Dodgy J* pilot ferrys dodgy A320 out of Indonesia [Archive]

airsupport

11th Feb 2011, 22:55

Reading between the lines, it appears these panels were incorrectly replaced after maintenance in Indonesia.

If this is so and it was ferried back to Singapore to continue revenue ops, then I reckon it's a major problem. Would you drive your car out of the workshop with dodgy brakes after a service???

I can NOT believe the fuss being made here over NOTHING. :rolleyes:

It was NOT brakes, it was a couple of panels in the cabin, now unless ''ferry flight'' is secret code for something and means something different to what it has meant for the last 50 years, the aircraft was ferried (NO PAX) to Singapore.

NO PROBLEMS, could have had virtually NO cabin fixtures as long as there were NO pax, and there was enough seats and emergency equipment for the Crew. :ok:

As long as it was rectified, which it apparently was before any revenue flight.

Fatguyinalittlecoat

11th Feb 2011, 23:24

it was a couple of panels in the cabin

I'm confused. Are we talking about panels in the cabin, or systems panels on the overhead panel in the flightdeck?

go_soaring

11th Feb 2011, 23:48

a miss-understanding when hearing the story by the sounds of it. Always two (or three!) sides to every story..

But then again, as Boomerang said: This thread is useless without pictures!

Click...
go_soaring! instead

Come in spinner

12th Feb 2011, 00:02

This has taken a while to be posted on pprune.
Panels from memory where overhead panels in the flight deck ie elec & hyd.
Photos taken, someone has them.
Double Standards and a manager:oh:

desk

12th Feb 2011, 00:05

desk

12th Feb 2011, 00:08

come in spinner...finally someone in the know. Just cause the pics prob won't end up on Pprune, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

airsupport

12th Feb 2011, 00:53

sorry for any confussion...the aircon and elec sections on the overhead pannel were swaped over, therefore in the wrong position. Bad enough a guy that should know better accepted the A/C with this defect, but I think even worse, the fact he left it in Singapore to be operated on revenue flights without writing it up or notifying engineering. I wouldn't have accepted the A/C out of indonesia like this...but then again I'm not soft.

Okay bit different, although still NO problem IF the Crew were happy to accept it like that for a ferry flight, however yes of course they should have written it up on arrival in Singapore, before any revenue flight. :eek:

Eastmoore

12th Feb 2011, 03:19

All true, I have seen the picture on the FOs phone who took over the aircraft. All the correct procedures where adhered to from that point on.

airsupport

12th Feb 2011, 03:30

I still cannot see what all the fuss is about, as long as it was a ferry flight, and especially if the Company were aware of what was happening.

The ONLY thing is of course it should have been reported into Singapore before any revenue flight.

This sort of thing is hardly new, have seen many things like this over the years.

We had an Electra many years (decades) ago, here in BNE undergoing a routine scheduled service, one engine was found to be just about :mad: full filter of metal. No spare in BNE, only spare engine was in MEL. Even a ferry flight could not DEPART on 3 engines, so the Crew took it as a ferry to MEL with the :mad: engine just idling on take off, once airborne they shut it down, contacted ATC to tell them they had suffered an engine failure and were continuing to MEL on three engines. :ok:

Jetro6UL

12th Feb 2011, 04:54

There are a few questions to be answered:

Was any cockpit maintenance recorded in the tech log?
Who swapped the panels? An Indonesian engineer?
Was the Indonesia based engineer type rated and company approved?
Were appropriate maintenance testing procedures carried out on the reinstalled panels? (because it's mandatory that engineers perform installation functional checks on all affected systems when panels have been disconnected).
Were the tech crew asked to account for their actions in accepting an aircraft with an obvious deficiency?airsupport, this isn't "nothing".

It's a major breach of safety.....made even worse if the answer to even a single one of the above questions is "No".

The aircraft should have been decked in Indonesia until the panels were refitted and tested.

airsupport

12th Feb 2011, 06:15

I take it you are just trying to make a case for having all the maintenance done in Australia? :confused:

Okay, well say that, it is NOT a safety problem, as even the ALAEA Fed Sec said earlier. :ok:

Short_Circuit

12th Feb 2011, 06:35

Okay, well say that, it is NOT a safety problem, as even the ALAEA Fed Sec said earlier
have you never heard of sarcasm?:rolleyes: (We all know it is saftey related).

ALLAH

12th Feb 2011, 06:45

NEVER!!!.......

-438

12th Feb 2011, 06:45

I have little doubt ALAEA Fed Sec may be a little sarcastic in his remarks.
Even so if you are not a pilot you most likely do not understand the ramifications of these actions (accepting the a/c and handing it on to the next crew).
If it was indeed a check captain, it's raises issues regarding a cultural problem within this airline.

Pin37

12th Feb 2011, 07:01

The ONLY thing is of course it should have been reported into Singapore before any revenue flight.
No, not true, the ONLY thing is that the job should have been done right in the first place.:ugh:

airsupport

12th Feb 2011, 07:27

have you never heard of sarcasm? (We all know it is saftey related).

I have always found Steve to be a very straight shooter, don't think he would be sarcastic about an issue like this. :rolleyes:

It is NOT saftey related or even safety related. ;)

And YES obviously the job should have been done properly in the first place, but seems it wasn't.

Given it wasn't, as long as the Captain was happy to take it as a ferry (NO pax), and the Companies were happy, then IT WAS NOT A SAFETY PROBLEM.

As I said before, obviously he should have reported it at Singapore BEFORE it did a revenue flight.

I now realise why the Industry in Australia is now in such a mess if you do not understand that. :ugh:

Pin37

12th Feb 2011, 08:14

It is NOT saftey related or even safety related. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gifNot necessarily true. I know of an instance where 2 overhead panels were transposed in a rescue helicopter, as it happened, now it so happened that this condition was not noticed for some time, until a system could not be shut down. Now in this particular instance there was no emergency involved, but had that been the case then a whole different outcome may have eventuated. The story is somewhat complex so is difficult to explain in a short comment, but to say that the subject of this thread was NOT safety related would , in my opinion require intimate knowledge of the circumstances.

Icarus2001

12th Feb 2011, 08:39

Can someone please explain why some of you seem to think it is okay for a ferry flight but not a revenue flight?

If it is not authorised maintenance completed by someone qualified and authorised to do it then it does not matter if it is departing on a revenue flight or not.

If it is stuffed it is stuffed.:rolleyes:

600ft-lb

12th Feb 2011, 09:18

Can someone please explain why some of you seem to think it is okay for a ferry flight but not a revenue flight?

All carriers have multiple instances every year where an aircraft is damaged, ie lightning, structural damage, non normal configuration etc and fly under an ATP, usually a 1 off to ferry it to a maintenance base with no pax for rectification work.

This is all pure speculation on this website until all sides of the story are out there, until then its a bit rich to blame someone or the airline until such time.

Jetro6UL

12th Feb 2011, 09:33

I take it you are just trying to make a case for having all the maintenance done in Australia? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif....

No....I'm making a case for my son, my wife, your father, tidbinbilla's niece and the guy that owns the fish-n-chip shop near me. From what we know, the panels could have been swapped in Tullamarine (in which case, four or more pilots ignored the issue).

We all need pilots to report defects when they find them, not when it's convenient for airline management for pilots to report them.

Keg

12th Feb 2011, 10:30

...they shut it down, contacted ATC to tell them they had suffered an engine failure and were continuing to MEL on three engines.

That may have been acceptable in the 1960s but if someone asked me to do something like that today I'd tell them to jam it. It's appalling that you think operating an a/c in that sort of configuration (or in the configuration described in the original post) isn't a big deal. :eek: :ugh:

Black Hands

12th Feb 2011, 12:03

Airsupport, not yet sure if you're a really good wind-up merchant, or not quite rowing with both oars... The only acceptable scenerio to fly an aircraft in a non normal configuration is one in which was described by 600ft-lb in post #32, or a similar variation of a theme... No exceptions... I'm quiety pleased that engineer's attitudes to aircraft safety and airworthiness have come so far in the last 50 years..

Utah

12th Feb 2011, 14:02

Dear everyone, had a few wines so please excuse me if i fall asleep halfway through & dont finish, oh & of course the spelling & grammer argh, hate that ****!

So anyway airsupport, if this rumour is true which according to a few sources already it is, then to state, "it is not safety related" could mean only one of two things......

Option;

a. you are winding us all up stirring the pot which I happily welcome, or but not limited too..., option;

b. you are an........! (If i say idiot will this be removed?)

Unfortunately & with out prejudice I think sadly it may be option b!

May I first bring to your attention the title or this forum, with further & more special attention to the word "PILOTS" (hopefully I got the spelling right on that one or am gona look pretty stupid). In any event though (& assuming your not a pilot which may I only live in hope you are not), in pilot land we have this thing called HF or Human Factors (the name changes year to year, CRM etc however the seriousness of the implications is perpetual). Now I've had way to may wines tonight to go into detail but may I leave you with a little one to think about.......

Firstly lets pretend we have an imaginary world & lets say we have an imaginary airline called for example, "ONE STAR" that coincidently has the exact same situation on its hands as the rumoured situation we are discussing.

Let's say the "imaginary" ONE STAR aircraft departs singas with a flight crew that rocked up late becuase the dump truck, I mean crew transport sorry was running a little behind & the crew were pressed for time. In confussion rushing their checks both the crew raced through their preflight duties, & missed the what if someone who was well rested & well accomodated for in there slip, would have surely noticed (of course this is all imaginary). Lets say then the crew depart & shortly after take off encounter an abnormal situation with dare I say it. "SMOKE IN THE COCKPIT" I mean not that it would ever really happen with the great maintenance standards we have these days an all, but like I said just imaginary right. So anyway.............sorry dudes need more wine standby...........

Yeah anyway back guys whine topped up so where was I? so yeah I says ta this chick, Yeah dont mind if I do have a fiddle of those fine assets & she's like hehe ok, so one thing leads to another & we're back in me room & she's like fancy stickin it in my a..........hey hang on what site am I on? ah crap pprune the panel thing, got it mixed up with..... ah never mind so anyway back to the cenario.....

Lets say the old cockpits all smokes up, night time outa singas dodgin bangers headin for indo & booya! off ya go smoke fumes in cockpit, big word checklist list, cant remember how it goes (I'm boeing now) but lets say somewere in there & in the heat of the moment you have to turn the packs off & tada! In its place are the gennies! But hey you cant see! There's smoke & **** everywhere! & as for guarded switches & confirmation, what makes ya think old mate next door can see any better that you! So confirmation just isnt really possible & with the heavy work load ya just flick em off because thats what the old body motor skills know is right & o ohhhhhh!!!!

Anyway I'm is too wined up to go on, but the swiss are answerable for alot. All they ever made was watches, chocolate, those stupid little pocket knives, & that deadly cheese with holes in it that is responisble for every accident in the world!

So hey forget about senior check & trainers rumoured to be incompetant enough as to not notice something thats as out of place as a can of lynx deoderant in back packers hostel! Lets focus on the source of the problem! The Swiss!!

You with me airsupport??????

airsupport

12th Feb 2011, 19:35

Well I still can NOT see what all the fuss is about.

YES it should have been fixed properly in Indonesia, however if the Crew knew about it and were happy to fly it to Singapore as a ferry flight (NO pax) then no big deal, just obviously it should have been reported and fixed when it arrived in Singapore before any revenue flight.

These kind of flights have been operating all over Australia for decades and nobody ever complained, why now, because it was in Indonesia?

Apart from the Electra I mentioned before I have seen dozens of things like this that operated quite safely as ferries.

I have seen several different instances where we have ferried aircraft from BNE to MEL with the gear down for instance, another time a BRAND NEW B727 after one revenue flight in OZ from MEL to BNE had hardly any effective brakes due to messed up rigging, it ferried back to MEL taking extra care while taxiing. :eek:

Mind you there was a DC9 one day many years ago that was going through oil in one engine almost as quickly as it could be replenished, none of the LAMEs would release it even for a ferry, the Company had the Queensland Manager release it for a ferry to MEL and a Crew took it, arrived safely in MEL after an unscheduled stop in SYD for oil. :rolleyes:

I guess after a Lifetime involved in these and many many other similar things, with no dramas or bad outcomes, a couple of panels is no big deal as long as the Crew were happy and it was only a ferry. :ok:

airsupport

12th Feb 2011, 20:27

I came back in response to an email I received about a new post but it does not seem to be here now. :confused:

Dear airsupport,

an3_bolt has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - Dodgy J* pilot ferrys dodgy A320 out of Indonesia - in the DG&P Reporting Points forum of PPRuNe Forums.

This thread is located at:
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/442437-dodgy-j-pilot-ferrys-dodgy-a320-out-indonesia-new-post.html

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
Airsupport:

---Quote---
Given it wasn't, as long as the Captain was happy to take it as a ferry (NO pax), and the Companies were happy, then IT WAS NOT A SAFETY PROBLEM.
---End Quote---
I can still not understand this attitude if it was a ferry flight and there is no pax onboard you can do whatever you like.......:ugh:

There is no difference between a ferry flight and a revenue freight or passenger flight in terms of airworthiness or the law. The aircraft must be airworthy. Laws must be complied with.

Permitted defects are covered by MEL or CDL, authority to proceed or an engineering authority certificate.

Airsupport - may I suggest you have a read of this:

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2007/SAFO07006.pdf
***************

There may also be other replies, but you will not receive any more notifications until you visit the forum again.

All the best,
PPRuNe Forums

Nobody said you can do whatever you like, I have explained it several times but some people just either do not understand or do not want to.

With a thing like this and all the ones I have mentioned, IF the Crew are happy to take it as a ferry (NO pax), the Company are happy and someone will dispatch it okay, then there is NOT a problem.

OF COURSE you cannot do any of these things on a normal revenue flight.

The thing you quoted appears to be an FAA thing, having had to work with some FAA Inspectors in NY I wouldn't take notice of anything they say as regards Australian registered aircraft. :rolleyes:

an3_bolt

12th Feb 2011, 20:58

I deleted my original post as I am probably wasting my time.

Effective communication requires both listening and understanding.

Cheers

airsupport

12th Feb 2011, 21:06

I deleted my original post as I am probably wasting my time.

Okay, no worries, good that you admit you had it wrong. :ok:

desk

12th Feb 2011, 21:48

airsupport,

you keep saying that "there is no problem as long as the pilots were happy to take it on the ferry". The problem is, in most companies, not just Jetstar it's a big call for a pilot to reject an aircraft based on the grounds being discussed in this particular situation because there are people like you out there that "can't see anything wrong it" or "don't know what the problem is". This sort of attitude inadvertantly puts pressure on the pilot to accept an aircraft that they may might not be all that happy with. Sad but true. If people like our old mate M&M accept aircraft with these sort of defects, then what is that saying to the ave line pilot? Then again maybe he didn't notice it!!...after all, i wasn't written up in Singapore!!

OneDotLow

12th Feb 2011, 22:06

Ferry flight or not; if the aircraft was not in the configuration that the flight manual states, then it requires an ATP or it doesn't fly. Full Stop. Finish. No More.

It doesn't matter which country the aircraft was maintained in or who is intending to operate it.

If you can't see the problem with this then you are "living cloud cuckoo land" and have "a mental problem".

Keg

12th Feb 2011, 22:17

Following on from ODL's comments, flight with gear down is permitted in the aircraft ops manual. Brakes either work or they don't. Having panels in different place I the OHP is not covered by FCOM, MEL, MMEL or anything else. If an ATP was given then it may be a different story. Even if it was, it's still a significant safety issue.

airsupport

12th Feb 2011, 22:26

I spent some 40 years in the Industry, mainly in Australia, but also in many other parts of the World with Aussie registered aircraft, and I do know how things used to work, not sure how they work now as I am retired.

It appears to me on reading all the posts again that maybe some of you have a problem with this particular Pilot, not so much what happened. ;)

As I have no personal or professional interest in this issue I will leave it to you lot.

Thank you. :ok:

desk

12th Feb 2011, 22:54

no personal problem with the pilot...never met him. Just don't have much time for people who should know better giving bad examples to others. My understanding is he can be a bit of a hard one on others...just seems he doesn't apply the same standards to himself!

Jetro6UL

12th Feb 2011, 23:17

The wild west was tamed long ago, airsupport.

Modern aircraft aren't patched up with baling twine anymore (office staples, maybe...but not baling twine).

This A320 was flown by a cowboy. Time for him to hang up his spurs, methinks.

ALAEA Fed Sec

12th Feb 2011, 23:29

Sorry AS I was being sarcastic. Just pretending I was in the Qantas spokesmodels shoes for a bit. If you believed management nothing is related to safety until people are dead. They just don't understand the swiss cheese model.

Short_Circuit

12th Feb 2011, 23:48

And that is exactly how I read and understood it. AS obviously did not. I was just trying to point that out. :)

airsupport

12th Feb 2011, 23:56

The post by "Utah'' which seems to be missing now was completely out of order, IF you are a Commercial Pilot with an Airline ''Utah'' I am VERY pleased I am now retired and hardly ever fly. :mad:

I have had the pleasure to work with many great Pilots over the decades, although mainly of course pre dispute ones. :ok:

It still appears to me that the main problem for most of you is the Pilot that did this rather than what he actually did.

Jetro6UL,

That is very sad, oh for the days when we used to send A320s back to SYD and MEL with hi speed tape holding external panels on. ;)

Steve,

Sorry about that, I didn't know you were in to sarcasm.

Best regards to all,

Utah

13th Feb 2011, 02:37

airsupport

13th Feb 2011, 02:50

The post is still there (#36) on page 2 of the thread (get your knitting glasses checked) the only reason it would have been removed is if you complained about it as the post has already been checked by administration prior to posting (kinda like checking an overhead panel before you fly).

The scary thing is it seems you are not a "g up" but actually genuine about your posts. Lets just say the feeling is mutual buddy, am glad your sucking on butterscotch these days & not responsible for any aircraft I'm operating!

I take it you mean on page 1, not that I would expect someone like you to be able to read. ;)

It was NOT there earlier, I can only guess it was being checked as it was so disgusting, and now for some reason it has been put back. :confused:

I would not waste my time complaining about someone like you. :p

It is Pilots like you, IF you even are one that give Pilots a bad name.

Jetsbest

13th Feb 2011, 02:57

Depending on how one's viewing priorities are set up (ie newest first or chronological order), the post may have been on page 1 or 2...

So you're both right. Move on. ;)

airsupport

13th Feb 2011, 03:29

So you're both right. Move on.

I can live with that. ;)

Must move on to way more important things, like the horse racing, bye......... :ok:

Arnold E

13th Feb 2011, 03:45

The post by "Utah'' which seems to be missing now was completely out of order,
I thought it was rather amusing.:O

josephfeatherweight

13th Feb 2011, 04:12

Airsupport - must be gettin' lonely on that island...
If the "facts" ever see the light of day (eg, ATP, maintenance authority thingy, etc), then we'll in be a much better situation to further chastise what, on the surface, appears to be an appalling lack of judgement AND oversight.

airsupport

13th Feb 2011, 04:25

Yes, the Industry is certainly nothing like it used to be, any wonder it is such a mess. :(

This site reflects that too sadly, nothing like it used to be. :(

clark y

13th Feb 2011, 04:48

On the topic- I've heard rumour this from mulitple sources.

Off the topic- Airsupport, you've probably got the worst attitude toward safety I've seen on these forums.

Clark y.

The Hooker

13th Feb 2011, 08:57

Any engineer worth his salt would not have let that aircraft fly in that state, ferry flight or not. The man that did should have his license revoked and be publicly flogged
:=

swh

13th Feb 2011, 09:49

Knowing what is behind the overhead panels on the A320 I find it very hard to believe that anyone could just swap them around, the looms of wire behind the VUs are just not long enough to randomly move them about.

max1

13th Feb 2011, 11:14

I actually have a bit of respect for airsupport in that he is probably from that nostalgic era when pilots and engineers were actually listened to and respected.
Dispatch (engineers) said that aircraft is a bit dodgy we're not that comfortable with it being taken out. The pilot had a bit of a chat with the ground engineer who had dealt with the problem and either said "Okay we go" or the engineer said "It's stuffed" and the pilot said "We aren't going". That was the end of story, the bean counter, the PR person,etc didn't get a look in.

We had an Electra many years (decades) ago, here in BNE undergoing a routine scheduled service, one engine was found to be just about full filter of metal. No spare in BNE, only spare engine was in MEL. Even a ferry flight could not DEPART on 3 engines, so the Crew took it as a ferry to MEL with the engine just idling on take off, once airborne they shut it down, contacted ATC to tell them they had suffered an engine failure and were continuing to MEL on three engines.

The pilots worked out that if worse came to worse they could always divert and still get it safely on the ground somewhere. The worst result was better than the result that they, and the Company, were currently looking at.
Also the pilots (who actually had their bums strapped to the aircraft) backed their experience and judgement, and knew that Chief Pilot ( one level above God) would back them to the hilt based on the actions of a reasonable person.The ground engineer gave his unbiased opinion to the PIC and his gut feeling on the airworthiness of the aircraft. Even if there was no drama, the pilots knew that the CP would kick their arse if they had done something dodgy just to make schedule.
Which brings us back to the airsupport argument, if the operating crew have 'bent' a rule in line with their own definition of airmanship based on the best information at that time, or whether they have 'bent' a rule to appease schedule before safety?
We can all cite examples of stupid 'rules' that do nothing to enhance safety, be it in the cockpit, cabin or ground. And also examples where there are no rules beyond common sense to enforce legitimate safety concerns.
Unfortunately there are no rules that say use common sense and experience to deal with the problem. This would put about three layers of management hacks on to the dole queue.
Airsupport, times have moved on. It may or may not have been dodgy, but the individuals are not entrusted with that responsibilty any more.

Kangaroo Court

13th Feb 2011, 11:24

Without photos, this post should have been shut down.

division1

13th Feb 2011, 14:22

Right on swr, there is not all that much chance of stuffing up the panel layout
Like you say, the wire bundles are quite short, the connector keyways differ and the panel sizes and shapes vary.
Might have been something simple like the observers acp and the blank panel where the rmp might go?
Something like that might go unnoticed? Might be a storm in a teacup.

airsupport

13th Feb 2011, 18:41

I now wish I had never seen this thread, or posted on it, however just a few points.

I actually have a bit of respect for airsupport in that he is probably from that nostalgic era when pilots and engineers were actually listened to and respected.
Dispatch (engineers) said that aircraft is a bit dodgy we're not that comfortable with it being taken out. The pilot had a bit of a chat with the ground engineer who had dealt with the problem and either said "Okay we go" or the engineer said "It's stuffed" and the pilot said "We aren't going". That was the end of story, the bean counter, the PR person,etc didn't get a look in.

Quote:
We had an Electra many years (decades) ago, here in BNE undergoing a routine scheduled service, one engine was found to be just about full filter of metal. No spare in BNE, only spare engine was in MEL. Even a ferry flight could not DEPART on 3 engines, so the Crew took it as a ferry to MEL with the engine just idling on take off, once airborne they shut it down, contacted ATC to tell them they had suffered an engine failure and were continuing to MEL on three engines.

The pilots worked out that if worse came to worse they could always divert and still get it safely on the ground somewhere. The worst result was better than the result that they, and the Company, were currently looking at.
Also the pilots (who actually had their bums strapped to the aircraft) backed their experience and judgement, and knew that Chief Pilot ( one level above God) would back them to the hilt based on the actions of a reasonable person.The ground engineer gave his unbiased opinion to the PIC and his gut feeling on the airworthiness of the aircraft. Even if there was no drama, the pilots knew that the CP would kick their arse if they had done something dodgy just to make schedule.
Which brings us back to the airsupport argument, if the operating crew have 'bent' a rule in line with their own definition of airmanship based on the best information at that time, or whether they have 'bent' a rule to appease schedule before safety?
We can all cite examples of stupid 'rules' that do nothing to enhance safety, be it in the cockpit, cabin or ground. And also examples where there are no rules beyond common sense to enforce legitimate safety concerns.
Unfortunately there are no rules that say use common sense and experience to deal with the problem. This would put about three layers of management hacks on to the dole queue.
Airsupport, times have moved on. It may or may not have been dodgy, but the individuals are not entrusted with that responsibilty any more.

max1,

I hope you are NOT being sarcastic, because that is exactly how it was in my day, well all of my 40 years in the Industry.

The Electra thing was no big deal, empty aircraft on a ferry flight, Crew knew all we knew about the aircraft, and anyway similar aircraft (Orion) does this every day in fact routinely shut down 2 engines and cruise around.

One example that hilights EXACTLY what you are saying is again many years ago now I had a DC9 transiting BNE from SYD heading off to TSV and CNS, while doing the walkround I just was not happy with the way #1 engine looked, the Company wanted it to go obviously and when I discussed it with the Crew, even though I wasn't sure what it was that was worrying me they backed me and we delayed the flight. Turned out the rear mount bolt (one of only three holding the engine in for those that don't know) was broken, could have lost the engine any time.

Yes I honestly believe things were much better AND safer back then. :ok:

airsupport

13th Feb 2011, 18:49

Off the topic- Airsupport, you've probably got the worst attitude toward safety I've seen on these forums.

Clark y.

I don't know who you are or where you get off saying that. :(

I spent some 40 years in the Industry, mainly in Australia, but also with Aussie registered aircraft operating right throughout the Pacific and a lot of the World including Vietnam, Guyana, Russia and the USA, and all that time NO aircraft I was with and/or looking after was EVER involved in any kind of safety issue or incident. :confused:

DutchRoll

13th Feb 2011, 19:27

We had an Electra many years (decades) ago, here in BNE undergoing a routine scheduled service, one engine was found to be just about http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif full filter of metal. No spare in BNE, only spare engine was in MEL. Even a ferry flight could not DEPART on 3 engines, so the Crew took it as a ferry to MEL with the http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif engine just idling on take off, once airborne they shut it down, contacted ATC to tell them they had suffered an engine failure and were continuing to MEL on three engines. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gifThey started an engine known to be highly contaminated with metal chips and took off with it at idle power to circumvent what presumably was the prohibition of a 3 engine takeoff in that aircraft by the operator (and one assumes, probably the manufacturer) then spun a bit of a yarn about why they shut it down.

No consideration of the inherent dangers of a 3 engine takeoff?
Got performance data for a 3 engine takeoff?
Know the difference between a VMCA event with reducing power on one engine, as opposed to increasing power on three engines?
No consideration of what if this known-to-be-contaminated-with-chunks-of-metal engine decides to actually catch fire in the process of seizing, even at idle power?

Just because they exercised highly questionable judgement and airmanship on an Electra some decades ago doesn't mean people have to repeat the same mentality on an Airbus.

If you reckon that event made them great operators, think again. I've heard of lots of dumb and appalling examples of airmanship displayed during the 60s and onwards by guys who seemed to think they were pretty much immortal. That one is right up there.

It might have been empty of pax, but that just means there were only 3 (or whatever the Electra crew was) idiots on the plane.

airsupport

13th Feb 2011, 20:44

If you reckon that event made them great operators, think again. I've heard of lots of dumb and appalling examples of airmanship displayed during the 60s and onwards by guys who seemed to think they were pretty much immortal. That one is right up there.

It might have been empty of pax, but that just means there were only 3 (or whatever the Electra crew was) idiots on the plane.

IF you have a problem with what happened that day, then your problem is with the Pilots NOT me. :confused:

I was all for changing the engine in BNE but they were happy to take it to MEL as it was. :confused:

Yes those were the good olde days, sadly they are gone now it seems. :(

division1

13th Feb 2011, 21:21

Well airsupport, that was the way it was done for sure.
Like the Continental DC10 that flew Brisbane to Guam on
2 engines, thats where their spare engine was held, lol.

DutchRoll

13th Feb 2011, 21:55

IF you have a problem with what happened that day, then your problem is with the Pilots NOT me. :confused:My problem is with both:

1. The pilots, who by virtually any standard exercised very poor judgement in executing an unnecessarily risky takeoff on several counts, when a replacement engine could've been ferried to the plane in situ.

2. Anyone apparently trying to justify this action on a "can-do, will-do, get-the-job-done-at-all-costs" basis.
I was all for changing the engine in BNE but they were happy to take it to MEL as it was. :confused:Good. But you came across as #2 above in the way you worded it.
Yes those were the good olde days, sadly they are gone now it seems. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/sowee.gifThis isn't against you personally. This is against taking risks like taking off on 3 out of 4 engines with the remaining one having a known metal contamination problem to the point it needed changing (!!!) yet still operating for the takeoff (!!!). Christ. They may as well leave the thing shutdown so it didn't decide to gobble up and spit out any more bits of its own insides shortly before deciding to start a nice little blaze, or some other similar possible scenario. It wasn't providing any power while running at idle anyway. It was effectively a 3 engine takeoff no matter which way you look at it, but they chose (I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around this) to have the contaminated one running then shut it down after takeoff. :confused:

Or did they do this so that if another one failed on takeoff they could firewall the one with the known metal contamination? Because as we all know, engines with blocked filters due to metal contamination which have been deemed to require removal from the wing just love suddenly being run up to full power in an emergency situation. :rolleyes:

There is absolutely nothing in their decision-making process which makes any sense at all.:ugh: Like, seriously, what was going through their minds that day? And why is this "the good olde days"?

Jetro6UL

13th Feb 2011, 22:13

The Electra thing was no big deal, empty aircraft on a ferry flight, Crew knew all we knew about the aircraft, and anyway similar aircraft (Orion) does this every day in fact routinely shut down 2 engines and cruise around......
Yes I honestly believe things were much better AND safer back then. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Man, you just don't get it, do you?

Ixnay on the three engine Orion take-off-ay. It never happens.

You will no doubt be aware that major Australian based RPT airlines have yet to suffer the loss of a jet airliner, yet lost quite a few prop-driven aircraft and lives back in "the good old days".

The EH was a top selling Holden but it rusted like a bastard, had no seat belts, no airbags, no brakes and no performance. Things were NOT better and NOT safer in "the good old days".

airsupport

13th Feb 2011, 22:35

All these personal attacks on me cannot change history, or make things safer. :(

I could post some stories about other Pilots back in the good olde days, Pilots that you guys would probably like and sadly relate to, but I would get banned from a Pilot's web site. ;)

Just as an example back in the good olde days, as someone mentioned Electras, early one morning in BNE as an Electra (freighter) was ready to depart BNE for SYD-MEL-SYD-BNE, #3 engine would not start.

I tried to troubleshoot it for a short time then tried to start it myself with no luck, I then tried it (excuse my old memory) in what I think was called the ''null'' position and it started so after confirming that both SYD and MEL had Engineers on duty that were happy to do the same IF needed I handed the aircraft back over to the Crew with #3 and #4 engines running.

Air Freight then decided as it was running late and they wanted the freight back in BNE on time to reshedule it direct to MEL then via SYD to BNE.

NO problems you would think.

Well these Pilots, who no doubt are YOUR heroes certainly NOT mine, refused to go as apparently they were allowed to because of a ''schedule change" because they were playing golf later that day. :mad:

airsupport

13th Feb 2011, 22:47

You will no doubt be aware that major Australian based RPT airlines have yet to suffer the loss of a jet airliner, yet lost quite a few prop-driven aircraft and lives back in "the good old days".

The EH was a top selling Holden but it rusted like a bastard, had no seat belts, no airbags, no brakes and no performance. Things were NOT better and NOT safer in "the good old days".

Yes I am aware, back in the 1960s I saw some of the wreckage and deceased people from Viscount VH-RMI, a site I will never forget. :(

Funny (odd) you mention cars, I was just thinking about exactly that last night in relation to this thread.

I had an FE Holden back in the good old days, completely rebuilt it, I felt much safer on the roads in that in those days than I do now in a fairly new Commodore. MAYBE safer IF involved in an accident, but the roads are so much busier now and crazy drivers all in a hurry.

adsyj

13th Feb 2011, 23:08

I think Airsupport is taking the p i s s.

You had me going for awhile I thiought you were fair dinkum.

Well done:D

Codger

13th Feb 2011, 23:12

I just have to wonder a little about the pilot that accepted the aircraft and flew it to Singapore. What else did he miss that wasn't up to scratch?
If maintenance couldn't get the panels back in to their correct positions what else did they just jam in to whatever place was convenient?

The dark humoured advice given to me way back that served me well..
You are not being paranoid, they are out to kill you.

airsupport

14th Feb 2011, 00:03

I think Airsupport is taking the p i s s.

You had me going for awhile I thiought you were fair dinkum.

Well done

While I appreciate a sort of compliment as a break from the personal attacks, I am 100% serious. :ok:

IF you bother to read the thread from the start you will see that originally I thought they were talking about a couple of panels in the cabin, which for a ferry flight would be no big deal, not even a little deal.

Now it seems they meant cockpit panels, obviously that is serious, I cannot see how it was even done.

All the rest is 100% true. :ok:

Just to add to my last post, I honestly feel the same about aircraft as I said about cars.

I have done so much flying all over the World, probably a lot more than many Pilots here, but I always felt safer in the older aircraft like DC9s and B727s, and even the F27 than in the newer ones like all the Airbuses. Sure the newer ones have much better technology, but IF you are in big trouble I would rather trust a DC9 or 727 to hold together for me than say an A320. :ok:

DutchRoll

14th Feb 2011, 03:53

Yeah, look again I don't mean personal offence here Airsupport and I'm sorry if you have taken any. But I just noticed this bit quoted above which I had previously missed:
similar aircraft (Orion) does this every day in fact routinely shut down 2 engines and cruise around......That is not correct. It shuts down a single, known, perfectly functioning engine in the cruise to save fuel and increase its low-level loiter capability. The procedure also sets this engine up to be air-started very rapidly, should another engine fail.

They certainly don't takeoff on three. We did windmill taxy starts on 3 engines when I did my training on another iconic 4 engine plane, and even they were fraught with problems and risk (they at various stages were taught, banned, taught, banned, etc).

Honestly, I don't know what they (the Electra crew) were thinking.

While the A320 incident is nowhere near the scale of the Electra one, with our highly procedurally driven cockpits in modern jetliners you have to ask yourself about whether that was a wise or necessary decision. Personally, I would've said "fine, send the paxing ticket to the hotel". I took many risks when I was specifically paid by the Government to do so. But not now.

airsupport

14th Feb 2011, 04:20

Yeah, look again I don't mean personal offence here Airsupport and I'm sorry if you have taken any.

Well if that is true PLEASE do NOT start offending me PLEASE. ;)

I have never been involved in the Military in any way whatever, just I am sure (was sure) I had seen a photo of a US Orion at very low level over water cruising on 2 engines. :confused:

Anyway apart from the fact that I didn't fly this Electra, I still cannot see any problem as long as the Crew were happy.

Another way of looking at it is think of the Crew that brought it in the day before, they didn't know they had an engine on its last legs, at least these guys knew and as I said as planned shut it down immediately after take off, ferry flight, just the 3 Crew.

I really can NOT see a problem, as long as the Crew were happy, the Company were happy. :ok:

PS........ As I have tried to explain also, I do not agree with that A320 leaving Indonesia now they are saying it was cockpit panels, NO problem with any amount of cabin missing for a ferry. :ok: