Reporting of all aircraft defects by PIC during or at the termination of each flight
 

Up until very recently, the 1988 CARs included reg 248 headed “Reporting of defects”. Subreg (1) said:That reg (with minor changes) was there from the start of the 1988 regs.

In 36 years of flying so far, I’ve never “reported” an aircraft defect to anyone during or at the termination of a flight. I’ve entered plenty in maintenance releases, but that’s not a “report” to anyone. The maintenance release could sit unread and the aircraft could sit with the defect unrectified, forever, if the aircraft isn’t flown. I’ve certainly contacted colleagues to let them know about the defect, as a matter of courtesy if I think they’ll want to get the defect rectified before an upcoming trip, but that isn’t a “report” either. I’ve declared a ‘PAN’, but the circumstances that resulted in that decision were not caused by any aircraft defect.

Some regs require e.g. major defects to be reported to CASA (CAR 51A), but those regs are not a “manner” specified by “CASA” - they are a reg made by the G-G. In any event, those regs create their own obligation and penalty for contravention.

AIP does deal with the reporting of defects in navaids and aerodromes. Paragraph 10.00 of ENR (Enroute) 1.1 (currently at pages 78-80 of ENR) says at the start:

I note that there is a "manner" and "person" specified. That seems to me to be a specification by CASA for the purposes of CAR 248.

But there is nothing I can find in the current AIP, and there is nothing in amendment 78, dated 6 April 2014, of AIP (the last paper copy I kept before 'going electronic') specifying persons to whom a PIC must "report" every aircraft defect of which the PIC became aware during a flight. There are provisions in AIP about reporting defined matters to ATSB (currently ENR 1.14) - which provisions summarise the requirements of the TSI legislation - but those requirements do not apply to every aircraft defect of which a PIC becomes aware and, in any event, are not “specifications” by “CASA”. The TSI legislation is precisely that: TSI legislation.

Is anyone able to tell me to whom and the manner in which CASA specified that I should have been reporting, either during or at the termination of a flight, the following kinds of defects that came to my attention during the flight:

The bulb in the instrument light for the standby AH blew.

The squelch in VHF 2 stopped working.

The front passenger seat recline mechanism jammed.

The lower spark plug on cylinder 6 failed at altitude.

The placard under the Alternator switch fell off the instrument panel.

And what if, while I’m tying the aircraft down, I discovered that there are two screws out of 15 missing from a main wheel spat? The flight’s well and truly over, so CAR 248 wouldn’t have applied. Sure: I’d put that in the maintenance release. But should I have been “reporting” that to someone? And what if I happened to be idly looking out the window during flight and noticed the two screws are missing?

I’m not aware of any action ever having been taken against a pilot for breach of CAR 248 for failure to “report” those kinds of aircraft defects. If you are aware of that action being taken, please post or PM me details.

I started flying before the CARs came into effect. My vague memory is that CAR 248 was ‘transferred’ from the equivalent ANR and, back in the days in which everything was in ANRs/ANOs, the air navigation service provider, the aerodrome provider, the safety regulator and the accident/incident investigator were all just ‘one big happy family’ in whatever the relevant department happened to be called from time to time. But even in the ANR/ANO days, I don’t recall ever reporting “all” aircraft defects of which I became aware during a flight to anyone.

Perhaps I was breaching CAR 248 for the last 30 or so years?

the Law of Bureaucratic Drag
 

So those writing new CASRs, or writing old CARs into CASRs, just seem to invent a few words from some ideas they have had to "enhance safety" and concurrently meet a personal " employment target" which gets them a promotion. No one seems to be responsible for harmonising different sections in terms of intent and applicability of these regulations. The proliferation of legislation and documents in the last few decades also enhances the chances of inconsistency.

The new algorithm expressing legal inconsistencies (LI) in terms of numbers of pages of regulations (NPR); i.e. the Law of Bureaucratic Drag, is probably something like
LI = C* NPR squared.
C is a constant differing from ICAO state to state, but is very large for Australia.

See the parallell thread on instrument approaches TAFs and alternates.

Seabreeze

Clinton, it seems from reading this that you're trying to find a way out of being caught for something tbh. There is a very glaring piece of information missing here though and that is what kind of operation is this Aircraft being used in?

I'm honestly concerned that for 36 years you've apparently just been entering this information and not really reporting it to anyone to make sure it's disseminated properly. But once again, this depends heavily on the type of Operation this Aircraft is being used in.

I'm not sure that posting an admission on PPRuNe is "a way out of being caught", Ix...

So far as I can see, CAR 248 did not distinguish between classifications of operations, in its terms. (You can read it above.) So far as I can see, nor was it in a part of the CARs applicable to some classifications of operation and not others. (You can see that from looking at the entire CARs.)

You're asserting that the reporting obligation "depends heavily on the Type of Operation this Aircraft is being used in". OK then, let's start with what was called RPT when CAR 248 was in force (up until very recently). Please provide the regulatory reference to CASA's specification of the manner in which and the persons to whom the PIC of an RPT aircraft was obliged, under CAR 248, to report all aircraft defects of which the PIC became aware, either during or at the termination of the flight.

My request remains: If anyone is aware of any action having been taken against a PIC for breach of CAR 248 for failure to “report” the kinds of aircraft defects I listed, during or at the termination of a flight, please post or PM me details.

I didn't say it was an admission, I'm saying it seems like you've been caught out for something and are seeking a way out of it. It absolutely would depend on Operation type. If it's a Private Aircraft with a single owner then clearly the person you would report to would be yourself, end of story, if it's some kind of Commercial Operation then you'd be reporting to someone like the Chief Pilot or Base Manager depending on your reporting structure. The answer you're looking for is unlikely in the CARs therefore, it's most likely to be contained in the Company SOPs which would designate the correct person to report to within your structure, which, once again, is why the nature of the operation is very important to this question.

The simple fact that you're trying to find the wiggle room in what is considered "Termination of Flight" and whether tieing down an Aircraft is part of the termination of your flight seems quite telling to me about trying to find some kind of loophole here.

It is an admission, Ix. I've said it, publicly, on PPRuNe.

You keep speculating. I'm not interested in speculation. I want the reference to CASA's specification of the manner in which and the persons to whom reports of all aircraft defects must be made by the PIC either during or at the end of the flight.

"It's most likely" doesn't cut it. And, in any event, if it is in Company SOPs that is just the Company SOPs: It's "right there on the box". That's not a specification by CASA.

Do you get the point I made about para 10.00 of ENR 1.1 in AIP? Do you see that it is a specification of the manner in which and the persons to whom reports of navaid and landing area defects must be reported by PICs - all PICs? I'm looking for the aircraft defect equivalent.

CASA Approves the company SOPs, so yes, it is a specification by CASA. 10.00 ENR 1.1 in AIP specifies because it isn't a company thing, they have to specify there because it would fall well outside what is expected in Company SOPs and therefore needs to be specified in this manner. You're trying to draw a string between these two but it just isn't there. Once again, you're looking for loopholes which is already a bad sign.

Assuming we're talking about VH-CFK then it's either operating under Part 135 or Part 138, most examples of SOPs for these types include something along the lines of:
2.1.17 Procedures for reporting and recording defects etcCASR References:

133.090 Procedures for reporting and recording defects etc
135.100 Procedures for reporting and recording defects etc
138.230 Procedures for reporting and recording defects etc.

The sample text lists matters requiring reporting by the regulations. You may wish to require other matters to be reported. Amend the sample text to suit your operations.

Below is 138.100, 138.230 is substantially the same:

Procedures for reporting and recording defects etc.

An aeroplane operator's exposition must include procedures for the reporting and recording by a flight crew member for a flight of the aeroplane of any of the following that occur during the flight:
(a) an abnormal instrument indication;
(b) abnormal flight conditions;
(c) abnormal behaviour by the aeroplane;
(d) exceedence of an operating limit specified in the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aeroplane;
(e) a defect in the aeroplane.

So yes, it is important the type of operation we're talking about here as this specifies where to find this kind of information.

"CASA Approves the company SOPs, so yes, it is a specification by CASA." I disagree.

But as it appears that I'm just looking for loopholes and you're very confident of your opinion, it looks like I'm doomed.

(And for every one else, if you're aware of any PIC having been prosecuted for contravention of CAR 248, for failure to report an aircraft defect in the manner and to the persons specified by CASA, please post or PM me the details.)

So you're going with "I don't have the follow the Company SOPs"? Good luck with that one!!!!

Also, what you're actually looking for here, whether you like it or not, is "Are you aware of any PIC having been prosecuted for not following the Companies SOPs?"

Clearly I've lost the art of plain English writing.

I'm aware of a regulation that, for example, requires pilots, among other persons, to enter defects in maintenance releases: CAR 50. CAR 50 has a penalty for contravention. I'm aware of pilots who've been prosecuted for contravention of CAR 50.

CAR 248 was in force for over 30 years. CAR 248 imposed requirements on pilots and had a penalty for contravention. I realise that I'm confusing you, Ix, but my question remains as I've set it out.

Your short answer is: No.

Thanks for that.

Ixixly,
Since when have Part 91 operations needed to comply with Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)? Ala CASA accepted/approved procedures or whatever they want to call it.

Young Clint is operating the aircraft in private operations!

Stop posting rubbish and get your facts right and become familiar with the new regulations.

Read the posts and do your research first before posting.

All the hallmarks of CASA grub digging for ****!

As I see things an entry on the MR unarguably satisfies the obligation to "report all defects".
A PIC is required to read the MR and make proper allowances for any/all defects or required maintenance listed thereon prior to flight. I mean, for example, that a failed nav light is reported, as it should be, but you as PIC ignore that coz your flight will be day VMC.
Knowledge that the next flight will not require the item to be entered on the MR is not a legal mitigation. Things might change so the law proscribes your using this knowledge.
Practically speaking, you'd be pretty dopey to not mention to the owners that there are new entries on the MR.

What is the operation, 91, 135, 138 or combination or all?

The new rules are very explicit with regards to the differences.

Duck Pilot, I specifically asked under what operations this aircraft is being discussed as this is relevant but never got a reply. So far as I can see from the rego VH-CFK mentioned in another post by Clinton is operated under Merit Aviation Pty Ltd so likely under Part 135 or 138, don't know exactly which one but both have the same requirements in their SOPs, and a requirement for an exposition to begin with.

I asked for facts, but they declined to provide any so I went with what I had and made that quite clear under what assumption I was making my posts. So no, not involved with CASA at all, in fact not even flying for a living now for a few years. But you feel free to let that anger out as you need to :)

........and when you report it, you get told "It always does that" or "You have to thump/ twist/ tap/ squeeze/ pull/ push or wait thirty seconds and it comes good" with the engineers unspoken entreaty "Please don't write it on the MR or we are both in trouble".

If the machine is being operated under Part 91 ops, ala private ops the 119 and 135 or138 don’t apply hence my response.

However if it’s operated under a 135 or 138 ORG the operator is legally obligated to ensure reporting requirements are complied with. If the machine is doing air transport or aerial work for example during the week, and the owner wants to take it for a fly on the weekend and reports a defect, it’s the responsibility of the AOC holder or the 138 Certificate holder to ensure that the defect is written up apparently. The owner isn’t legally obligated to comply with the AOC or Certificate holder’s exposition or ops manual.

No offence or aggression Ix👍😀

Lxixly - I can confirm Clinton is not trying to 'get out of anything'... I know this is the RUMOR network however. :-)

Duck pilot - I will quote you: "CASA grub digging for ****" - I know one of which who happens to post in this forum - both based in Cairns... Both have pilot licenses (although one is only private)... One is an FOI who has thousands of hours... One is a Senior Instigator - correction Investigator...

I would love for these two to tell me exactly who and how they have complied with Reg 248 while they have been flying in Private operations...

Sunfish - in some aspects that is probably more accurate than you realise.
​​​​

I know a few aviators who when told that would return the aircraft to the engineers a few days later having 'thumped' it through the instrument panel into pieces so it failed permanently, with the appropriate MR entry stating the instrument had failed for the last time.

Your evident problem, Ix, is that you have difficulty with written comprehension. In the other thread I started yesterday, I said I “flew” CFK for 10 years. “Flew” is past tense. That means I am referring to something that happened in the past. CAR 248 has been repealed (it’s dead). I’m asking about what happened when it was in force. “Was” is past tense. The before time.

I have no clue as to what operations CFK was and continues to be operated after she was sold a few years ago. In any event, that all continues to irrelevant to my question. Please look up “irrelevant” in a dictionary.

I know there are regulations about what must be contained in an operator’s SOPs and operations manuals and whatever, and there are regulations about compliance by an operator’s personnel with them. But please read this sentence twice: Those regulations never included CAR 248.

My question is about actions taken against pilots for contravention of CAR 248 for failure to report all aircraft defects during or at the termination of each flight. Why you’re spending so much time and energy to say that, like me, you’re not aware of any, perplexes me.

They may write them with good intentions, but by the time the the CASR gets through the other departments and the legalise is superimposed, it may bear no resemblance to the original intent.

Two's Ok. But if you find 3, you're fcuked.

Strainer I appreciate the humour, and it did get a laugh from me.

If you had to go to court and explain to the CDPP in front of a judge how ridiculous this is - to the extent that those who charged you with it would not have complied with it... the irony... I am sure you would laugh also..

Anyway, what's that saying about glass houses?