Passenger safety compromised at TAP

[Safety Concerns]

Passenger Safety Compromised at Portugal’s National Airline


TAP, Portugal’s national flag carrier has broken the golden rule of aviation by allowing commercial pressure to become paramount ahead of safety.
AEI has documented evidence relating to an incredible series of unsafe incidents which has lead to non-airworthy planes continuing to transport unwitting passengers.

Complicit in this safety scandal are several TAP pilots and externally contracted maintenance organisations. The evidence is undeniable and clearly highlights:

Falsifying of maintenance records
Aircraft System faults erased from aircraft Logbooks Maintenance
Inspections performed and signed off by unqualified individuals
All to ensure that the flight schedule was met during an industrial dispute rather than announce cancellations.

Fred Bruggeman AEI General Secretary said “the evidence is shocking and must call into question TAP’s approach to safety management particularly as TAP knowingly exposed unwitting passengers to unnecessary additional dangers.

AEI have been warning for some time about safety standards becoming compromised as commercial pressure and weak regulatory oversight increase their stranglehold on the aviation industry.

"What we are witnessing here is the direct result of insufficient regulatory oversight at both national and European level. National Aviation Authorities are not complying with the regulations as they should; this has been clearly documented in the EASA Standardisation Reports whilst the European Commission all too often succumbs to industry lobbying. This leaves a void as far as enforcement of the regulations is concerned and industry takes full advantage of the fare paying passenger by cutting corners and lowering safety levels” Fred continued.

AEI has long maintained that “self regulation” or “regulation light” as some call it, has no place in the aviation industry as too much is at stake. AEI have also criticised pilots for continuing to fly unsafe aircraft. The evidence published on the AEI website is clear for all to see. Pilots do place passenger’s lives in danger by taking unnecessary risks.

AEI demands that a full investigation be initiated immediately by the Portuguese National Authority and Department of Transport.

“It isn’t just about the regulators though” added Mr Bruggeman, “industry groups such as the European Cockpit Association and the Association of European Airlines have a lot to answer for by consistently failing to condemn the reckless and irresponsible behaviour of their members”.



Despite the continuous denials new evidence emerges everyday. Professional pilots are not being very professional looking in the other direction on this one.

Wouldn't it be better to work side by side against the common enemy, COMMERCIALISM, rather than allow industry to continuously get away with it due to our squabblings?

Engineers and pilots should be ensuring that safety remains paramount at all times and not just when convenient. A different approach from ECA would be welcomed on this matter.

[jds_portugal]

As a TAP pilot, I can garantee that is not how things are done. Being my employer, you can think that I''m defending my colours, but I can assure that no one erases anythink from the Tech log book, and every single malfuncion is reported ASAP.
I already had a delay on an aircraft because of one cockpit table not stowed properly, and the aircrafts always fly the the MEL...

Can you please reveal the source of that text?

Many thanks!

[captplaystation]

The original text sounds "more than a little" politically motivated, as it is questioning the operation during an industrial dispute. :hmm:
It strikes me as rather short sighted to drag the name of your employer through the mud and then expect them to sit amicably around the negotiating table with you. :=

[TO MEMO]

OK let`s see things here... TAP`s safety record is not the best around, but it`s not the worst either... overall it`s good

Those things seem dificult to me!

Falsyfing maintenance records... lye

erasing faults from logbooks... it`s almost impossible to do so, since I believe TAP still uses the old logbooks, ie, non-electronic logbooks.

inspections performed and signed off by unqualified personnel... not so difficult to believe! That`s the only one I believe that might have happened.

Cheers

[Safety Concerns]

Just to clarify. This wasn't intended as a yes he does or oh no they don't thread.

I am sure you are all mature enough to understand that an organisation doesn't issue such press releases without being 100% sure of the facts.

When this finally goes properly public, with evidence being made public,
I suppose "you were warned" is an apt comment.

The preferred route would still be a change in attitude from ECA. However time is getting short

[Retire2015]

SC,

From what you say, this appears to be a trial balloon for a pending press release.

Is this true?

R

[Two's in]

As laudable as AEI's attempts to bolster the position of licensed engineers are, this political piece of nonsense is neither newsworthy nor accurate. The statement;

has broken the golden rule of aviation by allowing commercial pressure to become paramount ahead of safety.

...is simply laughable. Like it or not, everything has a price, and safety is just one of those things. Since when did being profitable become "Commercial Pressure"? No airline will survive with a poor or questionable safety record, but that doesn't mean safety isn't a costed factor. There is nothing in these claims that hasn't been seen and done before, so why TAM should suddenly come under the AEI's spotlight is a far more interesting question.

[aguadalte]

As an actual employee of TAP, flying more than 22 years with a company that always gave me, as a Captain, the "last word" on GO/NO GO decisions, without the slightest sign of persecution or pressure. A company that always did teach me the rules of "safety first", one of the first ever to install EFDARS and other flight safety follow up instruments, CRM, LOSA, Quality Audits, etc. The culture of flight safety inside TAP is as strong as its image among our people and one of the reasons we still want to keep it as our Flag Carrier. I can only understand this anonymous quote of a pretence breach of safety by someone that is misinformed and with premeditated harmful intentions, and that is a case for Justice and Courts. My personal experience with TAP compels me to consider those declarations as an absolute non-sense. One thing I know: We may well be not one of the most productive airlines, but one thing that we are all proud of is, Safety!

[hetfield]

I don't know about the source of the thread related stuff, but I don't hestitate to put my family and myself in a TAP airplane.


About myself:

Commander in a well known airline, not TAP!

Merry x-mas

[Safety Concerns]

sorry probably should have sourced it, its on the newswires such as this.

http://www.individual.com/story.php?story=93957932

I can only understand this anonymous quote of a pretence breach of safety by someone that is misinformed and with premeditated harmful intentions, and that is a case for Justice and Courts.

Well if unfounded your probably correct but what then are the consequences should the flip side of your comments be true, i.e. the claims are factual and 100% spot on?

[aguadalte]

Well if unfounded your probably correct but what then are the consequences should the flip side of your comments be true, i.e. the claims are factual and 100% spot on?

Well, first of all, in decent, democratic and in a law enforced societies, one does not make any type of accusations, without proof. First you get proof, then you accuse.
And if by chance, those accusations turn to be true, then I think culprits must pay the price and face consequences.
Since my conscience is clean, and once my own experience in the company tells me that those accusations are completely non-sense I have the right to feel offended by them as a professional and as a proud TAP employee.
I hope you understand that.

[Safety Concerns]

@aguadalte

of course I understand your position. However your position of denying it takes place is just as offensive to those who witness these actions.

The way forward would be for ECA to climb down from that pedestal and start seriously discussing how we should deal with this.

So far they are not prepared to do so. I personally would prefer to see a behind closed doors solution but fear it won't happen.

[LocBlew]

Interesting how someone worried about "Safety Concerns" echoes news clearly driven by a political agenda... Interesting.

I wonder if all these irregularities are found on "TAP Portugal" airline maintenace logbooks, etc, or if they extend to the long list of costumers "TAP Maintenance & Engineering" as a company has... I wonder. Costumers which audit and verify quality standars on a regular basis. I could leave you the list of TAP M&E costumers but I'm sure you have checked their website for that.

Instead, let me just ask you if, by any chance, you know who's responsible for the maintenance on those "Republique Française" Airbus sitting on the tarmac at CDG? Yes. TAP M&E. Funny how the french trust their aircraft and the life of Mr. Sarkosy to these bandits... Funny.

Four words: ridiculous politically driven news.

[Safety Concerns]

@locblew I think you are missing the point but merry xmas anyway.

For the value of audits read up on Nationwide.

[AIRWAY]

Greetings on this festive season! :ok:

I do not believe for one minute that TAP Portugal is comprimising safety.

TAP's M&E section is one of the most recognised around, and it reflects in its customer books, surely if something was wrong, we would have known by now!

[Safety Concerns]

I don't remember any mention of TAP maintenance. As far as I am aware the press release is in the main about pilots and contracted maintenance partners?

[Safety Concerns]

Well the press release obviously can't be true then can it. Strange that an organisation would risk everything telling porkies.

But then again those saying it doesn't happen aren't risking anything are they

[aguadalte]

But then again those saying it doesn't happen aren't risking anything are they

Maybe if and when you bring proof, I'll be risking that people in this forum call me a liar. As I said before: first bring proof, and only then accuse! Thats the only honest approach to such important issues like the attack to a company and to her professionals. And if you're only the messenger (that, I could accept in a forum dedicated to rumors) why are you so keen to defend such an offensive declaration?
You're not risking anything also, are you? You're so keen to spread the word...what are your really intentions? Don't tell me...Safety Concerns...yeah:ugh:

Its a petty this forums are so anonymous...they allow anybody to come here and start a rumor without facing consequences...you're really the one in advantage here.

[Safety Concerns]

@aguadalta. First of all let me say I respect your input here and its nothing personal.

However....I haven't started any rumours I have just posted a press release that I have taken in good faith and support the contents.

Now being called a liar on an anonymous forum cannot compare with an organisation like AEI losing face because their information isn't factual. I assume you accept that.

I also support the action and attempts they are making to keep this internal and find a solution. (it's not just TAP although this time it is apparently)

I have what may or may not be considered an advantage as I have been following their actions and have in fact reported similar events in another airline. My interpretation of the situation is that all avenues have now been exhausted and you the pilots are still in denial about this. I cannot vouch for TAP but I can state that similar and worse is unfortunately an everyday event.

So who is being honest here? I believe AEI have been more than honest and should they now choose to begin open warfare (I don't know that) but the tone seems to indicate such an approach, then I support them.

I will state again, I have no axe to grind and I would prefer a different solution but the fact remains you haven't been listening. Therefore if it goes public it goes public and I would suggest it will harm your profession greatly.

And by the way, the Press Release mentions names so I still firmly believe they have the evidence.

[broadreach]

I'm always a tad suspicious of adjective-laden press releases e.g. "knowingly exposed unwitting passengers to unnecessary additional dangers." Verbiage vs substance comes to mind.

In the full release on the AEI site there's a reference that reads "The evidence published on the AEI website is clear for all to see." Perhaps it's hidden somewhere but I couldn't find it.

What I do find is lots of negative references to ECA, not just there but in Safety_Concerns's postings on other threads. Without doubting SC's sincerity, it all does seem to add up to "agenda".

As far as TAP's concerned, think I'll stick with hetfield's take.

[Safety Concerns]

I stand corrected as I can't find any evidence either. I have emailed them but don't expect a reply soon considering the time of year.

Still would find it very strange if they went to the press and had nothing:confused:

[411A]

Looks to me that this whole charade was authored by a maintenance engineers union stooge...:rolleyes:

[GuiTAP]

Hi all!

All the proof i can present is from my experience.
I have been a TAP pilot for 3 years, i have never flown an aircraft with anomalies not considered in the MEL. Outside Lisbon every engineer coming to the aircraft had identification and most of them are from Lufthansa Tecknik, they said they were maintenance engineers and i never doubted them, i didn´t check for licenses or anything but i am pretty sure they knew what they were doing.

About the acusations, i will just wait for proof.

About "Safety Concerns" he is just the messenger and i thank him for his post, it is nice to know what other say and think about your company.

Happy new year!!!!

[EL CAPITAN]

Seems that SC complaints smell fishy, he is the only one accusing, isn't it strange???The Capt:ok:

[Safety Concerns]

I thought this site was for adults. I have explained in this and previous posts why this subject interests me. My personal interest is not TAP. I just think the TAP situation is the one that broke the camels back.

Conspiracy theories and the like really are nothing more than silly games for little boys and their comics.

I will say it again. Nothing personal but I believe you have all been well warned. Those who still maintain their professionalism on a daily basis, I apologise for what is possibly coming but unfortunately you have too many colleagues (I refuse to call them professional) who for whatever reason do their own thing.

You can and will of course attempt to shoot the messenger because that is convenient but you won't succeed in stopping the rot. It is that rot that should be your primary concern not me.

[AIRWAY]

Hello,

I believe enough has been said with regards to this subject, we all have our own opinions and we are entitled to express them in an educative manner, whether we agree or not is something else.

I believe if something was wrong with TAP we would have known by now, so I shall leave the burden of proof to those making the accusations. Accusations in general need to be supported with evidence.

PS - Edited, made a mistake. :ouch:

[Safety Concerns]

I believe if something was wrong with TAP M&ETAP M&E is very professional and isn't the target of the post as you well know.

Furthermore you are not being asked to agree with it. Whatever is said here has no effect apart from hopefully causing a few ECA colleagues to have a serious think about their current position on this.

I will take the abuse because I don't actually want to see the next stage of this campaign being implemented. I find that an honest and open approach but of course its your choice to believe otherwise.

You are being told that if your profession doesn't get a grip of the rogues, the dedicated professionals amongst you will undoubtedly get caught in the resulting crossfire. Splashing evidence all over the place is last resort not first. Check the threads and you will see that there have been enough warnings.

The next stage as I understand it and the reason for my futile postings will not be pleasant. From a personal perspective not wanted either but I say it again, you are just not listening.

Therefore you can have no gripes when it bites back.

[cockney steve]

S C....Are you seriously trying to say that there are commercial pilots who are so egotistical, arrogant and stupid, that they'd fly an aircraft that was suspect?

I really don't think a person with that amount of vested interest,time and cash, would do such a thing.

Besides which, the safety-margins built -in to commercial flight, have huge margins...I am quite sure there is considerable room to erode those margins ,without ACTUALLY compromising flight -safety to any realistic degree.

Whilst I am not suggesting it would be a good thing to erode the margins, there have been huge advances in engineering,stress and fatigue analysis and reliability ,in the last 60-odd years since WW2. (arguably the most intense aviation development phase)..Pilot training has also improved and IIRC the cockpit has 100% redundancy in that respect as well.

Your post was ill-considered,considering the subject -carrier has NO recent dodgy operating record.

No connection with any of the above, other than an interested outside observer.

[Safety Concerns]

S C....Are you seriously trying to say that there are commercial pilots who are so egotistical, arrogant and stupid, that they'd fly an aircraft that was suspect?



yes

You are still not listening

[captplaystation]

This is getting slightly tedious.
If I get this right you are saying that some TAP pilots are what . . . . .
A- not writing defects in the book ?
B- flying with items in the book that according the MEL should ground the aircraft ?
C- none of the above . . . in which case what the hell are you on about ?

Or is it simply that they refused to participate in some industrial action the engineers are involved in and are trying to keep the show on the road ?
If , to achieve that ,they are doing A or B , I agree with you.
If not, I ask again, what is this all about exactly ?

[Carnage Matey!]

What are the AEI trying to achieve here? If theyreally have evidence of such wrongdoing they should be reporting it to the Portuguese CAA who have the power to investigate the allegations and punish the wrongdoers, not complaining that the ECA, which is a collection of unions, should shame people into action. I'd hazard a guess 90% of European pilots have never received a direct communication from the ECA and would pay scant regard to it if they did. This whole affair sounds to me like the AEI want to kick up a temporary stink but don't want anyone to examine their 'evidence' too closely.

I suspect captplaystation has hit the nail on the head.

[Safety Concerns]

@carnage matey, I know its difficult to accept and the message is an unwanted one. When I supplied my evidence to AEI we obviously had a chat. It became clear to me that AEI considered pilots and their representative bodies to be colleagues and did not want to embarass them publicly. However I don't think AEI (my opinion) expected zero response. I would have thought it very easy to send out a general reminder of one's responsibilities or statement that ECA consider flying with unlogged no dispatch items to be extremely unprofessional. I have been led to believe that AEI would present evidence to ECA.

@captplaystation
As far as TAP and my understanding of the latest PR is concerned A+B during a strike. As for the bigger picture A+B in far too many other airlines every day regardless of the industrial situation.


As mentioned in a previous post. I believe that the TAP situation is the one that broke the camels back.

[captplaystation]

If the pilots were flying with recorded no-go's which the Eng Dept was aware of why didn't they inform the Authority of the country concerned (Portugal or indeed destination) or are you suggesting they did & it was swept under the carpet (which is MAJOR SH1T if that was the case :eek: ) As for not writing stuff in the book, if the engineers were made verbally aware & let the aircraft depart nonetheless. . . well they were also complicent in the deception, and at the same time weren't doing there own cause much good, kind of an own goal there.
I have never been in a company where it wasn't "preferred" that a minor defect was noticed on the last sector of the day rather than in the middle.
Equally I have never (fortunately) worked for one where I felt any pressure to carry (an unnoted) non allowable defect to keep the show on the road. I did once work for a dodgy "paranoi"-struck Italian company where all the local Capt's seemed to feel the "need :hmm: " to do this. As a Contractor in a bouyant job market I had no such difficulties articulating the word "No". . . but well ,ENAC for sure do a "great job" of "oversight :rolleyes: ") in relation to that operation.

[Safety Concerns]

I would be the first to admit that TAP possibly have got a raw deal here but I don't have all the information.

I know from my examples that the NAA were in bed with the operator. There are also other documented events where reports that were sent to the NAA ended up as originals at the airline concerned on the bosses desk as he fired the reporter.

I only mention this in the hope that you understand all avenues have been exhausted

[captplaystation]

NAA in bed with the operator, Hmmn . . where have I heard that accusation levelled before :hmm:

[mike.hammer]

What really happened was that TAP pilots have reached to a fanta$tic retirement agreement and now they are really "motivated" to duty...
Despite other colleagues strikes there are some pilots that keep think they could do everything.
INAC portuguese authority is unnefective to control ( their head staff are retired pilots...)
I hope EASA wont sleep on this.

Do someone really thinks that AEI would report something so severe if there were no evidences?...

yours

MH

[aguadalte]

Does anybody need more proof of what is at stake here, in the light of what was written by Mike.Hammer? Well, I don't...

Thanks, (new entrant) Mike.H, for bringing to us the real reasons behind this infamy.

I think 411A said it with just a few words:
Looks to me that this whole charade was authored by a maintenance engineers union stooge...:rolleyes:

[SPA83]

I think that, in the real world, everything is possible. Here the evidence : “The safety of Iberia’s aircrafts is under suspicion” according to SEPLA
http://www.sepla.es/website/seplacms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1151&Itemid=1

[Conan The Barber]

People who come bearing gifts, such as accusations and thinly veiled threats, should be concerned whether they are whiter than white themselves. The chance that this will blow up in their own faces it not insignificant.

[Safety Concerns]

Oh Conan,come on now. I have tried to stay on the centreline and tell it as it is. There have been no threats just an explanation of why its looking more likely that an unwanted event from my perspective is going to happen. Nice thinly veiled threat from you though.

As for Mike Hammer I have no information on his concerns at all. That said though aguadalte your post doesn't make sense.

Are you trying to suggest that nothing has happened during the strike and it must all be lies because someone now raises a different issue that appears to have a "grudge" element attached to it?

Usually its exactly that type of discontent that opens the doors and allows more truths to emerge.

[broadreach]

The problem, SC, is that you have come bearing a gift, that gift being the reference to AEI's press release which mentions "proof" to be found on their website. That proof may even be your own whistleblower submission to them (inferred, perhaps mistakenly, from one of your previous posts) but, as you have also ascertained, the proof doesn't seem to be there. Maybe it was before but has been removed after threat of legal action.

And, in reading back through this thread, your comments and the rather inflated prose on the AEI site, I'm no longer sure whether the target of it all is TAP or ECA.

[LH2]

PFJI. Not that I care one way or the other, but this has to win the prize for Least Credible Pprune Accusation of the year 2008. :ok:

At least try to get an actual newspaper to publish it, for God's sake--they're suckers for this kind of story and it's not like they will go fact-checking or anything like that, yet being in print gives it instant credibility with the masses.

But what I wanted to ask: so what is AEI anyway? The closest thing a Google search brings up is a Spanish civil engineering company.

[Safety Concerns]

@broadreach, I admit I wander off a little at times mainly because I feel so strongly about this and am having to learn the politics of it all at the same time. I have no connection with TAP at all and have only reported my opinion on the AEI press release as the situation as described in it, is very close to my own personal experiences.

I absolutely deplore the company/commercial minded behaviour of some pilots but am not keen on a public mud slinging match. I really do request ECA to seriously consider AEI's suggestion of coming to the table for discussions on this as well. Perhaps my naive knowledge of the politics here makes that sound ridiculous, I don't know. But that's my agenda.

The proof aspect is disappointing and as stated in an earlier post I have emailed them but no response yet. Whether it has to do with legal action I really don't know.

AEI (Aircraft Engineers International) is a body representing engineers interests globally. Thats why I can't believe there is no evidence. They have far too much to lose if this was instigated to assist a strike or in fact instigated for any reason other than its true.

[pweaver]

But what I wanted to ask: so what is AEI anyway? The closest thing a Google search brings up is a Spanish civil engineering company.
History: Aircraft Engineers International (http://www.airengineers.org/History)

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/905/aeime5.gif

Domain name registrant and server in Norway.

Their press release seems defamatory.

[Endok]

Safety Concerns: don't worry these TAP guys are not used to being criticized. You have to understand them: highly paid in a poor country, working for a monopolistic state owned airline that never gave a profit since founded more than 50 years ago.

They believe they are above everyone but time will tell the truth.

[GearDown&Locked]

I will state again, I have no axe to grind and I would prefer ... blablabla

Safety Concerns: who are you?

Seriously, tells us who you are and why do you keep all this circus going on and on post after post? are you trying to get an edge for next month negociations?

:=

GD&L
P.S.-you know where ODLIX is, right?

[TOMMY1954]

For a first post like this,you should win a prize!

[Safety Concerns]

Seriously, tells us who you are and why do you keep all this circus going on and on post after post?

It's ok, I know in this day and age old fashioned honesty and I accept perhaps a bit of naivity is treated with suspicion.

I don't know what more I can say other than "I have absolutely no connection with TAP or any strike or any negotiations".

I didn't know where odlix was until I googled.

My interest has already been clearly stated.

[E. MORSE]

AEI

CONTACT: PR officer e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +31 655 930 175 WWW: Aircraft Engineers International (http://www.airengineers.org)



This telephone number is a cell-phone.

AEI is a joke, could be invented by a passenger who lost some luggage on a TAP flight.

[jds_portugal]

Safety Concerns: don't worry these TAP guys are not used to being criticized. You have to understand them: highly paid in a poor country, working for a monopolistic state owned airline that never gave a profit since founded more than 50 years ago.

They believe they are above everyone but time will tell the truth.

You not only offending any TAP personnel, you are offending every single Portuguese citizen. That's not nice to say out loud.
And for the record, since the new Adminstration took place, TAP was done profits. And if you be a interessed person and read some opinion articles in aviation business, you will see that TAP is put as one of the companies that could survive this world crisis.
But leave the Portuguese alone and return to Algarve to enjoy you vacations and make fun you every servant that you encounter....

[JFA]

YAMO (Yet Another Mechanic Organization), like there weren't that much already to go around, another flower blooms.

One thing we must agree is that it hit the PR jackpot. Since the only truth behind all this is that TAP has a very high standard in safety, so it would be obvious that this news would result in a great surprise to everyone in the industry, and therefore would call upon great attention from everyone. It is great fuel for a startup like this, but one that wont go that far and indeed can fire back, since it is absolutely wrong.

If this YAMO was for real i guess there would be some better targets to get at.

Nothing is perfect in the line, but there are standards that draw the line, and real companies work to be within them.

Trying to damage the company you work for is not good policy, that is my advise to the anachronistic communist union leaders that fill in the ranks.
There is a saying that applies perfectly to this: - Don't spit at the soup, because you may have to eat it next.

[MadDog Driver]

jds_Portugal,

Only to avoid misunderstandings, that stupid post was from Endok. Endok's first post funnily enough! It wasn't Safety Concerns.

I have for many years, been a pilot with a major airline in Northern Europe, that most would call highly professional. I have also due to family circumstances, jumpseated a million times on TAP during those years!
For whatever it's worth, I have on every jumpseat trip found, that the TAP pilots are as friendly, down to earth, and most importantly, well trained and professional as anyone!! I am happy to send my whole family on a longhaul trip with TAP tomorrow!

Last time we heard about AEI was a few months ago when they ran a campaign, that pilots in various european airlines were delaying logbook entries until the return trip to base,so as to avoid delays! They said that 80% of log entries were made on return to base when the logical figure should be 50%!
They made it sound like pilots flew dangerous aircraft back to base! Never acknowleding that pilots are well capable of deciding that a blocked seat due to vomit on the cushion, or lack of paper for the ACARS printer can wait to be taken care of on return to base, they wanted to tell Mr and Mrs SLF, that 30% of flights in Europe where a log entry was made were operated dangerously:hmm:

I think that AEI needs to come out with some serious proof. Now. Or they are also culprits in this "dangerous behaviour"! I think that AEI has an agenda, that has nothing to do with safety, and all to do with a union trying to protect jobs in an unfortunate era of crisis and jobcuts in all airlines!

[Safety Concerns]

I think actually its more about honesty. If you want to drive standards down to something that aligns better with Africa, fine. Regulators and industry however should be honest about it and inform the public.

It doesn't serve anybodies interests to pretend everything is ok.

[misd-agin]

safety concerns -

"However....I haven't started any rumours I have just posted a press release that I have taken in good faith and support the contents.

Now being called a liar on an anonymous forum cannot compare with an organisation like AEI losing face because their information isn't
factual. I assume you accept that."


And by the way, the Press Release mentions names so I still firmly believe they have the evidence.

"I stand corrected as I can't find any evidence either."

"I will say it again. Nothing personal but I believe you have all been well warned. Those who still maintain their professionalism on a daily basis, I apologise for what is possibly coming but unfortunately you have too many colleagues (I refuse to call them professional) who for whatever reason do their own thing."

"I have tried to stay on the centreline and tell it as it is."

:confused::confused::confused:


So, you're just telling it like it is, we've been warned, there are bad people out there, but you've taken their posting and accepted it in good faith and support it's contents, even though there's no proof?

Did I miss anything? :ugh:

[Safety Concerns]

well its a bit more than a posting, it was a press release.
Yes, you have missed quite a bit

[south coast]

This thread has become silly. If there was an ounce of truth to any of this it would be in all the papers and on all the news...we all know how the media love to jump on to these aviation stories.

Havent seen, heard or indeed read anything about TAP anywhere...

So SC, where is the proof, put us out of our misery.

[mike.hammer]

When do you all understand that TAP M&E has absolutely no problems?
When do you understand that during AMT's strike the only players were the cockpit crew and that there are serious people and less serious people!

This was not the first time that happened, and if some aircraft were grounded, other continued to fly.
Some TAP captains think they are "little kings" and they assume that the entire company exhists to justify theyr status!

So, it is not difficult to understand that some time ago a A330 cpt menaced to cancel a 250 people flight if 2 persons he invited ( and that arrived to late to check in) were not brought into the aircraft!....:bored:

Do you need more evidences of prepotence?

Yours

MH

[MadDog Driver]

Safety Concerns,

Nobody "wants to drive standards down to something that aligns better with Africa", but I dare to say, that that is what AEI has done so far, by publishing serious accusations without a shadow of proof yet! Now if they provide some proof of these things...good on them!

Mike.Hammer,

So you are absolutely sure that the captain would have cancelled the flight if his two friends were not allowed onboard?
If you have, time to say goodbye to that man I think!

[LocBlew]

@ Mr. Hammer,


What does that have to do with AEI and the safety concerns we're discussing?

You'll find pilots with oversized egos everywhere. Let's just all admit they're idiots and get it over with. :rolleyes:

Now let's concentrate on the initial topic...

[Endok]

I was not offending the Portuguese people. Some workers at TAP - specially those overpaid - are. You are not above all and if you react like that to any criticism then you have self-esteem problems, I'm afraid.

This post started with a press release stating facts.

And don't talk about safety and other related issues: if you want to mention that then TAP is at or below average.

Want to talk about landing a A340 in a taxiway in Sao Paulo, taxi outside the taxiway in Kinshasa or sending passengers to the Hospital after a F/O abruptly maneuvers an A310 in the Azores? What about being forced to land a A340 in a US air force base near New York because pilots couldn't correctly speak english with the US ATC?

Come on guys, TAP is just another small sized european carrier with financial problems and you have to realize you are not the center of the world.

[broadreach]

Think we can file this one along with the C.L. Dodgson papers.

[LocBlew]

@ Endok,

Isn't that bit too much inside info for a Londoner who registered specially to post on this thread?...:hmm:


Why would someone questioning TAP's pilots safety culture offend the Portuguese people in general is something I honestly don't get. Does questioning Alitalia's management throughout the last few years offend the Italian people?... It doesn't, does it? Not that any Italian would care anyway, but still...:E


Every airline has its incidents over the years. That's just the way it is! How about Air France's A340 Toronto crash, Lufthansa's famous Hamburg go around, Qantas B747 depressurisation, Iberia's Quito overrun, etc. Just to name a few recent ones. All flag carriers most of us trust and will probably fly with in the future.


There might be a few black sheep at TAP, but this press release clearly had a political motivation. I don't think a lot of people doubt that now. The timing (just after an unsuccessful maintenance personnel strike), the evidence that never showed up, you name it!
And as someone stated, TAP's good reputation made this press release even bigger news. And we all know how much the press likes "big news".:yuk:

Honestly, I wouldn't think twice about flying with them again.:ok:

[Endok]

Again I'm not offending anyone. The problem is TAP are not used to being criticized, unfortunately. It's like Olympic, Alitalia...

"TAP's good reputation"

From where? For me their reputation is just like any other small european carrier (Olympic, Austrian, CSA, LOT or Adria). I don't like the mega-ego of many TAP employees feeling they are above the others just because, like I stated in my first post, they work for a state owned never profitable airline where they are overpaid just because no one can touch them. That has to stop.

Again if someone feels offended that it's because they don't feel confortable with themsleves. All I wrote is 100% true. Facts.

[gibas]

Where did you ran from?

Taking a look at your posts, I think either from a zoo or a psychiatric hospital.

Does the company you fly for (if any) belong to a big alliance such as TAP, where the company has to pass thousands of external audits periodically?

Do you know TAP maintenance reputaion and which companies they work for?

Do you know TAP accidents and safety records?
1 Accident since 1940. What about your safe company? 10-15 years existence?

Do you know anything about TAP TRTO among operators, pilots and authorities?

So SC, get a life, get informed first and then if you still buy the press crap, send me a PM and I'll give you the number of a good psychiatrist (in Lisbon).

By the way, I don't work for TAP and never did.

[Safety Concerns]

Thanks gibas for the extremely professional reply. Your response says more about yourself and TAP than I could have achieved.

You also urgently require an eye test, its been a long time since I have come across someone so short sighted!

My own inquiries into TAP instigated due to some comments here have in fact uncovered some very interesting issues. I would prefer not to wander off course but it must be said that:

If we accept the press release as fact, TAP pilots have much much more to lose than the engineers would gain.

If the press release was fiction, it would be downright stupidity on behalf of AEI, probably putting the very existence of the organisation at risk.

So now if I were to look at statistics and probability, I would suggest that the press release is probably accurate.

[Carnage Matey!]

The problem is that no impartial reader is going to accept the press release as fact until we are provided with some evidence. We still have no evidence and the longer the AEI fail to provide it the more it looks like an industrially motivated smear campaign.

[Safety Concerns]

I also think that is a fair point carnage. I still haven't had a reply to my email on that but would suggest its due to the time of year.

That said perhaps AEI need to consider what has happened here in respect of the timing of such a release.

I too would be more than disappointed if this was just a PR stunt. I hope something is forthcoming before next week but suspect we may have to wait till the 5th.:sad:

[JFA]

Safety Concerns
My own inquiries into TAP instigated due to some comments here have in fact uncovered some very interesting issues. I would prefer not to wander off course but it must be said that:One cannot talk about something it knows nothing about and that is not wandering off, it is lack of imagination.

If we accept the press release as fact, TAP pilots have much much more to lose than the engineers would gain.
We accept the PR as a fact, not the same fact that you keep trying to push over, but many people here have said that they have serious doubts about its motivations. Some of these people actually have a clue of what is going on here, and are not trying to play the same tricks as you are trying to, but not quite achieving.

If the press release was fiction, it would be downright stupidity on behalf of AEI, probably putting the very existence of the organization at risk.And why is that? Who gives a damn about them, nobody who is for real cares about AEI. They will still carry on existing, finding another host to parasite a bit longer, or their owners find a useful way to fill up their pockets and their free time, which is that much.

So now if I were to look at statistics and probability, I would suggest that the press release is probably accurate.And if we look at your posts we would suggest that you had something to do with it, and trying to keep it hot, while it rapidly goes cold and die. This subject is going down really quick, so have a nice life.

[captplaystation]

If they truly feel passenger safety is being compromised they are displaying an admirable degree of urgency ( not ) by sloping off for Xmas & New Year :hmm:

Bit like the Frog administration charged with investigating the XL A320 accident.

[GearDown&Locked]

Hmmm
Endok, by the look of it it seems you've failed to get a job at TAP and probably had the "pleasure" to work for the late Air Luxor or something of that ilk. :ouch:
It's the only way I can understand why you wouldn't miss the opportunity to kick some arse provided by your friend Safety Concern with his ill conceived and politically driven posting. Grow up will ya.:ugh:

Safety Concern, if you are doing PR work for this AEI organization, you'd better start looking for another job, because your credibility is zero. You can't just come in here and accuse this airline, or any other for that matter, without presenting a single piece of evidence. :=

from wiki:

In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.

Does it ring any bells now?

[Sallyann1234]

I too would be more than disappointed if this was just a PR stunt. I hope something is forthcoming before next week but suspect we may have to wait till the 5th.

It's a pity you didn't wait to find out before rushing into print here and defaming an airline with a good safety record.

This thread should have been deleted long ago.

[Safety Concerns]

I have posted an article/press release taken from a PR wire. No crime there and its not a crime to agree with the contents even if they end up proven to be false.

I still expect evidence to be forth coming. This reminds me a little of my history lessons in school surrounding the build up to world war 2. If only all those naive do-gooders had listened to the warnings rather than wait for the evidence (invasion of Poland) things may not have taken 6 years or had been so bad. I suppose once again time will tell.

[Bruce Wayne]

"Safety Concerns"

You mention that many people are *missing the point* concerning your initial post, however, you have to also bear responsibility for missing the point yourself.

You posted a "press release" from AEI and made certain comments about that post and indeed I have to concur with CaptPlaystation's comments concerning the indications toward the press release as being more in tune with "political motivation".

First off, the press release is directed toward the company and the pilots during a period of industrial action. However, there is no indication as to which period of industrial action this was during.

As this is a engineering association, we are left to surmise that this was during a period of industrial action by engineering staff. This is again surmised by the direction and the intimations toward maintenance related issues.

The general direction of the press release, IE the title summary and the accusations levied are serious accusations and that while evidence is held it has not been alluded to and that accusation is directed toward pilots that reduced the impact of industrial action by maintenance staff, if that is indeed the industrial action being referenced.

As you may, or may not know, Pilots do not have a death wish. They are not individuals that push the limits of human activity to risk death.

They are people, with a desire to live to see their next birthday and those of their families and loved ones.

As such, pilots have an inherent propensity toward self preservation and in a professional manner. This is why CVR and FDR data show pilots working to resolve a problem right to, in some cases, the point of impact.

Again, as you may, or may not know, pilots have the ultimate responsibility toward the safety of and aircraft, its crew, its passengers and its cargo. This caveat, is often levied toward pilots who have been placed in safety critical situations by others outside of their scope of command.

Again, as you may, or may not know, pilots are also within their liberties to sign off certain items under their licenses. This is why commercial licenses require study, understanding and examination of many aircraft systems, again with the type rating. The MEL items are considered by the manufacturer and by the authority as well the operator for approval by the authority.

As such, any pilot acting in command of an aircraft, not fit for the flight intended will face investigation and repercussions by the authority. That is their license will be tugged and their career with it.

The falsification of maintenance records and inspections completed and signed off by unqualified personnel would be the responsibility of the operators maintenance department. As such this allegation would lead to an investigation and a suspension of operating certificate, IE grounding of an operator pending investigation.

Of course this would have serious repercussions to *ALL* staff of the operator and the investigation would be focused on the engineering department and it's staff.

When we consider the allegation that this was also conducted by outside contract maintenance facilities, that would have repercussions toward that facilities licenses to perform.

So we have to consider the aspect "why would an external maintenance company risk it's business by falsifying records for TAP?" indeed, an external maintenance facility would not be subject to TAP's internal industrial action, furthermore, they would have carte blanche to undertake profitable business that the operators own maintenance facility could not perform. That means good business for the external maintenance facility.

This would then revert to a situation, bearing in mind industrial action by maintenance staff, that it would be more beneficial for an operator to outsource its maintenance.

As you, yourself pointed out, you made a request for this evidence and have received no response. Sorry, but the Christmas period is both irrelevant and relevant.

This was released on the 23rd December, the day prior to Christmas eve. If AEI is off on a Christmas break, then it is HIGHLY irresponsible to make an allegation that could ground an airline and be away till lord knows when to provide evidence to their allegations.

If these allegations are false, unsupported or based on incorrect evidence then this would be what is termed in the days of spin as an "oversight".

That oversight could unjustly cost an operator it's existence, not only in a period of "economic uncertainty" but also in times of economic health.

As such it is irrelevant in the timing, as such an allegation should be able to be supported no matter what time of the year. It is also relevant in that such an allegation should not be made just prior to a period when it cannot be supported.

Indeed, the statement made by the General Secretary is defamatory if it cannot be supported. That is a dangerous path to tread. Furthermore, any ensuing legal action over defamatory press releases would incur time and expense to both parties and it would have to be some very hard and conclusive evidence of complicity and "knowingly".

The statement also includes recommendation that the European aviation authorities individually and as a whole are lacking in regulation.

Quite the opposite.

European aviation authorities, individually and as a whole suffer from over-regulation and mis-directed regulation. This has been the effect of the authorities both individual and as a whole trying to leverage their positions both within Europe and on a global scale. This is a completely separate subject, which I will not go into a dissertation of, however, the allegation of lack of regulation is not only incorrect but scaremongering, as indeed the entire press release attempts to incite.

As such I have to conclude that this press release is irresponsible, incorrect and potentially defamatory and only serves to attempt to give PR to AEI and serve spite toward TAP and it's pilots over the operators ability to maintain operation during a period of industrial action.

It is also damaging to the industry and to the maintenance personnel as it serves to give mitigating circumstances to outsource maintenance.

Sorry to say it, but you didn't *only* post a press release you also made your own statements over "new evidence emerging everyday" that evidence has not been *evidenced* and that we should work together side by side, which is what pilots and engineers do, day in, day out around the world.

An engineering association making allegations toward pilots or an operators maintenance department and management that are incorrect and so far unfounded, is NOT working side by side THAT is creating division.

Especially when that association is doing it serve no one else but it's own publicity.

If you do get the evidence i would be pleased to see it, as would anyone else reading this thread. As we, as industry care about our industry. Pilots, Engineers and management all care about safety.

As for History Lessons and the reference to WWII, it would do well to remember WW2 was inevitable following the Versailles Treaty the result of WW1 which in a nutshell..

When the Archduke of Austria was assassinated, Austria used it as an excuse to send troops into Serbia and declared war on the Serbs.

Serbia was aligned with Russia who declared war on Austria.

Germany was allied with Austria so that meant war between Germany and Russia.

Russia had a treaty with France so war with Russia meant war with France and war with France who had a treaty with England, meant war with England. Europe was caught in its own trap.

The Kaiser seemed not to understand the system of alliances which had been created before his taking the thrown and he removed from power the only man in Germany who did, Bismarck.

Bismarck once said that it would be some damn fool thing in the Balkans to throw Europe into war, and it did.

Believing it would be a quick conflict, he was the most surprised when it turned into the horrible affair it became; Just before the shooting started, Wilhelm tried desperately to stop it all by sending telegrams to Czar Nicholas (his cousin) but it was too late.

The saber rattling had gone too far and all of Europe was mobilizing.

This was a war which had no purpose, was fought without good reason and by the time it was over 9 million would be dead, four empires destroyed and the stage set for World War Two.

The upshot of this little history addendum is that alliances, association, sabre rattling, rhetoric and an unprecedented failure of repercussions of actions can and does have major impact.

[Safety Concerns]

I did consider responding point for point due to the numerous inaccuracies and emotional comments that cannot be supported by facts but felt that in the circumstances (lack of evidence, which incidentally I agree is a major oversight) patience would be the more appropriate virtue.

I do suggest though you read AEI's EU Unfit to Regulate European Aviation press release. The facts and their source are mentioned in the document.

As to your further enhancement of history you are bang on and we are already there. World war 1 has finished (JAA) and the stage has already been set for the next disaster world war 2 (EASA).

[mike.hammer]

-"Again, as you may, or may not know, pilots are also within their liberties to sign off certain items under their licenses. This is why commercial licenses require study, understanding and examination of many aircraft systems, again with the type rating. The MEL items are considered by the manufacturer and by the authority as well the operator for approval by the authority."-:cool:

Dear Bruce:

Do you consider as good practice that a cpt answer in aircraft log book at JAR 145 maintenance certified/licenced staff area, considering solved a previous other cpt report of "brake out of limit" and realesed it to service? :uhoh:

Is this in MEL?

Do you know the dirty dozen?

yours

MH

[jmig29]

1 - The MEL is not the low limit, the MMEL is...
2 - I think AEI has the proofs about SOME pilots (which problably were pressured by their bosses) took the A/C w/out it correctly signed-off or maintained. You know, if you don't perform a test, you will never know if that system was working at that time, or not. What does this mean? If we think of SpanAir (mercy on the victims souls), everyone is trying (natural issue on mankind) to get the mechanics to jail. Do you know if it was someone at the backoffices that screwed things up by not delivering to the mechanics the document saying "this test must be acomplished", and so the they did not performed it and that lead to the disaster?
3 - AEI certainly did not come to Portugal and get the evidences, did they? Who knows? Maybe someone got tired of being abused (not by the pilots, they usually are as good as any one of us) by the system? Who knows?
4 - One thing is sure: THIS IS NOT the right place to post the evidences, there are courts and EASA, and if the proofs exists, someone is going to loose their FCL maybe for life.
5 - LAMEs are not gods, nor are the PILOTS. All people have a breaking point (and an Airline can do such a pressure), a point were you think you are doing things right, but you are not! Because if you perceived that, you would realize you were making a mistake, and you wouldn't do it! Or you just don't give a d**n and then you shouldn't be working in aviation. Or you trust your boss, but he's just being complacent and tells you "take the plane". And you're the one who gets scr***d.
5 - By now you are wondering who am I. I'm a LAME, working in Portugal.

[Safety Concerns]

I would just like to wish you all, regardless of your opinion on the contents of this and other threads, all the best for the new year.

I do sincerely hope that the increase in accidents seen in 2008 is just a blip but I have to be honest and say that unfortunately I believe it will get worse.

My own "PPRUNE" wish for 2009 is that a bar of soap is taken to the mouths of some posters. Some of the language here is totally unnecessary and not befitting of professionals.

Happy New Year

[LH2]

(lack of evidence, which incidentally I agree is a major oversight)

A "major oversight"? How is that for an understatement? :}

[seat 0A]

What a windup!
This AEI is a joke. The affiliate organisation in my homecountry is only a minor representative of AMT`s.
AEI states on its website: A.E.I. maintains a constant liaison with Flight Crew Associations . Well, not with my union! And not with ECA either, I can assure you.

This kind of behaviour will not change that either, I suspect.

[Safety Concerns]

I think you are missing the point. To the best of my knowledge AEI have requested a private discussion about the situation on a number of occasions. The request has fallen on deaf ears.

Therefore due to the FACT that those discreet requests have been ignored and due to the FACT that pilots are continuing to fly on for the company even ignoring MEL no go items, we have reached the stage we are at now.

The next step I personally don't agree with and didn't want to see hence my postings. I am though personally sick to death of pilots going too far as it may well be my wife and kids on board next time. Whether Pilots do risk their own lives as well as those of the passengers is possibly a question of interpretation; continuing to fly on without logging an MEL no dispatch item, you tell me.

So there you have it. I feel as though I have done my bit and whatever happens from now on in is in someone else's hands.

I have no connection to AEI other than I feel strongly about this issue and have reported my experiences to them. As to whether engineers or pilots come out of this next phase without damage remains to be seen but I believe industry could do without it.

I just find the whole thing rather sad that to solve the issue of pilots ignoring the MEL, a real mud slinging match in public is necessary.

So much for professionalism from both sides!

[captplaystation]

Safety Concern
If they (the TAP pilots ) truly have done this then they are indeed w@nkers of the highest order.
Not only for doing it. . . but well, what sort of rapport/cooperation do they now expect from the engineering staff, whose qualifications/contribution, they have pissed all over.
Truly woeful, if indeed true, but we, and the authorities, need some proof. . . . . I am sure you understand.

[LocBlew]

@ Safety Concerns

"Therefore due to the FACT that those discreet requests have been ignored and due to the FACT that pilots are continuing to fly on for the company even ignoring MEL no go items, we have reached the stage we are at now."


Good thing you don't sign your posts. TAP's pilot union would probably want a word with you if you did...

[glad rag]

One cannot help but wonder what all this does to reassure the fare paying public.

[Safety Concerns]

locblew please. If there was no evidence there would not be a press release and there would be no post here.

[BOAC]

Passenger safety compromised at TAP- have I missed it? One would hope that a 'seriously concerned' body (AEI) would have managed to stumble out of the Christmas/New Year haze to substantiate this presently unfounded serious allegation. I would suggest that we should perhaps we looking at the AEI's contribution to what they claim is a serious breach of safety?

From post #1 I suggest we also read "Professional engineers associations are not being very professional looking in the other direction on this one." either. Let's have this out in the open - if safety IS being compromised, we need to know - FACTS, not internet froth and bubble. Non-logging of 'no dispatch' items is unacceptable.

SC - any clue as to when substantive evidence will arrive? I think if it is longer than a few days, our noble mods should shunt this thread elsewhere, away from the 'front page' where only you seem to be supporting the allegations. I see your words in your post #81, but are you, perchance, really just an 'unattributable' public mouthpiece for the AEI?

[E. MORSE]

If there was no evidence there would not be a press release

There is no press release.

Just AEI (who ever they are) is mentioning this on a website called
www.individual.com (whatever that is) as story number 93957392.

Why would a person like "SC" advertise this as a serious press release here ?

[BOAC]

Here is the contact for more information:

CONTACT: PR officer e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +31 655 930 175 http://www.airengineers.org (http://www.airengineers.org/)

There does appear to have been a 'press release'.

[captplaystation]

It says in the press release
"The evidence published on the AEI website is clear for all to see"
Well, I looked, and I couldn't find any evidence, just the Press release.
If they have something more concrete documented, or individuals who are willing to testify to a judge, I would suggest it is their responsibility to report this to someone by official means and not just a press release.
If they don't, they could also be accused of letting something pass them by without taking the correct action.
Are they, or have they reported this through the correct channels, or is it merely a press release, and if so WHY ?:confused:
If it truly happened there should be a document trail available, and hopefully individuals who would be willing to testify ? or is another part of the problem that those in the know don't want to speak out for fear of their position.
If this press release seeks to force them to come forward, it could backfire. When people are forced to choose between their principals & paying the bills, guess what normally wins ? :hmm:

BTW PPRuNE clock could do with a good engineer, I am not really that sad to be on here @ 0255 posting, it's 1155 where I am :cool:

[Conan The Barber]

are you, perchance, really just an 'unattributable' public mouthpiece for the AEI? My thoughts exactly.

Reading this, and other threads where SC have appeared, it is clear to me that SC's association with AEI is much closer than SC wants to admit.

Also , as this is part of an ongoing campaign, the question is whether or not AEI have cleaned up their own house first, before going after other groups within the industry? If that is not the case, as could be suspected, then this is not driven by the motives claimed.

As I have said previously, there is a good chance that this will seriously backfire for AEI.

[E. MORSE]

Here is the contact for more information:

CONTACT: PR officer e-mail: e-mail: Tel: +31 655 930 175 Aircraft Engineers International (http://www.airengineers.org)

There does appear to have been a 'press release'.

Hi BOAC

The "press release" is not exactly in the press is it ?
just on "www.individual.com" and on "Pprune".
Oh and on Air Engineers Service Experts (http://www.airengineers.com),

By the way , their +31 655 930 175telephone number is a cell phone. :rolleyes:

Hopefully last post on this scam / over and out :ok:

[BOAC]

Certainly found no trace of it on any Googlhunt amongst the 'media', but who is to say what EXACTLY constitutes a 'Press Release' anyway? Is it sufficient just to 'send' it to the media even if they ignore it?

PS Sorry to spoil your 'closing post':p - and just to clarify - no, I have no interest in keeping this thread alive as it stands! I agree - let this one die - until and if.

[Safety Concerns]

It does say on the website now that a letter has been sent to the Portuguese DGAC.

[jmig29]

As I seem to understand, SITEMA has stopped the strike schedules, due to understanding between the parts. Now, would the TAP board accept the SITEMA claims, if it wasn't recognized that SITEMA could be right?

About AEI. Do you really expect that an Association which has voting powers within the EASA would post a PR without proofs? Surely you don't expect them to proove to you and me, the public, about the evidences they have...! They have to proove it within EASA's work schedule, right?

Also, it seems to have been only SOME pilots, not the entire class of them! I can tell you the majority of TAP pilots must believe either in the punishment of the responsables or in the restructuring of scenario, so it won't happen again...!

My best to you all in 2009!

[Safety Concerns]

funny how this last post drew no response. The truth is painful at times.

[Carnage Matey!]

I'm afraid those rules of logic went out of the window when jmig29 pointed out that strike plans have been dropped. Anything can be overlooked as part of a messy compromise. Indeed a large union in the UK got away with organising a costly and illegal secondary strike because of a questionable compromise. That union simply acquiesced to the employer when it turned out the latter held all the legal cards. I'd still want to see the evidence the AEI claims to have before I decide whether they were right and TAP were wrong, or they simply thought they might be right and TAP have them over a barrel legally. If the evidence is there there should be no problem publishing it surely?

[Safety Concerns]

carnage get a grip of the bigger picture.

Do you know why no European airline will ever appear on the blacklist?

Ans: Cos they always meet the standards. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahaha


Wrong, its because politics dictates they can't. There has already been 2 accidents in Europe in recent times that should never have happened. All that was needed to prevent them was to ensure that the regulations were adhered to. One of the airlines involved was about to be placed on the blacklist but this was prevented by European politics.

Now grow up if you still really believe that anybody posting on here will produce evidence other than when they personally feel comfortable to do so.

The information and evidence is already out there. Statistically it probably never will happen to you but statistically it will happen to some of our colleagues.

Arrogance and stupidity prevents some professional people from playing their role in preventing the next one.

[Carnage Matey!]

I don't expect people on here to post the evidence.I expect the AEI to post the evidence. They haven't. When they do I'll take them seriously. Until they do I, and most other pilots on here, will see this as an industrially motivated stunt. Don't try to obfuscate things by changing the subject to European blacklists or statistical data thats 'out there'. This thread is about the AEI and TAP. The AEI should show us the evidence.

[GearDown&Locked]

Safety Concerns,

I have some difficulty in classifying your last post: it's either childish or (pretending to be) naive. I am truly amazed on how low you can still put your (non-existant) credibility; it's like giving a minus signal to an absolute zero.:ugh:

What really Concerns me is the probability of persons like yourself working in this industry. Now that would represent a big Safety issue IMHO, because what you (and your "organization") are doing could be called Industrial Terrorism.

Enough of this nonsense.

GD&L

[Safety Concerns]

What this thread and a few others on pprune have clearly shown is that many of you have your heads in the clouds.

AEI actually caught my attention about a year with a press release they made about standards that could have been written for my company. Since then they have maintained continuity with their comments (obviously in my opinion).

Having followed them for about a year and supplying evidence to assist them I can assure you (as I have already posted) that TAP was unfortunately the straw that broke the camels back. So in plain English that means they are not alone.

Now you should already have alarm bells ringing if safety is a prime concern of yours. If pay is your motivation you will probably continue harping on about evidence.

I suggest you urgently read this post http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/349774-five-people-charged-over-2005-helios-crash.html

particularly post#85.

Now if you are able to place all the pieces in the correct order you should be able to appreciate that AEI are actually trying to do you a favour by ensuring you don't end up becoming just another statistic. It is related. Unfortunately
your profession wasn't interested in listening which is why I posted the AEI press release in the first instance. I witness this every single working day.

Now you need to think again Carnage. If the EU are not powerful enough to be able to place European airlines on the blacklist, what do you think would happen to any individual or organisation that attempted to directly bring events out into the open?

Why is it that EASA for example doesn't openly publish the evidence of its audit findings?

Think carnage think.

[Carnage Matey!]

What I think is that perhaps you have been watching the X Files a little too much. Are you really suggesting the EU is not sufficiently powerful to blacklist airlines? That organisations are afraid to publish evidence? What will happen? Will black 4x4s appear outside their offices and abduct the staff?

The reason the EASA doesn't publish it's audit findings is the same reason that airlines don't publish their own audit results: the public simply aren't qualified to make a reasonable assessment of the data. Audits find faults, it's their nature, but the travelling public cannot make an objective judgement about which faults are significant, which are trivial. Airlines would be unfairly damaged commerically by a process designed to improve their safety.

Not withstanding all the above, you are continuing to obfuscate the issue here. You may well have been reporting violations to the AEI for months (I trust you MORd and CHIRPed them too), but why has AEI chosen TAP specifically, and why have they timed this release in the middle of an industrial dispute with engineers?

You are trying to cloud the issue with your bizarre suggestion that somehow the desire to see evidence is more to do with greed than safety but thats not going to work I'm afraid. If the AEI won't produce the goods then their press release is no different to one of Mohammed Al Fayeds ranting releases about how the royal family killed Diana, and provides just as much proof.

[Safety Concerns]

Good reply carnage. Perhaps this isn't a lost cause. Your paragraphs 1 + 4 are irrelevant.

The reason the EASA doesn't publish it's audit findings is the same reason that airlines don't publish their own audit results: the public simply aren't qualified to make a reasonable assessment of the data. Audits find faults, it's their nature, but the travelling public cannot make an objective judgement about which faults are significant, which are trivial. Airlines would be unfairly damaged commerically by a process designed to improve their safety.So how far does one go before its time to say enough is enough. And then once enough is enough, what do you do about it?

Not withstanding all the above, you are continuing to obfuscate the issue here. You may well have been reporting violations to the AEI for months (I trust you MORd and CHIRPed them too), but why has AEI chosen TAP specifically, and why have they timed this release in the middle of an industrial dispute with engineers?This is a to the best of my knowledge reply and to confirm that you would need to ask AEI but I believe TAP pilots did the wrong thing at the wrong time causing AEI to lose patience with the diplomatic route for want of a better term.

Had some fantastic successes with previous CHIRP individuals but today you can forget them.

Yes I am making a statement that the EU hasn't the oomph to blacklist European Airlines. Politics has already prevented an operator being placed on the blacklist.

[jmig29]

... "the public simply aren't qualified to make a reasonable assessment of the data. Audits find faults, it's their nature, but the travelling public cannot make an objective judgement about which faults are significant, which are trivial"...

You said it!

By the same reason none of us here is able to produce a correct assesment of the situation. We can only speculate for with the data we have, and we may believe it or not. Therefore we do not have the right to demand for any kind of evidence, for we are NO JURY!

Tomorrow (in time) when we realise AEI was right, we also will not have the right to come to public and diminish the responsable's image, for they would have been allready convicted.

Surely that does not apply to you and others like you, so full of themselves they can't see the tip of the iceberg.

In passed times, I have voted negatively against pilots performing maintenance, and you and others now proove me right, because you don't have the ability to see what is ahead of what your eyes see, being this essential in aviation.

You have the right to act the way you do! Just don't expect to be accepted by everyone!

Best Regards

[Safety Concerns]

well, well, well, some evidence has been posted on the AEI website.

Aircraft Engineers International (http://www.airengineers.org/AEI_press_releases)

Looks to me as though aircraft have been flying that shouldn't have been.

[Carnage Matey!]

By the same reason none of us here is able to produce a correct assesment of the situation. We can only speculate for with the data we have, and we may believe it or not. Therefore we do not have the right to demand for any kind of evidence, for we are NO JURY!

Wrong. If you make a claim then you have to provide evidence to back it up or the claim is worthless.

Surely that does not apply to you and others like you, so full of themselves they can't see the tip of the iceberg.

Ranting does not a strong case make. You've previously put nothing in front of us but unsupported claims.

In passed times, I have voted negatively against pilots performing maintenance, and you and others now proove me right, because you don't have the ability to see what is ahead of what your eyes see

....and what you put 'ahead of our eyes' was a press release with no evidence. If you would perform maintenance based on no evidence then perhaps you are in the wrong job?

You have the right to act the way you do! Just don't expect to be accepted by everyone!

You can act anyway you like, just don't expect to be accepted by anyone if you don't provide any evidence.

Now that the AEI has finally decided to show us what it's got (nearly two weeks after releasing the press release) the evidence is hardly the bombshell we'd been led to expect. Frankly it's all a bit vague. Who cancelled the defects: the pilots who entered them or the covering engineer? If the latter did he do so on his own or in conjunction with the crew. Why is it so different to ACFing the defects or a simple "For Info" entry into the log?

[jmig29]

"If you make a claim then you have to provide evidence to back it up or the claim is worthless."
Yes, in the right place such as a Court or EASA, not in a forum!

"Ranting does not a strong case make. You've previously put nothing in front of us but unsupported claims."
You are right and I apologise for ranting. Is just that in Portugal I'm not used to see such a lack of consideration for Safety, the victim's family may want to know which airline you fly, so they don't go in it. And by the way who is "us"? Who do you represent, apart from yourself?

....and what you put 'ahead of our eyes' was a press release with no evidence."
The evidences are there.

"If you would perform maintenance based on no evidence then perhaps you are in the wrong job?"
I'm not the one here sacrifying safety for money, and from your thinking I perform maintenance much safer than you can fly.

"You can act anyway you like, just don't expect to be accepted by anyone if you don't provide any evidence."
I don't have to, AEI is who must provide it, and as much as you don't like it, it is not you or any forum they are to provide the evidences. They have done it now just to shut someone (who could it be?). UNLESS you are one of the pilots involved? Then I could recognyze you some rights, but not by means of a forum.

"Who cancelled the defects: the pilots who entered them or the covering engineer?"
Did you even look at the documents? Where it says "Captain Acceptance"? What's the name and number there? And on the reporting field? Do you even know what the reporting field is?

"If the latter did he do so on his own or in conjunction with the crew."
There were no engineers that day, they were at strike, remember?

Why is it so different to ACFing the defects or a simple "For Info" entry into the log?
Where are you from? Do you even know what the word "safety" implies in aviation? Would you so lightly mix the two?


Finnally, I feel for the Pilots that had a bad decision that day, fortunatly no accidents occur, but they (and only those) must be held responsable, and YES I think AEI is right at least this time!

Best Regards and a happy new year.

[glad rag]

Light the blue touchpaper and stand back:eek:

[Carnage Matey!]

jmig29 - There's no point getting all shouty about it or going on about courts and EASA. A claim was posted here, supported by yourself and Safety Concerns, without a shred of evidence being posted to support it. The fact of the matter is nobody is going to accept a claim based on your say so without seeing proof. Now that the alleged proof has been posted it is still far from clear what actually happened.

The timeline of events is unclear from the log. Did the defects occur inbound to ZAG/ORY or outbound into LIS? If the events were cancelled by the operating crew then why is that so different from an ACF? Airliners divert in Europe every day and not every diversion airfield has suitable engineering cover. Defects are ACFed all the time in that situation. None of the defects in those log pages would be unusual to an experienced A320 crew nor would they be regarded as significant. I suspect had they been encountered on a diversion to an off network station only the galley handset would have been reported and ACFed with the engine and pressurisation problems simply reported at the end of the day. The only difference on this occasion seems to be that they were expecting engineering cover then found out it wasn't actually there.

[glad rag]

The only difference on this occasion seems to be that they were expecting engineering cover then found out it wasn't actually there.

Then appear to have been caught with their pants down.....

[Carnage Matey!]

Not really the same glad rag. If you divert from wherever you're going to Parochial Regional Airport are you going to ground the aircraft there due to a lack of company recognised cover for a minor issue you snagged earlier? Of course not. If it's not airworthiness it gets ACFed and you get it fixed at the next station with engineering cover. There really is no difference between that diversion and getting to your destination and unexpectedly finding no engineering cover. If its safe in the former scenario its still safe in the latter.

[glad rag]

I hear what you say, but the evidence (as seen on an internet forum LOL) of falsifying and deleting entries is quite compelling don't you think?

[jmig29]

So if it was such a minor fault why would you divert?

[jmig29]

I know some colleagues from TAP, let me see if I can talk to them, or if they let me explain to you pilots, exactly what has happenned.

Because in this forum, everyone was in hurry for proofs, but on a portuguese forum, all the pilots were asking how was it possible that the documents were published, and they're going to sue them, bla, bla, bla...

Best Regards

[C212-100]

jmig29,

You are not talking truth here. It is time for us to value truth a bit more. It is not true that in a portuguese forum all pilots are worried merely about who has placed so "secret documents" online. Only one or two person (hardly pilots) talked about that, asking if it is legal for an organization to put such items online. I too have the same question. Is it? But I am also worried about a possible compromise on safety. And am also, like we all should be, worried about being in a world where everything can be done and noone is punished. There are places where this subject is to be treated. And that place is not the web. If this proves to be untrue, if TAP is not compromising safety as so many state, there will be damaged made, terrible damage - Possibly beyond repair - on TAP's image as a corporation, as an airline. And that damage will backfire to all in the company. I am one of those fools that believe that public accusations like this one shall only be made when there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I start to feel a little misplaced on this world. May you all think a little bit about this? We are building a miserable world for the generations to come. Let us not leave that mark on history.

Cheers to you all.

And no, I do not work for TAP Portugal. I am flying on the Portuguese Air Force and my name is Gonçalo Silva Dias.

I would preety much like to know if everyone is corageous enough to state there name on the web while making some of the stupid and irresponsible comments I have seen throughout. Enough of this anonimacy BS.

[Safety Concerns]

Goncalo seems worried about future employment prospects.

Goncalo, your colleagues are undermining safety, the rest is irrelevant. If your colleagues had behaved as they are legally required to, there would be nothing to post.

Where does the blame really lie?

A thief is a thief. It makes no difference if you steal a mars bar or someone's wallet or a car. It is quite clear to me from those documents the aircraft flew outside the legal framework currently in place in Europe for commercial aviation. There is no grading of the situation and as far as flying is concerned there can be no chances taken, by anyone.

[jmig29]

jmig29,

You are not talking truth here. It is time for us to value truth a bit more. It is not true that in a portuguese forum all pilots are worried merely about who has placed so "secret documents" online. Only one or two person (hardly pilots) talked about that, asking if it is legal for an organization to put such items online. I too have the same question. Is it? But I am also worried about a possible compromise on safety. And am also, like we all should be, worried about being in a world where everything can be done and noone is punished. There are places where this subject is to be treated. And that place is not the web. If this proves to be untrue, if TAP is not compromising safety as so many state, there will be damaged made, terrible damage - Possibly beyond repair - on TAP's image as a corporation, as an airline. And that damage will backfire to all in the company. I am one of those fools that believe that public accusations like this one shall only be made when there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I start to feel a little misplaced on this world. May you all think a little bit about this? We are building a miserable world for the generations to come. Let us not leave that mark on history.

Cheers to you all.

And no, I do not work for TAP Portugal. I am flying on the Portuguese Air Force and my name is Gonçalo Silva Dias.

I would preety much like to know if everyone is corageous enough to state there name on the web while making some of the stupid and irresponsible comments I have seen throughout. Enough of this anonimacy BS.

Do you know the truth more than me? Maybe you do! But that doesn't give you the right to call me a lyer, and I will not take that abuse! Everyone seems to know something, nobody says nothing. The only one who spoke some factual truth was SC, has the docs now published show.

On my side I'm willing to talk to some colleagues at TAP, they should know the facts behind the docs, which is something nobody in this forum so far has cared to figure out, what really has led to the docs publishing.

From what I've been told so far, for years the LAME's at TAP have been warning pilots discretly how they shouldn't get involved in their disput with the board. One way of getting involved is taking the planes without them being properly maintained, looks like that is what has happenned.

Looks like it has been only SOME pilots who did that, maybe pressured by comercial issues, which is not acceptable.

When I get some more info, I'll let you all know.

[JFA]

There is nothing to post, at least from a professional perspective. The so called evidence only goes far enough to say that mechanics cannot ground a plane, and that is this is all about.

Mechanics at TAP wanted to strike and groung planes, but since pilots exerted final authority, things just didn't went the right way for the mechanics. The strike was a flop. Still, i keep reading mechanic wording about pilots not being qualified to judge maintenance work, which is very true, i know nothing about wrench workb, but a pilot is qualified to acess the information and take decisions.

These slips (if actually true and not photoshop) show nothing out of the ordinary and surely dont show anything that poses safety risks for passengers, and that is the bottom line about all this. Speculating in the bad way about what is written in these slips is dishonest, specially for the passenger and unknowing public, and that is why i say this discussion has no place in a public place.

The quality record of the decisions made by TAP pilots speaks for itself. How many times have pilots grounded planes otherwise cleared by maintenance? If only i had a penny...

And who is Mr. Jorge anyway? How did he make these?

[GearDown&Locked]

oh come on!!!

This is getting all too ridiculous.

First of all, you come here and say in quite an alarming tone that this airline is responsible, as a whole, for an alleged breach of passenger safety.

Then you see the ranting natives rushing in, all too eager to drop the hammer on same airline, biting the hand that feeds them in the process, because they’re not capable of understanding that (radical left wing) politics and real economy don’t mix in such difficult times, loosing the negotiating power held by other sectors of the company.
These people are only half dozen or so in a company of thousands, but they’re noisy, one track minded, and unpleasant as workers as well as socially. It seems that they’re born hating everything that sounds capitalist, even if they choose to work at it.

But hey, when the heat hits the kitchen, suddenly it’s not the company, oh no, it’s only a couple of pilots that had supposedly altered a pair of tech reports. So the company isn’t to blame after all, but they still had to snitch those guys for safety reasons (LOL), even if done illegally and in defaming manner, no matter what.

Oh wait, it’s getting real hot in the kitchen, so you begin to see the native rats fleeing fast ("I know some colleagues from TAP "etc) while we watch their cynical AEI colleague start washing his hands, which is the typical behavior from people that use others at their expense for their own (not so) hidden agenda, fooling the native Indians with mirrors and stuff. It would be extremely hilarious if it wasn’t a sad thing to watch. Poor sods.

Fortunately, TAP is a very responsible company, audited regularly by international authorities, and has an enormous confidence capital amongst their costumers, supplier chain and industry regulators.

Gonçalo, I do applaud your sincerity and truly hope that this subject will backfire right in the hands of those who’ve lit the Molotov cocktail in the first place. As we say down here “the dogs bark, the wagon keeps on going”.

GD&L

PS- Cientista ou Elefante?

[Safety Concerns]

Wondered how long it would take. Gear down and locked, it makes no difference as I mentioned earlier.

JFA god help us if your a pilot. You urgently need to revise your understanding of legislation and how far your so called authority goes. All those documents (assuming no tampering) CLEARLY show that those aircraft should not have continued flying. Therefore safety has been compromised.

Furthermore with Helios still a fresh memory, any pilot entering cabin pressure issues and then crossing it out due to lack of maintenance, strike or no strike, should be fired.

Your are not gods and you have no right to play with fare paying passengers lives. Your comments are a disgrace.

but a pilot is qualified to acess the information and take decisions.

Wrong. You are not qualified to make technical decisions. The operator is legally bound to take his commercially operated aircraft to a Part 145 maintenance organisation when a fault raises its ugly head.

None of the evidence gives the pilot a way out. Once, twice or six hundred times it makes no difference. Safety has been compromised.

[jmig29]

An A/C is not airworthy when a problem reported has not been properly solved and signed-off (You can find this on Regulation 2042-2003, which includes Parts M, 66, 145 and 147). So, if the A/C did not have its CRS issued following a maintenance action, it is not airworthy and the pilots can not take the plane. I don't remember who said it was the pilots faults, I think if it comes to be true (which I believe in) Those pilots are in fact responsable, and so is the company. Responsability on those workers side, because they should know better than to take an non-airworthy A7C up to the air, responsability on the company's side, because they should not put comercial pressure on either pilots or whoever, safety wise.

[jmig29]

And of course we all think of TAP as a very responsable company, that doesn't mean it can't go wrong, and this time is BIG WRONG.

If you know the dirty dozen, "complacence" is one of them. When it is said that "if it was safer earlier, it will be safer in the future" this is stupid, how do you know the malfunction won't get worst? When it is said that pilots ground A/C's released by maintenance staff, that means the A/C was released according to MEL, and the pilot just did not take it, it is in his right. One very different thing is taking an A/C not maintained/released properly, and that is violating the legal rules of airworthiness of the A/C.

Maybe we all mechanics, should stop maintaining the A/C, get another job, and see how the pilots would do after just 3 or 4 days without maintenance.

[C212-100]

"Do you know the truth more than me? Maybe you do! But that doesn't give you the right to call me a lyer, and I will not take that abuse!"

jmig29,

I am afraid that it isn't up to you to decide if you do take or not the abuse. You have lied. Please read my post once again. I said that you were lying when you stated that in a portuguese forum all the pilots were worried about was about the legality of the posting of the documents on the net. That isn't true, you and I both know which forum you are talking about.

For all the other so-called evidence I prevent myself from saying anything else and once again I urge you to read my post again.

Cheers.

[C212-100]

No, my dear, I am not worried about future employment. I am worried about living in a country (and perhaps even a world) where everyone can do whatever crosses is mind and there is no punishment.

About the so-called evidences, for me it takes a bit more than some logs scanned and put on the net to become evidence. And even if those documents have not been altered there is still too much to talk about that. What really worries me is that no longer the courts are the place to judge, nowadays the streets and the net took their place... Sadly.

Cheers.

[C212-100]

GD&L,

Ambos! Fui elefante no início, desde 2007 sou Cientista. :)

Você?

Cumprimentos.

[Safety Concerns]

c212-100 this isn't the military. Passengers including family members pay fares and get on an aircraft expecting everything possible to be have been done to ensure risk is kept at a minimum.

Again, assuming no tampering, which I really do doubt as that could most definitely result in severe legal proceedings, TAP, their pilots or whoever have not kept their side of the bargain. The reasons are irrelevant.


M.A.201 Responsibilities
(a) The owner is responsible for the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft and shall ensure that no flight takes place
unless:
1. the aircraft is maintained in an airworthy condition, and;
2. any operational and emergency equipment fitted is correctly installed and serviceable or clearly identified as
unserviceable, and;
3. the airworthiness certificate remains valid, and;
4. the maintenance of the aircraft is performed in accordance with the approved maintenance programme as specified
in M.A.302.This rule was broken.

M.A.301 Continuing airworthiness tasks
The aircraft continuing airworthiness and the serviceability of both operational and emergency equipment shall be
ensured by:
1. the accomplishment of pre-flight inspections;
2. the rectification to an officially recognised standard of any defect and damage affecting safe operation taking into
account, for all large aircraft or aircraft used for commercial air transport, the minimum equipment list and configuration
deviation list if applicable to the aircraft type;
3. the accomplishment of all maintenance, in accordance with the M.A.302 approved aircraft maintenance programme;
4. for all large aircraft or aircraft used for commercial air transport the analysis of the effectiveness of the M.A.302
approved maintenance programme;
5. the accomplishment of any applicable:
(i) airworthiness directive,
(ii) operational directive with a continuing airworthiness impact,
(iii) continued airworthiness requirement established by the Agency,
(iv) measures mandated by the competent authority in immediate reaction to a safety problem;
6. the accomplishment of modifications and repairs in accordance with M.A.304;
7. for non-mandatory modifications and/or inspections, for all large aircraft or aircraft used for commercial air transport
the establishment of an embodiment policy;
8. maintenance check flights when necessary.This rule was broken

M.A.306 Operator's technical log system
(a) In the case of commercial air transport, in addition to the requirements of M.A.305, an operator shall use an aircraft
technical log system containing the following information for each aircraft:
1. information about each flight, necessary to ensure continued flight safety, and;
2. the current aircraft certificate of release to service, and;
3. the current maintenance statement giving the aircraft maintenance status of what scheduled and out of phase
maintenance is next due except that the competent authority may agree to the maintenance statement being kept
elsewhere, and;
4. all outstanding deferred defects rectifications that affect the operation of the aircraft, and;
5. any necessary guidance instructions on maintenance support arrangements.
(b) The aircraft technical log system and any subsequent amendment shall be approved by the competent authority.
(c) An operator shall ensure that the aircraft technical log is retained for 36 months after the date of the last entry.This rule was broken

M.A.403 Aircraft defects
(a) Any aircraft defect that hazards seriously the flight safety shall be rectified before further flight.
(b) Only the authorised certifying staff, according to M.A.801(b)1, M.A.801(b)2 or Part-145 can decide, using M.A.401
maintenance data, whether an aircraft defect hazards seriously the flight safety and therefore decide when and which
rectification action shall be taken before further flight and which defect rectification can be deferred. However, this
does not apply when:
1. the approved minimum equipment list as mandated by the competent authority is used by the pilot; or,
2. aircraft defects are defined as being acceptable by the competent authority.
(c) Any aircraft defect that would not hazard seriously the flight safety shall be rectified as soon as practicable, after the
date the aircraft defect was first identified and within any limits specified in the maintenance data.
(d) Any defect not rectified before flight shall be recorded in the M.A.305 aircraft maintenance record system or
M.A.306 operator's technical log system as applicable.This rule was broken

Do I need to go on.

[jmig29]

My name is JORGE MIGUEL, but I did not understand who JFA was referring to "And who is Mr. Jorge anyway?"...

Mr. C212-100, let me explain again, maybe I did not make myself clear:

The portuguese forum www.linhadafrente.net (http://www.linhadafrente.net) , concerning this subject, has 2 parts, being the first, the part where people would comment without the so called evidences yet published, and the second, the part where people would comment AFTER the so called evidence are published. I think you agree with this. For considerations on what I have written, one must bear in mind only the second part, that is when the so called evidences were published.

The news about the publishing of the so called evidences were posted on the 6th of January, on page 6. As of now, AFTER this was posted, there were 22 posts, of which 6 were filosophical considerations on the company image, 7 were indirect considerations on publishing the so called evidences, and 9 (NINE!!!) were direct condemnations to the publishing of the so called evidences.

If you want, we can also talk about the first part: As I have seen it, the considerations were mainly about a so called political move against TAP, and some posts have wondered how such a news could have come to public without proofs (but after it came to public, all "hell broke loose").

Some considerations refer the need to contact the Portuguese authorities, but never say a word about international authorities. I remind you that National Authorities are no more than EASA delegations now, and EASA may suspend a NAA. Maybe some of the portuguese LAME have lost confidence in the national authorities, where pilots have a great deal of political power. I believe the union has forward the situation to an association above all suspicions, because they have voting powers within the EASA, as well as Manufaturers, Operators and Pilots Associations, so the situation would not get forgotten.

Hopefully, I did not forget to mention anything, but if I did, I'm sure I'll be reminded.

Regards,

[GearDown&Locked]

jmig29... do you really think you're contributing with anything worthy of the name to improve even slightly this airlines' safety culture? Think again (but only if it doesn't give you a funny feeling - you can get that with a never-used-mint-condition old brain).

c212-100 this isn't the military ahh... it was posted on the wall of a maintenance hangar at a well known airbase these true words:
-Start Your Brain Before Engaging Mouth-
It seems that our Air Force engineers are far wiser than their civilian counterparts around here, don't you think?

This all matter doesn't worry me a bit, because I strongly feel that TAP isn't afraid to find the truth in all this.

What p1sses me off is the fact should TAP be forced to downsize its work force for economic reasons these left wing union thugs will keep on walking around, hands in pockets, from hangar to hangar whistling carelessly while their colleagues are left at the gate with no job.

Safety Concerns, you may fool some of them most of the time, but you can't fool all of them all the time. Let's see how long you will last after this matter is wrapped up.

GD&L

[Safety Concerns]

Gear down and locked, are you suggesting that unsafe airlines should be allowed to continue flying in order to protect jobs?
(For clarity, this is a general question and not TAP related)

I actually suspect you were one of the pilots involved in this.

Your logic is amazing, aircraft depart that shouldn't have done but those reporting the facts are industrial terrorists. You need to readjust your brain scanner, its out of phase with reality.

Safety Concerns, you may fool some of them most of the time, but you can't fool all of them all the time. Let's see how long you will last after this matter is wrapped up.

And threats, you are making a good impression.

[Safety Concerns]

Well, first of all, in decent, democratic and in a law enforced societies, one does not make any type of accusations, without proof. First you get proof, then you accuse.

And if by chance, those accusations turn to be true, then I think culprits must pay the price and face consequences.

Since my conscience is clean, and once my own experience in the company tells me that those accusations are completely non-sense I have the right to feel offended by them as a professional and as a proud TAP employee. I hope you understand that.

aguadalte you have gone very quiet. I hope now you will keep your word and deal with the real problem rather than follow the crowd and try to silence the messenger

[GearDown&Locked]

Gear down and locked, are you suggesting that unsafe airlines should be allowed to continue flying in order to protect jobs?
(For clarity, this is a general question and not TAP related)
note: my bolding.

Noone is suggesting such an attitude in this industry, don't misunderstand my words. You still have a long path to walk until you can master the ways of monsieur de La Palisse.

And for clarity, let me remind you that YOU Sir were the one who started all this circus by stating unequivocally that :
Passenger safety compromised at TAP
again, my bolding.

No Sir, you can't change it back now. True or False, you have to face the consequences of your actions (like the grown ups do).

GD&L

[Safety Concerns]

Which one were you, the tippex king or the cabin pressure fault?

[Carnage Matey!]

Should the aircraft not have departed? Perhaps that's the crux of the issue. Some people think not. Most pilots on here seem to think it was ok. Certainly trying to compare the cabin pressure snag with the Helios accident is stretching it a bit and appears to be deliberately emotive and sensational.

[Safety Concerns]

Carnage, it is disappointing to have to respond to your comments but unfortunately you are not alone and this is exactly why we are in this position/predicament.

The aircraft were not airworthy as per 2042/2003.
Thats the end of it. The aircraft did not have a valid release to service, end of discussion. Furthermore they were not airworthy due to the breaches of the regulations I quoted in a previous post.

What you pilots don't seem to appreciate is that you invalidate the c of a with such behaviour and all the consequences that brings should you end up in a tight corner. Of course if you land safety and get away with it you believe you have done nothing wrong.

The fact that they reached there destination is not here or there as they may not have done. At the time of departure the crew took a risk. Unacceptable, full stop.

If you are unhappy with that view don't argue with me go and lobby your union/government/Brussels whoever you want but the aircraft were not airworthy.

[GearDown&Locked]

Your logic is amazing, aircraft depart that shouldn't have done but those reporting the facts are industrial terrorists. You need to readjust your brain scanner, its out of phase with reality.


Is it? If you perform maintenance in that area it's probably not working properly, with all that fuss about frustrated industrial actions. But rest assured, Class 1 apart, I can see clearly through your intentions.

Returning to subject: are you positively sure that represents the thruth about what really happened with those examples that you have convinced your portuguese friends to provide? can you trust these friends of yours? Are you sure those snags weren't "arranged" by any chance? Is your neck insured against fraud and deception?

I'll leave you with those cute lil' questions.
Have a nice weekend.

GD&L

[Safety Concerns]

So where would you like to meet for that drink Gear down and locked? Lisbon, Monte Real, ODLIX.

[jmig29]

Carnage, for once I agree with you. It is not the same as the Helios Accident. But, how can you tell it wouldn't develop that way, unless a properly certified person checks the system? That's why mechanics do their tests and verifications.

Let me continue to say that I firmly believe the TAP pilots (I know one or two) and in general portuguese pilots are amongst the very best of the world, as well as their maintenance, not diminishing all others, of course. But, that doesn't mean one can not go wrong! If you are looking at the situation from a safety wise perspective, you'de possibly (as I did in my mind) question the amount of training supplied by the airline. A few years ago I remember the pilots union and association saying the training they were getting could become insuficient, and that worried me, because they are up there with no parking lot, they will not stay there forever, one way or the other, they will have to come down.
I have reviewed all my posts, and never said the pilots are solely the ones to blame. What I said is they are responsable on their part, because they should know better. Now, how can you tell there isn't here a problem of proper training for those pilots? How can you tell those pilots didn't ask a second opinion to their bosses and were misinformed? Only the subsequent investigation will tell, and it is not our job as forum users to judge. And C212-100, I refuse to accept that media is the prime juri these days. What has happenned here is that some forum users started to try to kill the messenger. Bear in mind everyone is capable of failing that's why aviation has several safety network layers.

"Most pilots on here seem to think it was ok" Maybe this is the way to go wrong, because they don't see at the moment what lies ahead, and in fact, what appears on the instruments is only about 20% of the failures, the serious ones. Behind, you may a serious of unsignificant failures that combined, could be catastrophic, thus the lames checks. I think it was that kind of thinking that allowed many low cost airlines to keep going. Nothing particular against them or any other, as long as proper maintenance is applied. Maintenance is a preventive concept, not a corrective one, and the master MEL is not the top of safety, is rather the minimum, and (at least) some of us lames like to provide the captains, airlines and public with the best possible service, and continuously try to keep the standars ABOVE MEL.

What I which as a portuguese lame is that the company prevents these things from happenning again (assuming the docs were not photoshopped), and it will come as the first airline in Europe to recognyze and CORRECT the situation. I don't work (unfortunatly) at TAP, neither am I going to tell you which airline do I work for, for obvious reasons. Do you remember who invented the "downsyzing" concept? When all of the world was allready following the concept, those guys came to public saying it wasn't a correct concept, it didn't work and voilá, the americans were the first to abandon such a concept, and got financial results from it.

I would say if on those flights there was a lame onboard, the Captains could have judge the situation more supported on that professional opinion, because that's the lame's job.

I hope I made myself clear this time.

Regards,

[GearDown&Locked]

jmig29,

I'm not trying to kill the messenger - he's doing a terrific job to himself on his own.

What I cannot accept is a bunch of cheap (Helios like) tricks being played at the first opportunity just for the sake of trying to prove some inane and negative concept using the buzzword of quote "commercialism" unquote (which BTW means 1. The practices, methods, aims, and spirit of commerce or business. and 2. An attitude that emphasizes tangible profit or success.), all this at a solid airline reputations' expense.

I am bemused at the fact that none of the constant audits ever found a single shred of evidence that planes were taken into the skies without proper procedures being done in advance. Suddenly there are 3 or 4 snags saying otherwise, and funnily enough... every single one of them present dates that are situated right in the middle of an ongoing industrial dispute - snag dates between Dec 18th and 20th, strike was scheduled for Dec 21st. Coincidence ...

Please, don't insult my intelligence.

I rest my case... :rolleyes:

GD&L

PS- @C212-100: check your personal messages. :ok:

[Safety Concerns]

you have no case. You have blown a lot of hot air threatening the person who cut and pasted from a newswire story. You have constantly harped on about this and that but you haven't actually commented on the claims.

Should those aircraft have flown?
(assuming no tricks with the evidence)

It is easy, yes or no.

I have no friends in Portugal and I don't have to care if the documents are false or not and I most certainly don't have to worry about your threats. Its a democratic free europe these days and I am entitled to and will exercise my right to comment on any news story.

If you have a problem with what's being claimed or if you know that the documents are forged, you should take it up with those who presented the news story in the first place.

Safety records and statistics are irrelevant in this case.
It only takes seconds to lose your virginity. Strike or no strike is also irrelevant unless you are implying that such behaviour is ok during a strike.

[GearDown&Locked]

You have blown a lot of hot air threatening the person who cut and pasted from a newswire story.

from post #1 (after your cut & paste job):
Despite the continuous denials new evidence emerges everyday. Professional pilots are not being very professional looking in the other direction on this one.

next one...
It is easy, yes or no.
from post #5:
Just to clarify. This wasn't intended as a yes he does or oh no they don't thread.

and finally...
If you have a problem with what's being claimed or if you know that the documents are forged, you should take it up with those who presented the news story in the first place
again, from post #5:
I am sure you are all mature enough to understand that an organisation doesn't issue such press releases without being 100% sure of the facts.

Need I say more? :ugh:

GD&L

[Safety Concerns]

What about the bits you left out? You last post reminds me of Black Adder goes forth and the trial.

Gear, down and locked, from all the posters here you are almost the only one who continues attempting to push the thread away from its origin and you are the only one to have made threats.

you also still ignore the relevant questions.

Therefore applying your logic, you are one of the pilots involved.

So are the claims true?
And if yes, which one are you, the tippex king or the cabin pressure specialist?

[LocBlew]

I was just wondering, what slip everyone is refering to when talking about Helios? :confused:

If I understand it right, there were occasional fluctuations on one of the packs, up to a cabin press -350ft/min when changing to a lower power setting, after the HP valve opened. Mentioning the Helios crash and malfunctions when reading this slip is just ridiculous!

Safety_C., you either don't know what you're talking about or you're simply running out of arguments on the initial topic. The general public might be impressed when the Helios case is mentioned, but most people in this forum know better. I suggest you take your union propaganda elsewhere.:yuk:

After going through the "highly anticipated evidence", I just have to say passenger safety was never at risk.

Again, the timing for this press release says it all. POLITICS!!! :*

[jmig29]

"...every single one of them present dates that are situated right in the middle of an ongoing industrial dispute - snag dates between Dec 18th and 20th, strike was scheduled for Dec 21st. Coincidence ... "

I' not going to say your lying, like someone said about me, but I do think you are mistaken. There was no strike scheduled for the 21st. There was rather a full-strike (they say more than 100%...) performed on the 19th.

I was able to download the documents at the AEI site, before they have deidentified the snags. I'm not aware of the usual procedures on TAP logbooks, but it looks familiar knowing they use a multiple release system.

Tomorrow hopefully I will be able to talk to a TAP lame to have him explain how those snags developped, and let you all know. I think they are not allowed by the union to comment on this, but I'm not in their union (surprise).

Unless I have missed some posts, you still didn't answer SC's questions? Yes or no? Nor for that matter, any of the doubts I've put on the forum. "If I understand it right, there were occasional fluctuations on one of the packs, up to a cabin press -350ft/min when changing to a lower power setting, after the HP valve opened. Mentioning the Helios crash and malfunctions when reading this slip is just ridiculous!"("how can you tell it wouldn't develop that way"), just to mention one, and suppose that was an outflow control valve going open in cruise on the next flight. It may well start like that and all of the sudden, or on the next flight, go fully open in cruise!!! I don't see from yours and others parts, any interest in evaluating what went wrong, if it did, you have just so far question the messenger's motivations more than trying to know the facts.

I can admit some personnal opinion on SC's comments after the news pasted, but that is hardly the issue.
I don't understand where is the doubt in SC's question "yes or no".
All other quotes refer to SC's belief in the PR, he is in his right, yes?
The same as you having your opinion, to which you are entitled.

Issue:
1 - Did it happen? For some time everyone was worried about political moves and questioned the proofs that weren't there yet.
2 - After the so called proofs were published, some started implying it was
photoshopped.
3 - Never have I seen in this forum a genuine will of trying to get to the bottom of the issue (engineers apart), and what could be done to prevent whatever went wrong FROM EITHER SIDE.
4 - No remarks saying otherwise were made concerning the cut and paste of the LAW, on post #127
5 - Have you ever wonder why didn't TAP denied the snags yet?
6 - Im not really interested on who did what, but rather what led the pilots to act the way they did, assuming the snags weren't photoshopped. Besides, all the proofs required by you pilots were in time supplied, but you haven't yet presented any proofs otherwise.
7 - From my understanding of the issue, if proven true by the following investigation, one can loose their permit to fly, don't know for how many years.
8 - For me, it's like an accident and should be looked from the safety side asking "what can be done so it won't happen again" rather than "who can we kill". This does not mean that responsabilities should not be taken.
9 - I speak with the captains almost every week or so, and they usually admite they can go wrong, but try not to, and always look for safety sides on every occasion. I don't understand why this is not happening here, maybe because they have an image to defend? Well, so do others.
10 - I have seen futile discussions (perhaps from me also) in this forum that only led us apart from the real issue here.
11 - I will restraint myself from writting anymore, unless I have new data.

Please do ALL accept my best regards and a happy new year to all

Regards

[windytoo]

Thank God for paragraph 11. Without that, your post was complete rubbish.

[Safety Concerns]

@locblew, yes I probably am responsible for the Helios slip. I allowed myself to be sidetracked and so grabbed the nearest comment I could find which happened to be the AEI press release prior to this one. It is interesting reading.

EU unfit to regulate

Safety_C., you either don't know what you're talking about or you're simply running out of arguments on the initial topic. The general public might be impressed when the Helios case is mentioned, but most people in this forum know better. Well I think jmig gave a good example highlighting the difference between the theory and the practice. You may well operate these systems but you do not understand every fault consequence or worst case scenario of you taking technical decisions. Therefore you are in no position to comment. The law supports my view on this as mentioned in post 127.

I just have to say passenger safety was never at risk.Who has ownership of the term safety and what it means. Laws were broken thats clear but who can state categorically that safety wasn't at risk. I don't think anyone can because checks were performed by unqualified persons so the risk factor became uncontrolled rather than controlled. That alone means safety was at risk.

Again, the timing for this press release says it all. POLITICS!!!Again the facts do not support this comment. Jmig has hit the nail onthe head with his observation that nobody is interested in dealing with the real issue, why do pilots take such risks?

The AEI press release page shows quite clearly that this subject has been out there for some time and there have been previous threads on exactly this subject here on pprune.

As I mentioned very early on my dealings with them have been on this very subject but with a different airline. From my conversations I have obviously formed my own opinion of what was going to happen and that this practice is widespread and yes I would have preferred a different way of doing things.

However not having their experience in such matters and after witnessing events and comments here I am coming round to the idea that perhaps they were right and the only way to deal with this subject once and for all is to perform one's washing in public.

[captplaystation]

It's (nearly) Saturday night. Time methinks to leave the handbags on the dance floor and go off and order a drink (or a life ) :ugh:
Think this one is best left in the hands of a solicitor, then if someone actually wants to make accusations, they can be given to the appropriate authorities, and if required a case will be heard. In terms of mutual understanding it's just going round in circles. Perhaps the 3 or 4 who appear to want to have the last word could just settle it by PM.

[aguadalte]

Safety Concerns: “well, well, well, some evidence has been posted on the AEI website.
Aircraft Engineers International (http://www.airengineers.org/AEI_press_releases)
Looks to me as though aircraft have been flying that shouldn't have been.”SC, it looks to me that you do not know what Safety is all about. You’re like those who think that aviation would be much safer if all aircraft were finally grounded!

Let’s see those “proofs” one by one:

First case: Slip Defect (assuming not photoshoped) This was an INFO to MAINTENANCE (as you may read at the very end of the slip) and was in reference to a HIL. Its intention was to keep maintenance informed for statistical and to keep track of aircraft behavior. Even if PIC decided to clear it from the TL, vibrations were under minimum ECAM advisory and were not a safety issue:
According to A320 FCOM 3.2.70 HIGH ENGINE VIBRATION: The VIB advisory on ECAM (N1 >= 6 units, N2 >= 4.3 units) is mainly a guideline to induce the crew to monitor engine parameters more closely.
VIB detection alone does not require engine shut down.
It is therefore Pilot’s decision to report it or not, and was certainly NOT a Safety or a NO-GO Issue as AEI and Safety Concerns wants us to believe.

Second case: Slip Defect (crossed and signed by the PIC) This Slip has only information for troubleshooting (PACK #1 ALWAYS IN HIGH) and was cancelled as per OM Part-A 8.1.11 aproved by the Portuguese Authotity - INAC. I personally see no Safety problems to have a Pack always in the high mode and there is no danger for the pax to have a much cleaner and recycled air in the cabin…

Third case: Slip no Sign Off – This aircraft just came from an A5.5 inspection (that includes a T1 inspection) The PIC wrote in the field T1, in step of field T by mistake, once inspection T1 was already done on A5.5. He didn’t sign it, but identified himself. It’s the same identification of the same person who signed Captain Acceptance. I really don’t think this is a dramatic mistake. It’s called non-conformity. These kind of mistakes happen by hundreds, daily, in the aviation industry. It’s not a crime and the aircraft was not in danger.

Fourth case: Slip no ETOPS – In this case the Flight Crew didn’t sign up the inspection (although they have done it). It is a non-conformity and doesn’t have the importance (safety concern) as some want to attribute it, once the inspection was done and the Captain signed the acceptance of the aircraft. The Flight Crew has the skill and the required instruction/formation to do ETOPS transit inspections.

I'm sure all aviators will understand that the real crime here is the intentional desire of AEI and its followers to bring prejudice to TAP and to our fellow pilots due to a political agenda. The real crime here is to put their names in the open without a single thought for their right for privacy and for the opportunity to defend their good name.
The real crime here is to use private information and attack without modesty and to think that "it doesn't matter the process, once you reach your objective".
To this I call: industrial terrorism!
Fly Safe!

[Safety Concerns]

aguadalte if your information is correct I would agree completely with your post.

I only have one question on the first case. You comments come across as very persuasive (insider knowledge) yet you say if not photoshoped. If you are so sure about this evidence then "photoshoped" wouldn't matter at all from a technical perspective only a fraudulent one.

[aguadalte]

aguadalte if your information is correct I would agree completely with your post.

I only have one question on the first case. You comments come across as very persuasive (insider knowledge) yet you say if not photoshoped. If you are so sure about this evidence then "photoshoped" wouldn't matter at all from a technical perspective only a fraudulent one.

Agree.
I believe our pilots didn't commit any misbehavior. And, as I said before, no accusation should be made without proof, therefore I'm not accusing anyone of photoshoping it also, (although AEI has used speculative and inconsistent "proof"). That's a rule of rightness social behavior, that should have worked for both sides, and I don't intend to brake it.

[FourGreenNoRed]

That's a rule of rightness social behavior, that should have worked for both sides, and I don't intend to brake it.

Sounds like a reasonable final word for the dirties piece of laundry ever washed in recent PPRUNE history.

May it rest in peace until a solid way of investigation took place.

[C212-100]

Dear friends,

I have been away for some days, taking care of my life, enjoying myself and friends and just trying to get the most out of life. It has been some really good moments. Now coming back to the real world, one where hypocrisies are of current use… Some of you are so annoying… God…

Now referring to some things that I need to respond.


c212-100 this isn't the military. Passengers including family members pay fares and get on an aircraft expecting everything possible to be have been done to ensure risk is kept at a minimum.


Did I ever make any analogy about the Commercial Transport and Military Flying? I am pretty aware (being a PIC and most of my times a commander of detachments) that there is no comparison. I know that me and the folks above me have to, some times, make decisions that are in fact risk management. That is what the militaries are supposed to do – take risks (life threatening some of them) to get the job done. No complaints from me, it was a choice I made and of what I am proud. Fare paying persons should have there risks taken to a minimum. No point on that.


Again, assuming no tampering, which I really do doubt as that could most definitely result in severe legal proceedings, TAP, their pilots or whoever have not kept their side of the bargain. The reasons are irrelevant.


How can you be so sure that anyone has not kept its part of the deal? That has been my point from the beginning. No one has yet made any proof about that. Even the slips that AEI has placed on the internet are far from being proof of anything…

Now about the things jmig29 says…


Mr. C212-100, let me explain again, maybe I did not make myself clear:

The portuguese forum - Linha da Frente (http://www.linhadafrente.net) , concerning this subject, has 2 parts, being the first, the part where people would comment without the so called evidences yet published, and the second, the part where people would comment AFTER the so called evidence are published. I think you agree with this. For considerations on what I have written, one must bear in mind only the second part, that is when the so called evidences were published.


Again I shall say it. You were not talking truth. You said (explicitly) that the only thing pilots in a Portuguese forum where concerned about was about the legality of posting those slips on the net. No true, say I! There where, in fact, some posters talking about that, but none has identified himself as a pilot – and I know that none is. They where only conscientious Portuguese citizen.



The news about the publishing of the so called evidences were posted on the 6th of January, on page 6. As of now, AFTER this was posted, there were 22 posts, of which 6 were filosophical considerations on the company image, 7 were indirect considerations on publishing the so called evidences, and 9 (NINE!!!) were direct condemnations to the publishing of the so called evidences.


The considerations about the company image were far from being philosophical as you say… But again that is only my point of view. Once again I say, my opinion is that this discussion should only take place if the facts are proven. Before that, if some courageous lame thinks that “Passenger safety is compromised at TAP Portugal” he should follow the correct paths. I will always stand for a world where this is the way to do things. And that was always my only point. I do not have the technical knowledge to evaluate to safety issues on those slips, even if they where true, and I don’t think that the slips them self were proof of any safety rule being broken.


And C212-100, I refuse to accept that media is the prime juri these days. What has happenned here is that some forum users started to try to kill the messenger. Bear in mind everyone is capable of failing that's why aviation has several safety network layers.


Jmig29, as a pilot and instructor and examiner (both theory and practice, both in the military and the civil) I believe I have some lights about how human factors play their part in aviation. Thank you for the reminder anyway.
No one tried to kill the messenger. What I have seen here is that everyone is trying to say that no proofs have been made whatsoever.


"Most pilots on here seem to think it was ok" Maybe this is the way to go wrong, because they don't see at the moment what lies ahead, and in fact, what appears on the instruments is only about 20% of the failures, the serious ones. Behind, you may a serious of unsignificant failures that combined, could be catastrophic, thus the lames checks. I think it was that kind of thinking that allowed many low cost airlines to keep going. Nothing particular against them or any other, as long as proper maintenance is applied.


Can you spot the hypocrisy of your last two phrases? You say one thing and exact opposite on two consequent sentences.


I don't work (unfortunatly) at TAP, neither am I going to tell you which airline do I work for, for obvious reasons.

[…]

I hope I made myself clear this time.


Oh you did. In fact that was one of your best sentences on the entire thread




May it rest in peace until a solid way of investigation took place.


Couldn’t agree more!


It's (nearly) Saturday night. Time methinks to leave the handbags on the dance floor and go off and order a drink (or a life )


Now here is some piece of advise! :):D

Happy New Year to you all!

Cheers.

C212-100

[EESDL]

Looking to book boss on a flight to LPPT/LPMT from North of UK if possible.....you've all confused me now.....is there a relevant Passenger Safety record somewhere?

[jmig29]

Hello AGUADALTE, you have a private message:

I was talking to my colleagues at TAP and they want to send you the message you will be receiving by PM. Their coments are on italic.

Fly safe!

[jetjackel]

Sounds like a pretty big swing around for an airline, that I believe, has never had a fatal accident.

The source "whistle blowers"?

[Safety Concerns]

I have been informed by pm that this story isn't yet finished.

Perhaps some of those strongly defending the non reporting of defects may wish to comment. I suspect however that silence will be the order of the day.

[captplaystation]

Y a w n
. . . . . . . . . . . .:zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :yuk: := :ugh: :=:confused: :oh:

[Safety Concerns]

Think this one is best left in the hands of a solicitor, then if someone actually wants to make accusations, they can be given to the appropriate authorities, and if required a case will be heard.

Now you are genuine aren't you capt playstation and you did genuinely mean what you said here?:ok:

[captplaystation]

Indeed I did ,& IF it happened ,& IF it goes to court, & IF it's proven to be well founded ,fair nuff . . . . . . however IF none of the above applies &/or is not proven I think the phrase here is "done to death". . . . . . let the truth be out. :hmm:

[jmig29]

My friend at TAP tells me the portuguese NAA (INAC) has issued a communication stating as "tottaly unacceptable" := the events occured regarding the subject of this forum news (e.g. crossed snags, tippex corrected snags, inspections performed by non authoryzed persons and so on). I will try to retrieve the doc's number (can be a bit difficult).:ugh:

Another internal communication was issued last October (dunno its number) within that Part-145 stating that that the omission of maint records or the non recording of those snags in the LB, are unacceptable behaviours. Looks like this one was due to not recording malfunctions after the A/C performed "ramp returns" twice due to flaps problems, at SSA.:=

Will give more info when available

[jmig29]

They tell me now this INAC communication was out after :confused: themselves (INAC) were inspected by EASA representatives. Hmmm... Could there be a connection?

[Safety Concerns]

Anybody prepared to post the Portuguese NAA letter condemning the confirmed events which started this thread but which most of you also tried to deny?

But looking on the AEI website it seems that the usual retribution machine is running up to speed.


However we have now received further worrying information which appears to suggest that TAP management is actively pursuing a policy of retribution against individuals believed to have been involved in the reporting of the acknowledged safety lapses

It is very disappointing to witness how TAP pilots hung their maintenance colleagues out to dry and lowered standards whilst doing it. One TAP Pilot actually convinced me that AEI had got it all wrong and I apologised to him for starting this thread. As he must have known for sometime that AEI were 100% correct I think the lack of a reply speaks volumes about the current situation within TAP.

[eliptic]

here are the sourse i think

www.airengineers.org/docs/internal/pr006_2008_passenger_safety_compromised.pdf -

[aguadalte]

Can someone please, show me that particular INAC document? Until now I have seen nothing that proves any kind of intentional flight safety misconduct from the part of TAP pilots or its management...
I just went to AEI website and, as usual, they presented no proof. (A newsletter is no proof at all). Although they get some sort of confusion in their newsletter, regarding the right to report (with which I agree and find very important for the sake of flight safety) and whistle blowing behavior, (which is an historical and cultural misbehavior that played a huge role in the fascist agenda of the Salazar political police) they say no more than one could expect from them. A full hand of nothing…
I haven't had access to any INAC documentation stating that TAP has put its passengers in some kind of peril, or stating, "safety was compromised at TAP". I'm sure that, the same whistle blowers that proudly used AEI for this politicized industrial "campaign" against TAP must have provided them also, a copy of the above-referred INAC document. I would advise them that, in step of sending me some "menacing" PM's showing discontent for my conduct here on PPRUNE, (while defending my company, which I thought was their company too) to, please send me a copy of that INAC document...

Safety Concerns: Although I have not seen a word from AEI on the theme (once the whole newsletter is suggesting TAP is trying to “kill the messenger”) or even one comment from you regarding this safety issue: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/353718-three-airlines-drop-self-reporting-safety-program.html (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/353718-three-airlines-drop-self-reporting-safety-program.html)which could lead me to think your safety concerns are mainly pointed to TAP, I must tell you that IF I see somehow written in that INAC document, that TAP passenger’s safety was compromised I will present you my apologies for being wrong, although to my best knowledge I have no reason to doubt my management and my colleagues. Our company’s strong culture is pro-safety and I’m not only part of that safety culture but also witnessed the work that is daily being done to keep the company flying safe.
My silence may be confused with consent, but I assure you that it is just a consequence of being tired of this dirtiest piece of laundry wash ever posted on recent history of PPRUNE. When I have concerns regarding the behavior of my fellow workers of the maintenance department, it never crosses my mind to work that out in public forums… there are institutions and there are proper procedures to address those concerns.
Fly Safe.