oldmako

I asked a Part 121 Fed once what he thought about pilots doing engine run-ups. His response? "You're nuts, there is no way I'd do one". I guess he's seen how the sausage gets made when something goes awry. It's your ticket to lose, and no one else's. Is it really worth 15 minutes of pay? Wasn't it AA who managed to torch a 767 at the gate doing a run-up? I wonder how that all worked out for the crew?

To me, the same thing applies to running one at the gate, without compensation (the door's open) or protection of SOP. While freelancing sounds good, in reality, it's potentially a can of very expensive worms.

We can all find neat ways to skin a cat, but why?
Why leave a hub without an APU when you're headed to MEX in the summer?

Airlines have a lot of tools at their disposal to minimize refusals. Let's all hope that PP is the last one they reach for.

Boeing Aviator

Can you elaborate more on on this topic? Did Todd or anyone at the MEC address your class?

Floyd

On an anonymous, public forum no doubt.

Sunvox

Yes, but they didn't talk about Scope. However, with all the hype that has been drummed up on the topic of Scope recently I went directly to Todd and asked him personally "what's up" on a couple different occasions. All I can say is that he is confident in a positive outcome, and I believe him.

blockplus

Just to put this out there, but the air start cart can power a pack. No smells no running engine. There are 2 output settings last I checked. I've run rt pack on high for 30+ min on low and just crank up when ready to start.

Baradium

I'm not UAL, but just food for thought, the regional I was at previously had a crew get CO poisoning from running a pack off of a huffer, resulted in an emergency air return and them (and the pax) being grounded for a while until their systems could clean themselves out. I expect not many carriers maintain the air carts to a standard for breathing air. It was our policy to never turn packs on until the huffer was completely disconnected after engine start.

Aviatorr

Yup.........

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?

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.

baseball

I have been looking for the statistics on aircraft reliability and aircraft refusals of the other carriers. I can't find them. We share FOQA data, but not sure about this. I would love to see statistics on fleets, not just airline operators. For Example: The B-767 300, the B-767 400, the B-757 300. Etc. After that, in order to drill into the numbers, I would like to see the dispatch reliability and mx reliability rates for the following: Domestic/International, South America, ETOPS, Night, Ice, short runways, Low IMC, etc.

In order to drill into the generic 2 per week, you need to know the type of operation and then look into the circumstances. We've got super-cool spreadsheets and pie charts on all sorts of stuff. Lets see some data on the numbers to help explain the numbers. Make sure there's a slice of pie in those charts for MX.