Originally Posted by baseball

As a former CAL pilot I too was scratching my head on aircraft refusals during and shortly after the merger. However, I get it. I really do. I would like to change the culture on aircraft refusals too. I want MX to be told to get the aircraft in top shape. A MX guy told me the reason so many APU's are inop, is because they don't have the time to check the oil in the APU. So, allot of auto-shutdowns due to low oil and no time to check them on the line.

So, by refusing aircraft we are helping MX get their act together. But, I think the bigger picture is this: I wouldn't take an AC down to Lima, Sao Paulo, or Santiago with an inop APU. And, if the forecast had a reasonable chance to shoot a CAT 3, Land 3 approach I would want the APU up as it says in the book. Anything over the mountains in South America at night should simply require an APU, not just state "desirable" or "recommended" in the book. And, by bringing a jet down to SA with an inop APU you sure are tying the hands of the outbound Captain.

So, how do we change the culture of aircraft refusals? Hold MX accountable and raise the bar. Not a pilot problem. I think if we are refusing 2 per day, that's a high number, 14 per week, etc. But, how is it per fleet? I would argue the newer aircraft are likely easier to maintain. We parked the 747 due to reliability issues. The older the jet, the more touch-time MX needs to keep 'em flying. The 767-300 is a MX sensitive aircraft. So do allot of the 757's. They need some more MX touch time to maintain the same reliability rates as newer aircraft.

Originally Posted by Floyd

One of the reasons the old UAL had so many refusals was because maintenance wouldn't fix it unless we refused it. I had mechanics say they wanted to fix the issue but were told no until we refused.

You hit the nail on the head. Part of maintenance is to maintain.

Originally Posted by baseball

I had heard the same thing about MX not fixing things until refused. I hadn't experienced it first hand as I was former CAL. But, I had seen some MX techs in Chicago and Denver less than enthusiastic about taking care of my write-ups. It's like they needed a participation trophy and a gold star next to their names or something. However, I saw good attitudes in LAX and SFO. I wonder why the mx folks wouldn't fix it unless the AC was refused? Seems like they got what they were asking for....

Originally Posted by baseball

I am also an A&P in addition to being a pilot. I wouldn't do a run up at the gate. I have two tickets to lose. I think the Maintenance Department needs to be in charge of maintenance functions. It's their procedures, their policies, their work-cards. MX are the ones who return the aircraft back to service and certify it's airworthiness. It will generally take two, one mechanic and a certifier/inspector to return the aircraft to service.

Once at a 135 operator, a FED told me it was a bad idea for me to sign the MX logbook as an AP in addition to being the PIC. I asked why? His answer: because you are incentivized to get the job done, and to get home. Your attention may be diverted to the prize instead of the process.

Currently at 121 operators, a pilot staffed on the jet cannot do a MX function, even if you are an A&P. The reason I am told by a MX fed is because it is a conflict of interest, and because you aren't on the operators MX certificate.

So, engine run up? MX function or pilot function? I think the add pay for some reason blurs the lines. What if their were no add pay, and it was just a direct order by the CP or ACP, or FODM?

Originally Posted by jtriple7

If a UA mechanic runs an engine or taxis a plane he gets $1 per hour extra for that day only.

Most of us that had taxi run let it expire after about the 3 year late point in the last contract nego so now usually they have to ask through multiple zone rooms to find someone to run a plane. Or they can pay the pilots to do it which costs what $300 or $400 total for the two of them?

The taxi run auth required tests and hoops to jump through for the yearly renewal so while they were hosing us on the contract , didnt feel much like hassling with it for nothing to gain from it.

Originally Posted by Grumble

Sounds like the military. Keeping the maintainers current to do high and low power turns was a huge PITA. Easier to just stick a pilot in the seat. Some of those guys had more time doing low power turns than I had total time.

Originally Posted by PDRit

You may want to read 20-Q-4 of the UPA. Engine runs are required pilot duties.

Previous agreement did not have the current language.

Originally Posted by skypest

True. That statement exists in 20-Q-4. However, the same paragraph also states...

"Without his concurrence, he shall not be required to perform a procedure not covered in Flight Manual Normal, Non-Normal or Supplemental procedures"

I would be very cautious about what MX is specifically asking you to do and or evaluate. Having run into this over the years; my postion has always been that if there isn't a checklist for what they want me to do, then it is outside of my training and job descrition. My job and ticket are far more valuble than 30 minutes of add pay.

Lastly, while the chances that something will go wrong are remote, a word of caution - without going into specifics, I have represented pilots in front of the NTSB. I can GAURANTEE that you will be asked and have to answer to why you didn't use a checklist or why you did not follow the reccomended safety policy of your own MEC (APU's, Generators, TCAS).

Pest