Originally Posted by hilltopflyer

You still have the option to write up the plane or refuse it? Not just the captains authority if you fly it. That being said that captain is a ***** for not listening to concerns of his fo. I guess it is true we don’t teach crm anymore. How does a fune event come into the Swiss cheese model? Haha

Originally Posted by BeatNavy

He had me convinced he knew what the fume smell was and was very educated and experienced with it, and that I shouldn’t be concerned. In retrospect I should have pushed the issue, but, at the time, being new to the bus, I figured I didn’t know what I was talking about and he did. I was just glad to finally see it get written up. Kind of validated my thoughts and convinced me I was in the right. At least it educated me for future exposures, and fortunately was very faint and short-lived.

And while I can make a write up as an FO, the CA has to sign it (pg 9-13 in the FOM). Pg 9-7 also says in the MX-3 discussion “the below instructions are applicable to the PIC only.” So, while CRM does exist with mx and both pilots are required and responsible for checking the book prior to flight, logbook entries are pretty much mandated to go thru the CA...at least the signature for it. And it’s on the CAs side, so if I ask him to write it up and he doesn’t want to, I’m going to physically have to go to his side and grab it. Now, it didn’t get that far for the reasons I stated above (mostly being new to the plane), but don’t think for a second if the CA is dismissive of a mx issue, it’s easy for the FO to just say ok fine I’ll write it up myself. I’ve had to press CAs on maintenance (and other issues like deicing) here - it’s not easy, especially when the company makes writeups a predominantly CA function.

Originally Posted by aldonite7667

I’m pretty sure you can write it up but you have to use the CA name and #.

Originally Posted by BeatNavy

He had me convinced he knew what the fume smell was and was very educated and experienced with it, and that I shouldn’t be concerned. In retrospect I should have pushed the issue, but, at the time, being new to the bus, I figured I didn’t know what I was talking about and he did. I was just glad to finally see it get written up. Kind of validated my thoughts and convinced me I was in the right. At least it educated me for future exposures, and fortunately was very faint and short-lived.

And while I can make a write up as an FO, the CA has to sign it (pg 9-13 in the FOM). Pg 9-7 also says in the MX-3 discussion “the below instructions are applicable to the PIC only.” So, while CRM does exist with mx and both pilots are required and responsible for checking the book prior to flight, logbook entries are pretty much mandated to go thru the CA...at least the signature for it. And it’s on the CAs side, so if I ask him to write it up and he doesn’t want to, I’m going to physically have to go to his side and grab it. Now, it didn’t get that far for the reasons I stated above (mostly being new to the plane), but don’t think for a second if the CA is dismissive of a mx issue, it’s easy for the FO to just say ok fine I’ll write it up myself. I’ve had to press CAs on maintenance (and other issues like deicing) here - it’s not easy, especially when the company makes writeups a predominantly CA function.

Originally Posted by BeatNavy

The IAE-engined airbuses have a much higher than normal (compared to other engines) oil pressure, and (probably as a result of that and the way JB takes care of associated maintenance issues) JB has had a ton of “dirty sock smell” fume events (now “magic marker” smell due to the new turbine oil used) that has several pilots out, some permanently, because tricresyl phosphates, which are released when turbine oil is atomized in the bleed system (which is this dirty sock smell), are a neurotoxin. It’s killed and disabled people. Many people don’t know about it, even some JB pilots. And many buy management’s stance that it doesn’t exist and is a pilot work action.

It’s hard, if not impossible, to directly/conclusively link many health issues with it, because no one is paying for any research for it, probably due to the high liability that will ensue when it is directly linked to death/serious ailments. Airbus, the IAE consortium, oil manufacturers, jetblue, and other associated parties certainly don’t want to look into it. And an effing B6ALPA rep (when confronted because ALPO isn’t doing anything about it except bullying pilots saying they are making it up—looking at you Dario) said “I’d rather have a job and leave this alone than pursue it if it means the company goes down—then we will all be on the street.” Even the FAA doesn’t seem to want to touch it. But jetblue seems to have a much higher number of fume events than other IAE-engined A320/321 airlines, presumably due to maintenance practices. Maintenance has been told by management that these are mostly pilot/flight attendant work actions, so maintenance is mostly dismissive of them. JB installed HEPA filters and changed the engine oil as their fix. And they want pilots to wait 3 minutes to see if the smell goes away before taking action, which is enough time for sensory adaptation https://www.howitworksdaily.com/ques...et-used-to-it/ and to make pilots dismissive of the smell. My understanding is there are objective detectors that can detect when this stuff is in the air, similar to CO detectors, but not shockingly JB won’t install those.

Lots of info on the JB pilot internal forum in a thread that exists to educate people on what tails seem to be the offenders, among other things. Some info here Wet Sock Smell. Some info on google (search “aerotoxic syndrome”).

I was hit with magic marker smell twice on 2 of 4 legs in a day in the same plane (a320). Had dirty sock smell numerous times at my regional in a CRJ, but was told it’s just dirty pack filters. But it affected me. It’s real. The last time with magic marker smell the captain was messing up his radio calls. I felt off. Not hypoxic, not out of it, just different and slower thinking. That particular captain reads the thread about it and he had it before but said that wasn’t the smell (he had only ever had the dirty socks smell). He refused to write it up. Fortunately a week later it was written up a couple times.

As soon as the A220 is on property I’m gone off of this plane...I hope it’s better. And I hope the Pratt-engined NEOs are better. And I pray if we ever get widebodies they are 787s, because I don’t trust any planes with bleed-based ECS systems to be completely safe from aerotoxic chemicals anymore. I love the airbus, it’s nice, comfortable, the trips are nice (minus redeyes), but I’d rather not play fume roulette for 30 years. I’d worry less about it if I flew for an airline that didn’t have such a high number of events, fwiw.

Originally Posted by BeatNavy

“While either the Captain or the First Officer may enter a discrepancy or MEL in the AML, Form MX-3, the employee number and signature must be the Captain’s.”

Did you read what I wrote and what you quoted? Specifically the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph.

Originally Posted by aldonite7667

Yes, your post says signature. That is not required, just the Name and # of the PIC.

Originally Posted by BeatNavy

I just read and quoted the FOM. And it clearly says the signature must be the PICs. Perhaps they should change the FOM to just say the name must be the PIC if that is all that’s required. Until they do, as an FO I’m not filling out anything that can be construed as the PIC’s signature (be it a name or number or whatever), because that’d be a violation of the FOM. I’ll do a writeup if the CA delegates that to me. But I won’t put anything in the box below it until the FOM no longer says the signature must be the PICs or until I upgrade.

Originally Posted by hyperboy

If i was a betting man i would say 400ish?.......