I am limited in where I can comment, as I would not like to give any
comment on areas where my knowledge is not sufficient. In the case of
the aircraft, I can personally confirm that there is no problem
whatsoever with regarding safety and the performance of the aircraft.
Various maintenance flights (both local, and to the nearby island of Sumbawa
Besar) have been completed with exceptional results. I have written a
formal report regarding the flights, analyzing each phase of
flight and how the aircraft performed (these reports will be happily
be shown).
After completing test flights, suggestions were made to TCM (Teledyne
Continental Motors), the engine manufacturer, to leave the Aux Fuel
Pump in the 'ON' position during all transitions TO and FROM level
flight (All climbs and descents, including take-offs and landings, and
maneuvers requiring changes in power and/or altitude). This has
eliminated any possibility of fuel vaporization in the fuel injection
system.
Even the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, with teams of experienced and
world class engineers working behind the scenes, still have problems under the close scrutiny of FAA, therefore, as long as we handle our issues pro-active and
positively, safety will still be preserved.
Based on your comments it is quite obvious that you lack some knowledge.
As far as I can see, the aircraft was tested for around 7 hours
since the day that the fleet was grounded by the instructors at the end of November.
http://s7.postimage.org/c7kgt3djv/Sp...ks2_page_1.jpg
http://s17.postimage.org/e6g2m2ctr/S...cks_page_1.jpg
That is low quantity of flight time for any kind of testing. Testing 1 aircraft out of 3, especially that particular one being PKLLA, which had the least amount of power losses or incidents, surely cannot be good safety management practices.
Anyway, going back to the operation, the fuel contamination started to have negative effect on the engine, after approximately 15 hours of tach time. That was how long it took due to the extensive cleaning (and occasional replacement) of the various fuel system parts done by the maintenance department.
A report based on test flights written by a fresh CPL holder who is obviously very interested in working for LIFT is not objective.
(Expat with Indonesian license is not able to get a job outside of Indonesian territory, or a jet job in Indonesia due to the current restrictions for Expats
Govt Tightens Rules on Use of Foreign Pilots by Indonesian Airlines | The Jakarta Globe, or even as FI, due to the restrictions for Expats FIs or usual requirements as FIs
Job Opportunity | Bali International Flight Academy).
I think comparing Boeing with Liberty is really ambitious:
- Boeing was founded in 1916.
- Liberty was founded in 2000 and only produced the model XL2, based on a VLA (Europe XS). They are not really famous for being a successful seller unlike Cessna, Piper or EADS. They are going through financial problems and they've only manufactured a couple of aircraft since 2011. Therefore, at this time Liberty is mainly a composite producer not an aircraft producer.
Liberty Aerospace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you google a bit, you will realize that not many other schools use the Liberty XL2 as a trainer aircraft. Specially after some fatal accidents in Malaysia or Australia. And very recently two more in Europe, both crashed on upwind.
Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety WikiBase > ASN Aviation Safety Database results
- In a serious flight school, any incident afeccting safety and human lives (power losses, engine malfunctions or engine failures) is automatically reported (FAA & JAA is mandatory) to the DGCA by the safety officer or department in charge of the safety/quality of the FTO.
In LIFT flight academy, all the crews and aircraft, and many of the students, were suffering engine problems, and dangerous power losses for more than 6 months. They were all related to fuel contamination.
After the last occurrences, the flight crew understood that management had no interest in solving the underlying problem. Management was far more interested in keeping the aircraft off the ground than in trying to find a viable solution. And no, more test flying was out of the question. The FIs had been doing so for 6 months, that is why the flight department took a stand.
- B787 was grounded by FAA and EASA after an emergency landing, not by ANA pilots.
BBC News - Dreamliner: Boeing 787 planes grounded on safety fears
- FAA clears the test flights for the B787 almost a month later of the incident.
FAA Gives All Clear For 787 Test Flights
- LIFT management verbally fired all the FIs after a week of grounding the fleet,
not reporting officially to the authorities the engine problems recorded during the las 6 months,
nor the fact that they fired the entire flight department.
- LIFT management encourages a fresh CPL holder to carry on Test flights, 7 hours of flight time in the same aircraft, and concludes that it is not a fuel contamination issue, but it is FUEL VAPORIZATION, and the solution is to keep the auxiliary fuel pump ON during all flight operation
. Besides the obvious, this is not legal. Any major change or deviation in the flight procedures has to approved by the manufacturer, receiving previous clearance from FAA (in this case), and has to be amended in the POH, FCOM, or AFM…
Safety is only preserved IF we fly by the books, following the air law, and learning from the experience, not from the mistakes.
Good luck and good flights;
An Spaniard flyboy fired.