Top ten things we wish pilots understood

[maigashi]

Just writing a short piece for a pilot blog about the top few things we as ame's wish pilots would understand or not do. ie writing system u/s in logbook and leaving without talking to maintenance. Comparing how one plane works to another of the same type. Any HELPFUL suggestions would be welcome.
Maigashi

[Gos]

1:If i tell the pilot, this tire is still good for a couple days and he still want it to get changed.
Don't blame the engineer because your plane gonna be late.

2: Don't ask me if your plane need deicing, i know how to deice ( which he's not the case for most of engineer) but it's your decision to do or not to do.

[Tiger Moth]

I wish pilots would understand how the systems work. Not how they think it should work, but how it actually does. I think the best way to know your aircraft is to work with maintenance a bit. Ask the questions that drive us nuts... what's this, what does it do, why does it do that. But remember, nothing in life is free... while you're doing that, you should help out... clean cowls, clean the airplane (but not while we are trying to work on it!), pull seats/install seats as required, help put panels back on, make coffee, whatever it takes.... really get to know what the machine is.

And another thing: Remember, most AME's are not Avionics magicians. When you are explaining an avionics snag, sometimes we don't know exactly what that instrument is doing when you are climbing out, descending, etc. We don't know what you are doing when that is happening. We may ask some strange questions when we are troubleshooting these about what the pilot is doing, but we are trying to understand. We are not (usually) acusing you of being at fault, so don't get defensive. And don't get offended when we ask you if the circuit breaker was in. We all make that mistake, every pilot and every AME at some point in their lives.

[bombardierfixer]

I was going to say "english" Hahahahaha I'm not helping am I? I'd say five minute jobs rarely are...

[qa guy]

That signing off a snag as "checked serviceable" is not because we dont want to fix it, but sometimes we cant duplicate an intermittent snag......GRRRR I hate those intermittent snags!

[Heliian]

math!

[iflyforpie]

That signing off a snag as "checked serviceable" is not because we dont want to fix it, but sometimes we cant duplicate an intermittent snag......GRRRR I hate those intermittent snags!

Bill Lear (the creator of the Lear Jet and 8 Tracks among other things) said 'The only thing worse than intermittent is intermittent intermittent!'

[qa guy]

yes,
Specifically with fuel sending units on the restart cessnas. they are always intermittent!

[longjon]

When pilots write so and so U/S.

Please describe the SYMPTOMS and MAINTENANCE will tell YOU if its U/S

[Big Pistons Forever]

When pilots write so and so U/S.

Please describe the SYMPTOMS and MAINTENANCE will tell YOU if its U/S

Sorry.....but NO. It is the pilots responsibility to decide if a reported defect renders the unit unfit for use. However you are absolutely correct that a defect that simply says system XYZ is "U/S" is a pretty useless entry and reflects very poor airmanship on the part of the pilot. I tell all my students to not to write U/S but simply to write what the system/part/device is actually doing. This is particularly important for avionics snags. Instead of writing Comm 1 U/S, he should write Comm 1 Tx lite will not illuminate and unit will not transmit, RX normal, Comm 2 normal. I also highly encourage that before writing snags pilots make sure they understand what the system should do when it is operating normally. The best example I saw of this was the snag "autopilot altitude hold U/S". The rectification entry was priceless "Autopilot hold will not function because Cessna 300 autopilots do not have a pitch or altitude hold feature as part of the autopilot" I also highly encourage that where possible the pilot write a note to maintainance with as much amplifying details as possible

[CID]

I guess this goes to pilots who also own their airplanes. AMEs are trained professionals and they deserve to earn a reasonable wage. If you can't afford the maintenance, you can't affort the airplane.

[longjon]

??? It is the pilots responsibility to decide if a reported defect renders the unit (read system) unfit for use. U/S

Now this is a statement I'd like to see some comments on.

My comment is,YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING

[iflyforpie]

??? It is the pilots responsibility to decide if a reported defect renders the unit (read system) unfit for use. U/S

Now this is a statement I'd like to see some comments on.

My comment is,YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING

No, not at all. Somebody requires a dose of the CARs--stat. It is the Pilot in Command who decides if the aircraft is fit and safe for flight.

Just think for a moment who uses that system on a daily basis and why they generated that snag? In my experience as an AME, a pilot who can reliably report snags is much better than an AME performing function checks trying to duplicate or troubleshoot snags on the ground.

For example: Last summer we had an electrical failure on our Skymaster. The Skymaster electrical system has two alternators and two voltage regulators, with one voltage regulator running both alternators at any one time. The pilot flying quickly narrowed it down to a voltage regulator by simply switching it to the other regulator to restore power. A new voltage regulator was a couple days away and since we are day VFR and all of our other aircraft only have one voltage regulator anyways, the PIC decided that he was comfortable with flying with only one voltage regulator. After a quick inspection to determine there was not another cause for the malfunction (loose or shorted wires) the plane was on its way again.

[longjon]

pilot who doesnt understand a complicated system and writes it as US--- the maintenance guys who know the system explain that is how it works but the Captain has the right to refuse to fly it.
better be looking for another job

not talking 150s or 172s here
and yes I dont work with CARS, been out of Canada for over 10yrs. EASA it is.

[iflyforpie]

pilot who doesnt understand a complicated system and writes it as US--- the maintenance guys who know the system explain that is how it works but the Captain has the right to refuse to fly it.
better be looking for another job

You might want to rewrite that....

not talking 150s or 172s here

Oh, pilots don't fly those? I was referring to everything I've worked on from 150s to 757s...


Maybe you should audit a pilot ground school on a large jet to see what they do learn systems wise... you might be surprised!

Bottom line--regardless of how it is written--the aircraft is declared U/S by the pilot and then fixed by the AME.

[c170b53]

Its a judgement call for all sides. Everyone has an opinion but I simply decide whether the aircraft is airworthy for me. If there's a iffy defect and they want to go and I don't like it, that's o.k. for me as long as my signature is not involved. If I know absolutely that its broken, I tell them they are going nowhere and ensure it happens regardless of their input. If they don't want to take it and I'm in agreement, I'll fight the fight for them. If its good to go and they don't want to, I'll suggest getting another crew and retire from the field of battle. The newer the aircraft the further the crews are from understanding the underlying operation that's just the reality of modern design. This aspect of aircraft operation requires greater cooperation between flyers and fixers whether they want to or not. Now if only the wage gap would narrow.