AEI says "Pilots Not Reporting Aircraft Defects ...
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes indeed, most deferrable defects appear on returning to base.
My company allow the captain to defer an allowable defect and sign it off when away from base anyway, so unless it's a "stopper" it's not going to change anything, (apart from loosing a sector on the allowable amount).
The problem we have been having recently though is a lack of qualified engineers at base. Although we have a new type and appreciate that engineers are being trained, the A/C has been at base 9 months now and still we are being asked to check with engineering before putting ANYTHING in the book at base in case there is know one to sign it off.
There was plenty of notice that the new type was going to arrive 9 months ago, by the time it arrived there should have been enough qualified engineers in place to cover the program - and the reason that there are not enough 9 months later...... yep you guessed it - cost, (as quoted to me by the chief engineer at base).
If a company expects it's Capt's to be supportive in keeping the operation going it also has to be prepared to give that support where it is due.
My company allow the captain to defer an allowable defect and sign it off when away from base anyway, so unless it's a "stopper" it's not going to change anything, (apart from loosing a sector on the allowable amount).
The problem we have been having recently though is a lack of qualified engineers at base. Although we have a new type and appreciate that engineers are being trained, the A/C has been at base 9 months now and still we are being asked to check with engineering before putting ANYTHING in the book at base in case there is know one to sign it off.
There was plenty of notice that the new type was going to arrive 9 months ago, by the time it arrived there should have been enough qualified engineers in place to cover the program - and the reason that there are not enough 9 months later...... yep you guessed it - cost, (as quoted to me by the chief engineer at base).
If a company expects it's Capt's to be supportive in keeping the operation going it also has to be prepared to give that support where it is due.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all comes down to pilot training (or the lack thereof)
Pilot systems training has been dumbed down to such an extent that a new Captain (for example) not having flown the type before, is left in the lurch, and many times will not listen to a slightly more experienced First Officer (on type) who may well have seen these common faults before.
And, for a Captain, no less, to state that...I'll ground the aircraft for a fault, no matter what the MEL says...would usually be grounds for dismissal in many airlines, and quite frankly, rightly so.
I have even seen Captains who will write in large block letters in the tech log 'aircraft grounded' when in actual fact, the fault is easily deferred under the MEL, with little adverse affects, just to be spiteful.
Out the door with these folks, pronto.
And, for a Captain, no less, to state that...I'll ground the aircraft for a fault, no matter what the MEL says...would usually be grounds for dismissal in many airlines, and quite frankly, rightly so.
I have even seen Captains who will write in large block letters in the tech log 'aircraft grounded' when in actual fact, the fault is easily deferred under the MEL, with little adverse affects, just to be spiteful.
Out the door with these folks, pronto.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: sfo
Age: 56
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
carrying a mx item has been a tradition in the airline industy for more years than I have been around.
at some point though, the managers of the airlines have learned to lean on pilots to carry items instead of fix them at repair stations.
my airline had company mx at every airport we served. we rarely had MEL items/stickers...it was something to be proud of.
as money got tight, those poor mechanics (engineers) got laid off or were transfered to the main stations.
pilots started carrying more mx items without writing them up.
Isn't it really about the allocation of resources/money? (by the way, managers got raises!)
at some point though, the managers of the airlines have learned to lean on pilots to carry items instead of fix them at repair stations.
my airline had company mx at every airport we served. we rarely had MEL items/stickers...it was something to be proud of.
as money got tight, those poor mechanics (engineers) got laid off or were transfered to the main stations.
pilots started carrying more mx items without writing them up.
Isn't it really about the allocation of resources/money? (by the way, managers got raises!)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: europe
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"And, for a Captain, no less, to state that...I'll ground the aircraft for a fault, no matter what the MEL says...would usually be grounds for dismissal in many airlines, and quite frankly, rightly so"
if in doubt ,you dont take off.
if you are not happy with the whole situation ,your safest / best decision is not to fly ,and thats why u get paid for ....not to make money for the airline ,but to take people from a to b safe.
i had an incident years ago ,were the capt of the flight was under presure from all ,the previous day ,to take a plane with a faulty tcas.
not a requirment to despatch, but he delayed the flight till it was fixed.
sure enough next day ,when we flew together , we got a tcas alert with the other airplane not taking any corrective action .very closed call .
if in doubt ,you dont take off.
if you are not happy with the whole situation ,your safest / best decision is not to fly ,and thats why u get paid for ....not to make money for the airline ,but to take people from a to b safe.
i had an incident years ago ,were the capt of the flight was under presure from all ,the previous day ,to take a plane with a faulty tcas.
not a requirment to despatch, but he delayed the flight till it was fixed.
sure enough next day ,when we flew together , we got a tcas alert with the other airplane not taking any corrective action .very closed call .
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Admiral,
It is a requirement to report ANY defect prior to the next sector. The gentleman who made the comment that your stupid thought process is to second guess the failure is quite correct.
Again, its fols like you who don't follow procedure that add to the already negative industry image but rather employ the old 'TOD' copout B/S because you are too gutless to do the right thing for fear of losing your job and just so you can get home and help a Company that screws you when you bend over to pick up your keys.
It is a requirement to report ANY defect prior to the next sector. The gentleman who made the comment that your stupid thought process is to second guess the failure is quite correct.
Again, its fols like you who don't follow procedure that add to the already negative industry image but rather employ the old 'TOD' copout B/S because you are too gutless to do the right thing for fear of losing your job and just so you can get home and help a Company that screws you when you bend over to pick up your keys.
Very interesting thread and of course the usual disagreements between the pilot community about what is safe 
I do appreciate the use of defined MEL (deferred actions) to provide a level of safety within a reasonable level of practicality.
I am also aware that significant risk of decreasing safety may arise from unplanned maintenace tasks at outstations.
I am not aware of deferred maintenance actions (as examples cited above in this thread) that contributed to an accident on the same day that they were discovered
Therfore I conclude that the current level of safety has accomodated the issue raised by the AEI within our ability to measure risk.
I do appreciate the use of defined MEL (deferred actions) to provide a level of safety within a reasonable level of practicality.
I am also aware that significant risk of decreasing safety may arise from unplanned maintenace tasks at outstations.
I am not aware of deferred maintenance actions (as examples cited above in this thread) that contributed to an accident on the same day that they were discovered
Therfore I conclude that the current level of safety has accomodated the issue raised by the AEI within our ability to measure risk.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It isn't necessarily about accidents, its also about people like you increasing the risk factor for ALL ONBOARD based on your understanding of the technical situation. An understanding that is often based on little to no understanding of the possible technical consequences. Therefore you are not in a position to assess the risk. You do it on a misguided knowledge that it didn't happen last time but you most certainly didn't make the assessment based upon sound technical knowledge.
As has been mentioned on the Pablo Mason thread many times: "rules are rules and anyone breaking them deserves to be fired"
It is a legal requirement for the crew to enter defects into the log book at the end of each sector. It is then up to engineering and nobody else to have them cleared or deferred as appropriate by someone qualified to do so. In some cases this may well be the captain if authorised to do so.
If not you only have one course of action to remain within the regulations, call for an engineer.
Any other behaviour carries the risk of being fired and could also be considered pure stupidity.
As has been mentioned on the Pablo Mason thread many times: "rules are rules and anyone breaking them deserves to be fired"
It is a legal requirement for the crew to enter defects into the log book at the end of each sector. It is then up to engineering and nobody else to have them cleared or deferred as appropriate by someone qualified to do so. In some cases this may well be the captain if authorised to do so.
If not you only have one course of action to remain within the regulations, call for an engineer.
Any other behaviour carries the risk of being fired and could also be considered pure stupidity.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Over The Hills And Far Away
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with 411A. Systems training for pilots have become poor. It might satisfy the minimum requirements, but it is poor.
That might also explain the angst that emanates from posters such as yamaha. Poor systems knowledge and understanding leads to poor understanding of the implications of a malfunction. It might also lead to a belief that everybody has the same poor level of knowledge. Even when the opposite is obvious.
That might also explain the angst that emanates from posters such as yamaha. Poor systems knowledge and understanding leads to poor understanding of the implications of a malfunction. It might also lead to a belief that everybody has the same poor level of knowledge. Even when the opposite is obvious.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: north west
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots fly the aircraft and report any defects in the tech log.
Engineers fix or defer the defects according to the regulations.
Keep it like this and you will be ok.
Try standing up in court after an accident and saying the person in maintroll said it would be ok to fly with that defect if you survive the accident that is.
Engineers fix or defer the defects according to the regulations.
Keep it like this and you will be ok.
Try standing up in court after an accident and saying the person in maintroll said it would be ok to fly with that defect if you survive the accident that is.
Try standing up in court after an accident and saying the person in maintroll said it would be ok to fly with that defect if you survive the accident that is.
If either one of us is not happy then the defect will be repaired before departure.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRM
Isn't that the key, open communications with maintenance ? Good CRM.
It's easy to sit here and say don't fly with a late flight and time pressure.
I agree one has to have the systems knowledge and experience to back up a decision to disagree with maintenance and or the MEL.
The MEL will not advise you always on the interconnectivity of different items will it ?
Basil is right if either one has doubt then ...
It's easy to sit here and say don't fly with a late flight and time pressure.
I agree one has to have the systems knowledge and experience to back up a decision to disagree with maintenance and or the MEL.
The MEL will not advise you always on the interconnectivity of different items will it ?
Basil is right if either one has doubt then ...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mach Trim
A320 nose wheel steering MEL is on all A320's. Proves your training is not up to scratch, never been told about differrential braking. Before you asked yes have dispached an aircraft with this MEL and been on board.
A320 nose wheel steering MEL is on all A320's. Proves your training is not up to scratch, never been told about differrential braking. Before you asked yes have dispached an aircraft with this MEL and been on board.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MEL will not advise you always on the interconnectivity of different items will it ?
Having said this, the TriStar positively has more systems redundancy than most any other type, so perhaps is a bad example...
When you combine poor pilot systems training together with inadequate information from the manufacturer, the Commander is between a rock and a hard place, and certainly is ill-prepared to make a reasonable decision. This is very unfortunate.
It all comes down to cost, doesn't it?
It costs money to have detailed systems knowledge taught, so this item is overlooked for expediency.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: On a good day - at sea
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit that it's an interesting political strategy by AEI. Flight Crew complain but Maintenance jobs are being ravaged and shipped overseas.
By getting tougher on MEL issues and seeking to bring some regulatory clout to bear, they are putting more pressure on carriers to give maintenance more respect than has been shown.
By getting tougher on MEL issues and seeking to bring some regulatory clout to bear, they are putting more pressure on carriers to give maintenance more respect than has been shown.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Not Ardua enough
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now for those that’d say “Well what choice(s) did the Captain have?!”... Some common sense (possibly coupled with a bit of airmanship… along with listening to one’s FO) might suggest “How about getting airborne to see if it works and that, if not, one always has the option to land back” (especially as on this day the a/c was not limited by MLW... albeit that the QRH would now apply in any case)?
Anybody else ever notice just how many 'faults' seemingly develop on sectors that are returning to base... as opposed to an outbound sector ?
Ps. It turned out that all that was required was that the fan needed a small bit of cleaning to remove some fluff following which it worked fine.
Anybody else ever notice just how many 'faults' seemingly develop on sectors that are returning to base... as opposed to an outbound sector ?
Ps. It turned out that all that was required was that the fan needed a small bit of cleaning to remove some fluff following which it worked fine.
Not wishing to sound to sensationalist but if the E&E overheats it will ruin your day big style. It's unlikely that your aircraft has fire detection and suppression in the E&E bay.
Last edited by ARINC; 16th Oct 2007 at 04:43.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Moderator,
If you are going to re-word my posts without my knowledge, please remove my posts completely rather than re write my thoughts using you're own language and grammar.
If you are going to re-word my posts without my knowledge, please remove my posts completely rather than re write my thoughts using you're own language and grammar.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: metz, france
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being an engineer and pilot, I am in a better position to maybe have a clear understanding of both jobs and responsibilities.
The pilot has clear cut rules to follow and is under pressure from the company to complete his task, going from point A to B to C and possibly D, safely. The Engineer has to ensure that the aircraft is safe and ready for flight, but is also under company pressure to follow the program and especially reduce the costs involved.
The common denominators are MONEY and RESPONSIBILITY. Lets face it, both are just as important and therefore both should work together. We (both groups) are being divided by people who do not know the difference between an air speed indicator and a spanner.
When I am told to avoid putting things in the log book, I am effectively being asked to lie and use MY license number as proof that there are no snags. I will ask the engineer if he would like to sign the snag without it being fixed and use his license and number to prove it? Usually that solves the problem and we discuss what should be done.
So, where does that leave us as a single group? Alone, we fight each other to prove who is right or wrong. As a collective group, we could tell the companies and been counters 'Hey this needs to be fixed ASAP'.
I for one, and I suspect most flight crews do not want to ground an aircraft away from base, so we nurse the aircraft home. What more can the companies ask from us?
The bottom line is understanding between the two groups. We depend on each other to see our families at the end of the day (Especially the pilots) and therefore WE should COLLECTIVELY decide when the aircraft can fly so we can have a united force or front to counter our enemies!
(United we stand, Divided we fall.....)
Pilots and Captains, I know what you are thinking......We know who accepts the aircraft as being ready for flight (Safe and/or legal is the question)
My two cents worth.......but the battle remains, be safe
The pilot has clear cut rules to follow and is under pressure from the company to complete his task, going from point A to B to C and possibly D, safely. The Engineer has to ensure that the aircraft is safe and ready for flight, but is also under company pressure to follow the program and especially reduce the costs involved.
The common denominators are MONEY and RESPONSIBILITY. Lets face it, both are just as important and therefore both should work together. We (both groups) are being divided by people who do not know the difference between an air speed indicator and a spanner.
When I am told to avoid putting things in the log book, I am effectively being asked to lie and use MY license number as proof that there are no snags. I will ask the engineer if he would like to sign the snag without it being fixed and use his license and number to prove it? Usually that solves the problem and we discuss what should be done.
So, where does that leave us as a single group? Alone, we fight each other to prove who is right or wrong. As a collective group, we could tell the companies and been counters 'Hey this needs to be fixed ASAP'.
I for one, and I suspect most flight crews do not want to ground an aircraft away from base, so we nurse the aircraft home. What more can the companies ask from us?
The bottom line is understanding between the two groups. We depend on each other to see our families at the end of the day (Especially the pilots) and therefore WE should COLLECTIVELY decide when the aircraft can fly so we can have a united force or front to counter our enemies!
(United we stand, Divided we fall.....)
Pilots and Captains, I know what you are thinking......We know who accepts the aircraft as being ready for flight (Safe and/or legal is the question)
My two cents worth.......but the battle remains, be safe
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit that it's an interesting political strategy by AEI. Flight Crew complain but Maintenance jobs are being ravaged and shipped overseas.
By getting tougher on MEL issues and seeking to bring some regulatory clout to bear, they are putting more pressure on carriers to give maintenance more respect than has been shown.
By getting tougher on MEL issues and seeking to bring some regulatory clout to bear, they are putting more pressure on carriers to give maintenance more respect than has been shown.
Some of the things said about maintenance and budgets, company pressures and pilots overstepping the mark in a manner thankfully not published here was scary.
The impression I got was that they feel boxed into a corner and calls for assistance hasn't drawn any help so they are reverting to more desperate measures. (my opinion and this is not a quote).
He also made a very apt comment that we should all perhaps think about.
"Pilots in isolation giving the company commercial assistance is one thing
Engineers in isolation giving the company commercial assistance is one thing
Company cutbacks in isolation in order to assist the company commercially is one thing. All 3 together is down right stupid and unsafe"
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: north west
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This year i did a Human Factors course with Baines Simmons Limited.
It was the best course I have ever been on and I have done lots with over 30 years in aviation. I suggest everyone involved in aviation should do this course, it will open your eyes and make you think about every decision you make.
It was the best course I have ever been on and I have done lots with over 30 years in aviation. I suggest everyone involved in aviation should do this course, it will open your eyes and make you think about every decision you make.