ASFKAP

Sorry but as well as phoning home with the OFDM data, which is encrypted, the jet also phones home reporting any snags.

I had an emergency exit indicate as open on the landing run on touchdown in TFS: by the time we had the pax disembarked a Spanish engineer from Futura appeared clutching a fax from Maintrol asking him to check the aircraft for the specific fault. I hadn't phoned Ops or Maintrol, nether had the FO.

Perhaps the previous crew had left a 'fag packet' in an empty line maintenance office :E

What kind of maintenance diagnostic system does the NG have? i have never had the privelage of working on a shiny boeing.

I know our QARs are downloaded at certain stations at certain intervals, and as far as im aware the information is mosty Trend with a small selection of data from the FDR, with full FDR downloads taken manually at longer intervals. The data is generally sent away for analysis.
as for the whole tech log issue....Put it in the book and give a verbal debrief (if met by an engineer) it makes the job a lot easier. i couldnt give much of a hoot if the aircraft is grounded by an open entry. better safe than sorry

Most airlines just have enough aircraft to cover their schedules these days. They operate at full steam.
Sometimes, it almost feels as if its your duty as a pilot or engineer to find away around the defect if there is no quick fix. "Creative writing" or "no writing at all"
So I say, as an engineer, put it in the tech log, go by the book, highlight that airlines are overstreching their fleets,crews and their engineers. Put the pressure on Management to run the airline as it should be run.

On the latest 737 NGs the OFDM is sent via mobile 'phone to Maintrol after every landing, so the scenario mentioned above is not unusual.

Nutloose

After reading your comment on the engine reving high I am trying to understand what you mean. Lycoming engine with constant speed propeller? This would have a propeller governor with low pitch stop setting? Adjusting the stop screw would in return adjust engine rpm by adjusting blade angle. If I am way off base of what you meant let me know.

I agree everything should be put into the tech logs along with talking to maint about it. Alot of times mechanics will have a better understanding of what prob is and will have a better starting point.

FlyingWrench

Faint Ink better than soft words!:ok:

Quote "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. http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
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.http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif

On a related matter, I've audited several GA commercial operations. The audit of their technical logs often reveal no defects for weeks.http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/evil.gif" Unquote

...and not forgetting the flurry of entries that appear just before an aircraft goes in on its Basecheck

As a licensed engineer, my view has always been 'stick it in the book'.

If it's a minor defect of no consequence '...nosewheel appears dusty...' I can always fix it/pen it off.
If I can't fix it, pen it or ADD it, then it should quite righty ground the aircraft.

The rule of thumb I always use with defects is 'would I let my kids fly on this aircraft?' Of course that rule does cause problems as they grow up to be teenagers...

hehe:D good one itsresidualmate

I like to have a good working relationship with my crews. If they don't trust me, or respect me, then I try to fix that situation. Safety begins with comunication.

I have on occasion had to work with the odd "Blue Blood", and this is the worst kind of human around. They are arrogant, and think that they are the only people who know about aircraft. This kind of person is the kind who writes up a snag and runs off to the bar. When the snag is read, it does not relate to anything specific, and the fault is not found, and either a great deal of time is wasted, or a minor snag is fixed, and the intended snag is not dealt with.

As to what gets writen up, I prefer to have the crew write up any snag they find, regardless of how minor it is. The only time I ever deviate from this practice, is if it will ground the aircraft for a cosmetic item. I will discuss with the crew the best way to write up the snag, so as it gives the possibility to make a temporary repair, or put it in a defect log if possible.

This gives the crew faith that you will deal with the issues they have, and you also have faith that they will discuss with you before they write things up and run to the bar.

At the end of the day, we are there to be safe, and make money. Can't do that if the aircraft is broken, or falls out of the sky.

If it's a cosmetic item, how will it ground the aircraft?

Mascara jammed in speedbrake controls ? :ooh:


Same principle for flight sims guys and gals, write it up in the log book please.

For recurrent defects it might be worth looking at the answer to the previous time it was snagged before deciding to add it again.

If anyone doubts the extent to which fag packet reporting has been taken in UK scheduled service in the recent past this is the fleet defect list that I gave to our chief engineer after months of scribbled notes on the back of the previous crew's met-brief . News of the serious accident (with pax on board) that prompted this action, and the resulting accident report never made it to the CAA's safety executive, and incredibly no official record of it exists that I can find today. The Flt Ops inspector was totally dismissive and uninterested, (He was approaching retirement and I suspect he knew full well but didn't want the ruckus to hazard his index linked pension)
I've never seen anything like it since, though whispers suggest this was not the end of such behaviour in this particular company.

I was made redundant days after submitting the list, despite a shortage of pilots.
Didn't have the right attitude, thank God!
Best chuck-up I ever got!





G-XXXX

Radar U/S...Tests OK but onWx displays “FAULT” and shows no returns.

Overhead c/b panel illumination u/s

P1 AI moves in 1-3deg jerks in roll, 1-2deg jerks in pitch, eyebrow roll indicator moves (jerks) independant of AI.

PA inaudible in flight

Chimes u/s

LH engine will not start first on batt, no light-off

No wing de ice light



G-YYYY

De ice boots, no indication tail & outers

Radar u/s

Compass systems up tp 10’ out of sync

P1 AI moves in 2’ increments, pitch & roll, skypointer out of sync w. horizon tape

Chime inaudible at rear of cabin

PA inaudible in flight

Hdg bug couples up to 3’rt of rh edge of bug

Tech log entry ’tail de ice boots’ no other info given

no wing de ice light


G-ZZZZ

Radarperformance poor

Placarded ‘No 136.0 both radios

Unable contact 134.6/136.4

ADF may indicate 180’ out. Cycling invertor may cure.

no wing de ice light

No 1 eng performance; 80% Tq on t/o, ITT limited, better when airborne



G-AAAA


P1 AI moves in 2drg increments (jerks) in pitch and roll. Skypointer out of sync with horizon

P2 Masrer Warn u/s

Outer de ice boot cycle u/s indication

P1 screen heat u/s

no wing de ice light


P1 RMI no.1 switch u/s, VOR selection very difficult to sustain

Heater u/s Auto, over sensitive in man.

Flap not to be used, posible Assy or stuck if retracted (note in tech log)

Severe nosewheel shimmy (reported to ch. eng)

P1 VOR/ILS indications severely inaccurate, see ILS incident (date). A/C signed u/s in tech log (same date). no change/ADD (later date)
Nb. Pilot was summoned to HQ for an interview without coffee for writing up this defect, and his Professionalism severely questioned by Ch Exec.

Radar u/s

No 1 glideslope sticks up



G-BBBB

Radar u/s

Screen de-ice causes unacceptable & loud heterodyne whine in intercom

PA works, but bleeds over onto other station box obliterating RT traffic

VHF, not equipped for 136+ Mhz

Both clocks u/s

No 1 Glideslope sticks up

No reading lamps in cabin

No wing de-ice light





Picture flying these heaps of junk in icing conditions, and on instruments. Scary, isn't it?
And all from a culture that had captains in fear of their jobs if they wrote an aircraft u/s.


so, WRITE IT IN THE TECH LOG!

The original poster was trying to say that if someone puts a cosmetic item in the tech log it will by default ground their aircraft until it has been checked out and signed off.

Why will "cosmetic" snags ground the aircraft?

Defer them yourself/have them deferred and carry on!

What's hard about that?

I *think* the issue is that there may be no immediately available MX cover (at a remote destination say) and the crew may not be authorised/permitted to sign off the log themselves, either by company policy, regulatory edict, or union/demarkation issues.

It's analagous to having a sore, but not painful, tooth on vacation. If its not really bothering you, the hassle of finding a local dentist probably means you'll 'defer' the dental snag until you get home. But if you had a hypochondriac partner, and told them ('put it in the log') you'll be spending the next two days trying to say 'please, not the pliers' in pidgin-swahili or whatever ...


It's something likely trivial to deal with or defer with resources available, but a real bind in the wrong location.

...of course it'd also encourage the employment of more dentists!:ok:

I know where you are coming from, but this was a fixed pitch prop..... Now I know what you are going to say, it is the prop then, so we tried another one of an identical aircraft that had no problem at all to no avail, we then sent the prop away for overhaul and had them reset the twist in the prop to the max limits to try and address it that way, although it had a slight effect, it did not affect the figures sufficent to notice. Unfortunately the throttle stop at max RPM is fixed so you cannot do anything with that....The manual gives several limits which range from the not more than 5 seconds examples down to the accepable..

In our case, the Engine Manufacturers continuous rated Max RPM for the Engine in question is actually is higher than the redline on the Aircraft Tacho and the Aircraft TDC RPM figures by a couple of hundred RPM, which is why I went to both Manufacturers and the CAA........ go figure.
That being the case the Engine was reving well below its Max Continuous figure but just over the Aircraft Redline by about 50 RPM in the climb, the Prop was checked and overhauled and also found to be well within limits.. That is why we could not understand how an Aircraft could possibly have a Redline lower than what the Engine was capable of producing in normal operation, naturally you would assume the prop would govern it, but that too as said was all within the manufacturers limits. There being no adjustment possible to the max RPM stop and all the fuel flows being correct, maybe we just got close to a "Blueprinted" engine.

N.B
For those in here that may not know what a "BluePrinted" engine is, It is a theoretical engine that is as close to the original manafacturers drawings as possible, hence "Blueprinted"..... a production engine will not come close to this as you will often get lips, casting marks etc such as where the induction manifold bolts onto the heads which cause poor airflows and disruptions to it and reduce performance and overall power output. That is why when you hear of a "Blueprinted" engine being fitted to a car etc it will have had all the casting marks and lips machined down to get them as smooth and close to what the manufacturer had envisioned in the design as possible, which will give you a more efficent engine that produces more power.

I think some people would be suprised the amount of defects that are hidden from the tech log.

Work requests, base maintenance files and Virtual tech log entries represent aircraft defects but have no physical presence within the log. Should this be the case it does go on and is approved?.....

Therefore, any defect that is entered is looked at by a team of professionals, trended, monitored etc so it is always worth writing it in.

How would the information be recieved if you did know that an intermittent fault existed, it was being looked at by a technical department and annotated within the log as a supplement...

Should the defect be a snag, locked out, deferred, full stop or should a 'for info' item be entered to relay further data??.. Cheers

:D

I totally agree, and a great point. Nothing ticks me off more than an instructor (IP) that comes out of the sim saying:
"It's been doing that for a while now."
Me "Did you write it up?"
IP "Ah, no, I thought you knew about it."
Aughhhhh.:ugh:

Of course the other one would be after a host crash:
Me "So, just what were you doing just before it crashed?"
IP "Nothing..."
While I don't expect an IP to trouble shoot my sim (or the aircraft either) being able to tell me the last couple of things they did or used is a great help in troubleshooting. Cuts down on the CND's

We carry a separate 'cabin log' for 'minor' cabin items which seemed like a good idea at the time but has proven to be more trouble than it's worth, with Flight Attendants writing up airworthiness items which then have to be transfered to the main log anyway.

I am hoping we will get rid of it, the most serious problem with this system shows up when the incoming Captain does not check the cabin log thoroughly enough and misses an airworthiness item.

Anyone else use this system ?

Yes we have cabin logs, better than have just a tech log, if you have the right procedures in place then any airworthiness item is then transferred to the tech log by the crew. or if they miss it then an engineer will do it, we have a code system which automatically tells the crew it should go in the tech log.

Nutloose,

Ok I get it now. Seems like a weird scenario with diff limits from engine and ariframe. Well all the better, you had a "tight" engine. Now if the pilots would just pull the throttle back a little to set max RPM. :ok:

Interesting to see the discussion of write it up / don´t write it up.... Lets go back to the very basics. If there was any problem:

"Stay with Ac until the Eng arrive"

I´ve lost count of the number of times I´ve encountered the Ac bedded down with the log book open inside with a snag or two that have taken the whole night to trouble shoot. Why all night? Because the crew buggered off and instead of being available for questioning we had to determine in exactly what config the Ac was when the defect appeared. :hmm:

Airline maintenance cuts 'threaten safety'
 

interesting Airline maintenance cuts 'threaten safety'

Met a flt the other day capt says "I haven't put it in the book, but..."

OK, checked the MEL 2 installed, 1 required, but there were none on the a/c, AOG overnight waiting bits, why not just write it in the book. Covered myself as 1st line of defect read, on crew verbal report....

Why not just write it in in the 1st place,:ugh:

Then theres the other side, the inbound crew write up a defect, engineer gets called at the last minute, go onboard, the new crew and SLF are sat there all expectant and ready to go, the captain say's "Just sign it off, it's alright, I'll take it!"
I informed him it dosn't work like that, I asked him to offload the passengers so I could do my investigation with the electrical power off, and lift him mouth opened and went below to have a look around below the cockpit. When I got back they were all still sat there, nothing had happened until I informed him, I had found rodent droppings and I was not allowed to dispatch the aircraft.....

Its great to see so many answers to a catch 22 i was always in, whether to write a snag in the tech log or not. I agree with CESSNA 24, in one of the earlier posts that it does make sense not to write small snags in the log. to give you an example, for the guys operating A320 aircraft, we had an ECAM that used to be generated every flight for a period of 8 months continously, ECAM : R OUTER TANK HI TEMP. This snag was written numerous times in the log and the reason it used to be generated was due to interference of communication equipment. Engineers told us to stop writing it because there was nothing they could do about it after having tried resolving the problem with Airbus. I do agree that any small snag should be written down as we are legally bound to do so. I cant understand why many people dont write things down in the log even if it is something as small as changing the bulb of the landing light :rolleyes:.

Mobid
in an ideal world yes, stay with a/c to help troubleshooting. However, after long day, discretion and 0200+ arrival how long do you wait for engineers, 1h, 2, 3? putting you out of hours to operate next flight...

You could call up the line mx office or maintrol & ask for someone to attend asap to debrief you (or talk to you on the 'phone)?

It's not always possible to meet each a/c as it arrives when most of the fleet roll up at the same time.

This thread is pretty interesting, as a low-ish (<1000 hours on type) guy I don't see much of the techlog.

One question I do have, is at my airline, it seems cabin crew are actively encouraged to write up defects in the Cabin Defects Log (managers assume if there aren't defects you aren't looking hard enough and are reprimanded). A favorite past-time in delay situations is for them to look for dings and bulbs gone and write them up, am I writing in thinking at the end of the day we should have a look in it and transfer pertinent ones to the main Tech log?

I'm just as bad, part of my pre-flight includes a light test and if I have time i'll replace all the bulbs that are gone from the onboard spares box, do you Techlog it if you've taken one or two out? Or is this sort of thing operator specific?

Horgy

. to give you an example, for the guys operating A320 aircraft, we had an ECAM that used to be generated every flight for a period of 8 months continously, ECAM : R OUTER TANK HI TEMP. This snag was written numerous times in the log and the reason it used to be generated was due to interference of communication equipment. Engineers told us to stop writing it because there was nothing they could do about it after having tried resolving the problem with Airbus. I do agree that any small snag should be written down as we are legally bound to do so. I cant understand why many people dont write things down in the log even if it is something as small as changing the bulb of the landing light .

then the engineers should have put on board details of the correspondence between them and airbus. normally airbus would issue a TFU with regard to a reoccuring problem like this. i have searched and not found anything with this message.
i know that the word of the engineer should be trusted, but in this case with a known problem, the crew should have all the info to decide whether it is an airworthiness issue or not.

the crew should have all the info to decide whether it is an airworthiness issue or not.

defeats the underlying system. If there is a recurring minor snag, then the appropriate way to handle it is by notice to aircrew with whatever instructions .. keeps it closed loop and all relevant parties in the loop.

Consequence
 

Doesnt that tell you what kind of company you work for.

You can tell the ones give you flack for writing stuff in the Tech log.

One should know the consequence of what one is writing and the MEL.