View Full Version : Engineers to fight pilot flight checks
Wirraway
10th Mar 2004, 22:49
Thurs "The Australian"
Engineers to fight pilot flight checks
By Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
March 11, 2004
AIRCRAFT engineers are to launch a public campaign highlighting safety concerns arising from competition between low-cost airlines and plans to allow Jetstar pilots to make pre-flight safety checks.
The engineers say they have been told by Jetstar the airline plans to limit pre-flight checks by licensed engineers to one at the start of each day, with pilots performing the rest.
A similar proposal by Virgin Blue last year sparked threats of industrial action before the airline reached an agreement that allowed engineers as well as pilots to inspect the carrier's planes at major airports.
Engineers confirmed yesterday they planned to campaign against the Jetstar plan, and called on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to ensure competition between low-cost airlines did not lead to short cuts on safety.
The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association said its members were under pressure at Virgin Blue not to conduct the checks.
The engineers argue that pilots can easily miss problems that would be spotted by trained engineers.
But airlines say the pilot checks are common overseas and allowed under current laws and manufacturer guidelines.
ALAEA federal secretary David Kemp said the travelling public had every reason to be concerned about the Jetstar proposals.
"The manufacturers tell airlines what they want to hear when they're selling aeroplanes," Mr Kemp said. "But these aircraft are complex machines, and they do need to be inspected."
Qantas spokesman Michael Sharp said the Jetstar procedures had been approved by CASA.
They had been used without a problem for four years at Impulse Airlines, which is forming the basis of the Jetstar operations.
"There will be no change for Jetstar – it's exactly what's happening now with the Impulse operations," Mr Sharp said.
==========================================
mainwheel
11th Mar 2004, 01:38
Proficency would say let the pilot do the walk around check and the engineer load the FMC etc. Who knows the task at hand better.??:8
No cause for alarm here members of the travelling public, as CASA has approved of this. :rolleyes:
Hang on, this is the same CASA that is allowing Virgin Blue, another low cost operator, to operate Aircraft without adequate records, maybe you SHOULD worry. :uhoh:
Good luck to the ALAEA for trying to maintain safety standards, (and yes also jobs), however I fear the accountants will win. :(
It is all to do with risk management, the large savings they will definitely make by not doing these checks is "estimated" to be much greater than the possibility of a huge payout after the loss of an Aircraft and all the souls on board. :(
Thats nothing one Asian international operater gets its Capts to sign for everything, engine oil, fuel, preflight and for the rectification of defects. Do you see anything wrong with this?
There are many Countries, not just in Asia, where all sorts of things like that happen. :(
The thing is, do we really want our system to sink that low just to save money? :{
OR do we want to keep the safest system in the World. :ok:
Dehavillanddriver
12th Mar 2004, 12:55
amazing how the alaea cranks up this campaign at the same time as alarmist stuff about virgin makes it into the press....
I wonder if anyone will inform the public that Jetstar will need to "stay within 60 minutes of an airport at all times" when they start..just as the existing impulse aeroplanes have to "stay within 60 minutes of an airport..."
I like the stickers - 100% lame 100% safe - the only 100% safe aeroplane is a paper aeroplane - and they don't have lame's!
it is the same arguement as those that came out when 2 crew aeroplanes came out - and the sky has not fallen in....
Lames BUILD the paper aeroplanes. :ok:
The reason they are safe, is they don't have PILOTS.......... ;) :p :ok:
I have absolutely NO personal interest at all now either way, except maybe sometimes as a passenger. :uhoh:
As a passenger I want an LAME to preflight the aircraft I am flying on thank you.
And I want a Pilot to fly it.
amos2
12th Mar 2004, 15:36
As a pilot, and a pax from time to time, I want a Lame AND a crew member to pre flight the A/C prior to blast off.
Anyone who says otherwise is a nong!! :(
Dehavillanddriver
12th Mar 2004, 16:35
Amos
I don't disagree, what I object to is the ALAEA trying to insinuate that the sky will fall in if LAME's don't do a preflight.
The reality is that two sets of eyes are better than one, and neither pilots OR LAME's are infallible, and the 100% LAME 100% safe slogan is demonstrably false.
There are just as many instances where LAME's have missed things as there are instances of pilots missing things - we are both human afterall.....
Nobody, certainly NOT me, is saying ONLY LAMEs should do preflights. :uhoh:
The system we have had for decades should remain, that is BOTH one of the Pilots and an LAME do independent preflights. :ok:
I have been in the situation numerous times over the years, where a Pilot will see me doing a thorough preflight and say that he doesn't need to do one too then, particularly when I am travelling with the aircraft, and although this is meant as a compliment, it is also wrong.
It is much safer with 2 independent inspections. :ok:
But cheaper with one. :(
Aren't Jet Star looking to turn around the aircraft in 25 minutes?
I was wondering how much time that would allow for a walkaround so I have just worked through a best case scenario turnaround in my mind and allocated an amount of time for each task that is required for every turnaround. This is what I came up with.
Shut-down procedures: liaise with ground engineer, complete checklist and wait for half of pax to get off. 5.0 minutes. By the time the aerobridge is in place, doors open and all pax off 10 minutes.
Walk out of flightdeck and down stairs 0.5 minutes.
Walk up stairs and back in to flightdeck 0.5 minutes.
Panel scan 2.0 minutes.
Listen to ATIS 0.5 minutes.
Check Provisional load-sheet. Basic weight and index, Special Load Notice, Dangerous goods. 1.0 minutes.
Calculate take-off data 0.5 minutes. (If no unusual considerations required)
Program/ check programming of FMC:
Check correct program/ performance data, correct UTC. Enter aircraft position.
Enter company route. Enter departure runway. Check all way-points correspond to flight plan by checking track / distance. Enter anticipated SID. Enter zero fuel weight from loadsheet, enter cost-index, enter planned cruise altitude, enter initial cruise wind and temperature enter maximum speed limits. Enter airport temperature note max t/o thrust. Enter assumed temperature, note reduced t/o thrust. Enter V1, Vr, V2. Check climb speeds, cruise speeds, and select desired descent speeds plus any speed/ altitude requirements. Enter forecast winds at various levels on descent from flight plan.
2.5 minutes.
Request airways clearance from ATC 0.5 minute.
Confirm the Runway, SID, Altitude, Transponder code correctly selected / set. 0.5 minutes.
Brief on intentions if you have an engine failure above V1 during the take-off. Consider significant terrain, suitable runway for return or nearest airport if weather is below landing minima, overweight landing considerations? 1.0 minutes
Check SID in FMC correctly follows the published SID. Mention various speed altitude, bank angle requirements. 1 minute.
Run through the MCP, VOR/DME, ADF selection. 0.3 minutes.
Run through take-off data. Confirm correct settings. 1 minute.
Check flight instruments. 0.3 minutes.
Check through the tech log. Check hold items, MEL's (Minimum Equipment List) if required. Check preflight checks done and signed off by engineers. 1 to 5 minutes (even more on some occasions).
Check fuel quantity loaded by two separate means and both within 3% of each other. 1 minute.
Receive final load sheet. Enter ZFW and C of G in FMC. Note Stab trim setting, number of persons on board, t/o weight within certain amount of that used for take-off data calculations. Recalculate if required. 0.5 to 1.0 minutes.
Before Start checklist 1.2 minutes.
This all adds up to 20.8 minutes.
Add 5 seconds between tasks to allow for being human equals 1.7 minutes plus 30 seconds to say hello to new cabin crew or whatever.
Total time is 22.0 minutes.
That leaves 3 minutes for a walk-around.
Adequate time to cover more than just:
Nose Cone..... Present
Left Wing..... Present
Left BRT........ Present
Left LRT........ Present
Elevator........ Present.
Tail fin.......... Present
Right LRT...... Present
Right BRT...... Present
Right Wing...... Present
??
For goodness sake, let the engineers back up the poor ol' pilots with the walk-around. After all aviation is best played as a team sport!
amos2
13th Mar 2004, 17:28
Well, that's pretty impressive Blip, and I agree with you, but, gee, couldn't you have just said it takes at least 25 minutes to turn an A/C around?
30 minutes is better and 45 is an absolute luxury!
A class airline allows 45. Not too many of them around these days, especially in Oz!! :p
Groaner
14th Mar 2004, 23:14
Assuming only shorthaul operations, the difference between a (say) 30-minute turnaround and a 45-minute turnaround is huge economically.
It's the difference between getting 10 1-block-hour sectors out of an aircraft and 8 (if you work out the times, they are both close to 14-hour days for the A/C). That is a 25% productivity increase in asset terms, and the difference (in many airlines) between profit and loss.
So 45-minute turns are probably a luxury most short-haul airlines can't afford. Of course it is nice-to-have as far as a pilot and/or LAME is concerned, but it comes at a very high price (i.e. the airline may not survive)
25 minutes is way too long. ;)
When the America West crews were here in 1989, they could not understand why we at Ansett had 30 minute turnrounds. :uhoh:
They were used to at home only between 15 and 20 minutes maximum. :rolleyes:
Groaner
16th Mar 2004, 04:38
Southwest is very proud of once doing a record ten-minute turnaround (photo signed by Herb Kelleher hangs in the foyer of the Love Field HQ). Apparently removed most of the hand luggage from the pax, lined them up in the airbridge prior to incoming AC arrival, deplaned from the back stairs whilst cleaning in a "wave" just ahead of the new pax. Oh, and taxied as soon as doors were closed, whilst pax still standing finding their seats.
(before you ask, no idea how they managed the walkarounds)
DJ737
16th Mar 2004, 05:12
What walk around?
ATC verified from the tower with binoculars that all the necessary bits for the next flight were still there :p
DJ737
The Roo Rooter :E :ok:
Cornholeeo
2nd Dec 2004, 03:48
Loks like time has shown the wowsers and worry-merchants to have been wrong.
Many happy times ahead with pilot-walkarounds.
Yawn........
:p
:ok:
:eek:
:hmm:
:bored:
:zzz:
planemad2
2nd Dec 2004, 04:58
Talk about putting a jinx on.
You realise there will probably be major dramas soon, now you have said that.
Incidentally is it still only JetStar that does that?
Ultralights
2nd Dec 2004, 09:05
i remember back not so long ago, i war repairing a damages thrust reverser blocker door, (if it had been flown and deployed on landing, the blocker door would have desintergrated and actually provided forward thrust instead of thrust deflected forward) while i was reparing the door the captain stuck his head in and asked what i was doing to his plane, i said, "reparing the blocker door" he replied, "what does that do?" my reply was " when you deploy thrust reverser, this is what moves and pushes the air forward!" he then said "do you need to fix it now?" i laughed under my breath, "yes, if you want to keep straight when you reverse engines" he then said, "oh, so we do need that bit"
i was quite surprised to hear this coming from the captain! (the ones with 4 bars right?) the aircraft was an Airbus A340 .
the initial cause of the damage was a core panel detatching during landing in syd and impacting the door as it exited! how it got through the cascade vanes i wil never know!
Well, I guess you should go and get yourself a job as a captain, eh!
(You know, the one with the 4 bars, right!)
:ugh:
Ultralights
3rd Dec 2004, 07:57
i forgot to post the point of my post, sorry for any confusion,
my point was would the captain or crew meber doing the walk around have noticed such damage? an engineer found the damage and saw the potential for an incident, but would the crew member doing the checks?
Cornholeeo
3rd Dec 2004, 08:22
an engineer found the damage and saw the potential for an incident, but would the crew member doing the checks?Probably not. He's normally too busy retreiving spanners, scew-drivers, rolls of speed tape, etc from the wheel wells, bulk-heads, inside inspection panels, etc, and adding them to his collection.
Snap-On must make a killing on replacement tools when doing the rounds in those portable tool-shed vans.
Sprite
3rd Dec 2004, 08:30
It's obvious to anyone who knows anything about aircraft operations that an engineer AND a pilot checking the aircraft is better than just and engineer or just a pilot. Unfortunately the general public only see the saving of a few dollars between one airline and another; save $50 and go on an LCC. They have no understanding of risk factors and error chains.
So is it then their own fault if they then end up in an incident/accident because they refused to subsidise more critical maintenance procedures and stricter SOP's?
It's the usual thing... "it'll never happen to me..."