Or at least, a new phrase, for me only.

Receiving instructions about what to write as inop or not in an “A” Check, I first heard, related to aircaft maintenance the phrase:
USE COMMON SENSE, meaning more or less, do not comply any defect You spot, since it will affect check’s total time and the company will have to paid a fine..

I’m sure this “instructions” do no comply with CFR14, that out of memory said that a licensed personal should note, officially in a Log Book or dedicated paperwork, any defect.

Any input about?

Many Thanks

Apprentice wrote:

Or at least, a new phrase, for me only.

Receiving instructions about what to write as inop or not in an “A” Check, I first heard, related to aircaft maintenance the phrase:
USE COMMON SENSE, meaning more or less, do not comply any defect You spot, since it will affect check’s total time and the company will have to paid a fine..

I’m sure this “instructions” do no comply with CFR14, that out of memory said that a licensed personal should note, officially in a Log Book or dedicated paperwork, any defect.

Any input about?

Many Thanks

Anything you find during your inspection that isn't serviceable, you write up in the tech log for rectification, it's as simple as that.

I've had higher level management try to tell me to do otherwise, but I tell them where to go, because as a Licensed Aircraft Engineer I'm accountable only to my national aviation authority, as are you. Always remember, if it goes wrong it will be YOU who is held accountable.

Happy inspecting!

I think you may be misinterpreting the point of common sense. Where I work we are under the same pressure to write up squawks and also to not write up too much.
We don't use the term common sense, we use: out of scope and fit, form, function. that means when we have inspection we are to look at the items only in the area detailed in the work card and to make sure those items are functional and not beyond that. For instance we have lots of controversial write ups for appearance issues. The carrier doesn't care about appearance unless the passengers can see it so we aren't supposed to write it up. the same happens for a lot of mechanical assemblies we have some inspectors who write up missing data plates on non serially tracked items others don't because the manual says you don't need them on said assemblies.


As for being in the regs, its the air carrier that has the approved maintenance program saying what to look at and when. It is not necessarily your call to go above and beyond what the inspection calls for you to look at. That being said if it is safety of flight like the wing being missing you should address that.

Hi: sorry but I disagree with batlegroup62:

U.S’s Law says that:

1. 121.701 Maintenance log: Aircraft.
(a) Each person who takes action in the case of a reported or observed fail- ure or malfunction of an airframe, en- gine, propeller, or appliance that is critical to the safety of flight shall make, or have made, a record of that action in the airplane’s maintenance log.
(b) Each certificate holder shall have an approved procedure for keeping ade- quate copies of the record required in paragraph (a) of this section in the air- plane in a place readily accessible to each flight crewmember and shall put that procedure in the certificate hold- er’s manual.
There is no way to escape, once a defect is spotted, Mechanic or Inspector should open a Complaint.

(There was an airline mechanics that, while doing an Hyd service, spotted several cracks on wing to fuselage fairing area. He complainted them, a/c was grounded, mech was fired for reporting something out of his check,s spot. FAA give him the reason and He win a sue to the company, I believ for $35000)

Rgds

And 2. If MRO’s QA allow deviation from Law, MRO is as responsable as Airline, .

Please correct me if I’m wrong
Rgds

the chapter you are quoting is referring to what must be done once a discrepancy is found, I agree with you that once a discrepancy is written in the logbook or whatever system is in place the capture it it must be either repaired or deferred. However your initial question is about using common sense when performing an A check and being told to not write up to much. I attempted to explain that an A check is not that in depth and as such you only look at certain things for proper functionality and don't try to make the plane look and function as brand new.

Well, not to be an arm-chair lawyer here, but take a good reading of 14CFR121.701(a) (above), and 14CFR43.9(b).

Both state that action that is taken in response to an observed or reported fault shall be recorded. It doesn't say an observed or reported fault must be recorded.

My operator has added a little bit to it's general manual mandating that any observed fault be recorded, as well as any action taken in response to that fault.

I don't really know if there is a written obligation in the FAR's to record an observed defect. Never really looked, my employer's manual has been enough.

battlegroup62 is correct about scope of inspection. A mechanic can't just go around opening panels and/or performing checks outside the scope of the task or inspection he is currently performing. But, like in your example (citation if you have it, we don't like hear-say, do we) if the mechanic sees something while performing a task, he has the responsibility (at least under our general maintenance manual) to report the fault.

As for contract maintenance, 14CFR121.363(b), spells out that the responsibility for continued airworthiness of an aircraft rests with the certificate holder. That's why airlines send QA/QC audit teams to MROs.

I'm guessing this also answers your other thread.

Ok, and how to read them:
“observed failure or malfunction of an airframe, engine, propeller, or appliance that is critical to the safety of flight shall make, or have made, a record of that action in the airplane’s maintenance log.”

Rgds

Apprentice wrote:

Ok, and how to read them:
“observed failure or malfunction of an airframe, engine, propeller, or appliance that is critical to the safety of flight shall make, or have made, a record of that action in the airplane’s maintenance log.”

Rgds

That's selective reading. ALL the words are important and carry meaning, not just the ones you want to be important.

Can you imagine what the world would be like if we could just ignore certain words within a statute? It's ALL the words or NONE of the words.

fr8mech wrote:

That's selective reading. ALL the words are important and carry meaning, not just the ones you want to be important.

Can you imagine what the world would be like if we could just ignore certain words within a statute? It's ALL the words or NONE of the words.

I agree you seem to be taking certain things out of context to support your position.Therefore I will give an example I had recently on a plane just finishing a heavy check. As part of engine ground runs we do a walk around inspection. Well the brake indicators only have about 1/16 inch left and tire are like racing slicks, do I squawk it absolutely not. Why because the limit on the pin is flush and the tires are not showing cord, thus both items are still in limits. Will they be out of limits in one flight? most likely but the customer wants to get every landing and stop out of the tires and brakes. That is what common sense/ experience can mean when doing any check.

Apprentice wrote:

Hi: sorry but I disagree with batlegroup62:

U.S’s Law says that:

1. 121.701 Maintenance log: Aircraft.
(a) Each person who takes action in the case of a reported or observed fail- ure or malfunction of an airframe, en- gine, propeller, or appliance that is critical to the safety of flight shall make, or have made, a record of that action in the airplane’s maintenance log.
(b) Each certificate holder shall have an approved procedure for keeping ade- quate copies of the record required in paragraph (a) of this section in the air- plane in a place readily accessible to each flight crewmember and shall put that procedure in the certificate hold- er’s manual.
There is no way to escape, once a defect is spotted, Mechanic or Inspector should open a Complaint.

(There was an airline mechanics that, while doing an Hyd service, spotted several cracks on wing to fuselage fairing area. He complainted them, a/c was grounded, mech was fired for reporting something out of his check,s spot. FAA give him the reason and He win a sue to the company, I believ for $35000)

Rgds

And 2. If MRO’s QA allow deviation from Law, MRO is as responsable as Airline, .

Please correct me if I’m wrong
Rgds

you are correct! I once worked for a company and performed a PT6-50 Hot section where I found a burned fuel Nozzle, They didn't have a spare Nozzle and DEMANDED i not WRITE IT UP! I said I was signing off the Hot section Inspection on My Authority and it would be replaced or I wasn't going to close the engine up
(especially since i told them I'd need to have a New or reconditioned set of nozzles on hand when I opened the engine. They were betting I wouldn't need a new set and decided not to spend the $7500 to get a new set and also didn't buy the kit to repair the ones they had. For some reason they thought they could bully me into signing the inspection off. I had to call their Bluff! They found out that the local inspector a guy names Campbell had NO sense of humor and he nearly shut them down. whereupon they had to ask me to come back to work to finish their airplanes. Since I already knew they were LAME i demanded $5500 per airplane (upfront) BECAUSE i was then a contractor and not an employee. . I later met one of them at United during his interview for a supervisor position and declined to interview him. I had to disclose to the company lawyers how I came to know him.. He made out OK anyway and now works for American via America West.
I'll bet he cleaned up his act. You NEVER want to put yourself in a "trick bag" like that

strfyr51 wrote:

you are correct!

That's not what he's asking. He's asking if he has a legal obligation to write up an observed discrepancy. A literal reading of both 14CFR121.701(a) and 14CFR43.9(b) seem to indicate that it is not a legal duty or obligation. I suspect that's why my employer, in its general maintenance manual, has reworded the regulation to "aircraft maintenance personnel shall make a record...of each discrepancy they observe..." There is another paragraph for confirming a reported fault and then entering it in the logbook.

battlegroup62 wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

That's selective reading. ALL the words are important and carry meaning, not just the ones you want to be important.

Can you imagine what the world would be like if we could just ignore certain words within a statute? It's ALL the words or NONE of the words.

I agree you seem to be taking certain things out of context to support your position.Therefore I will give an example I had recently on a plane just finishing a heavy check. As part of engine ground runs we do a walk around inspection. Well the brake indicators only have about 1/16 inch left and tire are like racing slicks, do I squawk it absolutely not. Why because the limit on the pin is flush and the tires are not showing cord, thus both items are still in limits. Will they be out of limits in one flight? most likely but the customer wants to get every landing and stop out of the tires and brakes. That is what common sense/ experience can mean when doing any check.

Hi : Sorry but it's not same situation. If wear indicator shows at 1/6 a brake is still "Not Flush" and therefore it is operative, IAW AMM .
To compare apples to apples, let's say your brake indicator is flush. You are pressed not to take any action (even do not defer that item) or not to deactivate the brake...

FR8MEC: I would appreciate if You explain your CFR's interpretation

Thanks all/ rgds

What you are going through is absolutely normal for an inexperienced mechanic. With the exception of the rare inappropriate pressure from a poor leader, this is the burden every new mechanic is forced to bear. In time you will learn that no in service airframe is perfect and it’s not your role to change that. You are there to perform the assigned task as per the governing document provided. Each day in your new role you will learn more about ways airplanes are not perfect. That said: Of course you must document if you happen to see a safety issue, but do you really know enough at this point to make that determination?

Try to imagen the day when you have 30 plus years of experience. You will know for a fact that you could easily point out multiple serious defects on just about any airplane you work with no more information that current cycles and date of last C-check. You already know the defects are there before you even look. The difference between today and then is you will be ok with it because you have also learned about maintenance programs. On any particular day, you may just be lubing the gear on an A-check, and that sure sign of belly corrosion a few feet over will be taken care of at a C-24 check in a few weeks.

Imagine the day when you are actually comfortable signing for the conformity and airworthiness of a 30 year old airframe that has been sitting in the desert for six months after being recovered from a defunct carrier, and then being run through quick C check by a bunch of guys with no more experience than you have today. Scary eh?

Your boss is right. Maybe he is just not doing a good job of explaining his position. Interpretation of CFRs in this thread is a red herring discussion and not at all relevant to the realities of what you are going through. It will be OK. Keep learning.

Apprentice wrote:

FR8MEC: I would appreciate if You explain your CFR's interpretation

What's to explain? I guess we can read it together word by word and sentence by sentence.

(a) Each person who takes action

Anyone who does something...the mechanic.

in the case of a reported

Crew verbal, ramp personnel, other mechanic...

or observed failure or malfunction

Something you see, notice, find, discover...

of an airframe, engine, propeller, or appliance that is critical to the safety of flight

Self-explanatory

shall make, or have made, a record of that action in the airplane's maintenance log.

The person who takes the action shall record the action taken.


No where does the regulation say that you must make a report of any fault you see or become aware of. According to this regulation someone who observes, or becomes aware of a fault has no duty to record that fault, but he does have a duty to record any corrective action taken if that fault is recorded.

Question: have you ever serviced hydraulic fluid without making a note in the logbook? How about relamping a switch-light or Korry light you found burned out? What about cleaning the windows? Service a tire?

mikeinatlanta wrote:

Nicely put. Though, I will suggest that interpreting the FARs is not a red herring. FARs is where you get into trouble...or, more correctly, your company's general maintenance manual, which is built on the FARs.

But, I do agree, that we shouldn't get too wrapped around the regs.

I'm saying it's a red herring in regards to the issue brought up by the OP. FAR interpretation is not the cause of his concern, so not relevant to truly understanding the issue that is troubling him. Besides, If working for an airline or repair station, the repair station's manual is already accepted by the governing authority as an appropriate interpretation of all applicable code.

...
shall make, or have made, a record of that action in the airplane's maintenance log.
...

As a nonnative english speaker i learned that "shall" (in laws, directives, etc.) means "must" / "is or are obliged to".

IFixPlanes wrote:

As a nonnative english speaker i learned that "shall" (in laws, directives, etc.) means "must" / "is or are obliged to".

You are correct.

According to the regulation, when action is taken, you must make an entry in the log.

Hi everyone, and thanks for your views.
“Mikeinatlanta” I start working on 1984, so I already pass the 30 years mark. Actually I’m working as an Inspector.
We were a group formed under european’s control and Yes, back in 1998, we learn that any action taken on a/c: service hydraulic, oil, o2, relamp.. have to be enter on log book. Back them, we learn that the regulation (european, JAA or later EASA) is the law and tha we MUST follow the low.
Thanks anyone. happy New Year

Apprentice wrote:

Hi everyone, and thanks for your views.
“Mikeinatlanta” I start working on 1984, so I already pass the 30 years mark. Actually I’m working as an Inspector.
We were a group formed under european’s control and Yes, back in 1998, we learn that any action taken on a/c: service hydraulic, oil, o2, relamp.. have to be enter on log book. Back them, we learn that the regulation (european, JAA or later EASA) is the law and tha we MUST follow the low.
Thanks anyone. happy New Year

I always felt that a new inspector should have at least 160 hours training on maintenance programs. It's just not right to lay additional responsibility on someone without thorough training on how that added responsibility fits into the bigger picture.

Not trying to insult you, but I must admit that I find this entire conversation quite odd coming from a 30 year veteran inspector, especially considering when said veteran picks the name "Apprentice". Something doesn't smell right so I'll bow out.

mikeinatlanta wrote:

Apprentice wrote:

Hi everyone, and thanks for your views.
“Mikeinatlanta” I start working on 1984, so I already pass the 30 years mark. Actually I’m working as an Inspector.
We were a group formed under european’s control and Yes, back in 1998, we learn that any action taken on a/c: service hydraulic, oil, o2, relamp.. have to be enter on log book. Back them, we learn that the regulation (european, JAA or later EASA) is the law and tha we MUST follow the low.
Thanks anyone. happy New Year

I always felt that a new inspector should have at least 160 hours training on maintenance programs. It's just not right to lay additional responsibility on someone without thorough training on how that added responsibility fits into the bigger picture.

Not trying to insult you, but I must admit that I find this entire conversation quite odd coming from a 30 year veteran inspector, especially considering when said veteran picks the name "Apprentice". Something doesn't smell right so I'll bow out.

Mikeinatlanta, hi:I'm agree with You concerning what experience and theoretical courses that inspectors should meet, concerning training.
Although this post is not about that, be assured I have enough training on referred a/c (747-400F / 747-8F), from initial with an americian company, transition to -400 CF6 and -8. Including Run-Up training on Flight Simulator, OJT was received and hand on experience on the type for some 12 years or more. Nevertheless, also in my opinion, not so specific training is requiered to know that, several holes/lining damages on main cargo cmpt. , are not acceptable, at least for fire extinguishing point of view.

Sorry if I wrote that I'm 30 years inspectors; I finished my aircraft maintenance studies in 1984, and start working as a technician first and Lead after, in a commercial airline.
5 years ago, I obtain my IA for GA aviation, while continuing working on CA. 3 years ago, I start working (in another company) as an CA Mx inspector.

Apprentice, apprenticeship it's just an attitude.

RGDS