ON – "Rubbish. The Metro SOPs (I never flew the J41) were stringent and a little complex when I started with them, but were soon whittled down to where they needed to be".
No offence meant, just stirring the pot. I am pleased to hear you claim that good sense eventually prevailed– I was working with old data and simply wished to make the point that overly complex, rigid management systems can make a good starting place for unintended holes in the cheese.
ON –"Like you Kharon I have also operated metros for other operators and the Brindy SOPs were in no way greatly differing to any other operator and IMHO were actually quite a step above some," etc.
I beg to differ, however this is not the place for debate on semantic, pedantic SOP or the lack thereof:- nor the endless regurgitation of the AFM within the FCOM, rendering both nugatory. I will not to mention expanded procedure being used as operating 'law', rather than a part of training to reduce workload. The methodology for cooking engines, bogging and un-bogging aircraft is for each flight ops department to determine. This, whether the 'experienced' crews think (or realise) it's all bollocks – or not, is immaterial to the discussion here.
We don't know when the maintenance issues were first noted.
We don't know what the maintenance issues were.
We don't know who was notified of what, when or by whom.
Were these issues an AD or series of AD which went through to the keeper?, were they different multiple issues related to individual airframes? We may never know, and I dare say irrelevant now.
Many times been present when 'management' was notified a (singular) error had been discovered; the aircraft grounded until maintenance was complete, aircraft returned to service. I have even been there when the CASA Airworthiness boys were informed of the error (singular) and provided the 'fix' and root cause had been correctly identified and the system modified to prevent a possible reoccurrence, there never was any insurmountable problems raised from the CASA end. In fact they were a positive element on all those occasions, as helpful, sensible and practical as one could expect of a 'good' regulator.
At face value, this appears to have been a somewhat larger problem, i.e. chronic, across a fleet and all that entails. At the moment it is only one curiosity that that CASA appears to have allowed an extended 'period of grace'; but without facts, who dare comment. All too easy to say 'protected species', or 'management stuff up', but once again without facts it's pure speculative bollocks.
So, how about some data, rather than management (or CASA bashing) to work with. Who knows, perhaps there may be something learned from the history of this past event.
No hope – right. – Yawn - exit discussion without looking back.