Culture of Fear, Maintenance release entries or lack there of, and MEL's / PUS's
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 53
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus
I have seen an instructor re-stick a mag compass to the inside windshield after it had come adrift and then enter the repair carried out by himself on the MR. What chance does the CPL trainee he is teaching have with regard to MR knowledge?
It would always be my advice to speak to the engineer who will be signing it off before making any entries on the MR whenever possible, if for no other reason you may just learn something as I know there is very little if any training re the MR by young instructors as they simply don't know anything about it themselves.
I never said it takes "skill" to write on an MR just some training and a little judgement. If an engineer or chief pilot is clearly stretching the friendship when it comes to a/c serviceability I would similarly discuss it with someone more senior before marching off to CASA.
I do not believe in vetting entries as you suggest, just be selective with your wording in case you have technically grounded an a/c which is in fact perfectly safe to fly. Lack of communication just adds to the us/them mentality between engineers and pilots.
Example of a stupid entry- "both engines have major oil leak"- actual reason for all the oil down the cowls was the pilot who made the entry had overfilled both engines with oil and it sprayed out the breathers. Could I take that aeroplane on the next flight legally without it being checked and signed off? No I could not. Did both engines have a major oil leak? No they did not.
I have seen an instructor re-stick a mag compass to the inside windshield after it had come adrift and then enter the repair carried out by himself on the MR. What chance does the CPL trainee he is teaching have with regard to MR knowledge?
It would always be my advice to speak to the engineer who will be signing it off before making any entries on the MR whenever possible, if for no other reason you may just learn something as I know there is very little if any training re the MR by young instructors as they simply don't know anything about it themselves.
I never said it takes "skill" to write on an MR just some training and a little judgement. If an engineer or chief pilot is clearly stretching the friendship when it comes to a/c serviceability I would similarly discuss it with someone more senior before marching off to CASA.
I do not believe in vetting entries as you suggest, just be selective with your wording in case you have technically grounded an a/c which is in fact perfectly safe to fly. Lack of communication just adds to the us/them mentality between engineers and pilots.
Example of a stupid entry- "both engines have major oil leak"- actual reason for all the oil down the cowls was the pilot who made the entry had overfilled both engines with oil and it sprayed out the breathers. Could I take that aeroplane on the next flight legally without it being checked and signed off? No I could not. Did both engines have a major oil leak? No they did not.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PH 298/7.4DME
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MR's
It amazes me how little awareness there is of the fact that you cannot fly an aircraft if its MR has an open (uncleared) endorsement, whether it concerns an MEL item or not.
I learned this the hard way with others I worked along side as a line pilot.
520.
I learned this the hard way with others I worked along side as a line pilot.
520.
My understanding is that it's only if its in the Charter category (I realise in most of these examples it is) and if the aircraft doesn't have an MEL. If there is no MEL, and anything does not work, the aircraft is U/S.
If the aircraft has an MEL you are supposed to refer to that and decide whether you are within time limits to fly the aircraft.
Sorry to those that know this already, but Continental 520 raises a good point about the people that may not be aware of this.
Please note my understanding is that it is irrelevant whether the aircraft is being operated as Private or AWK, it is if the MR is marked as Charter. More than Happy to be Corrected.
If the aircraft has an MEL you are supposed to refer to that and decide whether you are within time limits to fly the aircraft.
Sorry to those that know this already, but Continental 520 raises a good point about the people that may not be aware of this.
Please note my understanding is that it is irrelevant whether the aircraft is being operated as Private or AWK, it is if the MR is marked as Charter. More than Happy to be Corrected.
Icarus2001. YES!
Thats exactly what they are saying. Stupid hey? Thats why some companys have an MEL to get around it. And why other companys just tell you not to write on the MR.
Thats exactly what they are saying. Stupid hey? Thats why some companys have an MEL to get around it. And why other companys just tell you not to write on the MR.
Originally Posted by Icarus2001
So you are saying an entry such as " landing light U/S" would ground the aircraft, say a C172, for day operations? Really?
Interesting. I only fly MEL/DDL equipped aircraft nowadays, is this as a result of the "new" Australian AFM system? Do you have a reference to confirm this interpretation of the Act?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So where does this fear to write up snags come from? In my view it is commercial pressures in a variety of forms:
The cost of the repair (it's only a shallow cut in the sidewall and the tread is like new.she'll be right for plenty more landings), the location (not damn convenient to fix 'ere son..........write it up back home), the customer who is impatiently standing next to your aircraft (Got to get to Sydney by xx:yy). The newby with the pressure of keeping the job in this cut throat world of building hours and the crusty CP who is trying to make the bottom line for the company.
It is such a marginal business at times that these pressures will always be there. Hell, if we weren't so cut throat maybe we would make a quid and not be so afraid to write things up.
Cheers
TH
The cost of the repair (it's only a shallow cut in the sidewall and the tread is like new.she'll be right for plenty more landings), the location (not damn convenient to fix 'ere son..........write it up back home), the customer who is impatiently standing next to your aircraft (Got to get to Sydney by xx:yy). The newby with the pressure of keeping the job in this cut throat world of building hours and the crusty CP who is trying to make the bottom line for the company.
It is such a marginal business at times that these pressures will always be there. Hell, if we weren't so cut throat maybe we would make a quid and not be so afraid to write things up.
Cheers
TH
Example of the rock spiders out there. Grade 3 instructor flies a light single retractable and notices the landing gear circuit breaker is immoveable - jammed solid. Notes that several adjacent circuit breakers - some unmarked - also appear to be completely jammed. Asks a grade one instructor to have a look. Grade one says the circuit breakers are definately jammed and tells grade 3 to write up defect in MR. Grade 3 says no way - will lose job. G1 gets LAME and says please look at these circuit breakers and tell me what you think? LAME looks and says don't fly that plane - definate electrical fire risk as circuit breakers are defective. G1 then writes this in the MR.
The businessman owner who has this aircraft on line with the flying school writes letter to CFI saying sack the G1 for writing up the defect without permission of the owner. Owner writes another letter to CFI saying that if the defects are found not to be defects, the owner will charge the cost of maintenance to the G1 who had originally written up the MR.
G1 writes to CASA who send out an airworthiness bloke to sort the problem. Airworthiness bloke says the whole circuit breaker panel is indeed cactus and agrees big fire risk as circuit breakers would never have actuated if over loaded. The servicing of that aircraft had been carried out by a maintenance organisastion whose engineers had apparently never picked the crook circuit breakers. Of course no feed back from CASA but the owner was invited in for tea and chat by CASA.
This is a typical example prevalent in GA of what someone has termed a culture of fear - and it comes not from CASA personnel - but owners and operators..
The businessman owner who has this aircraft on line with the flying school writes letter to CFI saying sack the G1 for writing up the defect without permission of the owner. Owner writes another letter to CFI saying that if the defects are found not to be defects, the owner will charge the cost of maintenance to the G1 who had originally written up the MR.
G1 writes to CASA who send out an airworthiness bloke to sort the problem. Airworthiness bloke says the whole circuit breaker panel is indeed cactus and agrees big fire risk as circuit breakers would never have actuated if over loaded. The servicing of that aircraft had been carried out by a maintenance organisastion whose engineers had apparently never picked the crook circuit breakers. Of course no feed back from CASA but the owner was invited in for tea and chat by CASA.
This is a typical example prevalent in GA of what someone has termed a culture of fear - and it comes not from CASA personnel - but owners and operators..
Centaurus: And to continue, owner then removes aircraft from flying school. G3 then not needed due to lack of aircraft/work, thus is let go. Next time doesn't write up fault or inform anybody of fault for genuine fear of loosing job.
I know what is right and what is wrong, but somethings in life are just fncked. Welcome to aviation.
I know what is right and what is wrong, but somethings in life are just fncked. Welcome to aviation.
Icarus2001: CAO 20.18 subsection 10.1 and CAR 207.
But note that CAO 20.18 subsection 10.1 does not prevent an aircraft with an unserviceability from flying, just because the MR happens to have been issued in the charter category. The aircraft can still be operated in the private or aerial work category, provided of course that the requirements of CAO 20.18 applicable to the category are satisfied. And of course one can get a PUS under CAR 37.
As to the circumstances described by Centaurus, I’m appalled. Putting someone under duress or otherwise threatening them not to comply with a statutory obligation is offensive, and an offence.
But note that CAO 20.18 subsection 10.1 does not prevent an aircraft with an unserviceability from flying, just because the MR happens to have been issued in the charter category. The aircraft can still be operated in the private or aerial work category, provided of course that the requirements of CAO 20.18 applicable to the category are satisfied. And of course one can get a PUS under CAR 37.
As to the circumstances described by Centaurus, I’m appalled. Putting someone under duress or otherwise threatening them not to comply with a statutory obligation is offensive, and an offence.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....then cream-puff.................you havent lived in the "real" world.....some of us havent been wrapped in cotton wool in our careers...sad.. but true!!!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think everyone should read this:
http://www.casa.gov.au/rules/rulings/2004/AR0104.pdf
pretty sure paragraph 9 of the ruling excludes COMs and Navaids from the requirements of CAO 20.18 para 10.1
in fact, anything not referred to (or similar to) in
therefore, a busted com2 makes no difference if the aeroplane can still meet the requirements in AIP GEN 1.5.
a busted ADF does not ground the aeroplane for charter ops if it can still meet the requirements of AIP GEN 1.5.
i'd love to read others' interpretations of the ruling.
http://www.casa.gov.au/rules/rulings/2004/AR0104.pdf
pretty sure paragraph 9 of the ruling excludes COMs and Navaids from the requirements of CAO 20.18 para 10.1
in fact, anything not referred to (or similar to) in
- CAO 20.4 - Oxygen
- CAO 20.11 - Emergency Equipment
- CAO 20.16.3 - Seat Belts
- CAO 20.18 - General
therefore, a busted com2 makes no difference if the aeroplane can still meet the requirements in AIP GEN 1.5.
a busted ADF does not ground the aeroplane for charter ops if it can still meet the requirements of AIP GEN 1.5.
i'd love to read others' interpretations of the ruling.
Thank you gents (and ladies if applicable
) I thought that I had missed that little "change" somewhere along the line.
Continental -520 shame on you for frightening everyone like that.
) I thought that I had missed that little "change" somewhere along the line.Continental -520 shame on you for frightening everyone like that.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PH 298/7.4DME
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Were you frightened?
So why do MEL's exist, then, since they cover so many items outside the 20.18 requirements.
Delta and Icarus,
I've heard of that ruling before, but what I was trying to say was that an "open endorsement" on an MR, regardless of what it is, whether there's an MEL for it or not, grounds the aircraft.
With reference to the abovestated ruling, you wouldn't have an open endorsement on the MR because you wouldn't need one; the ruling above covers you, so that's ok.
My general understanding is that as long as an open endorsement exists, the aircraft stays on the ground until cleared.
I'll come back with a reference, once I get a minute. CAR 48, Subregulation (2), states:
Where a maintenance release in respect of an aircraft ceases to be in force by virtue of an endorsement made under regulation 47, the maintenance release shall again commence to be in force if there is entered on the maintenance release or other document on which the endorsement was made a further endorsement signed by an authorised person cancelling the first-mentioned endorsement
Would anyone like to clarify?
520.
Delta and Icarus,
I've heard of that ruling before, but what I was trying to say was that an "open endorsement" on an MR, regardless of what it is, whether there's an MEL for it or not, grounds the aircraft.
With reference to the abovestated ruling, you wouldn't have an open endorsement on the MR because you wouldn't need one; the ruling above covers you, so that's ok.
My general understanding is that as long as an open endorsement exists, the aircraft stays on the ground until cleared.
I'll come back with a reference, once I get a minute. CAR 48, Subregulation (2), states:
Where a maintenance release in respect of an aircraft ceases to be in force by virtue of an endorsement made under regulation 47, the maintenance release shall again commence to be in force if there is entered on the maintenance release or other document on which the endorsement was made a further endorsement signed by an authorised person cancelling the first-mentioned endorsement
Would anyone like to clarify?
520.
Last edited by Continental-520; 6th Jul 2006 at 12:09.
Which is why an LAME owning his own aircraft on line with an operator can simply sign off a valid defect with the words "Entered in error" and the aircraft continues to fly and earn money. A few months later when said aircraft reaches the next 100 hourly, the defect can be ignored or rectified. Very convenient and keeps CASA happy if they ever happen to find out - which is doubtful as their accent is on RPT big boys. It has been done and I have seen it done.