What is it about proper maintenance that you guys don't get?

[Mitch Cronin]

As I've read various comments here among the wisdom and gold, I've been befuddled by an apparent attitude among some of you that makes it plain that you don't expect well maintained aircraft... or you don't know what well maintained aircraft are??

What gives?

Aircraft are supposed to be maintained to tight standards set out by their manufacturers as well as the relevant regulating bodies in the countries within which they're operated. It's a simple concept.... when they are maintained to those standards, they're going to perform as advertised... All of that which is required for safe flight will perform as advertised... ...and anything that is inoperative will either be of a non-airworthiness nature, or it's lack of serviceability will be acceptable for a given period of time and with whatever restrictions as stated in manuals such as the MEL or CDL... in which case there will still be "as advertised" performance and capabilities to be found in writing.

If you believe any of the above is not the case with the machines you're flying, why on earth would you take the aircraft aloft?

I'm not a fool.... I recognize there are situations where Leroy's Farm Supply, Flyin' Feed and Charter company might need to get an aircraft back home from Timbuktamungaming in a somewhat less than perfectly serviceable state... But if you're leaving "home" - or any place where the fix's can be made, with anything less than serviceable, you're the fool.
And if you're doing that with any others on board, you're a hazard and you need to get that fixed.

"Serviceable" does mean "as advertised" by the way.

[Jet Dog]

have you flown with an operator yet? Sure we love to fly the best and tightest ship (just the way I like my women ) but ultimately the company cuts corners etc etc, some are worse than others. Pilots have very little influence. Don't wanna fly it cause its not tip top? Well in comes the next guy who payed for the PPC, he'll do it, and you'lll find yourself on the street sooner or later, only to have the same problems with another company. However judgement should be used, if the problem is regarding flight safety, absolutly not, I wouldn't, let that guy with the newly bought PPC take it, however I don't know of any company out there that has asked a pilot to fly an unsafe plane, nor a pilot who has accepted to fly such said machine.

[. .]

Mitch I totally agree with what you're saying. However, I truly believe that at many companies there's a definate culture of "lets get the job done with little regard for defered snags or other pesky regulations that are really meant for the guys down south." I think that a lot of companies only see you as a hard worker if you're out pushing the limits, and flying within the gray areas most of the time. Perhaps I've just been unlucky and have worked at companies where this exists. It still seems strange every day I come into work now and have absolutely no pressure to go out and push things. I've never in my life had a boss that's told me before "if you don't like it, don't go. It's that simple, call me and I'll support any decision you make". That's the way it should be, but is definately not what the average pilot faces.

[CID]

Jetdog,

You're what's known in the industry as a "bold" pilot.

however I don't know of any company out there that has asked a pilot to fly an unsafe plane, nor a pilot who has accepted to fly such said machine.

Either you're lucky or you don't read the newspapers. Here are a few companies off the top of my head:

Jetsgo
Skyward
Keystone

If you want to keep track, visit this site once in awhile:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/RegSe ... ummary.htm

[Mitch Cronin]

As Jet Dog's post accidentally points out, Endless, it's in your hands, collectively, to correct that.

From the first days of training, pilots should have these notions drilled into their skulls. If one pilot refuses an airplane because it's not serviceable, and along comes Happy Jack the hack who's willing to fly anything for a buck, Jack needs to be reported.

In maintenance, it's illegal to "shop around" for a signature... If one AME refuses to sign, and the boss tries to get someone else to sign, that needs to be reported as well, along with whatever the particular transgression is. Is shopping for a pilot for similar purposes not also illegal?

If all understand these transgressions will be frowned upon by the majority, and it's understood that anyone who accepts a risk that it's written shall not be accepted, or signs that which shouldn't be signed, is likely to be reported.... that behaviour would soon disappear.

Flight safety is right for a lot of reasons, if the "rat" label is feared, it need not be when it involves matters of flight safety. "Rat's" don't care about anything other than themselves. People who stand their ground and speak up for reasons of flight safety, do care... they're not "rats".

I suspect a lot of what goes on is due to ignorance... Though it can't be ignorance by all invlolved... I'm sure that frequently the pilot just doesn't know that what he's flying would be considered un-airworthy... but the AME who signed for it must know!... and similarly, if a pilot doesn't write something up that would effect the airworthiness of the machine... how can the AME be expected to know all?.... But that comes to ignorance too really, doesn't it?.... The "safety culture" that exists for Pilots and AME's alike, needs to be one, from the beginning, that ingrains these basic concepts into them.

I think we'll see that yet, but in the mean while, there are a lot of dangerous situations just waiting to cause trouble... The relics who were brought up in less than safe "cultures", both in the cockpits and on the hangar floors need attitude adjustments. Hopefully most of that can come without the ultimate lessons that the finality of failure and hindsight can provide.

(Jet Dog, if it's not obvious yet, I don't fly for a living... I do hold a very old and largely unused PPL, but my profession is as an AME.)

[N2]

Well all I can say is I trust my AME 110% to make the decision whether my plane is ready to fly or not! If he says my plane is good to go I have no reason to doubt it but if he says something needs to be fixed before if flies again then it stays put!

[twinpratts]

'Ground tested serviceable'... or 'could not replicate problem on ground'...
released serviceable.

How do you deal with THAT reality, Know-it all?

[Airtids]

Additionally, it has been my experience that there is ALWAYS another job for the pilot who said NO. The same can't be said for the pilot who always said yes. If an employer turns you away because you admit to having turned down an unsafe work situation, do you really want to be employed there? Didn't think so.

[Doc]

Ah yes, the old maint question. Methinks the truth lies somewhere in the middle. First off, I've flown with guys who bitch and moan about stuff that doesn't work. In many cases, they have made no attempt to even inform the maint guys that a problem exists. Then I've worked for companies that have naint depts that should go to jail!
Now at the risk of having our resident "I know everything about aviation, and my shit dowen't stink, because I'm so wonderful" you know who, refer to me as "part of the problem" or a "bold" pilot, I bloody KNOW what I can put up with, and what NEEDS to be fixed. And I am more than willing to put up with some snags that are "on order" to help make things run smoother. MEL's notwithstanding, of course.
The guys who fly around in unairworthy aircraft have only themselves to blame. I dont agree with the attitude that "the next guy willin to buy a PPC" will take my place! But there is middle ground....I KNOW...not in the CARS at times....but in the real world! But then you'd have to have a one time actually have flown in the real world to have a clue! There are flights that can be made with safety with one navcom.....perhaps not YYZ-ORD?
I have NEVER come across a maint department that with a little mutual respect, and communications haven't bent over backwards to try and solve problems....I had a couple that were incapable ot solving these problems....but even they were willing to try.

[CID]

Well all I can say is I trust my AME 110%

This may sound flip and please don't take it that way, but I always consider the relationship more 50/50. The AME doesn't always know the various operating rules that may be affected by deferred maintenance.

The pilot on the other hand has to rely on the AME's knowledge about the regulations to know what the minimum equipment required from the standpoint of the type certificate.

In private and 703 ops it's important to build a close relationship with your AMEs. Trust is earned over time.

In 704/705 ops it's sometimes a little harder to do because the airplane is often left at the gate and the AMEs never see the pilots.

It's much easier to control things on larger aircraft operating 704 or 705 rules because the airlines are required to have provisions in place to control dispatch. MELs and CDLs are more common to help interpret the rules too.

The totally uncalled for negetive remarks regarding flying with only one comm were just that...uncalled for. There are flights that can be made with safety with one navcom.....perhaps not YYZ-ORD?

I don't recall stating the route, but it really depends on the airplane. For transport category airplanes two coms are required equipment period. For small airplanes they're not. So I guess it depends if you want to risk being in a position explaining why you had an inflight total COM failure in your Cessna 500 because you took off with only one operating.

[Doc]

N2...dont ever trust anybody 110%. Dont loose touch with the fact that it is your ass in the airplane......
And CID, I'm in a far better position to know what is good for ME to go with than you will EVER be.....so you could save us all much aggravtion if you would kindly stop pontificating as if you have some knowledge the rest of us are unaware of?

[CID]

And CID, I'm in a far better position to know what is good for ME to go with than you will EVER be.....so you could save us all much aggravtion if you would kindly stop pontificating as if you have some knowledge the rest of us are unaware of?

It is all too obvious that there are a bunch of pilots on this board that don't know what they are doing. Don't agree? Fine.

If you don't like what I write, then just delete it. You've done it before. You're the moderator. Moderate.

[Doc]

CID....I dont delete your posts...where did you get that idea. I do however (and I dont think I'm alone here) who take offence to remarks like the one about "a bunch of pilots on this board dont know what they're doing." That is a remark you cant back up. It's down right ignorant! If you want to jump into every thread and quote CARS etc. that's your right. Have at it. But I dont think you have the personal experience to be calling the shots you call. Do you? You come across like a "know-it-all"...like you know everything, and you're just dealing with a bunch of know nothing dumb ass pilots....is this how you really feel? If you have some wisdom.....of your own, not quotes from gov regs, because we can all read.....do share it with us.
You see the pilots on this board are in the real world...you are not. At most, there are a few who have a lot to learn....but you're there to show them the way....right?

[xsbank]

IMHO, if you take an unserviceable a/c into the air, you have forfeited the right to call yourself "professional," as per the other thread. "Getting the job done" or "gotta beat the weather" or whatever excuse you come up with notwithstanding.

Just as a little test, ask your passengers if they would prefer to wait a couple of hours or would they like you to 'try' and get them home with a small mechanical problem.

As somebody has already stated, its your ass that's being exposed to enforcement, not to mention that the pilots always get to the scene of the crash first. I remember a long time ago a woman I met, crying that she and her two kids were penniless because her husband's estate had been sued by the families of her husband's passengers and there was no insurance money left. Her house had been seized and she was having to leave town.

Again, IMHO, if its installed in the a/c, it has to work. If it doesn't, and you won't fix it, take the useless piece of crap out of the a/c. That's the way it looks from here.

[Hornblower]

N2...dont ever trust anybody 110%. Dont loose touch with the fact that it is your ass in the airplane......
And CID, I'm in a far better position to know what is good for ME to go with than you will EVER be.....so you could save us all much aggravtion if you would kindly stop pontificating as if you have some knowledge the rest of us are unaware of?

Good post.

As an AME/pilot I couldn't agree with you more. No doubt a straight pilot (I don't mean sexual preference either) needs to have some trust in the maintenance people, however the pilot must be aware, and knowledgeable enough, to be able to make solid, well informed, decisions that only he is responsible for.

As for CID, you get way to involved in trying to argue with him. He really is so ignorant of the reality of the industry and rules governing it, it’s pointless to try and address his uninformed commentary; I just skip over it.

[Doc]

xsbank...you must live in a perfect world. Nobody said anything about flying with something that could affect safety...I know I didn't. And, if asked, my pax would far rather make their way home with a fuel guage inop...knowing it was full on departure...than spend the night in YPM!
I dont know your history, but I'd be very surprised, providing you actually operate an aircraft, if you have never flown without something working.
Do you know how many emergency exits are actully allowed to be u/s and an airliner, like a 767 is still legal to fly? They dont all have to work! Or one, of your two glide slope receivers? Or a land light? Or maybe your VOR is u/s, and you go with just your dual INS's, dual GPS's and dual ADF's.....how would that jeorpordize safety? I've been in NEW aircraft where something doesent work. Here is where we use a little common sence? Perhaps?

[oldncold]

1/ OWNER is responsible for maintaining the a/c to the required standard

2/ The A.M.E. is responsible for ensuring that the work performed meets
the required standard.

3/ the pilot in Command signs the acceptance for the a/c prior to
he/she starting the first flight of his or her day/night.

4/ once this is done it is our a/c don't want to sign
then see #1

any questions.?

[Mitch Cronin]

'Ground tested serviceable'... or 'could not replicate problem on ground'...
released serviceable.

How do you deal with THAT reality, Know-it all?

Twinpratts, if it's me you're calling a "Know-it-all", you've pegged me wrong laddie... to borrow a line from a friend: "you tink I know f#%& nothing!? Hah, I tell you, I know f$%& all!

In any case, in answer to your question, If it was anything that could reasonably be expected to be able to be duplicated on the ground, I'd take it if it was a first time snag, and such an answer was acceptable (depending what the snag was, of course), but if it was something that would obviously not show up on the ground, required more of an answer, or was a repeat of a nasty snag, I'd leave it on the ground... and maybe talk to the chief pilot about insisting on a test flight or some kind of further proof of fitness?.. or until I was otherwise satisfied of it's state of fitness.
I don't really know how things go in the puddle hopper end of this business, but I do know that answer comes too often. ... I've seen it too, when further testing, or proof would be required... some folks think their primary responsibility is to push production and get the machines filled and back into the air, regardless of written standards, rules and regs about what constitutes "airworthy" ....but we know better, right?...

A good BS detector is almost a prerequisite for any job in this field, isn't it?

[Mitch Cronin]

1/ OWNER is responsible for maintaining the a/c to the required standard

2/ The A.M.E. is responsible for ensuring that the work performed meets
the required standard.

3/ the pilot in Command signs the acceptance for the a/c prior to
he/she starting the first flight of his or her day/night.

4/ once this is done it is our a/c don't want to sign
then see #1

any questions.?

2,a / The AME who declares the aircraft is in a fit and safe condition for further flight must reasonably and honestly believe the same is true, in both legality, and reality.

5/ ALL are required to excersize due dillegence.... IOW: If anyone is aware of any reason an aircraft should not be flying, he/she is required by law to take steps to spread that knowledge to prevent that from happening, or to be sure the decision is in the right hands, at least.

[CID]

Do you know how many emergency exits are actully allowed to be u/s and an airliner, like a 767 is still legal to fly? They dont all have to work! Or one, of your two glide slope receivers? Or a land light? Or maybe your VOR is u/s, and you go with just your dual INS's, dual GPS's and dual ADF's.....how would that jeorpordize safety? I've been in NEW aircraft where something doesent work. Here is where we use a little common sence? Perhaps?

One man's common sense is another's death sentence. That is why standards are developed.

Anyone who flys a 767 knows damn well how many unserviceable exits he/she can depart with and the loading limitations that come with it. Glideslope, VOR etc. Yes. Have you never heard of a couple of little things called the MEL and CDL? If you want to read up on it, here's a link (Doors are in chapter 52):

http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/applicatio ... /B_767.doc

Hornblower, once again, thanks for your support. I'd pat you on the head if I could.

[Hornblower]

If anyone is aware of any reason an aircraft should not be flying, he/she is required by law to take steps to spread that knowledge

What law would that be?

[Cat Driver]

Doc:

Rather than argue with CID about if he is a paper whizzard or if he knows how to actually fly an aircraft send him out to me and it will only take a few minutes to get back to with the true answer to your question.

[mellow_pilot]

Doc:

Rather than argue with CID about if he is a paper whizzard or if he knows how to actually fly an aircraft send him out to me and it will only take a few minutes to get back to with the true answer to your question.

Sorry Cat, we can't have that.

Capital punishment is illegal in Canada!

[CID]

What would you do Cat? Whine all over me?

Capital punishment is illegal in Canada!

I don't think Cat would kill me in his airplane. He's actually makes great sense when it comes to safety. There are a few pilots on AvCanada that have potential to kill me just by riding in their airplanes.

What law would that be?

The "hornblower" law!

Actually, there are all sorts of people that have been fined for failing to report unsafe practices and/or poor airplane condition. Besides that, we have SDRs which are mandatory and SECURITAS which provides a covert way to tell on someone.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/syste ... uritas.htm

[Cat Driver]

CID, naw I don't whine when I am doing check rides on pilots.

I just give them normal aircraft manouvers and note where they need to receive further training to be proficient.

Asuming of course they are capable of getting it off the ground in the first place.

Want to come out for a free evaluation?

Hell if you are one tenth as good at flying as you are at cut and paste and parrotting other peoples stats. and quoting CAR's I'll be impressed.

Let me know when you will arrive.

Cat