Don't put it in the Tech Log!
 

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!:ugh:

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!

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

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

Great post CAT1.:ok:

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......):}

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

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. ;)

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

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...

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

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.

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

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 .....

.. 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 ...

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

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:ok:

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:ugh:

What sort of message does this convey to future Captains?:=

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......

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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!!!!!!!!!!!

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. :ok:

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 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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes it is and no it is not, but I really like your sense of humour anyway.

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.

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).

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.

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. :ok:
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.:E

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:E

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! :ok:

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.

Perceived "Silly entries" cost me my job a few years ago. I recorded the following entries in the Australian CASA designed maintenance release after flying a Beech Duchess of a "reputable" GA operator.
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.

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 ?

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.

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.