Aircraft tech log - liability

[FlyingStone]

Hello!

I recently flew a SEP aircraft which had a well-known unserviceability which should have been (in my opinion) fixed hundreds of hours ago. The owner was fair enough to notify me before doing the preflight during which it was clear the unserviceability existed. But looking through aircraft tech log, there is no sign of reported (written) unserviceability.

The question follows: I know that I as PIC am responsible for doing complete and thorough preflight inspection, but am I legally responsible to write any unserviceability in the aircraft tech log? I would like to have a legal basis for being "pain in the ass" and writing up every aircraft unserviceability.

[Dan the weegie]

Which bit was broken?

[FlyingStone]

Turn coordinator (no biggie), fuel quantity indicator, fuel pressure indicator and minor, but developing structural issue.

[IO540]

If there was a legal liability for writing up defects, most schools would close tomorrow

Many times I was told in no uncertain terms to NOT write something in the logs.

I suppose the owner could be held liable if he rented the plane to somebody and the renter got killed as a result of the non-notification, but I really have no idea how much evidence would be needed to make it stick. If something is not written up, nobody can say that such and such person knew about it.

[Rod1]

I think having a working (not accurate) fuel quantity indicator is mandatory?

Rod1

[BackPacker]

fuel quantity indicator, fuel pressure indicator

These might be required according to the POH. Without them you might not be legal to fly.

minor, but developing structural issue.

Sounds scary. Was it something for which an SB or AD had been brought out, and/or was it a "lifed" item?

Turn coordinator (no biggie)

Indeed not very serious unless you were contemplating an IFR flight.

[blueandwhite]

even a clock not working can be a legal no go for IFR

With that list of problems I'd be going somewhere else to find an aircraft to fly. If the standards are so low who knows what else is not working.

"Developing minor structural issue" Who said it's minor? Is there such a thing as a minor structural issue?

Accidents often happen from a couple of issues on top of each other. If fuel pressure indication is unreliable or not working, then the engine starts messing about will you know if its fuel pressure related or not? You may well waste time you don't have thinking about it.

I think you're right it should have been fixed hundreds of hours ago, if its been broke for that long.

Just go fly a properly maintined plane. (well thats my humble £0.02 worth)

[BillieBob]

If there was a legal liability for writing up defects, most schools would close tomorrow

Come the brave new world of EASA, of course, there will be such a liability. Under EASA Part-OR, every approved training organisation (which includes current registered facilities, gliding clubs, etc.) will be obliged to have an approved Safety Management System of which an integral part will be the management of aircraft unserviceabilities. To satisfy ICAO SARPS, this requirement will have to be extended in due course to every aircraft operator, including private owners.

[flybymike]

minor, but developing structural issue.

Perfectly safe to fly with only small cracks in the wing spars, but I would definitely write something in the book when they become big ones....

[Pilot DAR]

If the aircraft were to be flown in Canada, the following regulation would apply:

"Unserviceable and Removed Equipment - Aircraft without a Minimum Equipment List
605.10 (1) Where a minimum equipment list has not been approved in respect of the operator of an aircraft, no person shall conduct a take-off in the aircraft with equipment that is not serviceable or that has been removed, where that equipment is required by
(a) the standards of airworthiness that apply to day or night VFR or IFR flight, as applicable;
(b) any equipment list published by the aircraft manufacturer respecting aircraft equipment that is required for the intended flight;
(c) an air operator certificate, a private operator certificate, a special flight operations certificate or a flight training unit operating certificate;
(d) an airworthiness directive; or
(e) these Regulations.
(2) Where a minimum equipment list has not been approved in respect of the operator of an aircraft and the aircraft has equipment, other than the equipment required by subsection (1), that is not serviceable or that has been removed, no person shall conduct a take-off in the aircraft unless
(a) where the unserviceable equipment is not removed from the aircraft, it is isolated or secured so as not to constitute a hazard to any other aircraft system or to any person on board the aircraft;
(b) the appropriate placards are installed as required by the Aircraft Equipment and Maintenance Standards; and
(c) an entry recording the actions referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) is made in the journey log, as applicable."

Where (1e) refers to "these regulations", the appropriate line would be:

"(j) a means for the flight crew, when seated at the flight controls to determine
(i) the fuel quantity in each main fuel tank,"


So, it would appear that there flight in the aircraft would not be permitted at all, and there is no choice that the pilot must legally make an entry in the log book.

As for structure, Unless the pilot is actually qualified and willing to make a formal declaration that the "structural issue" does not cross any of the lines in the following guidance, he/she would be a fool to fly the plane, because by flying it, the pilot has declared it to be airworthy for the knowledge they have of it, and not in conflict with the standards of airworthiness, which include the following:

(b) Structural Strength
Information Note:
The questions contained in this paragraph shall be applied to alterations of an airframe, engine, propeller, or component.
Does the modification or repair alter:
(1) a principal component of the aircraft structure such as a frame, stringer, rib, spar, skin or rotor blade?
(2) a life-limited part or a structural element that is subject to a damage tolerance assessment or fail-safe evaluation?
(3) the strength or structural stiffness of a pressure vessel?
(4) the mass distribution in a structural element?
Information Note:
This might involve the installation of an item of mass that would necessitate a structural re-evaluation.
(5) a containment or restraint system intended for occupants or the storage of items of mass (e.g. cargo)?
(6) the structure of seats, harnesses, or their means of attachment?

Letting alone your safety, is flying an aircraft with a known defect worth the legal and insurance risk? If it is not legal, it is not insured. The owner who let you fly it with the known defect, would probably expect you to pay for it when his insurance would not.

[madlandrover]

The fuel gauge issue is an interesting one. I've flown a (small) variety of light single and twin aircraft both as an instructor and for post-maintenance flight tests etc. The fuel gauges have varied from reasonable (eg DA40/DA42 with capacitance gauges) through adequate (eg my own GY80, graduated in 1/4 tank marks and accurate to roughly that level) to appalling - worst I've ever used are the ones fitted as standard to our fleet of new Cirrus SR20s. They're not too bad when down to minimum fuel but otherwise lie constantly. What would the actual situation be with these legally in Canada? Over here the requirement is for them to read 0 when the electrics are off...

[IO540]

Perfectly safe to fly with only small cracks in the wing spars

You are kidding?

The DA42 (G1000) fuel metering is interesting. I don't think most pilots know whether it is a gauge or a totaliser; the latter needs manual entry of the FOB figure otherwise the subsequent reading makes no sense.

[flybymike]

Perfectly safe to fly with only small cracks in the wing spars

You are kidding?

Alas there is no "kidding" smilie...

[mad_jock]

Perfectly safe to fly with only small cracks in the wing spars

if your really lucky some of the concord engineers might post pics of the cracks in concord's structural frame which it operated with perfectly safely for many years. I don't know if you would class as small though something you could get your finger into.

Condition monitoring of cracks in engneering terms started back when we started learning about fatigue and welding boats in the second world war. You might be alarmed to know how many cracks there are in your local nuclear reactor pressure vessel in various loading lugs and other structural items.

opp's but forgot the orginal posters question.

The minmum equipment list for a GA light aircraft is minimal apart from the bleeding obvious about wings being on engine working etc, clock, wet compass, ASI and altimeter. The rest if operated on a AOC will have a time to get fixed and restrictions on what the aircraft may do etc eg DAY VFR only. Now in theory your plane owner should US the defective Instruments, an engineer will isolate them and placard them as US.

The structural issues I would hope that this is being run in tandem with an engineering organisation. Each aircraft has a structural rectification manual which pilots never get to see. It has known age related structral fixes and also accident fixes, it details what to check and also whats the approved method of fixing the problem. For a crack it might state for example

1. Crack under 25mm long and no wider than xxx slip guage then montior.
2. Crack over 25mm under 50mm no wider than xxx slip stop drill. If already stop drilled crack must have extended by 10mm before another stop drill.
3. Crack over 50mm long or wider than xxx slip refer to xxx-yyyy-zzzz repair plan.

My company aircraft currently has 2 cracks in the first example. Every time the engineer gets his hands on the aircraft for a check he pokes at them with a slip gauge measures them and releases the aircraft to service. When the crack gets longer than it says in his manual he will drill it. But the crack will be getting removed anyway on the next C check because the main cost of dealing with it is the man hours stripping the wing down to remove it. C check everything is in pieces anyway so the cost of the job goes from being $15,000 down to $900 for part only.

If you are concerned that the owner isn't playing the game just use CHIRP to highlight it. If you start dealing with it yourself it will just end in tears because

A) most pilots don't have a clue about what engineers can and can't run with.
B) It may very well be all legal.
C) Nobody will know its you thats made the fuss.

So by chirping it

A) the plane gets fixed
B) It stay's as it is
C) Some dodgy engineering outfit gets multiple inspections for releasing defective aircraft and the country is a safer place.

[IO540]

So by chirping it

A) the plane gets fixed
B) It stay's as it is
C) Some dodgy engineering outfit gets multiple inspections for releasing defective aircraft and the country is a safer place.

But it may be just advisable to not be an aircraft owner hangared (or even parked on grass) at the said airfield

[A37575]

#4 (permalink)
IO540

Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: England
Posts: 10,685

If there was a legal liability for writing up defects, most schools would close tomorrow

Many times I was told in no uncertain terms to NOT write something in the logs.

In Australia there is a legal requirement to record all defects (not just serious defects) in the aircraft maintenance release. Of course in general aviation (instructing, charter, airwork etc) this inevitably causes strife with the operator and owner who hate to see defects officially recorded. After all, inspectors could ask awkward questions during a paper-work audit or if the aircraft is suddenly ramp-checked by a diligent inspector. Regretfully the latter doesn't happen very often.

Unfortunately there is no shortage of evidence of pilots being awarded the DCM (Don't come back Monday) for daring to officially record a defect. For this reason, it is a fact of life that most general aviation pilots are exceedingly reluctant to correctly record defects and would rather risk the legal wrath of a flight ops inspector than risk be sacked. This has and always will remain a cancer in Australian general aviation. I suspect the same problem lies all over the world of general aviation and even certain unscrupulous airlines

Not only is there a legal obligation to record all defects in the maintenance release by Australian CAA regulation, but there is also a moral obligation. To deliberately not enter, or hide knowledge of a known defect, may mean the next pilot or student to fly that aircraft will not be aware of a potential time-bomb to his aircraft. This is a contemptible act on the part of the pilot who was well aware of the defect but who chooses not to record it.

[Pilot DAR]

Easiest answer to a worthy question first:

If a fuel quantity indicator is functioning, but the pilot suspects that it is not accurate, it really will fall to the pilot to either delcare it unserviceable, because it is not performing its intended function adequately, and document that, or, decide that he/she can defend flying the aircraft with the known inaccuracy and that safety was not compromised. Unfortunately pilot training at its basic level rarely includes this kind of detailed training - not because the aircraft maintainer/operator can't give it, but because the pilot trainee is unwilling to pay for the extra few hours of training it would take to be presented with such worthwhile training. PPL students, please consider this while you're whining about the cost of flying instruction. There are many things that are not even mentioned during PPL training, which a pilot really should understand, before they start making these types of go - no go flying decisions. Unfortunately secondary indicators of this type rarely come with the accuracy requirements, and calibration records which things like airspeed and altimeter do, so airworthiness decisions about these intruments can be less clear. If the letter of the law has been met, the pilot must then decide if the spirit has been met - is safety compromised?

As for a "minimum equipment list" it is extrememly rare for a "light" aircraft to have one at all. If there is one, it is formally approved, documented, and readily available to the pilot. Generally the requirement for minimum equipment for such aircraft is found in regulation, such as the one I cited earlier. Those regulations do convey some "give" for allowing operation with U/S equipment, though, for what I see, a record of this is still required. For obvious reasons, a "pilot" with no other appropriate qualification, is not authorized to go beyond the combination of the regulation, and the infomation conveyed in the aircraft flight manual. If in doubt, the pilot must seek further information from the appropriate maintenance facility. Certainly, this can be handled verbally at first, with the possibility that the maintainer might explain to the pilot why the observation can be considered as not requiring a documentation of a snag, for any of a number of reasons. This is a part of that pilot's training.

Now, it appears that my phrase "..with a known defect..." dd not clearly convey my meaning in this context. The Concord's operation and maintenance environment is well outside the scope of the normal GA pilot, and the aircraft sitting on the ramp. Yes, years ago, I was sent to New Zealand to evaluate for purchase a DC-8-50, which had a known defect (6" long crack) in a main landing gear forging, which was being operated "on condition" with all of the appropriate engineering and inspection oversight. That's not what I think that we are talking about here...

Nearly all aircraft have Structural Repair Manuals (SRM's) approved as a part of their design (and I'm confident that an interested pilot would be permitted to leaf through one upon request - they're not a secret or anything). These manuals describe repairs for damage and wear and tear type situations, which the aircraft manuafacturer knows by experience could be required. There are certainly many which come to light during a service life, which the manufacturer had never envisioned, and thus are not described. For GA aircraft, it is not common for SRM's to be reissued along the life of an aircraft to include additional information, though Service Bulletins are issued to cover this situation from time to time.

It is an unfortunate oversight in our aircraft documentation system that there is generally no formal way to actually indicate on the structure of an aircraft itself that a defect (crack) has been detected, inspected, and is being "watched" within the scope of an approved means. So, in fairness to the pilot, a "minor structural crack" could be prefectly fine, but the pilot has no way of knowing this. there will most likely be a reference to this in the maintenance records for the aircraft, but a review of these records to that wlevel of detain, by the pilot, prior to a flight is beyond anyone's expectations.

So, if in doubt, ask, and document. At worst, the maintainer of the aircraft will realize that the frequent written reports of a know defect warrant a note in that area which says "yeah, we know about this, and we're watching it - thanks for noticing!). If still in doubt, don't fly the aircraft!

don't have a clue about what engineers can and can't run with

In fairness to pilots, many aircraft maintenance personel, and design type engineers, also have no clue about what they "can run with", if they're not familiar with that aircraft type - but they should know where to enquire to get the right information, and be able to apply it!

Pilots who take the time to learn as they go, when they encounter such situations, make our industry more effective, and look better to the public.

[mad_jock]

It is an unfortunate oversight in our aircraft documentation system that there is generally no formal way to actually indicate on the structure of an aircraft itself that a defect (crack) has been detected, inspected, and is being "watched" within the scope of an approved means

We run an out of phase check sheet in the front of the release to service sheet which to be honest I am trying to get rid of (along with the SOAP sheet). Its another bit of paper that could potentially ground you if its not filled in. The compromise I have managed to negotiate with the head spanner is that it gets signed off for 20 days but is always signed off as part of the 10 day check for 20 days.

[madlandrover]

The DA42 (G1000) fuel metering is interesting. I don't think most pilots know whether it is a gauge or a totaliser; the latter needs manual entry of the FOB figure otherwise the subsequent reading makes no sense.

Technically, both

Totalisers also need a bit of care, as you've highlighted. I'll again use Cirrus tanks as an example: it's extremely easy to fill the tanks to the brim, put the caps back on, and assume that the aircraft now has 212L useable avgas on board. Chances are it actually has less than 200L - the fuel takes a little while to settle in the tanks, so it's not uncommon for us to be able to get 5-10L more into a tank that at first glance appears full. Not really a massive amount for 2-3hr flights or training details, but potentially 20 mins extra fuel on a trip that's planned down to reserves.

[IO540]

Chances are it actually has less than 200L - the fuel takes a little while to settle in the tanks, so it's not uncommon for us to be able to get 5-10L more into a tank that at first glance appears full

What is the mechanism behind that?

I have never seen this in the TB20.

Sure if you fill it to the brim, and the fuel is say +10C out of the ground, and the wing warms to +30C, then the stuff will expand in volume by 2%, and if the overflow vents are located right above the max fill level, you will lose 2%, which is 4 litres, which in my tanks is equivalent to about 20mm on the fuel level (I have measured it).

But I have never heard of fuel "settling".

If the DA42 has both, how does this work when only one readout is evident (IIRC; I have only ever flown as a passenger).