View Full Version : Full and Free Movement ?

18th Apr 2001, 22:31
How often do you check the operation of the rudder trim ?

Perhaps you give it a tweak just to centre the slip ball / indicator in the cruise, or exercise it through the full range following de-icing.

When would you need to use lots and lots of rudder trim ? Following an engine failure perhaps ?

Wouldn't it be NICE if it worked in the correct sense ?

Well, bmi had a Fokker which came out of servicing recently and the effo in the cruise gave the trim a tweak to centre the slip indicator and guess what........the slip got worse !

Do you think the jet was rigged wrongly ?

Shabby maintenance AGAIN ! Wasn't there a 737 that had a minor problem with engine oil system blanking plates a few years ago? And was the Embrear fleet grounded in Jnauary because of a maintenance "oversight". Didn't a Fokker divert to Bordeaux in January following an engine failure when the engine performance had been raised in the tech log on several occasions but ADD-ed ? Didn't they have a couple of decompressions on a Fokker and the rubber jungle didn't appear throughout the cabin ?

Why don't they just employ enough people to the do the job properly and stop taking chances with safety.

[This message has been edited by PaulDeGearup (edited 18 April 2001).]

20th Apr 2001, 02:33
hey, who cares about safety anyway???
The goal for the punters in the back is to fly as cheaply as possible. Look at the success of Zyzy and such. Most pax would just board any lemon and prey... as long as they save a few bucks.
All the good professionals (mechanics, F/As, pilots, etc) have left or are in the process of leaving aviation, primary reason is: since years the new motto of our world is to work more for less.

Sooo, safety might improve when the dederegulations comes, until then :)

... cut my wings and I'll die ...

20th Apr 2001, 03:30
Used to fly a Cherokee that needed "more than normal" left rudder trim to fly straight and level hands off. Ball would settle to the right when aircraft was sitting still on level tarmack--go figure.

This is one "punter in the back" who does not fly certain cut rate no matter how inexpensive. In employment contract, I do not fly XX air, etc. List now expanded to include a certain airline what insists on taking off in typhoons from closed taxiways. And it's not even a cut rate airline.

20th Apr 2001, 09:22
PDGU - before making sweeping assertions about "shabby maintenance", I suggest you read the AAIB report into the double oil loss incident. I am not excusing poor maintenance standards, merely stating that there are causal factors behind every incident. Sure, the engineer could be construed as negligent but the report will reveal other factors working against him. Every maintenance faciltiy I have worked in over the last 24 years has had examples of this.
Very few engineers are conciously negligent but circumstances often conspire against them and they may not always respond as they should. Commercial pressure is by far, at least in my opinion, the most onerous and potentially dangerous factor affecting not only engineers but pilots, despatchers and so on. It is about time the travelling public woke up to this. Cost is a factor and while a little commercial pressure may serve as a useful impetus, it is by far the most "in your face issue" affecting those mentioned above. Cost issues affect every facet of aviation, upto and including regulation.
Sorry for diatribe.

20th Apr 2001, 11:34
Hey Fly4Fud, what's a "lemon and prey?"..I never flew in one. Cockney rhyming slang, or what?

20th Apr 2001, 14:29

[This message has been edited by moist (edited 21 April 2001).]

20th Apr 2001, 14:42

B clam
20th Apr 2001, 20:56
Operate rudder trim most flights due to the flying bananas that most of our a/c are!

Come to think of it, our colour scheme fits the bill - guess who?

21st Apr 2001, 13:23
Bus429, No slur intended on the engineer in the trim case or indeed the engineer in the Luton jet case. Quite the reverse. My complaint is that the airline in question, having had shortage of manpower and inadequate quality and safety processes highlighted in the report you qoute continues to run understaffed and in the vital opeartional areas and hence is pressuring staff to cut corners or work when unduly fatigued.

The engineers in the Luton incident ahd been working inordinately long shifts due to manpower shortages: my point is that nothing has changed. If Ansett can be threatened with the removal of their AOC by the Oz CAA for safety reasons what are the UK CAA doing about the repeated disregard bmi display for safety? Was there not a call at the BALPA delegates conference for companies to pay more than lipservice to safety?

Puts high horse back in stable .

21st Apr 2001, 16:26
PDGU - no offence likewise! Maintenance chiefs seem to have allowed standards to slip to make the balance sheet look good.
Many engineers feel, assuming things carry on as they are, a major incident is not far off. The annoying thing is, we have had all the warnings several times over but they are not being heeded by some of those controlling policy and purse strings. Only when it happens will the Accountable Managers realise how accountable they are. Don't forget, a proven maintenance error, even by a third party organisation, does not absolve the operator of responsibility.

[This message has been edited by Bus429 (edited 21 April 2001).]

21st Apr 2001, 17:00
If you think things are bad now wait a couple of years they are going to get worse. Rather than addressing saftey issues and manpower shortages some companys are reorganising so the work will be done by less qualified people in less time. The job is supposedly now so easy anyone can do it so they no longer see the need to maitain the previous high standards (the standards have only been kept where they are by LAEs working hard and fighting thier companys to put saftey first. Soon when you take your plane out it wont be an LAE whos made sure its safe. Have fun up there

[This message has been edited by reboot (edited 21 April 2001).]