Flying defective aircraft

[verticallimit]

Is it right that you fly faulty airplanes, with a defect which believes there should be repaired in the last airport, back for reperarer in your own workshop, and thereby save some money,


I found this article in the Danish magasine: Ingeniøren.
Translated by google


Transport: Now must aircraft mechanics criticism of security in Europe

The harsh criticism from the international federation aircraft mechanics are now a matter for the EU aviation safety. Now the State Aviation Administration will take up the issue at EU level, according to Transport Minister Lars Barfod.



Could European airlines take to fly around with defective aircraft until they are allowed to land at airports where repairs can be done cheaply? The question is topical because the airplane crashed in Madrid remains incomplete cleared up. Here was a mistake on the plane before it went into the air. But it is not apparent from the interim accident report, how long the plane had been defective.

Lars Barfod (Danish goverment) (R) will ask it to be examined at European level, there is truth in the claim that airlines are putting passengers at risk to save money on repairs.

It happens after Per Clausen of the Unity has asked the minister on the basis of Engineers article, 17 October.

In the article prosecutor of the international federation of aircraft mechanics one the registration of defects on the aircraft until the aircraft is en route to their base.

Such behavior would logically make the repair cost and consequential costs much cheaper, but it simultaneously increases the risk for the safety of passengers to begin the return journey with an aircraft that should have been repaired first.

The controller, Danish authority for aviation security, SLV (the State Aviation Administration) has previously refused to Ingeniøren (Danish magasin) aircraft mechanics accusation and claimed that SLV not have the resources to investigate the allegation.

Mechanic Federal dare not provide documentation
Ingeniøren have tried to obtain documentation from the AEI, but the mechanic has tentatively linked not been able to provide solid evidence.

Allegedly because it could be difficult to avoid revealing which of its members, acting as whistle blowers and thereby the unfair employees of the airlines. To talk likely to pose a risk of firing the employees concerned.

Authorities can easily investigate allegations of mechanics
The initiative of Lars Barfod, it will be a matter for the EU to decide whether the issue should be taken so seriously that the airlines' logbooks to be examined, so it can be determined whether there is a preponderance of error reports on home tours.

It would be easy to investigate because, according to the AEI, there is an excess of 85 percent. Another allegation, which is easy to examine, is that SAS will never have its aircraft repaired in Malmo, according to the company's workshop here were closed.

Transport Minister states in its response to Per Clausen, there is no doubt that each aircraft commanders are responsible for reporting technical fault so quickly that flight safety is not compromised.

He refers to the Council Regulation 3922/1991 on the harmonization of technical requirements and administrative procedures for civil aviation.

[Human Factor]

There is a document for every aeroplane called the Minimum Equipment List (MEL). It is in fact an extremely thick book. This is approved by the manufacturer and details defects to the aeroplane and the implications regarding dispatch. Some defects prevent dispatch. Some defects can be dispatched with provided there is some maintenance action. Some defects can be dispatched with no action. All have time limits on the repair, ranging from "before the next flight" to an unlimited period, provided the defect is regularly inspected. If an item is not included in the MEL, you cannot dispatch. Two extremes for you:

You cannot dispatch with an engine unserviceable. Hopefully, that's self evident.

You can dispatch with a landing light unserviceable.

Would you really want to cancel a flight for a failed landing light bulb when there are plenty of other lights you can use instead?

Sounds like the usual journo fishing.

[verticallimit]

I know about the MEL.
And it is probably not nice for the pilot to fly with to many MELs.
But as a pilot, do you think there are flights where the plane should have repaired before departure. And do pilots have the courage to say NO to a flight, only with suspicion to a fault.
You can also have temporary failures which are hard to find, and not pressent by mechanics troubleshooting.

I know that it is a bit provocative questions.
But it may well stand as a pilot in the dilema that was to choose between having a suspected fault and ground plane that cost the company a lot of money, or to fly with an fault.

[SNS3Guppy]

And it is probably not nice for the pilot to fly with to many MELs.
But as a pilot, do you think there are flights where the plane should have repaired before departure. And do pilots have the courage to say NO to a flight, only with suspicion to a fault.
You can also have temporary failures which are hard to find, and not pressent by mechanics troubleshooting.

What is "nice" isn't relevant. Only what's safe, and what's legal.

The purpose of a Minimum Equipment List, and a Configuration Deviation List is to spell out exactly what can be flown in an inoperative condition, the circumstances under which it may be done, and the duration for which this can be done, safely. Further, the MEL/CDL serves to make the aircraft legal and in compliance with approved data.

Why should a pilot say "no" to a legal, and safe flight?

If a "temporary failure" is hard to detect, then what exactly is the point? Are you referring to "could not duplicate?" If the problem is intermittant, then there's only so much that can be done to find it.

If airplanes are being flown with inoperative equiment which is legally deactivated, and for which legal provisions have been set forth allowing for the safe operation of the aircraft...there should be no objections to flying the airplane.

[Hot 'n' High]

Ah, an interesting point being discussed here. Most times, the MEL covers it. When something clearly is not working at all it is easy! However, you can have situations where a system is not operating as "advertised" but some pilots are happy with it during the inevitable "have you flown x-abcd recently? have you noticed..." type issues. In many cases "inferior piloting skills" are implied so you tend to shut up as everyone else is coping. How do you deal with that?

[john_tullamarine]

While acknowledging the gulf between philosophy and reality, an MEL item should be viewed as a non-coercive operational permission.

The pilot retains a right not to accept the MEL operation to cover the situations where either

(a) there exist current operational considerations, or

(b) there is some overarching consideration

which makes the operation undesirable.

The balance against inappropriately conservative pilot use of this let out is the subsequent tea and bikkies session with the chief pilot ...

[Hot 'n' High]

JT, me simple chap! In English? Please! LOL! H 'n' H

[john_tullamarine]

.. sorry ... MEL is intended for getting me home .. if I reckon it's OK to do so.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Another example of MEL/CDL is as follows.

Imagine a flight that picks up a snag on a LON-Deepest Darkest Africa routing.

It's covered by the MEL/CDL, so where would you rather the repair take place, at base with company engineers or in the middle of nowhere with engineers of dubious quality and parts that you can't be sure of.

[Hot 'n' High]

Cheers JT! How would you cope with the scenario where, say, engine, response is "different" but all the other pilots say "yes, but it's not a problem". It later turned out that, while the system was still operating, it was outside engineering limits - but, as pilots, we did not know what those engineering limits were. It was a mild but noticeable problem in normal ops and we coped with it - but I snagged it when, in poor weather, the combination of conditions and the system response saw me use some rather choice language as I "just" landed the aircraft! At that point I said "Blow me! Enough is enough"! Perhaps I used some other phrase other than "Blow me" - but I was a tad stressed at the time! LOL! This is not an MEL issue - the system worked but, subjectively, different pilots found the problem greater/lesser than others. Cheers, H 'n' H

PS It turned out to be a rigging problem!

[Karl Bamforth]

If you feel something is wrong write it up and let the engineers decide, or at the very least discuss it with the engineers.

Once written up the engineer will fix it or ADD, either way he will have to reference the engineering limits or MEL as appropriate.

[SNS3Guppy]

Cheers JT! How would you cope with the scenario where, say, engine, response is "different" but all the other pilots say "yes, but it's not a problem". It later turned out that, while the system was still operating, it was outside engineering limits - but, as pilots, we did not know what those engineering limits were...yada, yada.

I lost you when it turned into teenage sexual innuendo.

We're not talking about unresolved mechanical issues here. We're talking about properly deferred items which have been resolved and are approved.

OBVIOUSLY an unsafe or illegal condition must be rejected. However, that's not what's under discussion here, and that's not the condition to which is referred in the original post.

Clearly if one does not feel that one can abide a given mechanical condition, regardless of it's disposition in light of the MEL or other relief, then one has a duty to either refuse the flight, or make arrangements which are acceptable. That goes without saying.

A safe, deferred item, however, is not something improper. It is not something unsafe. It is not something which presents a hazard to society or legal jeopardy to the operator. It's a legal modification to the type certification for the duration of the deferral. The aircraft is being operated in accordance with approved maintenance procedures and conditions established by both the manufacturer, the overseeing regulatory body, and the airline or operator for whom the list is approved. This isn't a haphazard operation.

[spannersatKL]

Rainboe, I agree you won't need an engneer at every stop....BUT some defects do need investigation by a suitably qualified engineer that a 'pilot' even on his great pedastal in the sky would not have any idea about the servicability of or not....so flying it back for maintenance in some cases is not really the option.

Step back and await the flak from the few pilots with B1 and B2 licences!!!

[matkat]

HF sorry for being pedantic but I spotted some anomalies of your description of the MEL this is not approved by the manufacturer but the MMEL (Master) is, the operator will then "customise" the MMEL and have the relevent NAA to then approve what becomes the MEL. Also there are not any items within an MEL that have unlimited times of repair the longest a defect can be carried is a "D" category MEL which has a 120 day limit.

[matkat]

Rainboe I very much doubt if they want an engineer at every station as you say as engineers also have families, I have no pilot training and would never assume to tell you when to fly in an operational sense so why you would be able to tell whether an A/C is fit to fly is beyond me! ok if certain defects are obvious and not within the MEL then its a no brainer anything more complex and outwith this should not be any pilots decision indeed that is why the MEL is there, to state that the federation of aircraft mechanics are trying to maintain standards to get a pay rise is unfortunately an endemic way of life today. Sir the comment is beneath you.

[Big Bad D]

The MMEL is prepared by the manufacturer on the basis of acceptable safety assessments and it is approved by the manufacturer's primary authorities. Only then is it dispatched to operators and national authorities as being acceptable for the preparation of individual MELs.

[WindSheer]

Knowing quite a few engineers and pilots really well, I would say listen to the engineer every time! If he says dont fly it, then dont.
BUT...I will emphasise the word ENGINEER.....not mechanics!

I have seen a few arguments on the flight deck over the years, i.e. the captain wants to take it, but the engineer doesn't want him to.

Pilots have FANTASTIC knowledge of the machines they fly, inside and out, but I would always listen to that chap in the overalls who is capable of completely re-building the thing!

Thats just my 2 pence worth..

[TURIN]

I think we should maintain the status quo and let the pilots decide whether the aeroplane is fit to operate, like we have up to now!

Pardon?

Are you saying a plane is only fit to fly when an engineer gives his OK, not when I judge?

Er, well yes.

I'm sure it's written down somewhere...

Let me see,

ANO? God knows it's a big thick book, hard to read.

AWNs? Bit vague but it could be there somewhere.

BCARs/JARs/FARs? Probably, dunno they too are reading for insomniacs.

However, in the Tech Log there's a little box with Cetificate of Release to Service (CRS) in small print.

I've never asked a pilot for permission to sign it?

[Swedish Steve]

Until about 5 years ago the Scandinavian Authorities required a Technician to carry out a transit check at every stop. This was long after everyone else let pilots do it. When they finally introduced pilot transit checks, SAS then withdrew all the technicians from smaller stations. It is now seen that before about 60pc of Tech Log enties were into main base, now 95 pc of log entries are at main bases. The Authorities tend to assume that pilots are not writing up defects at unmanned stations.

[Vee1Kut]

I had an airline interview where they asked 'if the one of the Nav lights was inop, and your ready to depart on a night flight, the capt said, go...what would you do?'. There are a variety of answers for this...I answered that I would try to get it fixed, ...they countered it's late at night, you can't...then I countered that I could go to the MEL, let it decide, and hold to it, regardless of what the capt says, they countered(two line capts) that it wasn't up to me to do that, the capt would decide...so seeing where it was going...I stated, that I would defer to the capts authority in a very low key, diplomatic sensisble way. I musted have answered the question right, I moved on to interview with the chief pilot. The right answer: If the capt wants to fly an illegal, unsafe plane, then the FO better agree with it. Same airline that had a jackscrew come apart because the mechanics weren't doing the inspections but just signing it off...