AEI says "Pilots Not Reporting Aircraft Defects ...
 

...but When it is Convenient" :hmm::hmm:

Hello all.

This (provocative) title comes from AEIs report from PRNewswire site. Here is the original statement.

This may (just may) start a heated debate but IMHO it deserves your thoughts. AEI is claiming what they claim.

Reporting the incidents when they occur or iimediately after (I mean when you land) should be a normal course of action not only by common sense but also by rules and regulations. Waiting for that last leg can cause more pain in the end, I think we all know that.

I can assure you that, from the OEM side, very often we see things that should have been resolved right away if properly reported.CHIRP or whatever other anonymous way of reporting exists where most of us work, right?

Of course, this is just one side of the story and it would be nice to hear what IFALPA (or others) and the regulators have to say about this. AEI's claim is challenging and needs an answer.
Cheers

How stupid is that!

At the end of that letter they even "threaten" CAA with: "The next time an incident/accident ocurres... we will demand an answer that will be published".

In everyday operation of an aircraft, there are technical faults that impair safety, and as my butt is in the ship, I will not fly without having fixed, no matter what MEL says, and then there is all that stuff, that gets written off by the technicians anyways. Like intermittend "L FADEC channel 2 fault". Now, I can put that into the book, and get stuck at some airport where there is no maintenace to put there stamp in the logbook (they don't fix it anyways, they just put their stamp in and tell you to go fly), or I can take that home to my homebase, and have my own mechs look it over. That is, of course, there is no maintenance action due acc MEL.

You might not agree, but I think I get paid to decide things like that...

well said, Admiral :ok:

In a nutshell Admiral, well said, spot on, so end of discussion.

Admiral, things would grind to a halt where I'm at without this type of common sense, well said.

this has more potential than I initially thought.

So what was that under the Pablo story about rules being rules and not to be broken.

Now Admiral's comments are pretty indicative of the industry but they do go against the rules. So do we start firing every Captain out there?

Sad day for us if we are now advocating double standards!

Problem is, do you have sufficient technical understanding of the details of the implications of some bland EICAS indication to make the assessment that safety is or isn't impacted? You're basically second-guessing the OEM and the regulatory authority who approve the Master MEL, and then the authority that approved your own MEL. 99 times out of a hundred, you may be fine, but if and when that 1 in 100 bites you in the ass, you're (legally) out on a limb.

Once in the air, those decisions certainly are the captain's prerogative. And I'm sure the airlines love the fact that you'll grease the wheels in the practical fashion stated. How likely is it, though, that they'll back you up if it turns out to have been the wrong kind of grease?

What are next week's bombshells from AEI;

"Pope found to have Catholic leanings"

"Bear suspected of defacating in woods"

"Wilbur withheld details of frayed wing-warping string from Orville"

Earth shattering stuff if you've been living on Mars since man first took to the air.

Hmm, yeah, the devil is in the detail, right? We should see the opinions from all the sides - AEI said what they think, regulators - we know what they think so it would be nice if someone can quote something useful on that.

No one is attacking anyone and I think we all share the same responsibility. If one side decides to raise its voice, for whatever reason, IMHO we should all come out with a consensus in front of the public instead of everyone scrambling to its own PR machine to out-yell the "other" side, while being in the same boat (or airplane, more appropriately).
Cheers,

biggls
 

OK to overcome this problem, do away with the MEL and report all tech problems and get an Eng to defer. Probably require 50% Moor aircraft and crew for approx one month then all traffic will prob walk because of delays and prices

Or officially give people the power to do what they are already doing, so that its legal and above board, not a dirty little secret?

The problem isn't the MEL, it is your company not having engineers or maintenance agreements at your outstations to deal with the defects.
So grunf, it's not a provocative title at all, it's exactly what happens and AEI have got it bang on.
Admiral,
NONSENSE!
"In everyday operation of an aircraft, there are technical faults that impair safety, and as my butt is in the ship, I will not fly without having fixed, no matter what MEL says"
Give me one example of an MEL item that could "impair safety". You are more knowledgeable of the technical aspects of your aircraft than the manafacturer is if you can! The reason you carry defects home is pure commercial pressure so don't pretend that you will second guess the engineer who is backed up by the MEL/Company Quality dept/Authority and Manafacturer.

Actually, there ARE items on every MEL which do "affect safety" - not directly, of course, but as a removal of a level of redundancy. That intermittent "L FADEC channel 2 fault" in post #2 won't stop the FADEC doing it's thing right now. But when a different fault (or maybe two faults) occurs in the FADEC, there'll be no more channel 2 to pick up the slack. (For instance)

Master MEl items are proposed and approved on the basis that the increased risk, due to the loss of redundant systems, is acceptable for the time limit of the MEL - its a risk/exposure thing. Which is why some stuff is on a very short time to fix, and some stuff basically could be broken for weeks and no-one will care.

(The ultimate example is the CDL, rather than the MEL, where because there is deemed to be NO safety impact, the item can be left unfixed essentially for the life of the aircraft. Then it becomes a purely commercial decision.)

The difference is that the alleged incident was not necessary for the operation of the aircraft. Making an informed command decision regarding an Acceptable Deferred Defect keeps the show on the road.

I appreciate that the thread starter refers to exceeding the terms of the MEL.

For instance: broken proximity switch on two crew aircraft cargo door - captain (who is hands on marine engineer) looks at door closing from inside hold - decides it is safe to proceed BUT calls maintenance control in UK for second opinion and authorisation - not in MEL but sorted.

Sorry Basil don't see the point of your post. If its not in the MEL how can you be exceeding it?

Maybe AEI should have quoted some examples but I would doubt very much such an organisation would go to so much trouble if they didn't have some form of evidence. As they are apparently engineers I would assume they also appreciate the difference between and pushing your luck.

A statement from another thread:

Something tells me something is brewing.

As for reporting what AEI claims, it is easy to check. If not through regular company channels, reporting can be always done through CHIRP or anonymous post in FAAs SDR database.

One way or the other OEM side appreciates all the info it can get (I speak know personally, not on behalf of someone). I assume we all care very much for the overall safety and keeping the tab on all the difficulties gets us ahead of the "random events" that sadly happen, from time to time.


Cheers

Seconded, very much. For example...

We're in the middle of debating changing what is currently a mandatory, time-based, maintenance activity with some (hard to quantify) safety benefit into an on-condition action driven (sometimes) by flight crew reports. My comfort level in recommending this action will be influenced by the kind of informal feedback things like this thread give as to how pilots see their role in the whole process, so the more info is shared the happier I'll be.

Admiral- Yes. Very many things require certain experience and judgement.

If a pilot has very limited time in an aircraft, for example with certain pneumatic/anti-ice system quirks, putting any of various common glitches in the logbook can create a canceled flight and a stranded crew (all hotel rooms might be sold out).

One problem is that Captains sometimes put a small problem in the logbook-due to HIS/HER misunderstanding of the system (i.e. all or no anti-ice on in order for the RAT/EPR indicator to operate, or a pack will not open with only APU air pressure), without asking the First Officer whether the glitch will operate after an engine is started etc.

Captains' or FOs' impulsive assumptions have created many totally unnecessary cancellations or major delays (1-3 hours). Even switching on ram air and leaving the ship when it is a 90*F. (this is outside the much hotter tail cone...) day is a good hint at the levels of ignorance (and lack of coordination) out there.

Why delay at 1300 (local) for a burned out position light with passengers to connect downline at a hub? Chickensh!t.

Mechanics tried to MEL our entire autopilot simply because the speed or Mach hold function did not engage. I told them "no". The autopilot worked just fine.

Agree with Ignition Override, an issue here is that four "b" defects is a self imposed maximum, number 5 grounds the aircraft. :}

Ignition Override - spot on mate !

We had exactly that a while back.

For a short while one aircraft in our fleet required that one of the (two) E&E bay equipment cooling fans was operated in 'Alternate' mode.

On landing at some very remote (read 'no engineering assistance available whatsoever!') this fan tripped off.. seemingly no longer working in either Normal or Alternate mode.

Nb. This 'trip off' had been a known issue (the FO was certainly well aware of it and told the Captain as much... i.e. that it'd work fine once they got airborne).

But, oh no, the Captain writes it up in the TechLog and therein grounds the a/c - duh!

In order to rescue the flight, the company had to sub-charter a corporate jet to send an engineer, and also sub-charter another (much larger) aircraft to 'rescue' the passengers (as there was no hotel accommodation available for them; plus that a great many of these pax were booked on connecting flights). The crew also went ‘out-of-hours’... which therein required that a replacement crew be flown down in the corporate jet.

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.