Walk-arounds x 2?

[training wheels]

Decided to do some plane gazing at Canberra the other day and noticed that the walk-around on both Qantas and VB flights were done, initially by the ground engineer, and then again by the pilot. Why the need for two pairs of eyes for the walk-around? Is this in case one missed something, the other might pick up? Isn't this a waste in terms of resource management, ie, two people to do the job of one?

[Capt Wally]

To some degree yes 'training wheels' that might seem a waste but remember the Capt is ultimetly in command & must therefore insure his ship is flight ready as far as practicable. How often have we humans walked around a plane & not noticed anything untoward?..........heaps am sure. You might have had a bad night the night before, yr worried about something very important to you hence we may appear to be doing a walk around but you might as well be walking around the ride on mower if yr mind ain't on the job!
Funny you should bring this subject up now 'cause just the other day I was doing the usual daily inspection of the craft/s I fly & found something that had been amiss for some time. Just goes to show that many before (& probably myself inc) missed it every time.
Still am not too sure what the protocols are with the airlines but am sure there practicable & safe as possible stopping short of perhaps the Capt's granny having a peek as well !

CW

[PyroTek]

since i'm just starting my GFPT, i tend to do the walkaround twice by myself!
now having 2 sets of eyes could make the walk around more worth it, and give both the captain and the ground crew some exercise!
I saw two people doing one walk around in tokyo the other night...

[oldm8]

I often do two walk arounds in the situation where I have been opening panels putting bungs in and out, tying the aircraft down etc.

My first walk around is close up, checking for all those little things like a blocked pitot and things that require close attention. My second walk around is about 5m away from the aircraft and I am looking at the "big picture". Sometimes I pick up things that I am not in the habit of looking at when I look close up. Like aircraft leaning to one side due to oleo extension for example.

Had a mate try and taxi with a tie down still on the wing a few years back. Could have been avoided if he just stood back and had a "big picture" look at his kite.

[Nepotisim]

Two walk arounds because LAMES tend to look at different things than PILOTS. This is most definitely not a bad thing. Occasionally one has picked up on something that the other has missed, and it goes both ways.


You have the makings of a future bean counter. All the best.

[Capt Wally]

........hahahah "nep", the making of a future bean counter, funny how we see it that way, & who can blame us with all the 'screwing' going on with the troops !

CW

[training wheels]

Originally Posted by Nepotisim

You have the makings of a future bean counter. All the best.

LOL! I'd much rather have my hands on my joystick than count beans, thank you very much!

The reason why I brought up the resource management thingie is that management are always trying to find ways to reduce staff. Eg, before there used to be at least two people involved in pushing back aircraft, but now VB has the one engineer with their remote controlled buggy; and didn't VB do away with cleaners and got their F/A's to clean the cabins on turn-arounds?

So I'm surprised that for the walkarounds, there are two people doing it.

As an observer looking on, it appears that the pilots also do the walk-arounds because they don't trust the LAMEs to do it? Is this really the case, or are both required to do it as a part of the airlines' SOPs?

[Brian Abraham]

LAMES tend to look at different things than PILOTS

Very true Nepotisim. I always did my pre flight prior to the engineers daily and at times the LAME would come to the crewroom to advise aircraft is U/S. There were no "Oh my God, I didn't see that". No falling out of the sky stuff, but we did have outstanding engineering and they pulled aircraft off line for what may have seemed nit picking stuff in other outfits.

In God we trust, everything else we check.

[mattyj]

Here (which is not Canberra) the Guys that do what was described above are Line Maintenance. Its SOP to have two assigned for an arrival. They do an arrival walk around, and a departure walk around. They have other duties, like signing paperwork, supervising refuelling and daily inspections if required and driving pushback tugs sometimes. (They also put those remove before flight tags up in the maingear somewhere and remove them before taxi)
Since there are two..it usually makes sense if they do a side each.


Pretty normal I thought..

[mozza1972]

Standard practice in RPT ops especially as on ETOPS sectors an engineer has to certify for a etops pre flight and any a/c on the ground for 4 hrs plus requires a pre flight engineering cert.....reciept and dispatch cert for company records only.... some companies dont require any eng insp (tiger ) and are happy to have crew only do walkaround.....

Each to thier own but I know which system id rather be flying on !!!!!

[ITCZ]

Originally Posted by training wheels

Isn't this a waste in terms of resource management, ie, two people to do the job of one?

Reasonable question.

Originally Posted by Nepotism

Two walk arounds because LAMES tend to look at different things than PILOTS

Great answer.

Two equally skilled safety minded professionals, examining the aeroplane from different viewpoints. Next time your Chief Financial Officer goes under the knife, will you advise him to dispense with the anaesthetist? The surgeon is a doctor, why pay for two?

Originally Posted by training wheels

As an observer looking on, it appears that the pilots also do the walk-arounds because they don't trust the LAMEs to do it? Is this really the case, or are both required to do it as a part of the airlines' SOPs?

Trust has nothing to do with it. Ninety-nine times out of one hundred, the reason an airline pilot does something, is nothing to do with personal preference. It will be because he/she has been told to do it.

One of the things that takes new pilots by surprise when they get their first 'airline' job, is the role of company Standard Operating Procedures. Its is everything. It feels a bit funny for some. Here you are, turning up with thousands of hours of valued GA experience, the ability to make sound decisions on the go, work it out, get it done. That must be why they hired you .

But you start your line training, and funny, nobody in the airline wants you to use your brain, it seems! They want you to do every little thing their way, at such-and-such a time, saying their words. If they wanted a monkey, why did they hire me?

Its because commercial aviation is not a pioneering business anymore. It has an 80 year history, with a lot of lessons learned.

Safety in RPT is built on routines. A routine for everything. Even down to who eats their meal and when, and how to take a toilet break.

Resource management? Time and Motion? I thought Elton Mayo was dead and discredited!

Here's one thing where we could save a bit of time - refuelling. We 'double up' or 'triple up' and waste lots of time...

We don't just load fuel to the flight planned uplift. We look at what we want, how much we landed with, and calculate the amount to add. Then a pilot or engineer checks that the refueller has set the panel correctly. The fuel system senses the mass of fuel loaded and automatically cuts it off at the desired quantity.

End of story? No. The refueller then records the litres at the start of delivery and the litres at shutdown to work out the litres delivered. Then compares it with the totalizer on the truck to see if those numbers matche. The pilot/engineer then looks at the litres delivered on the docket and roughly checks that the litres actually delivered is the amount he/she expected.

Then the pilot goes back into the cockpit and accurately converts the litres into kg or lbs using the SG. Adds this lbs/kg to the shutdown fuel. Compares this figure to the fuel on board total being reported by the fuel guages. Take the higher amount and calculate a 3% difference and check that the fuel remaining + fuel added is within 3% of the fuel quantity reported by the guages.

But that is not the end of it! Captain calls for checklist and when FO reads "Fuel quantity?" the Captain wastes even more time by responding "Fifteen thousand four hundred, panel checked!"

Happens thousands of times every hour. What an absolute waste of time and energy, when there is a perfectly good automated refuelling system installed in the plane that rarely stuffs up. But, like a lot of funny things we pilots do, some people worked out in the 1920's, 1930's and 1940's etc, that things can go wrong with refuelling, and an aeroplane with too much fuel, too little fuel, or fuel in the wrong tanks, can turn a nice day in to a tricky problem to solve. Google "gimli glider"

Which airline would you like to fly with - the one that does the time honoured cross checks, or the one that relies on one person's input, unchecked by others?

[NoseGear]

overkill?

I've watched many a walk-around done by our "comrades" in China, and if you think 2 is alot, try 4! Not at all unusual to see them line up at the nose of the aircraft and off they go, timed to perfection, first one hits the wingtip and off goes number 2 and so forth! Very ammusing but not so sure of the quality as they march around the aircraft!
I personally like the idea of a LAME and a pilot doing walkarounds, as stated above, one can catch what the other may not see.
Nosey

[Kanga767]

ITCZ, What an outstanding post! I could not agree more.

And for the record, I too walk around our aircraft on transit as well as the flight crew. If either of us finds anything, we have a chat and work it out. We're a team after all.

And it doesn't cost anything because I'm already there and would only be picking my nose in the office otherwise!

K

[Capt Wally]

..........yes excellent post ITCZ...............although my dinner went cold during the epic !


CW

[training wheels]

Yes, thanks ITCZ for that great post. It's quite an eye opener for those of us who aspire to become RPT drivers. Crosscheck overkill!

Capt Wally .. you crack me up. LOL!

[Black Hands]

A LAME's perspective: Many years of late nights and early mornings, carrying out numerous detailed inspections, component changes and various general servicing tasks, give the LAME the "eyes" that they need to competently complete the walk around inspection component of a transit check. Aside from any obvious discrepancies, a LAME is looking for the correct installation of components and ensuring that they comply with the many engineering standard practices that one encounters throughout their career. For example, correct fastener length and orientation, bend radii and security of wiring looms/harnesses, noting whether any dents/scratches/scrapes on the fuselage are in critical areas or outside the manufacturers recommended limits, whether the correct lubricant or grease has been used at a particular location... brakes are a good example.. Experienced eye's will also determine whether a flight control cable, for want of a better example, is worn, or worn out.. Prior knowledge of common areas on the a/c where cracks/corrosion/delamination/fluid leakage or previous installation errors have occurred also assist us... To mention just a few of the items we address during our walk around inspections...
To date, engineers and flight crew have a mutual respect for the jobs we each perform on a daily basis ( some exceptions, of course ).. Hopefully it's an appreciation learnt very early in one's career... After all, it's your bum strapped to an aircraft that a LAME's deemed airworthy..