FDX- ALPA MEC Positive Rate email 1/12/11
01-17-2011, 06:53 PM
#81
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: MD-11 FO
Posts: 608
Do you think that maybe, ascertaining that the the correct deferral was used, might be part of the PIC's responsibility?
Sec. 121.563 Reporting mechanical irregularities.
The pilot in command shall ensure that all mechanical irregularities occurring during flight time are entered in the maintenance log of the airplane at the end of that flight time. Before each flight the pilot in command shall ascertain the status of each irregularity entered in the log at the end of the preceding flight.
Status of each irregularity entered... ie, open, closed, MEL'd, placed on OIL, not that the correct action was taken. We have repetitive fuel filter inspections on some engines...do you verify the correctness of the work performed or do you verify that it was signed off complete.
------------------------------------------
Sec. 121.628 Inoperable instruments and equipment.
(a) No person may take off an airplane with inoperable instruments or equipment installed unless the following conditions are met:
Gives the crew the ability to take off with inoperative equipment provided it has been MEL'd. Before block out, MEL is a maintenance function.
...blah, blah, blah... (Lots of FAA talk about how to use an MEL)
and, just in case...
from that pesky FOM:
4.07 Reviewing Aircraft Maintenance Status
The captain has final responsibility for determining airworthiness of the aircraft. (FAR 91.3)
Common sense...would you defer your PIC authority to the company (if you could). This is to protect the pilot. Even if maintenance says the plane is airworthy, the PIC can say "No". The operator is still the one required to present an airworthy aircraft for the crew.
Sec. 121.563 Reporting mechanical irregularities.
The pilot in command shall ensure that all mechanical irregularities occurring during flight time are entered in the maintenance log of the airplane at the end of that flight time. Before each flight the pilot in command shall ascertain the status of each irregularity entered in the log at the end of the preceding flight.
Status of each irregularity entered... ie, open, closed, MEL'd, placed on OIL, not that the correct action was taken. We have repetitive fuel filter inspections on some engines...do you verify the correctness of the work performed or do you verify that it was signed off complete.
------------------------------------------
Sec. 121.628 Inoperable instruments and equipment.
(a) No person may take off an airplane with inoperable instruments or equipment installed unless the following conditions are met:
Gives the crew the ability to take off with inoperative equipment provided it has been MEL'd. Before block out, MEL is a maintenance function.
...blah, blah, blah... (Lots of FAA talk about how to use an MEL)
and, just in case...
from that pesky FOM:
4.07 Reviewing Aircraft Maintenance Status
The captain has final responsibility for determining airworthiness of the aircraft. (FAR 91.3)
Common sense...would you defer your PIC authority to the company (if you could). This is to protect the pilot. Even if maintenance says the plane is airworthy, the PIC can say "No". The operator is still the one required to present an airworthy aircraft for the crew.
If a mechanic uses a torque wrench that has fallen out of calibration during maintenance, any bolt he tightens makes the plane unairworthy. It is the companies responsibility to ensure airworthiness. When (hopefully) the error is discovered, any leg operated by that aircraft is a violation. Company grounds aircraft, re-torques bolts, confesses their error and submits a fix to prevent it from happening again. FAA says, OK, we accept it...don't do it again. The crew is not under any threat.
01-17-2011, 07:05 PM
#82
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: MD-11 FO
Posts: 608
FOM 4.07 with a little more info:
4.07 Reviewing Aircraft Maintenance Status
(FAR 91.3, FAR 121.563, FAR 121.628, FAR 121.701)
The Captain has final responsibility for determining airworthiness of the aircraft (FAR 91.3). Before each flight he reviews discrepancies (Where does it say he verifies every sign off action is correct?) of the preceding flight included in the Airworthiness Release Document (ARD) and the Aircraft Maintenance Logbook (AML). After the Captain reviews the ARD and AML, the crewmember assigned Preflight briefs the Captain on the aircraft status. The Captain also verifies the aircraft is in compliance with the MEL (FAR 121.628). When questions arise, the Captain consults with Maintenance, the flight crew and, if necessary, MOCC.
Highlighted in Red text:
In the MEL, Flight crew MEL/CDL procedures, first paragraph prior to Flag items:
The Flight Crew is responsible for complying and/or verifying compliance with the MEL whenever an equipment malfunction occurs while the aircraft is on the ground.
Note it says on the ground, not after "Block Out".
Note the word(s) "occurs" and "complying and/or verifying".
"Occurs" can be defined as "exists".
From Google dictionary:
2. Exist or be found to be present in a place or under a particular set of conditions:
"radon occurs naturally in rocks such as granite"
Replace "occurs" with "exists" in the MEL manual sentence.
From wiki:
Use of and/or in the legal profession
The phrase has come under considerable criticism in the legal profession in both American and British courts. Judges have called it a "freakish fad," an "accuracy-destroying symbol," and "meaningless." The Wisconsin Supreme Court referred to it as "that befuddling, nameless thing, that Janus-faced verbal monstrosity." Perhaps most crushing of all, the Kentucky Supreme Court said it was a "much-condemned conjunctive-disjunctive crutch of sloppy thinkers." It is particularly damaging in legal writing, in addition to being generally sloppy writing, because a bad-faith reader of a contract can pick whichever suits him, the "and" or the "or."[2] Courts called on to interpret it have applied a wide variety of standards, with little agreement.
Taxiing out and something breaks you comply with the MEL, not verify the MEL.
I'll stipulate, for example flight control movement, that one may have to verify an MEL after block out.
I'll err, or should I say interpret, this provision on the prudent side.
4.07 Reviewing Aircraft Maintenance Status
(FAR 91.3, FAR 121.563, FAR 121.628, FAR 121.701)
The Captain has final responsibility for determining airworthiness of the aircraft (FAR 91.3). Before each flight he reviews discrepancies (Where does it say he verifies every sign off action is correct?) of the preceding flight included in the Airworthiness Release Document (ARD) and the Aircraft Maintenance Logbook (AML). After the Captain reviews the ARD and AML, the crewmember assigned Preflight briefs the Captain on the aircraft status. The Captain also verifies the aircraft is in compliance with the MEL (FAR 121.628). When questions arise, the Captain consults with Maintenance, the flight crew and, if necessary, MOCC.
Highlighted in Red text:
In the MEL, Flight crew MEL/CDL procedures, first paragraph prior to Flag items:
The Flight Crew is responsible for complying and/or verifying compliance with the MEL whenever an equipment malfunction occurs while the aircraft is on the ground.
Note it says on the ground, not after "Block Out".
Note the word(s) "occurs" and "complying and/or verifying".
"Occurs" can be defined as "exists".
From Google dictionary:
2. Exist or be found to be present in a place or under a particular set of conditions:
"radon occurs naturally in rocks such as granite"
Replace "occurs" with "exists" in the MEL manual sentence.
From wiki:
Use of and/or in the legal profession
The phrase has come under considerable criticism in the legal profession in both American and British courts. Judges have called it a "freakish fad," an "accuracy-destroying symbol," and "meaningless." The Wisconsin Supreme Court referred to it as "that befuddling, nameless thing, that Janus-faced verbal monstrosity." Perhaps most crushing of all, the Kentucky Supreme Court said it was a "much-condemned conjunctive-disjunctive crutch of sloppy thinkers." It is particularly damaging in legal writing, in addition to being generally sloppy writing, because a bad-faith reader of a contract can pick whichever suits him, the "and" or the "or."[2] Courts called on to interpret it have applied a wide variety of standards, with little agreement.
Taxiing out and something breaks you comply with the MEL, not verify the MEL.
I'll stipulate, for example flight control movement, that one may have to verify an MEL after block out.
I'll err, or should I say interpret, this provision on the prudent side.
01-17-2011, 07:48 PM
#83
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 84
I think you are missing the point of the emphasis. The MEL applies to items that break after blockout but before airborne. You can't take off with a known failed component; the MEL gives you relief. Once airborne, the MEL is useless (other than as a reference). Equipment fails enroute all the time. It is written up upon arrival and must either be fixed or deferred before the next leg.
If an item is deferred, the PIC shares and accepts responsibility when the release is signed. If you, as PIC, don't want to verify the MEL and ARD to ensure the correct item is deferred, go right ahead at your own risk. You have the opportunity to review the MEL/ARD. We don't have the ability to know the specifics of the AMM and repetitive inspection. The Fed's know this.
If the wrong item is deferred, the known failed component is still just that, known and failed, and a T/O should not be accomplished. You can ascertain this by reviewing the MEL/ARD. If you fail to do so, you may be at risk. Kind of like missing that flat tire on a walk around.
The FAA has pursued legal action in the past when the PIC had the opportunity to correct a wrong, and failed to do so. In this instance, verifying the correct MEL was applied.
01-17-2011, 08:23 PM
#84
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Status of each irregularity entered... ie, open, closed, MEL'd, placed on OIL, not that the correct action was taken. We have repetitive fuel filter inspections on some engines...do you verify the correctness of the work performed or do you verify that it was signed off complete.
I don't think it's my responsibility to verify the actual work performed was done correctly...But, it's certainly my responsibility to see that it is signed off correctly. And, that would include that they deferred the correct item.
01-17-2011, 09:43 PM
#85
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: MD-11 FO
Posts: 608
The MEL is intended to permit operation with inoperative items of equipment for a period of time until repairs can be accomplished.
If an item is deferred, the PIC shares and accepts responsibility when the release is signed. If you, as PIC, don't want to verify the MEL and ARD to ensure the correct item is deferred, go right ahead at your own risk. You have the opportunity to review the MEL/ARD. We don't have the ability to know the specifics of the AMM and repetitive inspection. The Fed's know this.
If the wrong item is deferred, the known failed component is still just that, known and failed, and a T/O should not be accomplished. You can ascertain this by reviewing the MEL/ARD. If you fail to do so, you may be at risk. Kind of like missing that flat tire on a walk around.
The FAA has pursued legal action in the past when the PIC had the opportunity to correct a wrong, and failed to do so. In this instance, verifying the correct MEL was applied.
If an item is deferred, the PIC shares and accepts responsibility when the release is signed. If you, as PIC, don't want to verify the MEL and ARD to ensure the correct item is deferred, go right ahead at your own risk. You have the opportunity to review the MEL/ARD. We don't have the ability to know the specifics of the AMM and repetitive inspection. The Fed's know this.
If the wrong item is deferred, the known failed component is still just that, known and failed, and a T/O should not be accomplished. You can ascertain this by reviewing the MEL/ARD. If you fail to do so, you may be at risk. Kind of like missing that flat tire on a walk around.
The FAA has pursued legal action in the past when the PIC had the opportunity to correct a wrong, and failed to do so. In this instance, verifying the correct MEL was applied.
01-18-2011, 05:50 AM
#86
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 84
LINK
It's important to note that the PIC won his appeal in this case because the S/O was responsible for verifying the MEL/MCO even though Maintenance had cleared the aircraft.
It is also important to note that the Administrator took additional action against the mechanic, the pilot of the inbound flight, and Delta Airlines.
The dissenting opinions are telling too.
Last edited by Jake Speed; 01-18-2011 at 07:09 AM. Reason: Clarity
01-18-2011, 01:01 PM
#87
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: MD-11 FO
Posts: 608
Here you go. I'll take the Commissary...
LINK
It's important to note that the PIC won his appeal in this case because the S/O was responsible for verifying the MEL/MCO even though Maintenance had cleared the aircraft.
It is also important to note that the Administrator took additional action against the mechanic, the pilot of the inbound flight, and Delta Airlines.
The dissenting opinions are telling too.
LINK
It's important to note that the PIC won his appeal in this case because the S/O was responsible for verifying the MEL/MCO even though Maintenance had cleared the aircraft.
It is also important to note that the Administrator took additional action against the mechanic, the pilot of the inbound flight, and Delta Airlines.
The dissenting opinions are telling too.
What did the NTSB say.... "Although we agree with the administrator that, overall, the responsibility for safe operation of an aircraft rests with the pilot-in-command, we have in the past recognized that the complexity of air travel and technology requires that duties be delegated and not individually confirmed by the PIC." and " an airline captain cannot be required personally to verify every representation made to him by a member of the flight or ground crews."
As a result, we have declined to hold the PIC culpable for FAR violations caused by the action (or inaction) of another...
So... the Captain was exonerated and now there is that much more precedents to support my position.
Got anything from this century? If I'm eatin' crow based on that, I'm saving the beak and feathers for you.
Once again...I think people are looking for smoke where there is no fire.
01-18-2011, 02:14 PM
#88
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 84
From this case:
"In his preflight check, respondent's (The PIC) second officer reviewed the logbook, placards, and MCO's. He did not check the three MCO valves against the MEL, reasoning (in part) that Delta maintenance personnel would not have twice given MCO clearance had there been an MEL violation."
"The second officer reported the MCO to respondent, as required by the operating manual, and noted that maintenance had cleared the aircraft."
Footnote 6.
"there is no dispute that in this proceeding the direct responsibility for MCO/MEL matters lay with the second officer, not the PIC."
That's why the Captain was exonerated.
At FDX:
FOM 4.07
4.07 Reviewing Aircraft Maintenance Status
(FAR 91.3, FAR 121.563, FAR 121.628, FAR 121.701)
The Captain has final responsibility for determining airworthiness of the aircraft (FAR 91.3). Before each flight he reviews discrepancies of the preceding flight included in the Airworthiness Release Document (ARD) and the Aircraft Maintenance Logbook (AML). After the Captain reviews the ARD and AML, the crewmember assigned Preflight briefs the Captain on the aircraft status. The Captain also verifies the aircraft is in compliance with the MEL (FAR 121.628). When questions arise, the Captain consults with Maintenance, the flight crew and, if necessary, MOCC.
I think if this had been a FedEx airplane, this appeal may have had a different outcome.... MEL/ARD matters are the responsibility of the Captain.
01-18-2011, 02:20 PM
#89
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: 727
Posts: 78
my point was that an fsr isn't an official faa report, so why was it reported? it is just a memorandom betrween co-workers, something that the faa cannot regulate. this is a blatant attempt by the company to avoid an obvious fine, and they are grasping at whatever they can find to avoid it, damnt the pilot, full speed ahed!
ALPA SHOULD go after them for this stupidity! fsr reports should never go tot he faa. They shold have told the captain to resubmit a proper report, and told him it whre it was going. a smart captain asks ALPA to help him write that report.
ALPA SHOULD go after them for this stupidity! fsr reports should never go tot he faa. They shold have told the captain to resubmit a proper report, and told him it whre it was going. a smart captain asks ALPA to help him write that report.
01-18-2011, 02:40 PM
#90
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Using FSR data to help file a voluntary disclosure could reduce or eliminate FAA fines. But this justification does not override our CBA. The result is a grievance.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
