Aircraft tech log - liability
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The minimum equipment list for my aircraft is;
10.2. MINIMUM EQUIPMENT LIST
Air speed indicator
Altimeter
Magnetic compass
Ball bank indicator
Tachometer
Oil temperature
Oil pressure
Cylinder head temperature
Fuel level indicator
Oil level indicator
Stall Warning device
I think I have had similar lists for all my previous aircraft, but there may have been the odd exception.
On LAA aircraft I think it is a rule that you have to have;
Air speed indicator
Altimeter
Magnetic compass
Fuel level indicator
Oil level indicator
Appropriate engine instrumentation
That is in case there is no minimum equipment list from the designer. Is this not also a CAA requirement?
Rod1
10.2. MINIMUM EQUIPMENT LIST
Air speed indicator
Altimeter
Magnetic compass
Ball bank indicator
Tachometer
Oil temperature
Oil pressure
Cylinder head temperature
Fuel level indicator
Oil level indicator
Stall Warning device
I think I have had similar lists for all my previous aircraft, but there may have been the odd exception.
On LAA aircraft I think it is a rule that you have to have;
Air speed indicator
Altimeter
Magnetic compass
Fuel level indicator
Oil level indicator
Appropriate engine instrumentation
That is in case there is no minimum equipment list from the designer. Is this not also a CAA requirement?
Rod1
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I don't get in this whole discussion is why people are really so afraid to write up problems with the aircraft. It almost seems as if a defect that's been put on paper is an immediate cause for indefinite grounding of the aircraft, without exception. And that's definitely not the case, as far as I'm concerned.
I find it perfectly normal that an aircraft that's 20+ years old will have "issues", and I fully understand that not all issues are an immediate threat to flight safety. So if an aircraft has, say, five defects written up, I take a look at those defects and decide for myself whether it's safe to fly, taking in consideration the law, the POH and the mission.
At my club we operate an electronic defect report system (actually approved by the IVW) where any pilot can report defects, any other pilot can record comments (like a validation of a defect, or a simple "didn't happen to me"), the desk can ground the aircraft or limit its mission capability (VFR only for instance) and the maintenance people can close defect reports. And this works quite well. Even for very minor defects.
Last Friday I noticed that one of the planes canopy lock didn't work - the key would get in but it could not turn. Meaning that we cannot lock this aircraft for the night; anybody can get in overnight if they have access to the aircraft. Not a problem at our (secured) airport, but it is a problem in a weeks time when the aircraft will be parked for a weekend at a less secure airport.
I consulted with the desk and the engineers, and both asked me simply to file a defect in the defect report database. That way they would not forget to put some penetrating oil in it at the next opportunity, and check it again a few days later. Obviously I made it clear in the defect report that the canopy latch would work as designed and it's just the key lock that didn't work. Flight safety is not compromised at all so there are no limitations placed on the aircraft. But the maintenance guys know they have to take a look somewhere in the next few days.
Now to be honest: How many maintenance outfits will actually try and lock the canopy with the key, to see if the mechanism works, during a 50/100/annual check? I would assume that they've got more important things to check, so this is something that only pilots will notice in the actual usage of the aircraft. And you need to have a way of communicating this back to the maintenance people. That's what a defect reporting system is for, too. Not just for stuff that would normally ground an aircraft.
I find it perfectly normal that an aircraft that's 20+ years old will have "issues", and I fully understand that not all issues are an immediate threat to flight safety. So if an aircraft has, say, five defects written up, I take a look at those defects and decide for myself whether it's safe to fly, taking in consideration the law, the POH and the mission.
At my club we operate an electronic defect report system (actually approved by the IVW) where any pilot can report defects, any other pilot can record comments (like a validation of a defect, or a simple "didn't happen to me"), the desk can ground the aircraft or limit its mission capability (VFR only for instance) and the maintenance people can close defect reports. And this works quite well. Even for very minor defects.
Last Friday I noticed that one of the planes canopy lock didn't work - the key would get in but it could not turn. Meaning that we cannot lock this aircraft for the night; anybody can get in overnight if they have access to the aircraft. Not a problem at our (secured) airport, but it is a problem in a weeks time when the aircraft will be parked for a weekend at a less secure airport.
I consulted with the desk and the engineers, and both asked me simply to file a defect in the defect report database. That way they would not forget to put some penetrating oil in it at the next opportunity, and check it again a few days later. Obviously I made it clear in the defect report that the canopy latch would work as designed and it's just the key lock that didn't work. Flight safety is not compromised at all so there are no limitations placed on the aircraft. But the maintenance guys know they have to take a look somewhere in the next few days.
Now to be honest: How many maintenance outfits will actually try and lock the canopy with the key, to see if the mechanism works, during a 50/100/annual check? I would assume that they've got more important things to check, so this is something that only pilots will notice in the actual usage of the aircraft. And you need to have a way of communicating this back to the maintenance people. That's what a defect reporting system is for, too. Not just for stuff that would normally ground an aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I don't get in this whole discussion is why people are really so afraid to write up problems with the aircraft. It almost seems as if a defect that's been put on paper is an immediate cause for indefinite grounding of the aircraft, without exception. And that's definitely not the case, as far as I'm concerned.
A lot of defects are not enough to ground the plane; for example when I started training I complained that the fuel gauges were completely useless. It was carefully explained to me that all spamcan fuel gauges are completely useless. As an engineer, I was a bit shocked... but the school was right in stopping me making a report. Now I know this is true... all the old fuel gauges are indeed almost completely useless.
A lot of avionics are INOP and this is completely normal in the training scene; it is OK for any amount of nav gear to be duff, in a plane which is used for PPL training. The legality gets a bit marginal if the said plane enters IMC, but in theory this never happens (the little bit of IMC experience in the PPL can be done under the hood). But if it did happen (which is very possible if the plane is rented out, etc) and there is evidence of illegal equipment carriage... luckily there is no known case of the UK CAA ever going after a school for anything like this (or anything else?). If nothing is written down, everybody is safe.
A lot of planes have defects which really should be fixed immediately but it is more convenient to defer the fix to the next service, when the MO is quietly asked how much it would cost, and is there a cheaper option, etc.
I used to get really p1ssed off with what went on, and I was glad to get that piece of paper, so I could rent something slightly better, and I bought my own plane as soon as I got a chance. Now I see things are a bit better in that there are more options, with some schools operating better quality hardware. I think 10 years ago was a low point in the UK PPL training scene.
As a renter you can report stuff, and if you have a choice of places to rent from then you have more options. But almost nobody will do the proverbial on their own doorstep.
As a based owner you cannot take any kind of risk, especially if hangarage is involved.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The stuff I've had to fly sometimes made me think out loud; does anything at all need to be in working condition for a flight?
Radios that are terrible, inop landing, inop taxi, inop bcn, engines that must be
kept low on oil (4qts) as otherwise it spits it out, inop flaps, inop parking brake, inop nav, oil service lid locking mechanism inop and taped down with gaffer tape, etc.
It's amazing. I can't wait to own my own aircraft soon.
Radios that are terrible, inop landing, inop taxi, inop bcn, engines that must be
kept low on oil (4qts) as otherwise it spits it out, inop flaps, inop parking brake, inop nav, oil service lid locking mechanism inop and taped down with gaffer tape, etc.
It's amazing. I can't wait to own my own aircraft soon.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK, mainly
Age: 40
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect the reason for the SR20 fuel quirk lies behind the tank shape coupled with the wing dihedral, since the bottom of the filler neck (one very nice machined component) is a little way below the top of the tank. It is however a noticeable effect and can catch people out - often the more experienced people who attempt to use sense rather than blind acceptance 
.
The DA42 (and G1000 equipped DA40) has 2 methods of assessing the fuel on board. The easiest to use is the totaliser but as you say this relies on understanding the system and using it correctly. A particular hazard in the DA42 with long range tanks in the nacelles which have no extra gauges and have to be filled to the absolute brim to guarantee 76+ USG on board. The main tanks have capacitance gauges which are in general very accurate but don't take full account of the tank shape. From experience they can indicate slightly more than the totaliser when decreasing past 20USG/side but then become progressively more accurate again. Fuel reserves are especially important in diesel aircraft because any air locks in the system can only be cleared on the ground so any unbalanced flight or manoeuvring with low fuel can be rather embarrassing! Quite hard to explain this to a more experienced colleague when he handed a DA40 over to me with 4USG left (fuel burn 5.5USG at 70% power) and no apparent understanding of the issue...
.The DA42 (and G1000 equipped DA40) has 2 methods of assessing the fuel on board. The easiest to use is the totaliser but as you say this relies on understanding the system and using it correctly. A particular hazard in the DA42 with long range tanks in the nacelles which have no extra gauges and have to be filled to the absolute brim to guarantee 76+ USG on board. The main tanks have capacitance gauges which are in general very accurate but don't take full account of the tank shape. From experience they can indicate slightly more than the totaliser when decreasing past 20USG/side but then become progressively more accurate again. Fuel reserves are especially important in diesel aircraft because any air locks in the system can only be cleared on the ground so any unbalanced flight or manoeuvring with low fuel can be rather embarrassing! Quite hard to explain this to a more experienced colleague when he handed a DA40 over to me with 4USG left (fuel burn 5.5USG at 70% power) and no apparent understanding of the issue...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK, mainly
Age: 40
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radios that are terrible, inop landing, inop taxi, inop bcn, engines that must be kept low on oil (4qts) as otherwise it spits it out, inop flaps, inop parking brake, inop nav, oil service lid locking mechanism inop and taped down with gaffer tape, etc.
Engines will naturally find their own oil level, since every engine is different. Despite the same manufacturing process every engine out there produces very slightly different power characteristics for example... There is however a delicate balance between not overfilling an engine with oil (eg attempting to keep Lycoming O235 lumps at 6qts all the time is pointless and just leads to a hot oily smell shortly after start, they're much happier kept just above 5qts) and leaving one so low that it's constantly burning it - 4 really should be an absolute minimum for smaller GA engines, not a starting point!
