Despatch
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Gnomeregan
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despatch
Hi all,
Need some advice. Prior to despatch ( i.e. moving by own power), if we've a problem with the aircraft , is it always a requirement to get the engineers to sign for any defect ?
We had a igniters fault while starting and returned to stand. Reason he said , we haven't despatched yet.
I had the same problem about a year ago, with a different captain and we just did a manual start i.e both igniters on without returning to the gate to get the defect sign off.
So, i'm now a very confused FO now
.
Aircraft is A320.
Someone plz enlighten me.
Was a return to gate required for all defects prior to despatch? even when the mel indicates no maintenance actions required?
Thank you.
Need some advice. Prior to despatch ( i.e. moving by own power), if we've a problem with the aircraft , is it always a requirement to get the engineers to sign for any defect ?
We had a igniters fault while starting and returned to stand. Reason he said , we haven't despatched yet.
I had the same problem about a year ago, with a different captain and we just did a manual start i.e both igniters on without returning to the gate to get the defect sign off.
So, i'm now a very confused FO now
.Aircraft is A320.
Someone plz enlighten me.
Was a return to gate required for all defects prior to despatch? even when the mel indicates no maintenance actions required?
Thank you.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PNF
As an Ops guy, the answer is go......
If I were an Engineer the answer is ?????????
If I were a pilot, the answer is: factor all deferred defects into the go/no go call.
Well done for knowing the difference between MEL and QRH, however, I have spent to much time listening to Flight Crew v Engineering delays in this grey area.
Do what you think is right, leave the rest to us pen pushers. Fly safe, it saves us a lot of work.
If I were an Engineer the answer is ?????????
If I were a pilot, the answer is: factor all deferred defects into the go/no go call.
Well done for knowing the difference between MEL and QRH, however, I have spent to much time listening to Flight Crew v Engineering delays in this grey area.
Do what you think is right, leave the rest to us pen pushers. Fly safe, it saves us a lot of work.
What does the front bit of your MEL/DDG say?
Ours says the following:
"It is within the authority of the Commander to accept a defect without consulting a ground engineer after the doors are closed provided the defect does not require a maintenance (M) specific procedure and it is covered in the MEL."
But it also goes on to say:
"No flight shall take place with any item of aircraft equipment inoperative or outside the requirements of the Operations Manual, if in the opinion of the Commander the lack of such equipment or the relaxing of an Operations Manual requirement will jeopardize the safe conduct of the flight.
The decision of the Commander to have allowable inoperative items corrected prior to flight will take precedence over the provisions contained in the DDG. The Commander may request requirements above the DDG, whenever in his judgement such added equipment is essential to the safety of a particular flight under the conditions prevailing at the time."
So, while it's not necessary to return to the gate unless the defect requires a maintenance procedure, the Commander still has the option to do so if he or she considers the equipment to be essential to the safety of the flight.
Ours says the following:
"It is within the authority of the Commander to accept a defect without consulting a ground engineer after the doors are closed provided the defect does not require a maintenance (M) specific procedure and it is covered in the MEL."
But it also goes on to say:
"No flight shall take place with any item of aircraft equipment inoperative or outside the requirements of the Operations Manual, if in the opinion of the Commander the lack of such equipment or the relaxing of an Operations Manual requirement will jeopardize the safe conduct of the flight.
The decision of the Commander to have allowable inoperative items corrected prior to flight will take precedence over the provisions contained in the DDG. The Commander may request requirements above the DDG, whenever in his judgement such added equipment is essential to the safety of a particular flight under the conditions prevailing at the time."
So, while it's not necessary to return to the gate unless the defect requires a maintenance procedure, the Commander still has the option to do so if he or she considers the equipment to be essential to the safety of the flight.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..except if you are lucky enough to have a flight engineer...
I recall an incident where the auto speedbrakes (Classic 747) actuated whenever the power levers were substantially advanced, by this time (at v/busy airport) we were almost at the holding point for takeoff.
After checking the MEL, the FE simply pulled the auto speedbrakes c/b, which solved the problem, and which only altered the landing procedure by having to manually deploy the s/brakes on touchdown. Simple and efficient!
Great job, that's one of the quite simple fixes that's stuck in my memory over the years, and there were simply to many to mention!
I'm simply nervous of non-FE manned extended distance flying...I guess I always will be!
I recall an incident where the auto speedbrakes (Classic 747) actuated whenever the power levers were substantially advanced, by this time (at v/busy airport) we were almost at the holding point for takeoff.
After checking the MEL, the FE simply pulled the auto speedbrakes c/b, which solved the problem, and which only altered the landing procedure by having to manually deploy the s/brakes on touchdown. Simple and efficient!
Great job, that's one of the quite simple fixes that's stuck in my memory over the years, and there were simply to many to mention!
I'm simply nervous of non-FE manned extended distance flying...I guess I always will be!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 5° above the Equator, 75° left of Greenwich
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@EW73
I respect your opinion, but isn't it a bit too much to have one extra person (it wasn't 30 years ago, but it is extra on modern types!) to pull a CB? The captain is taxiing and he/she can handle comms for a minute while I look for an answer in the MEL/QRH and then we both do the procedure(s)...
Just my 2c.
I respect your opinion, but isn't it a bit too much to have one extra person (it wasn't 30 years ago, but it is extra on modern types!) to pull a CB? The captain is taxiing and he/she can handle comms for a minute while I look for an answer in the MEL/QRH and then we both do the procedure(s)...
Just my 2c.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From an Engineers perspective. Always worth a call to the Tech unless you are completely happy with the defect.
From the radio I would say Go if no M action required on something like an Igniter fault. Commander is in charge at that point but only he/she can make the call, we can MEL it; but can it be MEL'd ACF'd at the other end, and you must put it in the book... tut tut some operators??.
We have to be sensible in our jobs under operational constraints/pressures but should we really be affected by these conditions......NO! I don't get paid any more penning a dodgy defect off
Plus, Surely you are better off with my autograph holding the accountability for the defect?
I have always been told, if you are unsure on anything ASK. Better to be safe than sorry, no lay-bys in the sky.
Any other cliche on a postcard!!
From the radio I would say Go if no M action required on something like an Igniter fault. Commander is in charge at that point but only he/she can make the call, we can MEL it; but can it be MEL'd ACF'd at the other end, and you must put it in the book... tut tut some operators??.
We have to be sensible in our jobs under operational constraints/pressures but should we really be affected by these conditions......NO! I don't get paid any more penning a dodgy defect off
Plus, Surely you are better off with my autograph holding the accountability for the defect?
I have always been told, if you are unsure on anything ASK. Better to be safe than sorry, no lay-bys in the sky.
Any other cliche on a postcard!!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall an incident where the auto speedbrakes (Classic 747) actuated whenever the power levers were substantially advanced, by this time (at v/busy airport) we were almost at the holding point for takeoff.
After checking the MEL, the FE simply pulled the auto speedbrakes c/b, which solved the problem, and which only altered the landing procedure by having to manually deploy the s/brakes on touchdown. Simple and efficient!
Great job, that's one of the quite simple fixes that's stuck in my memory over the years, and there were simply to many to mention!
I'm simply nervous of non-FE manned extended distance flying...I guess I always will be!
After checking the MEL, the FE simply pulled the auto speedbrakes c/b, which solved the problem, and which only altered the landing procedure by having to manually deploy the s/brakes on touchdown. Simple and efficient!
Great job, that's one of the quite simple fixes that's stuck in my memory over the years, and there were simply to many to mention!
I'm simply nervous of non-FE manned extended distance flying...I guess I always will be!
I don't have my 747 Classic DDPG handy, but I would be surprised if the Auto Speedbrakes entry did NOT have a required maintenance action, which would include a DMI in the logbook...
