Tech log misunderstandings
Talking about problems with standardisation is putting the horse before the cart; when (in my experience) it’s the lack of a face to face debrief which causes most communication failures.
So the majority of problems we experience are symptoms of a less than effective debrief, rather than root causes in themselves. I do find it odd that there is standardised RT phraseology, but none in aviation technical English.
So the majority of problems we experience are symptoms of a less than effective debrief, rather than root causes in themselves. I do find it odd that there is standardised RT phraseology, but none in aviation technical English.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That list that Kuchan posted, is that the hilarious one that gets sent to me every now and then that ends with a statement something along the lines of;
'Remember! It takes a master's degree in quantum mechanics to become a pilot, but only a two week course in woodwork to be an engineer!'
...or some other such b*****ks.
'Remember! It takes a master's degree in quantum mechanics to become a pilot, but only a two week course in woodwork to be an engineer!'
...or some other such b*****ks.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Middle East
Age: 52
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plore
Have you ever heard about RYFM ?
LI Could Be only given by Ground Crew eg. ENGINEER. We As high Trained and qualified Staff , with more types on our License , than a Pilot .
And yes Typing on a iPad will create typos .
Have you ever heard about RYFM ?
LI Could Be only given by Ground Crew eg. ENGINEER. We As high Trained and qualified Staff , with more types on our License , than a Pilot .
And yes Typing on a iPad will create typos .
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I don't even know anymore
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
h3dxb??
As an engineer I have never used LI but have received several LI entries from flight crew so who's using/reading YFM?
Who said anything about iPad?
Who said anything about iPad?
Moderator
Thread Starter
Talking about problems with standardisation is putting the horse before the cart; when (in my experience) it’s the lack of a face to face debrief which causes most communication failures.
So the majority of problems we experience are symptoms of a less than effective debrief, rather than root causes in themselves. I do find it odd that there is standardised RT phraseology, but none in aviation technical English.
So the majority of problems we experience are symptoms of a less than effective debrief, rather than root causes in themselves. I do find it odd that there is standardised RT phraseology, but none in aviation technical English.
I don't know if anybody else has come across it? - after 23 years in the flying machine game, I came across it for the first time last week. The concept is great, but if the majority of us are not trained in it, I can't see that it's doing any good?
G
N.B. Horse is usually before the cart! I think you meant "Cart before the Horse".
N.B.B. I agree absolutely about the benefits of face to face debrief. However, does every operating environment really make this possible?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fact....When I flew 747 for Air Atlanta based in Lagos, not the nicest place in the world....the lead ground engineer was an Icelandic ***khead, who did whatever he wanted, because he knew he could get away with anything, and he didn't like either being at work or expat flight crew.
In afterflight debriefs he regularly swore at the flight crews for presenting him with added work, no probs, right out loud.
Near the end of my contract, he was caught (by me!....maybe there's a message there!), swapping componentary when the MEL time period ran out...and...then he did something that could have killed me, as well as nearly 300 others on board.
During a periodic engine boroscope inspection, he decided to sign off the independent inspection himself, as well as the supervisor of the work, I'm told, because the independent inspector would have taken too long to arrive at the airport from the company hotel.
Well, one of the covers was not properly refitted to the casing, and about 45 minutes into the next flight, with me and many others heading off to JFK, a quite long flight, the #4 engine fire warning illuminated and we were forced to shut it down, fire inds went out, we returned to Lagos, dumped mega kilos of fuel, uneventful landing, and where the (different) maintenance guys located the problem....
Certainly widened my eyes to some attitudes!
In another example, another Icelandic lead insisted that the minimum oxy level shown in the FPPM was OK for any flight (they had to change the bottles, no topping up allowed!)....trouble is, we were about to depart Madrid for Havana, quite some distance over water, though he didn't seem to care, it had the minimum, I'm talking outright raised voices argument, he wasn't going to do it, his attitude was, we had enough!
Note: I'm assuming you guys are familiar with the reasons for the minimum oxy level, and why it is used).
Had to summon the duty operations guy to sort it out, of course, by that time the forward cargo hold had been loaded.(that's where the oxy bottles are located in the '74)....so, many delayed minutes later, we departed with the oxy we required.
Both times, I didn't hear of any action taken, by the Icelandic ops management.
Sometimes in reflection, I consider myself quite lucky to have survived my years flying for AAI.
Cheers...EW73
In afterflight debriefs he regularly swore at the flight crews for presenting him with added work, no probs, right out loud.
Near the end of my contract, he was caught (by me!....maybe there's a message there!), swapping componentary when the MEL time period ran out...and...then he did something that could have killed me, as well as nearly 300 others on board.
During a periodic engine boroscope inspection, he decided to sign off the independent inspection himself, as well as the supervisor of the work, I'm told, because the independent inspector would have taken too long to arrive at the airport from the company hotel.
Well, one of the covers was not properly refitted to the casing, and about 45 minutes into the next flight, with me and many others heading off to JFK, a quite long flight, the #4 engine fire warning illuminated and we were forced to shut it down, fire inds went out, we returned to Lagos, dumped mega kilos of fuel, uneventful landing, and where the (different) maintenance guys located the problem....
Certainly widened my eyes to some attitudes!
In another example, another Icelandic lead insisted that the minimum oxy level shown in the FPPM was OK for any flight (they had to change the bottles, no topping up allowed!)....trouble is, we were about to depart Madrid for Havana, quite some distance over water, though he didn't seem to care, it had the minimum, I'm talking outright raised voices argument, he wasn't going to do it, his attitude was, we had enough!
Note: I'm assuming you guys are familiar with the reasons for the minimum oxy level, and why it is used).
Had to summon the duty operations guy to sort it out, of course, by that time the forward cargo hold had been loaded.(that's where the oxy bottles are located in the '74)....so, many delayed minutes later, we departed with the oxy we required.
Both times, I didn't hear of any action taken, by the Icelandic ops management.
Sometimes in reflection, I consider myself quite lucky to have survived my years flying for AAI.
Cheers...EW73
Last edited by EW73; 24th Jul 2011 at 10:23.
Unfortunately no one uses's STE & fewer have heard of it! Is Carts & Horses in there?
Each manufacturer has standardised abreviations & acronyms,although if you happen to be working Airbus,Boeing & Embraer it can cause problems.
I've worked for many airlines & AMO's (pesky acronyms!) ,none of those specified STE.
There are obvious limitations on being able to conduct debriefs,its not beyond the wit of man,mobiles for instance. Lack of a good debrief is a safety issue,but has cost implications.
Each manufacturer has standardised abreviations & acronyms,although if you happen to be working Airbus,Boeing & Embraer it can cause problems.
I've worked for many airlines & AMO's (pesky acronyms!) ,none of those specified STE.
There are obvious limitations on being able to conduct debriefs,its not beyond the wit of man,mobiles for instance. Lack of a good debrief is a safety issue,but has cost implications.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there is some issue with communication and how this is conveyed in written and verbal form..
Pilots have CRM to communicate and fly alongside with each other.
When studying for my Licences there was nothing in any syllabi about interfacing between that of the Flight Deck and Ground Crew. I think that reflects within the 'whose aeroplane' 'us and them' syndrome you commonly see; Especially within Customer airlines.
Unfortunately If they keep downgrading the professional status as LAME; the gap will only widen and all respect and the professional bridge will be lost in hand with continuity of the handover.
On the subject of tech log handovers; how technical do you want a Pilot to be? If he knew the systems as well as I do he will be a liability in the sky, troubleshooting stuff so on, i know i would be
Concluding; the uniformity can only really be corrected within our professional attitude towards each other rather than our technical ability of recording defects, the ambiguous entries will always continue due to the divide of ability and technical know-how. Pilots are great at what they do, we are great at what we do!
Pilots have CRM to communicate and fly alongside with each other.
When studying for my Licences there was nothing in any syllabi about interfacing between that of the Flight Deck and Ground Crew. I think that reflects within the 'whose aeroplane' 'us and them' syndrome you commonly see; Especially within Customer airlines.
Unfortunately If they keep downgrading the professional status as LAME; the gap will only widen and all respect and the professional bridge will be lost in hand with continuity of the handover.
On the subject of tech log handovers; how technical do you want a Pilot to be? If he knew the systems as well as I do he will be a liability in the sky, troubleshooting stuff so on, i know i would be
Concluding; the uniformity can only really be corrected within our professional attitude towards each other rather than our technical ability of recording defects, the ambiguous entries will always continue due to the divide of ability and technical know-how. Pilots are great at what they do, we are great at what we do!
Moderator
Thread Starter
I don't think that you'll find anything about liaising with ground crew in the CPL or ATPL syllabus either, nor on best practice in filling out tech logs.
I'd argue that's an omission on both sides.
G
I'd argue that's an omission on both sides.
G
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I don't even know anymore
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Verbal debrief
I agree, a verbal debrief is usually best but it's not always possible.
Should an aircraft arrive at home base the engineer might only get to the aircraft quite some time after the crew has left, especially if the aircraft is due for a couple of hours on the ground prior to its next flight.
Try contacting a flight crew member 2 or 3 hours after landing if he just did a 8 or 9 hour night flight...
Should an aircraft arrive at home base the engineer might only get to the aircraft quite some time after the crew has left, especially if the aircraft is due for a couple of hours on the ground prior to its next flight.
Try contacting a flight crew member 2 or 3 hours after landing if he just did a 8 or 9 hour night flight...
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
some crews are off before the pax as they are in a rush to get home by train plane or automobile!
If I get I didn't put it in the book but......I switch off straight away, if it's not in the book then there is no problem!
If I get I didn't put it in the book but......I switch off straight away, if it's not in the book then there is no problem!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Y
Age: 33
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure this is the kind of answer you were looking for, but I find the biggest cause for confusion in the tech log (and more commonly) in the CDL being item "U/S"
Ok, how is it U/S? IFE - no picture? No sound? Doesnt work on a certain channel? Crackly sound? Interminttent problems?
Saying something is U/S should be against procedures and a more detailed description given! Granted in some cases it's blatently obvious what is wrong with the component, but in many cases it just isn't!
Ok, how is it U/S? IFE - no picture? No sound? Doesnt work on a certain channel? Crackly sound? Interminttent problems?
Saying something is U/S should be against procedures and a more detailed description given! Granted in some cases it's blatently obvious what is wrong with the component, but in many cases it just isn't!
