"It's good"? ... Say what!?!

[Mitch Cronin]

Waiting on the bridge to take an airplane back to the hangar for an A check last night... The Cap'n comes out to start readying his stuff for the trudging yet to be done... and I ask him "How's the airplane?" ...

"It's good." he says just before another return up front for something...

When he reappears, I say, "So, no troubles, no complaints?

He say's, well, I did write up some trouble with the seat back, but other than that, and a bunch of stuff already there, it's allright."....

..Hmmm?.... thinks me...

Sure enough, a very healthy garden of little pink rectangled stickers had been growing on the face of the log book!

"It's good"?!?? Good grief man, please don't ever get to the point that a half a cover's worth of stickers is ho hum!! That beast was badly in need of some time in the barn!

I'm sure you guys can probably all fly a '59 VW van with 4 different kinds of bald tires and no starter motor, that pops out of 3rd gear all the time and misses like a pig in the rain, if someone nailed wings to the rusted out running boards...

...and yeah, Boeing built your rides better than VW ever did...

But Geeez Louise!!! Please don't ever get so comfortable that you call that "good"! ... I mean, just because nothing new (more serious than some trouble with the seatback) broke, that doesn't mean that old VW is a good standard!

No sir, it wasn't so "good". Our customers deserve better... and so do you.

Hopefully we managed to turn out something a wee bit closer to "good" this morning.

Cheers,

Mitch

[Homerun]

Sadly, the collage of pink stickers on the log book cover is the norm these days.

[Guest long keel]

Mitch,

I agree 100%!

I'm sure this guy probably thought since there weren't any new MEL items, and didn't want to approach you negatively. Pilots know its not the individual AME's to blame for any airplane that has numerous MEL's on C schedules in process, it is usually a parts shortage that is outside of your control. Good CRM means dealing with individuals in a way that fosters positive not hostile communication. I'm sure that is why things occured as they did.

Cheers,

lk

[ChicoChico]

Hi Mitch,

An interesting point you make. We have a chronic pink-whiteout (pinkout?) these days especially on the 767. I don't know if I am typical but I ASSUME that you the mechanic meeting the flight is aware of all the current MEL deferrals. What I would say is what's broke and what's logged since we took the airplane over. I might also remark on an existing snag if something happened to make it better or worse or if comments were solicited in the logbook.

What you are raising here is a basic communication breakdown. You ask: "how the plane?" We reply: "Fine!"

You mean: "What is the state of the aircraft all things considered?"

We mean; "Nothing changed since the last mechanic checked the aircraft"

Now if you are suggesting we should FIX some of these outstanding deferrals - put me down in favour of that!

I think next time a mechanic asks me the question I will reply "what do you mean?"

Cheers Rick

[Guest rattler]

Mitch, I would guess he was intimidated by your new "do".

[boestar]

Mitch:

We have the same problem here. MELs get out of hand and then all of a sudden they are the most important thing in the world. We manage to get the MELs to the bare minimum and then after a few weeks they are way up.

I find alot of times we tend to ignore the MELs that are already on the aircraft, unless they are due, in favour of just doing tonights work. It is the wrong atitude but it happens way too aften. MELs on day 9 (for example) and noone has looked at them. Then we are in a mad scramble to get it all fixed.

Parts are the usual issue and if we do not act fast the MEL may expire before the part has arrived.

It is good to see you still care about delivering a quality product to the crew and passengers... Refreshing.

B

[Mitch Cronin]

Interesting comments... From his perspective, it may be that he was trying to keep things positive, and I hadn't considered he might have assumed I knew of all the snags already.

If the airplane had been staying on the ramp to be handled by our guys there. maybe they would have known already... (maybe not)... in my case, I only found out what airplane we were heading out to pick up moments before we left the hangar... So I knew nothing of it's current state until I saw the book.

I hope it's obvious I'm not complaining about the communication between us here.... Rather, I'm trying to illuminate the potential for all of us to get too comfortable with multiple MEL's... I'd rather hear, (or I guess, more accurately, I'd rather everyone in the company -especially those in a position to effect change- hear...) in a case like that, an honest assessment of the overall state of the machine... Not that I think that particular bit of communication is heard elsewhere, but the echo's of it may linger in further talks...

If a mechanic taking the airplane on for the night has the words "it's a heap of snags" ringing in his ears when his boss asks him how his airplanes are, or what kind of night he's having, he's liable to pass that along... and possibly even make some more time for it (if able), than he is if the words he's heard were "it's good", or even, "no new troubles".

I think y'all get my meaning... What we want is good, properly functioning, safe machinery. If we get comfortable with the normalization of deviations ( ) we could get uncomfortably close to something less.

Cheers,

Mitch

[Vsplat]

Mitch, I think your comments need to be inserted about 4 management levels higher in the organisation.

There are those whose horizons go only from cost to profit, and really feel no personal connection to safety. Some of them don't even work for the airline, yet are pulling strings. To these folks, unless the law will stop the operation, then there is no reason to fix the problem.

Oh, and did I mention they have an ego that would make pilots look meek? Try telling one of these bright lights that their idea would be a direct contributor to an accident. The response is almost never a reversal, more likely to be "well, you will just have to find a way to make it work". In other words, I've made up my mind, don't distract me with the facts, and don't you ever again suggest I could be wrong.

So that brings the pressure points down to those with a licence. Are you prepared to sign it out? Am I prepared to take it? And when we say no, just who the heck do we think we are?

The trouble, of course, is we know exactly who and what we are. It is the bright light, fed corporate spin and pre-negotiation swill, that has either forgotten or never got who and what we are. They dismiss as ego and pay strategy what is simply an attempt to share what the rest of the world and its regulators have known and cast in law, for years, and for some very good reasons.

Just like the attitude that created the Challenger accident with a school teacher on board, the marketeers indeed have equated operating an aircraft with that old VW you cite.

So, I am with you in spirit. The MEL is supposed to be a way to get the aircraft safely to maintenance, not a scheduling tool.

It is too bad that the two groups, AMEs and pilots, are not more united. Maybe not too late for a new year's resolution.

Cheers

Vs

[ccairspace]

It is good to see you still care about delivering a quality product to the crew and passengers... Refreshing.

Right on!

It is too bad that the two groups, AMEs and pilots, are not more united.  Maybe not too late for a new year's resolution.

The juxtaposition of those two thoughts got me thinking about the "airplane" as an entity. I then moved onto the philosophical chicken/egg conundrums. (OK. I'm tired. My brain does that when I'm tired... ) I began to slowly strip away the non-essentials; to try to reduce the "airplane" to its essential essence. Gone were investors and corporate heirarchy. Gone were the rampies, the baggage handlers, groomers and flight attendants. Gone were the pilots, avionics techs and mechanics. Then I stripped away the non-essential stuff from the airplane itself, such as fancy paint jobs, cushy seats, in-flight entertainment etc. etc. The airplane simply stood there, in its nakedness, waiting. All those people stood quietly on the sidelines, waiting. It was then that it struck me. Without the mechanic the "airplane" was nothing more than a big lawn ornament!

From ultrallights to big airplanes, in order to allow the "airplane" to perform as it was designed to do, the essential operators are the mechanics and the pilots. Everything and everyone else is extra.

Which then led me to wonder when and why the chasm between the two groups developed. (I'm sure there is a history lesson there, if anyone reading knows the details.) And then it struck me what a huge powerful group, union or otherwise, would exist if pilots and mechanics worked together - as a unit, not to simply giving lip-service support to each others' causes - to promote aviaiton safety. Is it really simply an ego issue among the pilots? Lack of self-esteem among the mechanics as a group? Could support from pilots help raise the mechanics to a different level in the job description heirarchy? Could such a professional (?) job reclassification give mechanics, as a group and individually, more clout when it came to keeping our airplanes in GOOD working order?

Just a few contemplative thoughts on a Friday morning...

ccairspace

[JL]

Have a look at how the military treats/promotes/educates maintenance engineers vs. pilots. A good chunk of civil aviation in Canada is founded upon the military way of doing business from the basic fact that there has been, and still is, a steady migration of pilots from the military moving to the regulator and the industry. The military hierarchy of pilot above engineer follows those folks transitioning to industry and the division between the two groups is perpetuated.

[CAT3DUAL]

A couple of months back I decided to exercise my command authority in regard to a mit full of MEL's that I decided not to except the Aircraft, which naturally caused a lengthy delay while they tried to convince me that it was good to go. Basically good to go or not I was not accepting the aircraft in present shape. In the end of the day I got my way, and the aircraft was haul off to the hangar for some TLC. The mtc guy that was there through the whole process, had remain silent until the final decision had been made, at which point he said, if more of you guys put your foot down on some of this issues it would make life a lot easier for the guys back at the hanger, or something to that effect. I get the general impression that the guys back at the barn want to get these things fixed, but under a great amount of pressure to get them out flying.

This particular bus was caring something like 5 operational snags that inhibited are ability to do the job.

[conehead]

I get the general impression that the guys back at the barn want to get these things fixed, but under a great amount of pressure to get them out flying.

Right on! You hit the nail on the head! Occasionally, I will take an unneccesary delay if I happen to have the right part to fix a snag. MOC would rather I MEL everything, and achieve on-time performance. But, it gets frustrating. Yes, we would rather fix the snags than defer them, but all Management cares about is achieving sched.

[Gumbi]

MEL's, pink stickers.... what the heck are you talking about guys?

Where I work, they're not pink but yellow, and we've seen fewer and fewer of those over the last 5 years! Must have to do with fleet simplification and an excellent maintenance program!

[beaverboy]

MEL's, pink stickers.... what the heck are you talking about guys?

Where I work, they're not pink but yellow, and we've seen fewer and fewer of those over the last 5 years! Must have to do with fleet simplification and an excellent maintenance program!

When did you start working for Westjet? By the way the stickers are orange, not yellow.

[Gumbi]

When did you start working for Westjet?     By the way the stickers are orange, not yellow.

O.K., let's split halfway... how about amber?

I'm sure WS is great, but I'm very happy where I am! (especially since I don't see much amber any more)

[Mitch Cronin]

I may need to put some perspective on this...

I don't want to give the impression that our machines aren't being well maintained. They are. And indeed, I'm sure the oldest, most problem plagued a/c in our fleet would measure up fairly well to most a/c maintained in the US, for example. But I'm of the opinion that we allow more legal excursions down the road toward unserviceable aircraft than is wise from either a safety standpoint or an economic one. (and I'm not a fan of in-practice US maintenance standards!)

It's a well accepted concept in other walks of life... "A stitch in time", "Pay me now, or pay me later" Add some mortar now, or replace some bricks later... Replace the car's timing belt before it breaks and forces you to rebuild the engine... spend some time winterizing the cottage in the fall, or much more time replacing broken things in the spring... etc... We do it to the extent mandated by various authorities of course, but only just, and it surprises me how hard it is for that simple concept to be grasped by those who manage the jelly beans.

Gumbi, it's good to hear you have such an excellent maintenance program... But if that's a bit of a swelled chest I'm detecting there, would it be a good thing to remind you just how it is the improvements in your maintenance department came about? Not intended as a dig... just a friendly poke to point out that humble is both more appealing, and occasionally owed. My apologies if I imagined that swelled chest, and only humble pride was your mindset.

Thanks, everyone, for all your comments... Ccairspace, I'm with you.

Cheers,

Mitch

[Don Hudson]

Gumbi;

re

Where I work, they're not pink but yellow, and we've seen fewer and fewer of those over the last 5 years! Must have to do with fleet simplification and an excellent maintenance program!

Thanks for posting your comments.

No swelled chest there...just plain, hard fact. Your stickers are getting fewer because you guys now "get it".

If anyone should hear Mike DiLollo's excellent presentation, its...

[Gumbi]

Gumbi, it's good to hear you have such an excellent maintenance program... But if that's a bit of a swelled chest I'm detecting there, would it be a good thing to remind you just how it is the improvements in your maintenance department came about? Not intended as a dig... just a friendly poke to point out that humble is both more appealing, and occasionally owed. My apologies if I imagined that swelled chest, and only humble pride was your mindset.

Mitch, no offense taken...

Actually, if you reread my post, you'll see that I might be hinting at what you were thinking of, it was indeed a bit tongue in cheek, but as Don posted above, since Michael's nomination, which coincided with a period of restructuring at our company, we've seen a lot of changes, and all for the best I should add.

Mind you, our fleet is probably less troublesome now that it was then... only two types, and although I still miss the L10, it was a lot more "mechanically" demanding!

Still, I have to give a big to all our AMEs!

[Don Hudson]

Gumbi; I don't know any other way to say this than bluntly. You guys learned how to balance the business end with the aviation end and we know it didn't come without a cost and Mike's presentation helps everyone he talks to see this. Trouble is, he's preaching largely to the choir - a safety audience. It is instead, a presentation that every senior airline executive, regardless of organization, should see, hear, and take very, very seriously. The operational question to be asked every day is: "Are we safe?". It doesn't imply anything about not being safe; not at all. Rather, it is an attitude which does not tolerate compromise. Yet it seems the first message sidelined or taken for granted in the intoxication of good times and good quarters.

This business is a harsh and unpredictable mistress which, if not paid attention to, can become a Dorian Grey in mere seconds. So long as the fundamentals are paid attention to and the stated number one priority isn't just so many words in a magazine or a dusty old poster in an unkempt room, she can be almost tamed. Vsplat is right; Challenger and now Columbia have lessons but only for those with eyes. The balance and, more critically, the awareness of the business one is actually in, must be there and that awareness must be transmitted right from the top, down. If cuts, cuts, cuts in resources are all that enamour the leaders and the planners in this business, regardless of size there can be old and much firmer lessons in store. Yet the message seems mysteriously difficult to convey. As in NASA, there seems a veil through which only certain things could be seen before the O-rings or the foam did their work. This is the message in William Starbuck's article, Challenger: Fine-tuning the Odds Until Something Breaks.

The veil is lifted voluntarily, or it is forced by the immediacy of circumstance. Like I say, you guys get it.

[Don Hudson]

Cat3Dual;

Re

This particular bus was caring something like 5 operational snags that inhibited are ability to do the job.

Sometimes five snags are a whogas, and sometimes 2 snags are a "no-go" for the crew regardless of what it says in the MEL. If the radar is u/s and we're going south in summer, the airplane doesn't leave until the radar's working. If the trim air valves are not working correctly or the sensors for same are u/s and they are delivering 15C air into the cabin with no control, the airplane stays on the ground until they're fixed or there's a new aircraft. If there are few operational concerns with five or six snags in the book, the Captain, in concert with the crew, are authorized by the MEL Preamble to make an operational decision as to whether the aggregate effect of the individual snags is enough to set the park brake until the items are dealt with. An unserviceable cabin pressure controller may or may not be such a snag depending upon crew workload. At best, its a very busy task for the crew, but in weather, in winter, or combined with any other snag that also demands the crew's attention, is "no-go", whether the MEL says we can go or not. Anti-ice valves? If the crew ascertains that the enroute and destination weather is not an issue, likely the anti-ice valves are not either. However, if the Captain determines that the airplane gets fixed, the phrase employed is, "we're done talking here".

Its obvious to us all, as professionals I think... We know the airline has passengers to deliver on time. It would be equally incorrect I think to blanket-ground an airplane for a load of pink tags which may not have a significant effect upon the operation as it would to take an aircraft where there's only 1 pink tag and even though the MEL permits it, it would have a deleterious effect on the operation.

Its been wisely said many times here by others..the best safety tool in the cockpit is the park brake, then the brain....

[Mitch Cronin]

There's a devil inside me that wants to suggest a sticker for every snag the airplane flies with, but the books aren't big enough and I've gotta keep that devil in check.

Do you gents familiarize yourselves with computer maintenance records( "Artos", or "Amtac" at AC) ever?

Or do you ever examine the engineering variances ("production permits" at AC) issued to your aircraft?

In my opinion, if you were to assign an appropriate colour to the fifth MEL sticker, in most cases it would be flashing red to indicate the tip of an iceberg that's large enough to warrant a full stop telegraph call, immediately followed by a stand-by for reverse. By the time that fifth sticker is applied, it's usually been too long since the aircraft has had the down time for the attention it ought to have, in many areas not shown by those stickers.

[Vsplat]

Ah, Mitch, you are openning Pandora's box.

Believe it or not, the pilot in command is required, BY LAW, to know exactly what is broken on the aircraft, all of it. Only in certain cultures has there been a filter placed on this information. I have been involved closely in certifying aircraft and can say with some confidence that, if the airworthiness and flight test folks had meant for all these "iceberg" items to have been invisible, they would have listed them in the Master MEL with appropriate annotation.

So where does that leave us? I know some of these items are small, however others individually are cells that can come together under the right circumstances to form a larger entity. The person who observes the deviation, then elects not to inform the pilot in command, whether culturally permitted or otherwise, will one day be held out to dry in front of an investigation. Talk about a lose-lose.

Perhaps this is something that Don would care to comment on. I know it is certainly something I would like to see addressed.

Thanks for starting and contributing to this important thread.

Vs

[conehead]

Believe it or not, the pilot in command is required, BY LAW, to know exactly what is broken on the aircraft, all of it.

You would not believe how many times I have been called to an aircraft for a snag which, I find, is already on MEL. Often, the pilots do not read the logbook!

[boestar]

We actually require Flt Ops approval for an aircraft to carry more thwn 3 MELs. Sometimes they approve it sometimes they do not. It does help in keeping the overall number down.

B

[Don Hudson]

boestar;

re

We actually require Flt Ops approval for an aircraft to carry more thwn 3 MELs.

I understand this and on the face of it, it seems to make good sense, but I can't help expressing a reservation about this way of doing it... Isn't that a bit of a conflict? I know the mandates of the various departments (or rather, "business units"? ) are far more complex than can be reasonably discussed in a forum, but the pressure to keep the operation going these days is significant. I'm not sure the "accelerator and brake departments" can be the same. Sorry, not questioning the actual process so much as exploring it for the moment.