Actually, spanners, if you re-read the original question, I think you will find it was about whether captains are carrying known defects but not declaring them until it is "convenient", for one reason or another, to do so.

Nowadays, with EICAS and EEC linked to on-board CMCs, it is less easy to do this but the practice does continue nevertheless. Theoretically, I agree it should be stopped but, human nature being what it is, it would be difficult to eradicate it completely. It is when Commanders allow commercial pressures to overrule professional common-sense that the real danger exists.


JD

:)

Safety Concerns, I agree with you absolutely.

Since I started commercial flying nearly 40 years' ago, there has always been an element of this. Initially, it was driven as much by the urge to "keep the show on the road" and avoid personal disruption as anything commercial. More recently, commercial pressures have become much greater, often of course through management bonus inducements. It is a brave Commander who will delay a flight - for perfectly sound technical reasons - where he feels company pressures are so loaded against him.

One answer might be to engage union (BALPA) support to reinforce the Commander's rights (and legal duties) to the company, to help counteract any underlying atmosphere of employer intimidation. In my experience, this sort of pressure is generally better dealt with collectively, than personally.


JD
:)

Now I remember why I don't post on PPRuNe very often. :rolleyes:

I just received a PM which read in part.............

What a load of rubbish.

The example I quoted was on a Fokker F27 FERRY FLIGHT from Melbourne Australia to Norwich in England taking some 10 days, just myself and 3 Captains on board, NO other help available unless were we grounded and would have had to seek local help in various Countries on route, NOT doing anyone out of a job, certainly NO danger involved.

We had many "defects" on route for example one maxaret played up on some legs but as we were using major International Airports with massive long runways (for an F27) we ALL decided to press on, another was no water methanol on one side sometimes, again due Airports/runways being used it was NOT a problem or danger.

However when handing the Aircraft over to another Company in Norwich I was obligated to log any defects that were on the Aircraft at the time.

Sorry if you don't like that, it is (or was in my time) called being a PROFESSIONAL. :ok:

Jumbo Driver ....agree but the damage discovered during the transit stop does the commander then use his so called 'judgement' and fly home or does he await proper maintenance to properly assess the damage?

air support glad you are retired............its different now for many many reasons...fly with anti skid inop on one wheel..no problem on long runway......all good until the swiss cheese starts to line up....you divert due to a problem with the engine without the water meth (I know only used on TO but linked to the fuel control) and oh yes only the short runway is available at your enroute diversion due to that wonderful tail wind you were enjoying in the cruise.....wish we had anti skid I hear?? See it might work when all is going in your favour but in reality it isnt like that is it?

Of course one could then hear the words of the investigator at that point as he looks at the aircraft off the end of the runway.....you realise your C of A is now invalid and thus your insurance?

Why do you think you can do the pilots job for him as well as your own? I suggest you keep out of the operational side and just mend the broken bits and change the oil and plugs!

Oh dear Rainboe....I'll change the bait on that hook shall I?
No doubt with your attitude you have a great relationship with those who keep you sitting on your butt at the front?

Yes thank you. :ok:

Especially if you two are typical of current Engineers, no wonder the Industry is in such a mess. :(

I don't have any sort of 'relationship' other than when the aeroplane is released by engineering (which they are responsible for), it then becomes my responsibility. Takes 2 minutes: 'is it OK then? Sign the Tech Log please and off we'll go!'. They say goodbye, and boom boom. Why do I need a 'relationship' with the engineers any more than I need a 'relationship' with catering? I interface with them for 2 minutes- I don't need a briefing 'headlights are a bit wonky, ignition on right engine a bit slow, might find left alternator doesn't want to connect......'!

Can you communicate without pretending you are setting 'traps'? It's very bizarrre.

If the DDM/MEL did not give sufficient guidance in the circumstances you describe, I would expect the Commander to contact Main Base or obtain local maintenance advice as to the acceptability of such damage before making any decision as to the serviceability of the aircraft for dispatch.

I see that as the Commander's clear legal responsibility and that's what I would do. I hope you would agree ...


JD
:)

Rainboe: A briefing is a bit like holding a door open for someone, its not compulsory, it IS courteous but you dont always get a thankyou..... If there is something that has proved troublesome and requires DD'ing I would sooner have a chat with the crew than not but then in our human factors we have always been taught the best form of handover is written and verbal.
Likewise, you dont need a special relationship with your caterers but it may stop them gobbing in your sandwiches if you keep them on side!

While I appreciate that some topics (including this one) can generate hot under the collar feelings .. can I ask that we all take a few deep breaths before posting, please ?

As always, the preference is to play the ball rather than the player.

Couldn't agree with you more, and I always do that.

However after some of the posts here, and a couple of PMs I received, it appears some people have a hidden agenda.

While I spent my whole career trying to get aircraft out as close to on time as possible and IN A SAFE CONDITION, some now appear to be trying to delay aircraft for trivial reasons, either to boost their own egos, or for some industrial reason, to gain either more Engineers or better conditions.

While I spent my whole career trying to get aircraft out as close to on time as possible and IN A SAFE CONDITION, some now appear to be trying to delay aircraft for trivial reasons, either to boost their own egos, or for some industrial reason, to gain either more Engineers or better conditions.

:D.
please enlighten me of these examples you have of some trying to delay aircraft for trivial reasons.
look airsupport while you and your pilot colleagues sit in your nice warm cockpit getting your food and drink served to you, an engineer and/or mechanic spent the night time, sometimes in freezing cold, wind, rain, snow etc etc etc etc getting your aircraft ready for your passengers so please don't patronize us.
also Sir i will have you know that my bonus is directly linked to the delays caused by maintenance and the time taken to fix them... often caused by pilots not writing the defect in the tech log. however that does not for 1 second come into my head if there is a problem
so while you spent your carreer trying to get your aircraft out on time without delay and in a safe condition, i am spending mine trying to get aircraft out on time in accordance with the relevant documentation.

next time i see my manager i must ask him if he can get it to stop raining and been so bloody cold at night in the winter... oh my job conditions would be so good then

What are you on about??? :confused:

I am NOT, and never have been a Pilot.

I am, or more correctly was, a Licenced Engineer for 40 something years.

It never ceases to amaze me how people twist everything to suit what they want. :ugh:

IF you read what I said, then obviously that would NOT apply. :rolleyes:

IF I had got the aircraft out reasonably on time and safely, then OBVIOUSLY I must have been there, so it was an airport WITH Technical support. ;)

I have been invoved in some incidents like you are on about, including one with a bird strike on a B737-300 at an outstation, where the Crew contacted us at Main Base via telephone and insisted they had thoroughly inspected the aircraft and did NOT need help. On the following leg to another outstation they experienced severe engine vibration, shut down the engine on descent, landed and then called for help. I went up there and it turned out the one they shutdown was NOT the worst engine at all, it "looked" worse to them when they saw it on the ground, but the other one had all shingled fan blades. The Captain was demoted over the incident.

So NO of course I understand about problems at outstations, but from PMs I received it seemed that this is just part of a campaign to get more Engineers at more ports, which I would of course support, just NOT the way this thread is worded.

As to the points you keep raising, with any of those items, at an outstation, I would phone home and there would be a local other airline or engineering service engineer who will be arranged to come and view the problem. A small delay- still cheaper than what I think your desired 'cure' would be. For those defects and no local engineer present, a big delay. Still cheaper! I rather like being alive myself- I can't imagine ever wanting to 'take a chance' on that list of items. I think you are using ridiculous scare tactics.

So, next time it happens, why don't you raise an MOR, using SRG1601, as suggested here ?

You could also bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate Aircraft Maintenance Standards Dept at the CAA ...

... or be a whistleblower ...


JD
:)

airsupport
 

I am niether Aviator or Engineer, just the humble Ops guy getting caught up in this day in and day out, therefore, no offence is intended to either trade.

'By the way, everywhere I have ever worked the Captain can always over ride an MEL and refuse to take the aircraft, but he must have a VERY good reason and be prepared to explain his reason to the chief Pilot and Company.'

The Captain (Crew) may elect to, not accept an aircraft iaw the MEL, they do not refuse. Sorry it is a real downer of mine, the use of refuse to accept.

In declining the aircraft, the Crew will have a valid reason and thought process in doing so. This may range from the classic 'known or forecast icing' to non allowable multiple ADDs, not spotted at the outstation ADD'ing the defect they were reqested to attend.

As it is a highly trained and competant Engineer / Mechanics job to offer the aircraft iaw MEL, it is the Crew who will act as backstop, from the machine operators point of view.

A bloody minded Crew, may refuse an a/c and as you say will have tea and biccies, but I have worked for a company where engineers maintained the hangar was the base and once out of the hangar, repairs could not be made.

That's sad to hear, Safety Concerns. All I can say is that the system worked for me - several times - but that was quite a few years ago now. However, if it is not under a UK AOC, then my ideas may not be so appropriate.

From the description you offer, I find it difficult to assess whether it is an engineering or industrial matter. That's why I suggested earlier in the thread that the advice and help of a good union should be sought. In the absence of anywhere else obvious, the Technical Section of BALPA might be a good place to start.


JD
:)

I have only ever seen this a couple of times in my career, and NO I do NOT mean when there is a valid reason, like weather or multiple conflicting MELs, I mean where the Captain just refuses to accept the aircraft with a quite legal MEL that he just doesn't agree with, in both cases there was no alternate aircraft available and the Captain eventually gave in to reason (Company pressure).

As for the other business, I give up and will not participate further on this thread, the ONLY reason I mentioned about trying to get more Engineers was because of the wording in a couple of very abrupt PMs I received from "Safety Concerns", but on this thread he denies that is the case. :ugh: