Don't put it in the Tech Log!

[CAT1 REVERSION]

In a climate of pressure and deadlines I see and hear more and more incidents and examples of crews NOT putting technical issues in the tech log - mainly not to upset the Engineers (Engineers - before you jump down my neck, I know you too are under a huge amount of pressure to keep the a/c servicable!) and consequently the programme.

I have experienced on several occasions technical problems that have been 'discussed' with engineers and the next crew when back at base which have been dismissed as 'this a/c is renowned for that problem, we'll look at it later, don't put it in the tech log!' - THIS SHOULDN'T HAPPEN........

I know there will be many of you who will say "It should go in the book - FULL STOP!", and I agree, but there are too many willing to write it on a cig packet and leave it on the Capt's pedestal for the engineers and next crew!

In light of today's sad events in Madrid, I can only hope that commercial pressures didn't have anything to do with it.

CREWS - IF YOU DEVELOP A TECHNICAL PROBLEM, YOU ARE DUTY BOUND TO PUT IT IN THE TECH LOG, NOT HAVE A 'CHAT' ABOUT IT!!!!

I'm sure there will be Engineers who read this and will think us Pilots are all too willing and ready to write a fault up....but the book stops with us. If we willfully take a known faulty a/c without putting it in the tech log, it is our lives, our licences.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, IF THIS 'CHAT ABOUT IT' CULTURE HAS CREPT INTO YOUR AIRLINE, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. IF YOUR NOT HAPPY, ASR IT THEN CHIRP IT. IT HAS TO STOP!

[EGBKFLYER]

Add to that talk to your base flight safety rep and ask them to bring it up at the next safety meeting.

[Wirelock]

agree 100%.... although from what i have heard (from v v good sources) the reason why the aircraft returned to stand was a problem with a engine sensor problem.... for those pilots that are fimiliar with jt8D engines... it was an incorrect reading from the P2 sensor that caused the return to stand.
i'm sure the engineer who released this aircraft will have nightmares about what happened today...

however on topic .... i really wish that pilots would write more defects in the tech log. as engineers we need an excuse(entry in tech log) to perform proper troubleshooting on a fault. we cannot just go and perform maintenance on the aircraft without reason.
although i know this practice happens it really is bad for the incoming crew if there is no tech log entry.
i try in my job to give as much info to the crew on aircraft status as possible... some of my collegues would disagree with this practice, but i feel it builds trust with flight crew.
this works in the opposite direction also... if for instance a pilot has a fault which is not reported, the engineer signs the log thinking all is well, and then next morning ... problem reappears 1st flight... return to stand and a/c AOG.
today lots of ppl lost there lives including children..... as the professionals that keep the aircraft in the air and servicable we owe it to all the ppl who fly on our aircraft to keep them safe.... and not to operational pressures or the company bank balance

[TURIN]

Great post CAT1.

I have only ever come across this "fag packet" reporting on one occasion and I just wrote the defect up myself and then grounded the aeroplane. ( I then went home and left it for the night shift......)

[Checkboard]

This isn't a technical discussion, so it's the wrong place for this thread.

[Human Factor]

I don't disagree with your post, Cat 1. However, what would your response be to:

"Ground test satis, report further"?

Granted, some issues are cut and dried. However, I believe a discussion with the engineers is often healthy before something goes in the log. As you say, the Captain has the ultimate veto so if you don't want to accept it, by all means don't accept it.

However as a Captain, when it isn't cut and dried, I'm more than happy to listen to the opinion of a licensed engineer before I make my final decision ... and it doesn't mean I automatically agree with him.

[john_tullamarine]

Caveat - I have just logged in and, at this stage, can only presume that there has been a fatal in Madrid earlier this morning, my time .. no doubt, I'll catch up on that as I do my morning PPRuNe review ..

Actually, Checkboard, I'd take a contrary view...

(a) it is a problem variously seen throughout the Industry, perhaps especially in GA ... and you would well recall that sort of problem in an earlier life in Oz. For far too long, too many folk have accepted this sort of nonsense as being acceptable maintenance practice ...

(b) one of the underpinning bases for continuing airworthiness is the paper trail in the maintenance record system.

(c) back-of-a-fag-packet notes for the other guy fly totally in the face of (b).

(d) if the pilot's concern is valid, the snag should generate an appropriate investigation which will result either in

- rectification or, if the groundies cannot replicate the fault

- the investigation will be referred to aircrew for further monitoring/reporting or a specific test flight for data gathering will be scheduled

(e) if the pilot's concern is not valid, the investigation will result in the snag being written off serviceable

(f) the above depends, of course, on an appropriate level of integrity across the board

The pilot should see his role as reporting what he/she observed, not diagnosing what it may have meant in maintenance or engineering terms.

Where practicable, it is absolutely appropriate to discuss the matter with the maintainers prior to writing up the snag. What is not acceptable in a disciplined system is either not doing anything with the knowledge of a perceived snag or using the note-for-the-next-guy system

I will, of course, remove any overtly non-technical or other inappropriate posts/comments from the thread

[Wirelock]

well human factor,

i detect a certain amount of irony from your post and you nick....
i'm not sure if you know that engineers are not obliged to perform t/s on the basis of a chat....however if it is written in the log.. they are!!

as for your test on ground satis comment... believe it or not sometimes faults are not easy to reproduce on the ground. an engineer can only perform what is written in the technical documentation (AMM, TSM) of the aircraft. if they perform a test and it is ok... well then it is ok.

my advise is that if you have a hard failure, not to try and reset the system(as airbus norm) but to leave the failure and let it be checked by the engineers. that way we can get the info we need to perform proper t/s and rectify the problem...

[gearpins]

news.sky.com/.../Article/200808315083058?f=rss
MD-80 crashed at the end of the runway.On its second takeoff attempt

[Human Factor]

Wirelock,

Your note of my irony is correct.

Your first paragraph is also correct and is the ultimate trump card of the Captain. I have used it as such although it is rarely necessary. The previously mentioned discussion with the engineers will normally result in the exact same entry going in the tech log, merely without a confrontational approach. My experience is that company engineers are very accommodating and understanding whilst my use of the trump card has invariably been with third parties.

[cessna24]

Being a line maintenace engineer I personally agree that the drivers should write defects down in the log book. As engineers, we can look into them and either rectify the fault or make an entry to report further or clear the defect if we find nil defects. Thats what we are here for. 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!}
And also while im here, we are humans as well so when we walk on the flight decks, talk to us like we know what an aircraft is! This is only for a few of you. We remember you being a great crew and will go out of our way to help you more.
Safe flying guys

[pjvr99]

As an aircraft tech I always appreciate every little bit of info the crew can give me. Every write-up, no matter how trivial or high nuissance-factor, is checked out. I would rather have a lengthy discussion with the crew and/or my colleagues before taking any kind of final decision as to how we are going to handle any given problem. In some cases, a small but time-consuming write-up can be placed in the deffered-defects section for attention at the next phase check/A-check, or wherever convenient - but written on a ciggarette pack is almost guarenteed to be lost/forgotten.

It needs to be written up, creating a paper-trail, which will keep the bean-counters and management honest .....

[john_tullamarine]

.. and gives both flightcrew and maintainers a measure of protection at the enquiry.

It is very illustrative to have a looksee through the Nias BOI report for the Australian ADF ... those who have not been in an adversarial legal stoush should, at the very least, contemplate how they might conduct their story telling in such a forum ....

.. remembering that, in the QA-centric view of the world .. if it's not written down .. it didn't happen ... this has hung a great many good folk over the years ..

For my sins, I am involved in MR paperwork to a significant extent these days .. I exhort (sometimes plead), with both operators and maintainers, for folk to write it down ... if an extra tree is used up in paper over the life of an operation .. then that is an acceptable price to pay for having the information and audit trail ... if the pilot thinks he might be thought foolish .. I assure him that that is not the case .. as the last couple of posts have shown .. the maintainers need to have the story if they are to have much of a chance to figure out what the problem is .. the pilot should err on the side of novel writing .. and then let the maintainer sort out the wheat from the chaff ...

[red 5]

As an Engineer put it in the tech log, it keeps us in a job.

[CAT1 REVERSION]

Thanks for the replies - Especially from the Engineers. Glad to see that the common consensus is PUT IT IN THE BOOK!

EGBK-Goes without saying, if your not happy - REPORT IT

What does disturb me is the varied acceptance levels of some crews. I have seen one crew hand over an a/c with a 'grounder' of a fualt to the Engineers without putting it in the book, the next crew pitch up consisting of, shall we say a more experienced Captain and take the a/c when clearly it was outside operating parameters. His reason - The fault would take several hours to fix, he had seen this in his VAST flying carreer before and there were 100+ pax waiting to go on their holidays

What sort of message does this convey to future Captains?

[Golden Rivet]

How many entries go in the tech log downroute. Very few. Statistically there should be an equal split. Most pilots will only snag the aircraft on the return leg.

Now there's the irony......

[Checkboard]

Yours is the opinion that counts, John Just a note that I didn't say it wasn't worth discussing - just that it's not a technical issue, it's a standards one.

[spinnaker]

So the engineers agree, pilots should put defects in the book. One further point is, that by not putting a defect in, crews leave themselves wide open to scrutiny should anything untoward happens. I was not grateful for a de- pressurisation in the cruise event some years ago. It transpired that the previous operating crew had encountered a problem on the previous flight and did not log the defect. Fortunately those guys responsible are no longer in aviation.

[The Real Slim Shady]

It is a legal requirement that the PiC accurately and completely completes the Tech Log at the end of the flight, ergo, any defects have to written in the log.

The FR NGs phone Maintrol automatically on landing and report defects, hence, we can't carry defects. They have to go in the TL.

[tallaonehotel]

"How many entries go in the tech log downroute. Very few. Statistically there should be an equal split. Most pilots will only snag the aircraft on the return leg.

Now there's the irony...... "

Golden rivet has mentioned something which you will find is common place, the first port of in this predicament would be a call to maintrol for advice and peace of mind.

I agree all defects should go in the book, the more info available the better.
We all know the problems with commercial pressure.

Engineering recording systems can help no end with reliability and defect trends, which in turn gives us engineers better understanding of faults and problems.