EMB145 EXPERIENCED MOMENTARY EICAS CAUTION WARNING. ADVISED MAINT AND ACCOMPLISHED TEST PROC. NEXT LNDG GOT CAUTION EICAS WARNING AGAIN.

Narrative

DURING LNDG ROLLOUT IN ZZZ2 AN EICAS CAUTION MSG CAME ON BRIEFLY FOR NO MORE THAN THREE TO FIVE SECS AND THEN WENT BACK OFF. THE MSG WAS SPOILER FAIL. AFTER PARKING I LOOKED IN THE AOM FOR GUIDANCE ON THIS PARTICULAR MSG BUT THERE WAS REALLY NOTHING USEFUL THERE. AT THIS POINT I ELECTED TO CALL THE MAINT DEPARTMENT FOR FURTHER GUIDANCE. I DESCRIBED THE PROB TO THE MAINT TECH WHO ANSWERED THE PHONE. HE PUT ME ON HOLD FOR A SHORT TIME; DURING WHICH TIME HE PRESUMABLY WAS CONSULTING HIS MANUAL OR ANOTHER MECHANIC. WHEN HE CAME BACK ON THE PHONE HE ASKED IF I WOULD RETURN TO THE ACFT AND FLIP A SPOILER TEST SWITCH LOCATED ON A TEST PANEL IN THE COCKPIT BEHIND THE CAPT'S SEAT. IF; DURING THE TIME THIS SWITCH WAS HELD DOWN THE SPOILER FAIL EICAS DID NOT COME; ON IT WOULD INDICATE THAT THERE WAS NO PROB OTHER THAN A MOMENTARY FAULTY INDICATION; AND THAT THE ACFT WAS SAFE TO FLY. I CONDUCTED THIS TEST AS REQUESTED AND; FURTHER; WENT OUTSIDE THE ACFT AND VISUALLY VERIFIED THAT ALL FOUR SPOILER PANELS HAD DEPLOYED NORMALLY. INDEED; THE EICAS MSG DID NOT COME ON; AND THE SPOILERS APPEARED TO DEPLOY NORMALLY AND CORRECTLY; I RPTED THESE RESULTS BACK TO THE MAINT TECH AND HE TOLD ME THAT THE ACFT WAS SAFE TO FLY BUT IF I SHOULD HAPPEN TO GET THE SAME INDICATION ON MY NEXT LNDG I SHOULD WRITE THE ACFT UP AT THAT TIME. WE THEN RETURNED TO ZZZ1 WHERE EVERYTHING OPERATED NORMALLY UNTIL ABOUT THE SAME POINT IN THE LNDG ROLL AT WHICH TIME I GOT THE SAME EICAS MSG FOR ABOUT THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME. AFTER PARKING; I WROTE THE ACFT UP AND TURNED IT OVER TO MAINT. I DO NO KNOW WHAT THEY SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND; OR WHAT CORRECTIVE ACTIONS THEY TOOK. THE FAR COVERING WHEN TO WRITE AN ACFT UP IS; AS YOU KNOW; QUITE SPECIFIC IN STATING THAT A PLT SHALL WRITE UP ALL MECHANICAL DISCREPANCIES THAT COME TO HIS ATTENTION DURING FLT TIME. THIS IS ALL WELL AND GOOD AS FAR AS IT GOES; BUT IT LEAVES UNCLR WHAT IS REALLY A DISCREPANCY AND WHAT IS NOT. IF WE WROTE UP EVERY MOMENTARY; TRANSIENT INDICATION; WHICH WE SEE EACH DAY IN THE ACFT (BEARING IN MIND THAT EACH PEN WRITE UP REQUIRES A MAINT SIGN OFF) AIRPLANES WOULD ALMOST NEVER GET FLOWN. MAINT WOULD HAVE TO COME OUT; INSPECT THE ACFT AFTER EVERY MOMENTARY INDICATION; AND WOULD SIGN ALL THESE WRITE-UPS OFF AS OPS CHECK NORMAL; UNABLE TO DUPLICATE MALFUNCTION. IN THE CASE OF MY ADVENTURE IN ZZZ2 THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WOULD HAVE A HAPPENED. A MECH WOULD'VE HAD TO COME OUT AND PERFORM THE SAME CHECKS I DID; AND FINDING NO EVIDENCE OF A MALFUNCTION AT THAT TIME HE WOULD'VE SIGNED THE AIRPLANE OFF; AND I'D HAVE FLOWN TO ZZZ1. THE END RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME. UNFORTUNATELY; A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE FAR WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE THAT ANY DISCREPANCY OBSERVED DURING FLT TIME MUST BE WRITTEN UP. PERIOD. THERE IS NO GUIDANCE AS TO WHAT IS ACTUALLY A DISCREPANCY AND WHAT IS ONLY A MOMENTARY; FAULTY INDICATION; OR IF THE FAA EVEN ACCEPTS THE CONCEPT OF MOMENTARY; FAULTY; INDICATION. FURTHER; THERE IS SOME QUESTION AS TO WHETHER I; AS A PLT; AM EVEN QUALIFIED AND OR ALLOWED TO PERFORM SIMPLE TESTS SUCH AS THE ONE I DID; EVEN THOUGH IN MANY CASES; SUCH AS AT OUTSTATIONS; THE MECHANIC DOING THESE TESTS AND DETERMINING THE AIRWORTHINESS OF THE ACFT WOULD BE A NON COMPANY; ON CALL; CONTRACT MAINT TECHNICIAN WHO IN ACTUALITY KNOWS LESS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC NATURE OF THE ACFT THAN I DO.