The Independent: Pilots ignore alerts over faulty planes
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair
Just to put TheAmbler, Shoey, Flt Lt W Mitty and everyone else's minds at ease regarding Ryanair, out of the way airports and no engineering cover........we don't have the option of carrying defects.
On shutdown the aircraft automatically "phones home" - we can't stop it - and downloads all the maintenance and FDM data.
Last time I had a defect away from base Maintrol had arranged for a 737 engineer from another company - the guy was waiting on the airbridge for the pax to get off - before I had the opportunity to call them and let them know the aircraft was tech. Ops had grounded the jet by the time I called asking for a flight plan delay.
On shutdown the aircraft automatically "phones home" - we can't stop it - and downloads all the maintenance and FDM data.
Last time I had a defect away from base Maintrol had arranged for a 737 engineer from another company - the guy was waiting on the airbridge for the pax to get off - before I had the opportunity to call them and let them know the aircraft was tech. Ops had grounded the jet by the time I called asking for a flight plan delay.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Manchester,uk
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry the Indy is a well known mouthpiece for the anti aviation brigade and have been for a number of years, I wouldn't belive them if they said Sunday is the day after Saturday when it comes to technical matters. They must be loving this column, pilots fighting each other, soon they will be able to claim that we can't agree on basic procedures and so we must be destroying the planet. The (in)dependent is only useful to wrap chips in or to use as bog roll afterwards.
PS if guardsman is reading this and feels compelled to have another pop at my sanity, give it your worst my son. I think we all know exactly what you represent.
PS if guardsman is reading this and feels compelled to have another pop at my sanity, give it your worst my son. I think we all know exactly what you represent.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I paxed last year, Ryanair, Limoges-Liverpool...the flight was completely full apart from about four seats which had "out of service" /"do not use this seat" or some similarly worded cards on them. I wound up being last seated, the window-seat next to me ,had such a notice and as far as I could ascertain, in all cases , the tray-table catch was broken. A bit of Gaffer-tape to hold them up, and MOL could have made a few bob more!
I saw no evidence of poor maintenance and was a damn sight happier than on a Viscount flight ,many years ago, where the rubber under a wing-patch was pulling out into the slipstream...the Stewardess was totally unfazed and no doubt the Captain was never told about the loosely rivetted patch.
We landed, I'm still here. I have absoloute faith in any western-world carriers' captains decision as to "what is safe"....As a previous poster remarked
He sees the results of his decisions about 120' before the pax.
Yes, journalism does have poor standards where the reality of these situations are concerned...if they didn't "sex it up" they'd sell less papers.
Therefore, it's not "sloppy" reporting,- more that they don't let reality spoil a good story.
I saw no evidence of poor maintenance and was a damn sight happier than on a Viscount flight ,many years ago, where the rubber under a wing-patch was pulling out into the slipstream...the Stewardess was totally unfazed and no doubt the Captain was never told about the loosely rivetted patch.
We landed, I'm still here. I have absoloute faith in any western-world carriers' captains decision as to "what is safe"....As a previous poster remarked
He sees the results of his decisions about 120' before the pax.
Yes, journalism does have poor standards where the reality of these situations are concerned...if they didn't "sex it up" they'd sell less papers.
Therefore, it's not "sloppy" reporting,- more that they don't let reality spoil a good story.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article sites the Helios crash as related to this apparent problem, the problem correct me if i'm wrong was reported as a faulty rear door to engineers who then presurised and de-presurised the cabin to check whether or not the door was indeed faulty the then apparently left the switch on manual not switch it back to auto, this was then missed in pre-flight and the rest is history. So this was not pilots not reporting a problem but a different problem. So why are they siting this.
Why is it always the independent that come out with these bull stories.
Why is it always the independent that come out with these bull stories.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: very close to STN!!
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i'm the one they're talking about!!!
i confess--both hands up.
i flew an airplane last week, my seat back wouldn't adjust far enough back to slump down into the usual pilot partially incapacitated attitude.
i flew the flights assigned and wrote it up when finished at night.
oh god, do i feel better now!
what i didn't write up was that silly number two engine that just keep shutting itself down at the strangest times--like takeoff!!! but everyone knows about it already and are used to it!!! ha.
i flew an airplane last week, my seat back wouldn't adjust far enough back to slump down into the usual pilot partially incapacitated attitude.
i flew the flights assigned and wrote it up when finished at night.
oh god, do i feel better now!
what i didn't write up was that silly number two engine that just keep shutting itself down at the strangest times--like takeoff!!! but everyone knows about it already and are used to it!!! ha.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Far East
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course it happens, we all know it happens, and it will no doubt continue to happen.
But, really there is no need. The ANO allows, and the majority of companies will have procedures based upon this, that when you have a defect at a station with no engineering support, the capt can defer said item(without the issue of a CRS) with the support and agreement of Maintenance Control to the next station where engineers are available, who will then carry out the the appropriate action and issue the required CRS.
On the legality of not entering a defect in the tlog, the ANO gives some wriggle room:
quote
15 Technical Log
.........
(4) Subject to paragraph (5), at the end of every flight by an aircraft to which this article applies the commander shall enter in the technical log or the approved record as the case may be:
(a) the times when the aircraft took off and landed;
(b) particulars of any defect which is known to him and which affects the airworthiness or safe operation of the aircraft, or if no such defect is known to him, an entry to that effect; and
(c) such other particulars in respect of the airworthiness or operation of the aircraft as the CAA may require;
and he shall sign and date the entries.
Of course this brings into question about what constitutes, and who makes the decision regarding, airwothiness and safe operation.
That this practise has come about is down to the reduction in engineering support around the world, in particular for shorthaul ops (no difference between low cost and full service operators), to save money.
The AEI are right to highlight this, is the way they have done it the right way, possibly not. But for the crew who think that this is an attack or indictment against them, it isn't. It is an attempt to highlight a practice which crew are being forced to adopt, that has been purely created by the constant reduction in engineering support, and which they shouldn't have to.
But, really there is no need. The ANO allows, and the majority of companies will have procedures based upon this, that when you have a defect at a station with no engineering support, the capt can defer said item(without the issue of a CRS) with the support and agreement of Maintenance Control to the next station where engineers are available, who will then carry out the the appropriate action and issue the required CRS.
On the legality of not entering a defect in the tlog, the ANO gives some wriggle room:
quote
15 Technical Log
.........
(4) Subject to paragraph (5), at the end of every flight by an aircraft to which this article applies the commander shall enter in the technical log or the approved record as the case may be:
(a) the times when the aircraft took off and landed;
(b) particulars of any defect which is known to him and which affects the airworthiness or safe operation of the aircraft, or if no such defect is known to him, an entry to that effect; and
(c) such other particulars in respect of the airworthiness or operation of the aircraft as the CAA may require;
and he shall sign and date the entries.
Of course this brings into question about what constitutes, and who makes the decision regarding, airwothiness and safe operation.
That this practise has come about is down to the reduction in engineering support around the world, in particular for shorthaul ops (no difference between low cost and full service operators), to save money.
The AEI are right to highlight this, is the way they have done it the right way, possibly not. But for the crew who think that this is an attack or indictment against them, it isn't. It is an attempt to highlight a practice which crew are being forced to adopt, that has been purely created by the constant reduction in engineering support, and which they shouldn't have to.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Citizen of the World
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my experience there is a lot of pressure to not report "non-stopper" defects until back at base or in many instances the end of the day. This is mainly due to delays to schedules if engineers have to be called at outstations now that most carriers have the pilots carry out the turnaround checks.
This report is absolutely true in my experience but they are minor tech problems not big issues that no sane pilot would takeoff with. So what's the problem?
This report is absolutely true in my experience but they are minor tech problems not big issues that no sane pilot would takeoff with. So what's the problem?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Age: 57
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Concerns.
you have obviously experienced a severe breach in safety with an operator to make you go down this path (I suspect it was in some gash European Member State as you didn't appear to have an MOR path open to you or CHIRPS etc).
I answered you in the techie section with what I believed you were referring to, maybe I did you a disservice, playing down what I thought were non airworthy defects you were bemoaning (which do get "carried" in most airlines and even in the Airforce).
There has most certainly been an impact in Engineering cost in the last 10 years, it has probably manifested itself in many ways at different places. The biggest thing I started noticing a few years ago were the lack of spares kept on the shelves - Logistic managers seemed under pressure from accounts managers to clear the tens of thousands of pounds worth of spares off the company books and into far off owned stock houses/pool agreements etc. This made Hangar checks go late as lead times for spares crept up but who got the blame for aircraft returning late into service? The lazy Engineers!
We do our best to keep things safe (and I also do my best to help the aircraft flying and making money) but safety is paramount.
Good luck with you endeavor.
(I'm also in the ALAE so look forward to the report in the Tech Log)
you have obviously experienced a severe breach in safety with an operator to make you go down this path (I suspect it was in some gash European Member State as you didn't appear to have an MOR path open to you or CHIRPS etc).
I answered you in the techie section with what I believed you were referring to, maybe I did you a disservice, playing down what I thought were non airworthy defects you were bemoaning (which do get "carried" in most airlines and even in the Airforce).
There has most certainly been an impact in Engineering cost in the last 10 years, it has probably manifested itself in many ways at different places. The biggest thing I started noticing a few years ago were the lack of spares kept on the shelves - Logistic managers seemed under pressure from accounts managers to clear the tens of thousands of pounds worth of spares off the company books and into far off owned stock houses/pool agreements etc. This made Hangar checks go late as lead times for spares crept up but who got the blame for aircraft returning late into service? The lazy Engineers!
We do our best to keep things safe (and I also do my best to help the aircraft flying and making money) but safety is paramount.
Good luck with you endeavor.
(I'm also in the ALAE so look forward to the report in the Tech Log)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West Yorkshire Zone
Posts: 976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or what about = Journo's ignore the faulty wording in their half-baked stories.
Never heard so much
in my lifetime.
Best place for their papers are on November 5th.
Never heard so much
in my lifetime.Best place for their papers are on November 5th.
when you see the accident reports of some of the crashes in lesser developed countries, sometimes ya gotta wonder (re pilots flying unsafe planes).
Ok from a strict legal point of view if the logo light doesnt work when I land down route an entry should be made in the Tech Log etc. From a practical point of view I feel this is a waste of time and paperwork especially on short turnrounds where there are other much more safety critical items to attend to. Dare I say it but does some of the hierachy (and I am referring to the type of organisation mentioned in this thrad) need to be dragged into the 21st century. The days when you landed and there were dozens of engineers and other "staff" who descended on your aircraft to "service" same after the one hour turnround are long gone. The commander still has an obligation to enter an entry in the tech log anywhere if any defects affects flight safety and/or cannot be carried in accordance with the MEL.
I don't claim to be an expert and maybe there is the odd operator who breaks the rules but the practical evidence is that most operate safely and sensibly.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South East
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the original article just about hits the nail on the head.
I've witnessed first hand defects being ignored by flight crews. I do believe this is driven by ignorance rather than negligence. I know the technical knowledge in current pilots isn't upto the old school pilots, through no fault of their own but via the new EASA regulations and what airlines think they need to know.
Todays aircraft are complex computer and system net works. The MEL takes this into account but it still requires engineers who can understand the intergration of the numerous systems to weigh up the numerous defects and to make the decision whether the plane is safe and serviceable.
With todays pressures for on time departures and max aircraft and crew rotations it doesn't do anyone any favours in the long run.
If i got a pound for everytime i've been asked whether a certain defect on a particular aircraft has ben fixed when there is no record / history in the log i wouldn't need to get oily anymore.
Another worrying trend is flight crew making decisions on serviceability down route where there isn't any engineering cover. To be fair they do normally speak to maintenance control who guide them through computer resets or inspections but this really isn't the way forward where safety is involved.
An example; A few years back the flight crew were talked through a lightning strike inspection. The lightning strike occurred on climb out from our main base but it was deemed operationally better to continue as no instrument or radio failures confirmed no system faults. Nothing was observed by the flight crew on their down route walkround and lightning inspection. However on arrival back home, with an open entry for a lightning strike, we found several rivet heads in the fuselage had been blown off, together with static dischargers and some other belly fairing damage requiring repairs befor next flight. Now the crew were not really at fault, thats the way most companies work but better awareness of the state of the aircraft and implications of defects and events might help safety standards.
Having a quick look through the tech logs, i woud say the figure of inbound to outbound defects is probably nearer 95% but as mentioned in an earlier post some discretion can be allowed for non airworthiness and cabin defects although flight crews still fail to transfer airworthiness related cabin defects into the tech log at an alarming rate.
A way forward would definately be to increase aircraft type ground school time, and better understanding of MEL's and multiple system defect implications and EASA part66 engineers available at line destinations.
I've witnessed first hand defects being ignored by flight crews. I do believe this is driven by ignorance rather than negligence. I know the technical knowledge in current pilots isn't upto the old school pilots, through no fault of their own but via the new EASA regulations and what airlines think they need to know.
Todays aircraft are complex computer and system net works. The MEL takes this into account but it still requires engineers who can understand the intergration of the numerous systems to weigh up the numerous defects and to make the decision whether the plane is safe and serviceable.
With todays pressures for on time departures and max aircraft and crew rotations it doesn't do anyone any favours in the long run.
If i got a pound for everytime i've been asked whether a certain defect on a particular aircraft has ben fixed when there is no record / history in the log i wouldn't need to get oily anymore.
Another worrying trend is flight crew making decisions on serviceability down route where there isn't any engineering cover. To be fair they do normally speak to maintenance control who guide them through computer resets or inspections but this really isn't the way forward where safety is involved.
An example; A few years back the flight crew were talked through a lightning strike inspection. The lightning strike occurred on climb out from our main base but it was deemed operationally better to continue as no instrument or radio failures confirmed no system faults. Nothing was observed by the flight crew on their down route walkround and lightning inspection. However on arrival back home, with an open entry for a lightning strike, we found several rivet heads in the fuselage had been blown off, together with static dischargers and some other belly fairing damage requiring repairs befor next flight. Now the crew were not really at fault, thats the way most companies work but better awareness of the state of the aircraft and implications of defects and events might help safety standards.
Having a quick look through the tech logs, i woud say the figure of inbound to outbound defects is probably nearer 95% but as mentioned in an earlier post some discretion can be allowed for non airworthiness and cabin defects although flight crews still fail to transfer airworthiness related cabin defects into the tech log at an alarming rate.
A way forward would definately be to increase aircraft type ground school time, and better understanding of MEL's and multiple system defect implications and EASA part66 engineers available at line destinations.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Uk
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alwaysairbus
I too have had a lightnening strike incident that Maint cont instructed the pilots on the inspection and was then entered into the inbound tech log page (how the crew inspected the top and crown of the fuse is beyond me). Luckily there was no defects in the end.
I also had a bird strike on the eng intake that maint cont again instructed the pilots on and when aircraft returned it was immediately grounded for the inlet change.
Unfortunately each of those ideas cost more money and as long as the bean counters have an input to EASA there will be too much influential opposition.
I too have had a lightnening strike incident that Maint cont instructed the pilots on the inspection and was then entered into the inbound tech log page (how the crew inspected the top and crown of the fuse is beyond me). Luckily there was no defects in the end.
I also had a bird strike on the eng intake that maint cont again instructed the pilots on and when aircraft returned it was immediately grounded for the inlet change.
way forward would definately be to increase aircraft type ground school time, and better understanding of MEL's and multiple system defect implications and EASA part66 engineers available at line destinations.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South East
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Brown,
Totally agree. Unfortunately it will take an accident or incident before anything gets looked into. The AAIB will then see in their investigations how the CAA really plays no part in regulating airlines and their engineering departments, how maintenance is ran from the operations department room and undue pressure is put on not just engineers but pilots and cabin crew for maximum savings, minimum costs and on time departures at almost any cost.
Maybe a CAA based on the US FAA may be a way forward where an active interest is taken continually on day to day operations and maintenance and fines are imposed when regulations broken rather than never seeing a surveyor at all?
Totally agree. Unfortunately it will take an accident or incident before anything gets looked into. The AAIB will then see in their investigations how the CAA really plays no part in regulating airlines and their engineering departments, how maintenance is ran from the operations department room and undue pressure is put on not just engineers but pilots and cabin crew for maximum savings, minimum costs and on time departures at almost any cost.
Maybe a CAA based on the US FAA may be a way forward where an active interest is taken continually on day to day operations and maintenance and fines are imposed when regulations broken rather than never seeing a surveyor at all?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Uk
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be nice to see an unanounced audit from time to time. Every Audit the CAA do these days are all planned, so the staffing levels can be adjusted accordingly etc etc.
All the authorities do these days is make sure all the paper work is correct. I definetly agree that an active interest is the way.
All the authorities do these days is make sure all the paper work is correct. I definetly agree that an active interest is the way.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: all over the place
Age: 63
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well that is not entirely true, we arrived at Luton the other day to a very thorough CAA ramp check, admittedly we are a bizjet not an airliner but there is an ongoing ramp check operation at the moment by the CAA.
