So, in 2013, pilots just don't take the walk round checks seriously enough ?
I too couldn't believe the bird-strike suggestion and concluded the engine covers must have been left undone on at least the left engine, but resisted the temptation to post as I am no longer a regular and it may have been a bit presumptious of me
But today I couldn't resist popping in to see the inevitable thread and how Pprune posters had developed it from the outset, and what the reaction was to the interim report. I then saw David Learmount answer Yes to BBC's Chris Ekin's suggestion as to who was ultimately responsible and then to proceed to dilute his answer with allusions to design flaws and other stuff ... So I am only posting because I fear lessons are not much learned yet, particularly by pilots who seem to think there are more important things to worry about and it is a design problem or an engineer problem.
The importance of walkround checks is drummed into all student PPLs and walkround inspection quizzes are still to be found at air cadet events, flying club events and airshows, right? But move on up into the commercial world and due to over-confidence and over-work the walkround so often becomes more and more of a chore it seems, and it can so easily become a subconscious
going through the motions exercise - one rarely rewarded by the identification of any significant anomaly during the inspection and conversely even when inspection is inferior, rarely resulting in memorable frights through incidents like this.
Part of this tendency is perhaps due to the fantastic current day reliability of airframes and engines and yes well honed engineering procedures, and yet part is still due perhaps to a misplaced blind faith and political or marketing 'spin' in the consistent quality of the "brand" and its processes and procedures. There's a disconnect there somewhere.
These both give everyone an over-optimistic take on aviation risks generally and do nothing to help keep in mind the risks posed every day by simple human error. That's why we still have checklists, isn't it?
Every pilot's walk round check has an official checklist associated with the type does it not? How many commercial pilots do you see with a checklist in their hand outside the airframe? More often one or both hands are in pockets and the boys and girls are hardly dressed for getting down and dirty as has been said. Maybe on this type a kind of prayer mat should be standard equipment, or would that cause further delays at security?
Lessons to be learned? Simulator training obviously helped overcome the walk round failings and thank goodness for that, but now how about introducing mandatory attendance to regular walk round quizzes in the hangar ? Or is that suggestion beneath contempt ?
I do however now know this much: engine cover latches on this one are beneath most things, and whilst I don't think anything can be achieved by seeing heads roll or even seeing any extra persons put on their back, I do think this incident has been a great leveler for some pilots who need revision training of a most basic kind, engineering cost managers who needed a wake up call, and all those who might otherwise equate "leading brand" with a tendency to infallibility.
... just my two-pennorth if regulars will allow
