Dear pilots

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roger, Roger
  • Start date Start date
R

Roger, Roger

Guest
When reporting a squawk, please be specific. "Airplane don' work" doesn't do much for us.

And if the mag drop is rough and your aircraft has an engine monitor, please take the 5 seconds to look at the monitor and figure out which cylinder is crapping out.

Or don't, cuz then I have to do it and that takes longer. And the more work there is for me, the better job security I have.

Kthxbai.
 
Roger said:
When reporting a squawk, please be specific. "Airplane don' work" doesn't do much for us.

And if the mag drop is rough and your aircraft has an engine monitor, please take the 5 seconds to look at the monitor and figure out which cylinder is crapping out.

Or don't, cuz then I have to do it and that takes longer. And the more work there is for me, the better job security I have.

Kthxbai.
Click to expand...

I understand that MX want's write-ups to be useful, but all the MX I've ever dealt with asked that we as pilots don't try to diagnose a problem for them in the write up or what "we think" they need to do to fix it; just simply state factually what's going on that appears to be wrong, and let MX troubleshoot it.
 
Right. It's one thing to say "I think cylinder 4 top plug is fouled" or "check the wiring on the fuel transducer". It's another to say "ran engine, mag drop rough on right mag, cyl 4 showed very low EGT" or "RH fuel gage sometimes shows zero on full tank, does not respond to shaking aircraft or hitting wing".

The main thing I guess is communication (just like any relationship I guess).
 
Dear mechanics,

When the aircraft comes into the shop for the third time with the same discrepancy as the two previous times, please don't continue to write "could not duplicate, aircraft returned to service" in the corrective action box.


kthxbai
 
No.

You can keep writing "could not duplicate" if you wish. However, I learned this little trick that if you write "in flight" when describing a squawk, the mechanic can't just ground check it. Hope you like going flying :bandit:

I know you like flying, but some mechanics I've come across seem like they'd pass on the opportunity.
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
No.

You can keep writing "could not duplicate" if you wish. However, I learned this little trick that if you write "in flight" when describing a squawk, the mechanic can't just ground check it. Hope you like going flying :bandit:
Click to expand...
Yup. I do. In fact when I was CFI-ing I did quite a few maintenance test flights with our mechanics on board when we were having problems with the DA42 engines.
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
I know you like flying, but some mechanics I've come across seem like they'd pass on the opportunity.
Click to expand...
Really? Interesting. I'd rather watch a problem in the airplane. Unless it's something like "Engine sputters when running at high power within 200' of runway on takeoff".
 
Some of the things I see on squak sheets are just plain silly. I went to write up something about the transponder the other day and I see, "Strange noise." with no further explanation. I'm sure the mechanic rolled his eyes at that one.
 
ChasenSFO said:
Some of the things I see on squak sheets are just plain silly. I went to write up something about the transponder the other day and I see, "Strange noise." with no further explanation. I'm sure the mechanic rolled his eyes at that one.
Click to expand...
"Could not duplicate on ground" ;)
I think the best one I've had so far was "radios inop". Action: "turned on avionics master switch. radio check over FBO freq. good on both comm radios".
 
Always be wary of a mech or crew chief who refuses to fly on the stuff he fixes......

:D
 
ChasenSFO said:
Some of the things I see on squak sheets are just plain silly. I went to write up something about the transponder the other day and I see, "Strange noise." with no further explanation. I'm sure the mechanic rolled his eyes at that one.
Click to expand...

"Strange pilot removed via ass-whoopin procedures. Returned to service."

-mini
 
MikeD said:
Always be wary of a mech or crew chief who refuses to fly on the stuff he fixes......

:D
Click to expand...

I know a guy (A&P) that has flown on a small airplane once. That was a Seneca that he totally rebuilt, that was only because he didn't want to deal with all the crap if he messed something up bad. In his words, "i'll be dead, so it won't be my problem"
 
Does it piss you guys off if we write that we didn't experience the previous guys problem? Or do you check them anyway and I'm just wasting my 5 seconds.

The last thing I squawked was "huge nick in prop." Came back next week and it was fixed.
 
ChasenSFO said:
Some of the things I see on squak sheets are just plain silly. I went to write up something about the transponder the other day and I see, "Strange noise." with no further explanation. I'm sure the mechanic rolled his eyes at that one.
Click to expand...


Replaced strange noise with more familiar noise, returned to service:D
 
JordanD said:
Does it piss you guys off if we write that we didn't experience the previous guys problem? Or do you check them anyway and I'm just wasting my 5 seconds.
Click to expand...

JordanD said:
I meant mechanics. Should have been a little more specific than "guys" I guess. ;)
Click to expand...

I meant that you as a pilot, be it private, commercial or ATP, have no authority to diagnose a previously reported squawk. If it's in the book, you writing that you didn't observe the same occurrence holds no water with the A&P or the FAA. If anything, the A&P may get upset that you are trying to do his job for him, when in actuality you have no say in the matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top