Safety Concerns:
“well, well, well, some evidence has been posted on the AEI website.
Aircraft Engineers International
Looks to me as though aircraft have been flying that shouldn't have been.”
SC, it looks to me that you do not know what Safety is all about. You’re like those who think that aviation would be much safer if all aircraft were finally grounded!
Let’s see those “proofs” one by one:
First case: Slip Defect (assuming not photoshoped) This was an INFO to MAINTENANCE (as you may read at the very end of the slip) and was in reference to a HIL. Its intention was to keep maintenance informed for statistical and to keep track of aircraft behavior. Even if PIC decided to clear it from the TL, vibrations were under minimum ECAM advisory and were not a safety issue:
According to A320 FCOM 3.2.70 HIGH ENGINE VIBRATION:
The VIB advisory on ECAM (N1 >= 6 units, N2 >= 4.3 units) is mainly a guideline to induce the crew to monitor engine parameters more closely.
VIB detection alone does not require engine shut down.
It is therefore Pilot’s decision to report it or not, and was certainly NOT a Safety or a NO-GO Issue as AEI and Safety Concerns wants us to believe.
Second case: Slip Defect (crossed and signed by the PIC) This Slip has only information for troubleshooting (PACK #1 ALWAYS IN HIGH) and was cancelled as per OM Part-A 8.1.11
aproved by the Portuguese Authotity - INAC. I personally see no Safety problems to have a Pack always in the high mode and there is no danger for the pax to have a much cleaner and recycled air in the cabin…
Third case: Slip no Sign Off – This aircraft just came from an A5.5 inspection (that includes a T1 inspection) The PIC wrote in the field T1, in step of field T by mistake,
once inspection T1 was already done on A5.5. He didn’t sign it, but
identified himself. It’s the same identification of the same person who signed Captain Acceptance. I really don’t think this is a dramatic mistake. It’s called non-conformity.
These kind of mistakes happen by hundreds, daily, in the aviation industry. It’s not a crime and the aircraft was not in danger.
Fourth case: Slip no ETOPS – In this case the Flight Crew didn’t sign up the inspection (although they have done it). It is a non-conformity and doesn’t have the importance (safety concern) as some want to attribute it,
once the inspection was done and the Captain signed the acceptance of the aircraft. The Flight Crew has the skill and the required instruction/formation to do ETOPS transit inspections.
I'm sure all aviators will understand that the real crime here is the intentional desire of AEI and its followers to bring prejudice to TAP and to our fellow pilots due to a political agenda. The real crime here is to put their names in the open without a single thought for their right for privacy and for the opportunity to defend their good name.
The real crime here is to use private information and attack without modesty and to think that "it doesn't matter the process, once you reach your objective".
To this I call: industrial terrorism!
Fly Safe!