........not on reality and what we all know happens.
But just because you did it, don't believe that it should be the same elsewhere. It is not in the CAR's. Period.
But Unless as airsupport suspects, you're just having a lend of us newbies? And thank you for the gratious editing - my thin skin could hardly stand it
By the way.......Is that what you're waiting for - a smoking hole in the ground?
Regards,
GTG!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed there probably are other examples, you just picked a poor one. However I am not going to comment on the crew's ability/inability to determine airworthiness.
