Don't put it in the Tech Log!
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is also the option under certain circumstances of "ACF" (Acceptable - Carried Forward).
This enables a Captain to sign for an aeroplane and fly it with a defect which hasn't had engineering input. It's effectively a "get back to base" option. However, the restrictions on this have been tightened significantly over the years, no doubt to prevent the kind of abuse we're alluding to here, and it is now effectively restricted to non-airworthiness items.
This enables a Captain to sign for an aeroplane and fly it with a defect which hasn't had engineering input. It's effectively a "get back to base" option. However, the restrictions on this have been tightened significantly over the years, no doubt to prevent the kind of abuse we're alluding to here, and it is now effectively restricted to non-airworthiness items.
The rules regarding carried forward defects have in my opinion exacerbated the use of fag packet reporting. In the organisation I work for you are no longer allowed to write up minor defects without referring to technical information contained in the maintenance documentation. The problem lies in that many aircraft maintenance manuals and MEL's do not supply the level of detail required to defer in acordance with this ruling.
As an example a pilot while checking the oil might notice a broken catch (one of four) on the access panel. In the past the engineer on site would have determined that the panel was still perfectly secure and enter a C defect for a future replacement. He can no longer do this. If a spare catch is not available(very likely down route) the aircraft is u/s.
This is all to do with the airworthiness authorities EASA/CAA wanting to remove engineers from the decision making process. This is part of the process driven by the airlines to use fewer qualified engineers to cut costs.
I would encourage all crews to snag it as they see it. Please discuss it with the engineers first to determine a decent form of words and to ensure that the problem is understood. Dont write it in the book and head off to the bar!!!!
I believe that many pilots and engineers feel that their jobs are at risk hence the pressure to continue to operate. Those who's jobs rely on third party contracts feel particularly threatened as the feeling that the contract will not be renewed is always there.
Maybe both pilots and engineers need to bite the bullet and play by the rules. The operators will have to employ more staff and hold more spares.
Finally the word spares opens another issue. The beancounters have reduced spares holdings considerably as to them spares are just dead money. Often when engineers are reticent to see a snag in the book it is because they know the parts are not available.
It is particularly hard when they can see that the aircraft is safe but by the rules should not be flown. It is tempting for both crews and engineers to blind eye a problem till the end of the days flying.
Stick it in the book and say sod it. The punters can all go by train!!!!!!!!!!!
As an example a pilot while checking the oil might notice a broken catch (one of four) on the access panel. In the past the engineer on site would have determined that the panel was still perfectly secure and enter a C defect for a future replacement. He can no longer do this. If a spare catch is not available(very likely down route) the aircraft is u/s.
This is all to do with the airworthiness authorities EASA/CAA wanting to remove engineers from the decision making process. This is part of the process driven by the airlines to use fewer qualified engineers to cut costs.
I would encourage all crews to snag it as they see it. Please discuss it with the engineers first to determine a decent form of words and to ensure that the problem is understood. Dont write it in the book and head off to the bar!!!!
I believe that many pilots and engineers feel that their jobs are at risk hence the pressure to continue to operate. Those who's jobs rely on third party contracts feel particularly threatened as the feeling that the contract will not be renewed is always there.
Maybe both pilots and engineers need to bite the bullet and play by the rules. The operators will have to employ more staff and hold more spares.
Finally the word spares opens another issue. The beancounters have reduced spares holdings considerably as to them spares are just dead money. Often when engineers are reticent to see a snag in the book it is because they know the parts are not available.
It is particularly hard when they can see that the aircraft is safe but by the rules should not be flown. It is tempting for both crews and engineers to blind eye a problem till the end of the days flying.
Stick it in the book and say sod it. The punters can all go by train!!!!!!!!!!!
Pilots' Pal
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nerd mode here...
I'm sure you all know that ICAO, other regs and EASA (Part M.A 401 to 403 if interested) requires defects to be recorded and rectified including deferral. Usual MEL considerations by pilot etc.
The tech log is one of those documents that is used to monitor the effectiveness of the AMP; use it.
And further to posts above...tasks have to be accomplished in accordance with approved data (to which sign-offs must refer). Engineering judgment doesn't come into it at a maintenance level. The only time I have seen the term "engineering judgement" relates to Reliability Programs and Maintenance Programmes.
I'm sure you all know that ICAO, other regs and EASA (Part M.A 401 to 403 if interested) requires defects to be recorded and rectified including deferral. Usual MEL considerations by pilot etc.
The tech log is one of those documents that is used to monitor the effectiveness of the AMP; use it.
And further to posts above...tasks have to be accomplished in accordance with approved data (to which sign-offs must refer). Engineering judgment doesn't come into it at a maintenance level. The only time I have seen the term "engineering judgement" relates to Reliability Programs and Maintenance Programmes.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
I do and don't agree, I had a case of one new engine that revved high, indeed just over the red line on take off...
This was tech logged and I set about it, prop changed, blade angles reset, RPM guage etc changed all to no avail, the book of words states it is acceptable to go past the red line which I knew.
So to finally clarify it so there was no doubt in anyones minds I contacted both Cessna the planes manufacturer who simply said "Read the Book" which of course I had and I also contacted Lycoming the Engine manufacturer who agreed it also was acceptable, along with several collegues, hell, I even discussed it at length with my CAA surveyor who agreed I had done everything possible, I cleared the Aircraft.....
Guess what, next flight it is again tech logged to which I simply cleared it, pointing out the clearly visible reference which I had cleared it previously too and it went on...... short of chiselling it in their foreheads I was at a loss..... it got to a point they were asking to see all the manuals at which point I simply walked away....... Seems some Pilots will not take the word of a Licensed Chief Engineers with 30 years experience backed up by the Airframe, Engine manufactures and CAA as well as several other collegues... and that is why I say NO, not always, as in this case the snag was none existant and information added to the tech log pointed out it was acceptable and within limits..
Ohh forgot to add a couple of years on it still revs higher than it's counterparts...
This was tech logged and I set about it, prop changed, blade angles reset, RPM guage etc changed all to no avail, the book of words states it is acceptable to go past the red line which I knew.
So to finally clarify it so there was no doubt in anyones minds I contacted both Cessna the planes manufacturer who simply said "Read the Book" which of course I had and I also contacted Lycoming the Engine manufacturer who agreed it also was acceptable, along with several collegues, hell, I even discussed it at length with my CAA surveyor who agreed I had done everything possible, I cleared the Aircraft.....
Guess what, next flight it is again tech logged to which I simply cleared it, pointing out the clearly visible reference which I had cleared it previously too and it went on...... short of chiselling it in their foreheads I was at a loss..... it got to a point they were asking to see all the manuals at which point I simply walked away....... Seems some Pilots will not take the word of a Licensed Chief Engineers with 30 years experience backed up by the Airframe, Engine manufactures and CAA as well as several other collegues... and that is why I say NO, not always, as in this case the snag was none existant and information added to the tech log pointed out it was acceptable and within limits..
Ohh forgot to add a couple of years on it still revs higher than it's counterparts...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Not Ardua enough
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen and ladies..if your in any doubt...write it up...I'm sorry but I cannot abide pressure on crews to take short cuts of any type.
I for one will never query it other than to make the normal inquiries about symptoms, indications etc etc.., I fly on these things too.
I for one will never query it other than to make the normal inquiries about symptoms, indications etc etc.., I fly on these things too.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scottish FIR
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NutLoose.
I can see your frustration. Was anything ever put in writing, or amendments made to the manual. I see that your book of words says that it was acceptable, but was that book of words readily available to the pilots? If it was, then strike them with a clue bat.
I've come accross discrepancies like this before, and it is frustrating, particularly when a memo is circulated pending manual updates.
I can see your frustration. Was anything ever put in writing, or amendments made to the manual. I see that your book of words says that it was acceptable, but was that book of words readily available to the pilots? If it was, then strike them with a clue bat.
I've come accross discrepancies like this before, and it is frustrating, particularly when a memo is circulated pending manual updates.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a Licenced Engineer with over 40 years experience I have always appreciated it if the Crew discuss the problems first THEN by all means write it up.
However there is also a bit of a double standard here.
Many times when Aircraft are away from a main base (where they are no Engineers) Pilots will not log minor defects so as not to ground the Aircraft, IF they have concerns they will contact a main base and speak to Engineers, this is good common sense.
However I have seen it so many times where Crews will transit main bases with unlogged defects then log them only when they are finished duty because they want to get home on time, this is also wrong.
However there is also a bit of a double standard here.
Many times when Aircraft are away from a main base (where they are no Engineers) Pilots will not log minor defects so as not to ground the Aircraft, IF they have concerns they will contact a main base and speak to Engineers, this is good common sense.
However I have seen it so many times where Crews will transit main bases with unlogged defects then log them only when they are finished duty because they want to get home on time, this is also wrong.
Pilots' Pal
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit more nerd mode...
Part 145 requires an AMO to inform the author of approved data or other procedures of errors or anomalies. Part 145 also allows an AMO to change manufacturers' maintenance procedures if proved in error or can be done in a safer manner. In such circumstances, the AMO must inform the TC, STC holder or manufacturer but does not need their permission. The MOE must layout the procedures required to do this. Using alternate tools is an example of a change to manufacturers' data.
Part 145 requires an AMO to inform the author of approved data or other procedures of errors or anomalies. Part 145 also allows an AMO to change manufacturers' maintenance procedures if proved in error or can be done in a safer manner. In such circumstances, the AMO must inform the TC, STC holder or manufacturer but does not need their permission. The MOE must layout the procedures required to do this. Using alternate tools is an example of a change to manufacturers' data.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Spinnaker,
The Airframe manuals simply refer you to the Lycoming ones for overspeeding, which indeed gives the allowances, the fax from the manufacturer of the Engine confirmed these and that it was alright and that was passed around for all to see.
Though you say did I make every manual available to them, then the answer to that would be no, those that requested to see it I offered to show them if they popped over to the hangar, though even that some could not understand to be honest, at some point you have to trust what the Licenced Engineer who is doing the job and clearing it is telling you, exactly as a Captain has to trust the Co-pilot sitting beside him or the hostess down the back.... I can and would be happy with entries put in if something had changed in the original percieved fault, but when they are simply snagging the same thing for the same snag, then that is just being bloody minded.
The reasoning I additionally spoke to the CAA surveyor as I wanted to clarify the position in that the Aircraft Type Data Certificate for the Aircraft gives the max Engine RPM's there, even though this particular aircraft was slightly exceeding those and the Engine manufactures manuals allowed the Engine to exceed these, the Type Cert relates to the Aircraft limitations, I wanted to clear it in my mind that this was acceptable as that was new waters for me and I wanted to be 100% sure on it.
The Airframe manuals simply refer you to the Lycoming ones for overspeeding, which indeed gives the allowances, the fax from the manufacturer of the Engine confirmed these and that it was alright and that was passed around for all to see.
Though you say did I make every manual available to them, then the answer to that would be no, those that requested to see it I offered to show them if they popped over to the hangar, though even that some could not understand to be honest, at some point you have to trust what the Licenced Engineer who is doing the job and clearing it is telling you, exactly as a Captain has to trust the Co-pilot sitting beside him or the hostess down the back.... I can and would be happy with entries put in if something had changed in the original percieved fault, but when they are simply snagging the same thing for the same snag, then that is just being bloody minded.
The reasoning I additionally spoke to the CAA surveyor as I wanted to clarify the position in that the Aircraft Type Data Certificate for the Aircraft gives the max Engine RPM's there, even though this particular aircraft was slightly exceeding those and the Engine manufactures manuals allowed the Engine to exceed these, the Type Cert relates to the Aircraft limitations, I wanted to clear it in my mind that this was acceptable as that was new waters for me and I wanted to be 100% sure on it.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland mainly, rather than at home.
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This isn't a technical discussion, so it's the wrong place for this thread.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but when they are simply snagging the same thing for the same snag, then that is just being bloody minded.
If something violates the hard limits (like a red line) we have in our documentation we have to write it up, even if it might be permissible according to other (maintenance) documentation. Of course forces higher up the food chain can allways change our documentation to accomodate the facts, in which case we wouldn't write it up any longer (as long as safety isn't compromised). However those changes have to be run by the authority first so normally that isn't done.
Of course they added another reason for us to write every little thing up nowadays, many of which were solved after a little chat with the engineers previously. They outsourced engineering into a different company and now the engineers need the paper to get payed for the work done (and the spares of course, be it only a light bulb in a reading light back in the cabin).
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA, Ireland
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This sword cuts both ways. I've had discussions with engineers about problems with the aircraft. At the end I'm told it's not a problem, don't worry about it. The fun starts when you hand them the book and ask them to sign it off. The response is often along the lines of "you put it in the book? The aircraft is grounded now!"
As to people insisting everything goes in the book, I'll agree with you only as long as you do the same on every sector of a flight and at every station with no regard to parts or engineers or your schedule. I think you'll be hard pressed to fly any aircraft for 8 hours and have absolutely nothing go tech.
As to people insisting everything goes in the book, I'll agree with you only as long as you do the same on every sector of a flight and at every station with no regard to parts or engineers or your schedule. I think you'll be hard pressed to fly any aircraft for 8 hours and have absolutely nothing go tech.
Pilots' Pal
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've wondered for years about one-way reliability. You know what I mean: all defects occur on the inbound sector, usually the last of the day.
That dreaded phrase, uttered by a tired pilot talking to OPS: "Is this aircraft down for the night?" Loud groans from the Line Maintenance office.
On a related matter, I've audited several GA commercial operations. The audit of their technical logs often reveal no defects for weeks.
That dreaded phrase, uttered by a tired pilot talking to OPS: "Is this aircraft down for the night?" Loud groans from the Line Maintenance office.
On a related matter, I've audited several GA commercial operations. The audit of their technical logs often reveal no defects for weeks.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scottish FIR
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NutLoose
I can see where you are coming from. We had a similar problem in one company I worked for. Engineer said it was fine, chief pilot saying if it was not in our book, then snag it. I got fed up with being caught in the middle, eventually I filled an ASR which got the matter sorted. All pilots were issued with clear instructions from the ops director and manuals amended. That was the big airline solution.
Just out of curiosity, did anyone ever reject a take-off, and I presume a number of pilots did continue with the take off and noted an alleged exceedance in engine parameters. So I wonder how seriously the flight crews actually took the issue. I think being a Chief Pilot in your firm could be fun and entertaining
I can see where you are coming from. We had a similar problem in one company I worked for. Engineer said it was fine, chief pilot saying if it was not in our book, then snag it. I got fed up with being caught in the middle, eventually I filled an ASR which got the matter sorted. All pilots were issued with clear instructions from the ops director and manuals amended. That was the big airline solution.
Just out of curiosity, did anyone ever reject a take-off, and I presume a number of pilots did continue with the take off and noted an alleged exceedance in engine parameters. So I wonder how seriously the flight crews actually took the issue. I think being a Chief Pilot in your firm could be fun and entertaining
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tech Log Write-ups
This seems to me to be a "no brainer" thread. If an aircraft displays evidence of a defect, regardless of whether the crew considers it minor or major, it should be written up. It is a clear case of the engineers not being able to rectify a fault about which they have not been informed if no tech log entry is made. Crews are paid to operate aircraft within published parameters and engineers are paid to maintain aircraft which can be so operated. At the end of the day each contribute to a safe and efficient operation, i.e. as a team!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: The Sandpit
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many times when as an engineer I have written up a defect in the tech log following a crew debrief. Usually preceded by the words "crew report". There's nothing stopping an engineer writing up a defect too!
A tech log entry which grounds the aircraft can be a pain. But not as painful as a smoking hole if it's not investigated.
A tech log entry which grounds the aircraft can be a pain. But not as painful as a smoking hole if it's not investigated.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUT PLEASE keep the silly entrys out of the log books because you only get a name for yourself for wasting time. {Or we think your trying to impress the J F/O!}
Glide slope and marker beacons inoperative.
Left door came open after lift off.
Left fuel gauge needle large oscillations in cruise then flicked to zero.
Right CHT gauge inoperative in cruise -OK on run up.
Aileron trim knob moves when control column wheel turned.
Nosewheel shimmy at slow speed on landing run.
On reading the entries the aircraft owner advised I was no longer permitted to fly his aircraft because I made made "trivial" entries in the defect column of the maintenance release. I was out of a job.
As far as "consulting" with an engineer before writing up a defect in the maintenance document that is fine as long as the "consulting" isn't another word for keeping the maintenance squeaky virgin clean until the next sucker pilot cops the problem. I have seen this a few hundred times in my career in general aviation in Australia and it still is a cancer in the industry with the regulator conveniently looking in the other direction pleading lack of resources.
Moderator
I made it a point to visit as many A/C as I could
The original problem is an acknowledged problem .. but does such an approach help or hinder its resolution ?
The original problem is an acknowledged problem .. but does such an approach help or hinder its resolution ?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Quote:
but when they are simply snagging the same thing for the same snag, then that is just being bloody minded.
Not really, but i guess it depends on the safety culture in the company. In "mine" we are required to snag the same thing if it turns up again to create a paper trail that will eventually lead to that problem being solved. If it means to replace an engine so be it.
Denti,
I can see where you are coming from, but in this case there was not a "problem to solve" it was percieved to be one, but all the maintenance manuals and the manufactures confirmed that it was acceptable, this is what was added to the tech log.
spinnaker,
No rejected takeoff, it was re snagged when it came back.. hence why I said not all items should go in when you can visibly see that the previous entry for the same thing had been cleared with the reasons why it had been stated. I agree if something had changed to warrant an entry make one, but if not, then all you are doing is cluttering up the tech log with unneccesary entries.
but when they are simply snagging the same thing for the same snag, then that is just being bloody minded.
Not really, but i guess it depends on the safety culture in the company. In "mine" we are required to snag the same thing if it turns up again to create a paper trail that will eventually lead to that problem being solved. If it means to replace an engine so be it.
Denti,
I can see where you are coming from, but in this case there was not a "problem to solve" it was percieved to be one, but all the maintenance manuals and the manufactures confirmed that it was acceptable, this is what was added to the tech log.
spinnaker,
No rejected takeoff, it was re snagged when it came back.. hence why I said not all items should go in when you can visibly see that the previous entry for the same thing had been cleared with the reasons why it had been stated. I agree if something had changed to warrant an entry make one, but if not, then all you are doing is cluttering up the tech log with unneccesary entries.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen things left on bits of paper that I couldn't believe, such as "On first sector it took 5 cycles to get the gear down and and locked, on subsequent sector it took 2 attempts, please be aware and tech at end of shift" This from the fleet manager..............
Needless to say that a/c didn't move an inch further that night and the "fag packet" entry was recorded in glorious technicolour for future backside covering purposes.
In that company that was the final straw for me and I simply took all the data on "Dodgy maintenance" I had, handed it over to the FoI and I was gone within a couple of weeks strangely unchased by the company for things like bonds etc.
It was a culture that had built up from years of pressure on crews and engineers. There are always some who will "toe the company line" and others who realise what is acceptable and what isn't. I did not envy the engineers one little bit and they often performed miracles to keep the a/c going and legal, but there were a few who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them. If I saw their signature clearing a defect. I checked it very carefully.
I'll add that this firm went out of business soon after as the only company for donkeys years to have their AOC rmoved by our normally toothless CAA.
It turned me from flying almost completely, why would you blast off into the air with a nagging doubt as to the serviceability of your a/c. It just isn't worth it.
Needless to say that a/c didn't move an inch further that night and the "fag packet" entry was recorded in glorious technicolour for future backside covering purposes.
In that company that was the final straw for me and I simply took all the data on "Dodgy maintenance" I had, handed it over to the FoI and I was gone within a couple of weeks strangely unchased by the company for things like bonds etc.
It was a culture that had built up from years of pressure on crews and engineers. There are always some who will "toe the company line" and others who realise what is acceptable and what isn't. I did not envy the engineers one little bit and they often performed miracles to keep the a/c going and legal, but there were a few who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them. If I saw their signature clearing a defect. I checked it very carefully.
I'll add that this firm went out of business soon after as the only company for donkeys years to have their AOC rmoved by our normally toothless CAA.
It turned me from flying almost completely, why would you blast off into the air with a nagging doubt as to the serviceability of your a/c. It just isn't worth it.