Originally Posted by
BobM2
The first question should be "what would maintenance have done?". Hopefully more than just resetting breakers & cleaning cannon plugs. Of course the airplane had been flying revenue trips for 3 days in an unairworthy condition with capt "unreliable airspeed & altitude". Were they flying that way in RVSM airspace? Maintenance that was done had only made it much more unairworthy with continuous stick shaker & "sts running backwards", but "just press on". Do they not get paid if they cancel a trip or was it a hot date waiting in Jakarta? Indonesia has one of the worst safety records & from the operation of this "airline" I can see why. Do they carry maintenance discrepancies to the next D-check in 20,000 hrs? Of course, it's easy to blame Boeing for not selling them an airplane that can fly safely with mounting unairworthy discrepancies for an indefinite time. Three days is not nearly enough.
What would I have done? On my airline, I would have sat comfortably in the crew room while someone more qualified made a maintenance test flight, since these write-ups involved serious control issues.
In many regulatory regimes, airlines can and will cancel flights and compensation to the crew, probably half way through a working day!
A commercial decision impacts pilots. Who could have ever thought that pilots would feel obligated to continue, haggle for make-up flying and probably also stress on the financial impact said cancellations create?
A mainline carrier in Australia has a very low minimum contract, paying the pilots for extra flying, that at whim is cancelled. Effectively remuneration can vary for roster to roster.
With personal debt levels very high, makes for a commercially compliant workforce.
Naturally the regulator in Australia sees zero conflict with such a strategy. The chairman likely a member of the invite only, Chairman's lounge.
Revolving doors between regulator and industry.
Regulatory capture.
Normalisation of deviance.
The 737 MAX a symptom of the place these roads lead.