Engineers slam Virgin on Safety Pt2

[BIK_116.80]

Ladies, Gentlemen, and monkeys riding bicycles,

The first 108 posts of this thread can be found here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=82633).

AN LAME,

I am sorry to be so blunt, but I am concerned that you cannot read.

You claim :

You say that I am 'in a minority of one' in my interpretation of not only the regulatory requirements but also the benefits, common sense, and risk management aspect of having a LAME carry out transits for RPT operations.

Yet what I actually said was :

I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, and I can accept that this may come as a shock to you since you have invested so much time and emotional energy developing your line of reasoning, but in regard to your interpretations of the ICAO requirements, you are in a minority of one.

ICAO SARPs do NOT require that an aircraft be inspected by a licenced engineer prior to each and every flight.

You are putting words into my mouth – and getting it wrong.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that your incorrect interpretations of the ICAO SARPs and Australian CARs have been entirely unavoidable since you seem to have a propensity to see words that are not actually on the page. :confused:

It’s going to be increasingly difficult to engage in a rational discussion if one party has a tendency to see things that are not really there. :(

You continue :

If that was the case...I would not be supported by ALL of the apparent engineering background contributors and a fairly sizeable number of our flying fraternity as well.

I repeat, I suggest that you are in a minority of one in regard to your interpretation of the ICAO SARPs – specifically, in your interpretation that an airline jet must be inspected by a licenced engineer prior to each and every flight.

I don’t see that ANY of the “apparent engineering background contributors” nor ANY of the “flying fraternity” have stated that they agree with your rather peculiar interpretation of the ICAO SARPs.

Please specify which of the “apparent engineering background contributors” and “flying fraternity” you say agree with your interpretation that the ICAO SARPs require a that a licenced aircraft engineer must inspect an airline jet aircraft prior to each and every flight.

I have the utmost respect for professional pilots...but at times that respect does not appear to be reciprocated.

Pilots fly the planes – I think we are in agreement on that part. Licenced engineers fix the planes – I think we would agree on that too. And I know that all pilots have a great deal of respect and indeed gratitude for engineers that fix the planes.

But you have intimated that pilots are incapable of conducting “walk around” inspections to a satisfactory standard, and that, in any case, a “walk around” inspection should properly be regarded as “secret engineers business” (like “secret women’s business”, perhaps :confused: )

Given that pilots are required to attain a level of competence in conducting “walk around” inspections as part of their initial training on type, and given that many pilots are required to conduct “walk around” inspections as part of their everyday tasks, your “utmost respect” would seem to be not quite as “utmost” as you might have us believe.

Do you recognise that your lack of respect for the professional competence of pilots in performing their required duties might rub people up the wrong way, or is it something that you do without realising?

AN LAME – you seem to be pursuing three separate lines of argument.

(1) That it is a legal requirement under ICAO SARPs that a licenced engineer must inspect an airline jet aircraft before each and every flight.

(2) That a licenced engineer must inspect an airline jet before each and every flight for safety reasons. You have suggested that pilots are incapable of conducting this inspection to a satisfactory standard, and you have suggested that there will be adverse safety outcomes - ie accidents and/or incidents – if a licenced engineer does not perform the inspections.

(3) That the job of the “walk around” inspection rightfully belongs to the licenced engineers because that is the way it has always been done in Australia.

On argument (1) I suggest that you are simply barking up the wrong tree. It is my view that your interpretation of ICAO SARPs is flawed. If it is not flawed, then why haven’t you, nor the ALAEA, nor anyone else challenged CASA in the Federal (or any other) Court?

On argument (2) I suggest that your safety concerns – if in fact they are genuine – are unfounded. The evidence from the mature and much larger aviation markets overseas simply does not support your assertions. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Argument (3) is simply an industrial relations issue – in effect a demarcation dispute. Demarcation disputes, in and of themselves, have nothing what so ever to do with safety.

You still haven't answered my query as to why you believe the ALAEA is unscrupulous and aggressive.

Actually, you never inquired as to why I believe the ALAEA has been unscrupulous and aggressive. Once again, I think you are seeing words that aren’t there. :confused:

Your query was :

By the way, if the ALAEA is ' an unscrupulpous and aggressive union', what does that make the AMWU, or the TWU or dare I say it, an employee group in this same industry some 14 years ago?

And to that, my reply was :

I have not attempted to justify the actions of any union. Unions had a place in the 1800s in England when twelve year old boys were working by candle-light 18 hours a day down the coal mines and getting inadequately fed and substandard shelter in return. But those times are long gone.

To answer your original query more directly, I don’t know, nor do I care, what the ALAEA’s unscrupulous and aggressive behaviour makes the AMWU, TWU or “an employee group in this same industry some 14 years ago?”

I guess that if the ALAEA wishes to lower its level of behaviour to that of the AMWU, or TWU, or the Painters and Dockers if you want to go the whole hog, then that is entirely its prerogative.

You seem to want to engage me on ’89 issues. You will continue to fail. I couldn’t give a rats bottom about ’89 issues.

To answer your new query, I believe that the ALAEA’s behaviour has been unscrupulous because they have been telling deliberate fibs and being knowingly misleading in their dealings with the media by pretending that :

(a) The current approved practice in Australian jet airlines is that a licenced engineer must ALWAYS perform a “walk around” inspection before each and every flight – which is demonstrably untrue.

(b) That Australia would be out of step with current approved practice overseas if Australia did not require that a licenced engineer must perform a “walk around” inspection before each and every flight – which is also demonstrably untrue.

(c) That the ALAEA’s motivation for its current CASA lobbying and media campaign is a benevolent concern for the safety of flight – when in reality the ALAEA’s true motivation is simply to feather the nests of itself and its members – ie a significant and obvious vested interest.

The ALAEA has been overly-aggressive because it has attempted to rail-road both the airline employers and the regulator into complying with its own industrial demands by means of a misleading public scare campaign – a scare campaign that has endeavoured to hoodwink the flying public into believing a series of lies and half-truths.

To be entirely frank, the ALAEA’s behaviour has been more akin to the kind of industrial thuggery that one might expect from a trade union representing a group of uneducated and unskilled blue-collar workers – rather than a group of licenced aircraft engineers. In this respect, perhaps I may have simply over-estimated the level of professionalism of the licenced engineers?

Is it simply that you so vehemently disagree with their argument

I do disagree with their argument, but I disagree more with their methods.

[Oz Geek]

Please ignore the BIK thread. Seems monkeys play a big part in his life...now if only he could sing and stop grabbing his crotch.


For those that wish to continue discussing this topic in a professional manner please do so.


Geek.
:)

[Woomera]

Trying to play King Solomon here :=

BIK_116.80 posted the continuation first, but Oz Geek got the title more correct, so they're merged as we are not having two bites at it.

Might I make the observation that BIK_116.80 is entitled to respond to the "monkeys" issue, which if I recall correctly, was raised by the engineers.

Oz Geeks post is contradictory, on the one hand he passes a derogatory comment and on the other he pleads for professionalism.

Why don't we just concentrate on the professional discussion bit eh.

[AN LAME]

BIK

Seeing as you're not playing the man :rolleyes: ... I respect your right to hold an opinion even if that opinion is that my views are incorrect.

I was going to start quoting your quoting of my quotes however the fact is, I can't be bothered. Of course you will most likely take that as a sign of defeat, which I can assure you is not the case. The level of detail which you go into in your lengthy responses is IMHO a debate which needs to be carried out face to face.

Despite your assertion that my, and others view are not worthy of your time... I don't particularly care :eek: Having been involved in RPT for twenty years , I am of the opinion that the LAME's contribution to the safety and efficiency of the Australian industry is a significant resource that is currently under threat by those who would remove a 'slice of Swiss Cheese ' from James Reason's accident model... in the name of economic rationalism. You may take this as a personal affront on behalf of all the professional pilots out there... you appear to desire to do so. But if I may speak TO all those pilots ' I have the utmost respect for your skills, training and professionalism. However, in an industry which is moving to competency based training you have not received that training. That is not to say that you cannot be trained. (And then BIK may get the Industrial posture that he is so keen on developing) However at this point in time, and until otherwise, I believe the LAME is the appropriately qualified person.'

And as I have said in the past (BIK will be able to quote me chapter and verse I'm sure - in or out of context) there is a broader issue down the track if this continues - and that will be the commercial pressure on Tech Crews to carry defects because of a lack of an Engineering presence.

Cheers :p

'You can teach a monkey to ride a bike...'
( I have to keep typing it now knowing it annoys BIK so much. If I can paraphrase another old saying 'Small things annoy small minds') ;)

[BIK_116.80]

Despite your assertion that my, and others view are not worthy of your time...

Nope – I never asserted any such thing. Another figment of your imagination I’m afraid. Am I reading a different thread to you or something?

:confused:

'You can teach a monkey to ride a bike...'
( I have to keep typing it now knowing it annoys BIK so much...

Whatever floats your boat, mate! You fill yer boots! lol :)

[AN LAME]

I stand corrected...inference.

'You can teach a monkey to ride a bike...' (You just wanted to see it again) :p

[Groaner]

AN LAME;

I think you cannot really assert that your, and others' views are not worthy of BIK's time - I would say that BIK invested significant time and effort in the previous (lengthy) reply.

To my mind (and I'm not on either side, so regard myself as somewhat neutral), he makes some telling points.

Oz Geek, if his reply was not in a professional manner, please explain what would be?

I assume that you both accept that a well-thought-out and well-argued position is valid? Or is it just that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong - if so I will not deign to reply - that truly would not be worth anyone's time.

[Woomera]

Groaner

Just so we don't misunderstand anyone here.

I did not say that Oz Greek was not being professional in his call for professionalism, just that his or anyones "monkey" remarks do not "add" to the debate.

So lets get on with it shall we, sans the bicycles and monkey routines shall we.

And just coz I like seeing it

"Play the ball not the man, lest you get injured."

[chockchucker]

As somebody who spent many years working in line maintenance in Syd, I am perplexed by the desire of some tech crew to see L.A.M.E.'s removed from the tarmac (the major carriers have been trying it for years). It may well pass, unfortunately, that a lot of experience and knowlege will be flushed off the tarmac in the near future, mainly in the drive to trim costs. Only after the engineers are gone and there is an incident or an accident after something was missed on a turnaround, will it dawn on those of you who are so keen to see the engineers go. That is, when something does go wrong, the first response of major airlines in this country has generally been not," what happened and how can we prevent it from happening again "but, "what happened and who can we screw". With the engineers gone, that will place the tech crew very much in the managements firing line (even more than you currently are). Don't believe me? Wait till something happens (and I certainly hope nothing does but, the law of averages will probably catch up with you at some point.)
To all the engineers that may be affected. Fear not, there will always be plenty of overnight work and if that's not your cup of tea, then Heavy Maintenance isn't so bad (that's where I've found work after sep 2001). Or you could be one of the lucky few "Super LAME's" left on the tarmac to apply M.E.L.'s, carry out fuel drains and basically keep your operation going with a box of bandaids and one arm tied behind your back. By all means keep up the good fight but, in the short term things don't look too good. Long term though I wouldn't be surprised to see a quiet return to the tarmac for the LAME. I hope so, for the safety of the travelling public in this country.
Cheers,
CC.

[GoodToGo!]

Oz Geek
GTG You continue promising to stop posting, yet you never do. The only posts that are "pilot v LAME" are posted by pilots and I must say your generalism reflects very badly on the majority of very professional pilots I have had the pleasure to work along side.

Where the hell did I say I promise to stop posting? :mad: :mad:
Yet I never do?!?!?
89 posts in just under two years.....

Mate, I think your name sums you up. Why don't you read my (what is it now, 3? maybe 4?) posts in this topic again and think about it.

For your info, AN LAME and I have been down this topic extensively in the past. I don't mind at all if has a friendly dig at me, after all, I worked with him for many years. We know where we stand.

GTG! :mad:

[Kanga767]

I still can't work out why you flyboys are so anti!!!

It's no skin off your nose if we do transits, we're already there anyway and it gives you more time in the 'deck to do what you really need to do!!!

Why are you guys so against it???????


K

Hey Cruncher

I now realise that the answers to my maintenance woes had been worked out years ago by those with bigger tails!!

K

[Travelling Toolbox]

Not just engineers - CASA too!

Been busy and not had a chance to catch up with this thread. I'll have to post tomorrow as I saw a newspaper article about
CASA issuing a formal warning to Virgin re pilots not doing adequate daily/turnaround inspections.

I'll find the clip and post it in the morning for those that may be interested - unless of course someone out there has it handy and can do the honours. :D

Good to see everyone can maintain a civil conversation;)

[Oz Geek]

GTG,

I have seen nothing really new here since we discussed this topic many many months ago. So I have been content ... to occasionally check in and hear the old Pilot V LAME argument and who's better than who blah blah blah. Thats my 2 cents worth.
Sorry, took that as meaning you have had your say and would not post again...obviously your happy to continue to add your 2 cents anytime someone disagrees with you. You must have plenty of spare change.

Your relationship with AN LAME warms the cockles of my heart...it really does.

As for the thread topic...

[Clearance Clarance]

Kanga,

I do not know ANY pilots that want to see the engineers off the tarmac. (not where I work anyway, nearly 400 pilots)
We want you there as much as you want to be there.

You must remember, its only a very minority (only a few actually) who have the time, or are bothered enough to post their opinion here.

[AN LAME]

As we suspect Clarence!

[airsupport]

Travelling Toolbox,

This the item you mean?


(QUOTE)

AAP Friday February 28, 07:50 PM

Australia's aviation watchdog cracked down on Virgin Blue after surveillance revealed shortcomings in its maintenance checks. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) summoned Virgin representatives to a meeting in Brisbane and issued them with a formal notice over the breaches.

CASA said it was within its guidelines for pilots to conduct the maintenance checks but they were not being thoroughly carried out. "We have had a series of discussions with Virgin Blue today about the issue of turnaround checks," CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said.

"The issue for us is the pilots have got to do these checks properly and what we have found in the course of audits and some surveillance of Virgin Blue is that some of these checks are not being done as thoroughly as they should be by the pilots."
The audit was carried out earlier this month and the checks were placed under surveillance for several days this week.

There was no evidence passenger safety was at risk at any time, but the safety shortcomings were serious enough for a formal warning to be issued, CASA said. "We've got no evidence that anything went wrong with the aircraft because they were subject to shortcuts," Mr Gibson said.

Virgin Blue has undertaken to provide pilots with refresher training courses and issued an email bulletin reminding pilots of safety procedures and the need to carry out all tasks thoroughly.
It will also formally write to its pilots outlining the same points.

Mr Gibson said CASA was satisfied that if those measures were undertaken, Virgin could continue to use pilots to carry out the checks.

Virgin Blue commercial head David Huttner said CASA and the company had come to agreement on the issue. "We had a meeting with CASA to discuss their concerns, and we have agreed with CASA to some amendments to our system," he said.
"There will also be a review process in the coming months.
"But CASA has agreed with that, our pilot system will be continued."

The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association said by using pilots to conduct pre-takeoff safety checks, airlines were watering down an aviation safety system currently among the best in the world. The union's federal executive this week endorsed a series of industry-wide stopwork meetings to consider the issue, starting in Brisbane on March 10.

Virgin maintains the airline has always adhered to safety regulations set by both the aircraft manufacturer and CASA.

But the airline is on notice that it will be watched. "What we are going to do is keep a higher level of surveillance of Virgin Blue in the coming days, weeks and perhaps months to make sure these checks are being done properly," Mr Gibson said.

(ENDQUOTE)

Best regards,

airsupport.

I would prefer to keep out of this lively debate IF it is just going to get personal, as usual.

However it would appear to me that many Pilots are not that happy with this new idea either, and would prefer the status quo.

I happened to be in the Airservices Australia Offices at Brisbane Airport yesterday, have a guess what they were discussing?

Seems most ATC people think it is an unnecessary reduction in safety.

As for the general public, I have had 2 people who are nothing to do with the Industry, but fly as passengers a lot, ask me in the last few days, had I heard of this and what I thought of it?

They both also thought it was a ridiculous exercise in penny pinching, and was making their travelling less safe.

Even IF they all have it wrong (which I don't think they do), there will have to be some smooth talking to convince all these people that safety is NOT being compromised. :(

[GoodToGo!]

Oz Geek,
...obviously your happy to continue to add your 2 cents anytime someone disagrees with you. You must have plenty of spare change.
Sounds like you're doing the same buddy. Ever heard of right of reply?

Yes about the topic.......

GTG

AN LAME, tried sending you a PM, but your inbox is full......

[Dehavillanddriver]

I reckon that the majority of pilots are happy to have engineers continue doing transit checks..BUT when the engineers - or more appropriately their union starts calling it a safety issue in the press we take offence.

I for one do not believe that the removal of engineers is a SAFETY issue. The inference is that the Pilots - the ones who strap their behinds into the aeroplane - are incapable of doing the walkaround - which quite clearly is not the case.

The ALAEA can squawk as loudly as it likes just DON'T call it a safety issue cause it isn't!

THAT is why the pilots are getting anti.

PS Having engineers follow you around when you are doing a walkaround to see if they can trip you up is just petty and not worthy of a professional.

If you are an engineer and doing this - please stop it - because it makes you look petty and is just getting the pilots more offside.

[airsupport]

ABC Online

ABC News - Plane engineers allege Virgin safety scares

Posted: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:52 AEDT

Plane engineers allege Virgin safety scares


The Australian Industrial Relations Commission has begun hearing how changes to Virgin Blue's pre-flight safety system are allegedly compromising public safety.

The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association has been summoned to the commission after calling a stop-work meeting for next Monday.

Virgin Blue has decided that apart from the first check of the day, all other plane inspections should be conducted by pilots.

But the association's Michael O'Rance says downgrading aircraft engineers' role in preflight safety checks is dangerously lowering standards.

He says the association will detail six critical safety incidents over the past month in which public safety was compromised under the new guidelines, and his members welcome the chance to put their case to the IRC.

[I'm with stupid]

Am I missing something ?
I was under the impression pilots had to do a walk around wether the engineers are there and do one, or not.

[AN LAME]

I'm with stupid.

Correct..as per the AFM but not for maintenance.

DeHav.
BUT when the engineers - or more appropriately their union starts calling it a safety issue in the press we take offence.
I understand the nature of yours and others opposition now at least. But I can assure you that no LAME, nor I imagine the ALAEA, is attempting to disparage pilots. If that's your take on the issue then that is unfortunate

[Wirraway]

Thurs "Sydney Morning Herald"

Virgin pilots failed plane-check duties
By Greg Roberts
March 6 2003

Virgin Blue has been formally rapped over the knuckles after failing to act on warnings that its pilot safety inspections were inadequate.

As the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) issued the airline with a formal corrective notice yesterday, the authority's corporate affairs manager, Peter Gibson, said: "We were checking on the pilots and the pilots weren't doing the inspections properly."

The move coincides with claims by the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association, denied by Virgin Blue, that public safety had been put at risk by changes in the airline's inspection procedures.

Mr Gibson said a CASA audit early last month found that pilots undertaking visual inspections of Virgin Blue aircraft on the tarmac during aircraft turnarounds - between landing and departure - were not doing so according to specified procedures.

"We did some subsequent surveillance last week and the problem had still not been fixed, so we issued them with a formal notice," Mr Gibson said.

He said the airline had written to its pilots advising them of the inspection requirements and had agreed its pilots should undertake refresher courses in inspections.

The engineers' union was summoned before the Industrial Relations Commission in Brisbane yesterday over a stop-work meeting it plans on Monday over the inspection issue.

The union's federal president, Michael O'Rance, said that since Virgin Blue stopped qualified engineers from conducting turnaround inspections in January on its new generation 737s, directing pilots to do them instead, public safety had been jeopardised.

Mr O'Rance said engineers had defied the directive by inspecting aircraft after pilots had inspected them, discovering major defects missed by the pilots.

They included the engine of a plane in Brisbane bound for Sydney which had been struck by a bird and had to be removed; a torn tyre which had to be changed on a plane in Adelaide bound for Melbourne; and a broken landing light on a plane in Adelaide bound for Sydney.

Mr O'Rance said engineers noticed that a pilot on one aircraft in Sydney had recorded in a logbook that he had conducted an inspection when he had not.

"The change in pre-flight inspections has put domestic passengers at risk because these inspections should be undertaken by qualified engineers," Mr O'Rance said.

Virgin Blue's head of commercial, David Hutner, said the pilot inspections were in accordance with Boeing and CASA guidelines for new generation 737s.

"CASA had simply said to us that certain things needed to be done, that things could be done better, and now we've worked out a program with them to do that," Mr Hutner said.

He said the pilot of the aircraft with the engine which had been struck by a bird had not overlooked the damage but he had gone home ill before being able to conduct his inspection.

"A lot of the union's accusations are false; they are using scare tactics to run their own jobs agenda."

[airsupport]

Well there you go. :eek:

PLEASE tell me that some of you who insist this is NOT a safety issue, are now convinced it IS sadly very much a safety issue. :(

How any reasonable person could say it is NOT a safety issue is beyond me. :rolleyes:

Surely 2 independent inspections MUST be safer than 1 inspection, whether it is by one Pilot OR one Engineer. It may well be more costly, but it MUST be safer. :rolleyes:

IF the fact that you are Captains, and you think it offends you, the same would apply if they proposed to do away with the Pilot's inspection, it would be LESS SAFE than now if ONLY LAMEs did the inspections, it is NOT a reflection on Pilots.

Four eyes are better than two. :rolleyes:

And I don't mean people wearing glasses should do all the preflights either. ;)

[AN LAME]

Virgin pilots have made safety check mistakes: engineers
By MATTHEW DENHOLM
06mar03

VIRGIN Blue has been forced to defend its safety record against claims of recent serious lapses.

Aircraft engineers yesterday outlined a series of faults alleged to have been missed in safety checks by pilots last month.
Virgin Blue ended pre-flight safety checks by licensed aircraft maintenance engineers in late January.

It directed its pilots to perform the visual checks between flights.

The move has been approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, but was yesterday condemned by former CASA maintenance standards chief, Ken Cannane.

Mr Cannane explained to The Daily Telegraph that pilots were insufficiently skilled to detect all faults which can emerge in aircraft.

"They are happy to spend money training pilots but they want to cut costs on maintenance down to nothing," Mr Cannane said.

"This is mad cost-cutting."

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the safety watchdog had no problem with pilots conducting the pre-flight checks – just as long as they were being performed properly.

He said Virgin Blue had promised to improve the checks after CASA surveillance found cases of pilots cutting corners and rushing.

"We will be doing surveillance on them fairly regularly and if we find that improvements haven't been made, we'll take further action if necessary," Mr Gibson said.

"From our perspective it doesn't matter who does the checks – pilots or engineers – as long as they are done properly."

But the Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association pointed to six cases between February 10 and 27 when pilots allegedly didn't do the checks properly.

The most serious of these is that a pilot failed to detect a bird strike in an engine of a plane at Brisbane airport on February 24.

After an engineer spotted feathers and blood, an inspection found severe damage and the engine was replaced.

Virgin Blue head of commercial operations David Huttner said the pilot involved went off duty sick. But he said the replacement pilot would have spotted the damage if the engineer had not done so first.

Other allegations include:

 A pre-flight safety check was signed as completed by crew before a plane had even arrived at its Sydney airport terminal.

 A pilot safety check failed to detect a 3cm-deep tyre puncture on a flight from Adelaide. A broken landing light got through another check at Adelaide.

Mr Huttner said he was unable to respond to all the allegations yesterday, but believed they would prove to be "highly misleading".

"The union is trying to use scare tactics to drive its own agenda, when CASA and Boeing do not reach the same conclusion," he said.

"They both say the procedures we are using are the appropriate ones."

He said Virgin had an excellent safety record.


Of course you'd believe Peter Gibson before the former head of Maintenance Standards, Mr. Cannane, whom I believe was sacked by CASA over this issue!? :rolleyes:

[airsupport]

Did the Pilot go home sick before or after the Engineer found the bird strike? :rolleyes:

[AN LAME]

...or after he'd been told 'if you don't toe the company line'...

[ozdog]

An important fact that seems to have been overlooked is that the Boeing MPD for the 737NG does not require a full blown engineering check durring turn-arounds.

This is acceptable to CASA, and the operator of these aircraft.

With newer technology, we continue to make progress regarless of the ludities within the industry.

Navigators and in-flight Engineers are no longer requried, but the same "saftey" arguments were made when they left.

With greater reliability, new technolgies, materials and MSG3 design philosophies, there is really no need for an Engineer to perform a check durring transits, as long as the pilot performs the check to the manufactures recommendation.

Notes:

1) In Europe this is standard practice.

2) QF do the same thing in regional ports - so whats the difference ? Are we going to apply the same standards to all operators and aircraft ?

[I'm with stupid]

Just as a side issue, half the problem ( pilots not doing proper walkarounds ) is probably that less than 12 months ago, some Virgin captains were doing walkarounds on light A/C :rolleyes:

[Travelling Toolbox]

airsupport

re: newspaper clipping.

Yeah that'll be the one. Thanks for that. ;)

[airsupport]

Travelling Toolbox,

No worries. :D

I'm with stupid,

I was under the impression that the Virgin Blue Captains were the most experienced in the business, being mainly people that were Captains prior to 19**, is this NOT true? :confused:

ozdog,

Boeing (and Airbus) will say anything to sell you the Aircraft. :rolleyes:

As I said on the previous post, and nobody was able to answer, PLEASE explain...........

Given that the Pilots and the Airlines say it is just a visual look around the exterior of the Aircraft, nothing deeper than that, what are the major differences visually to the exterior of a B737NG (that does not need an Engineer) as compared to say a B737-300/400 (that did require an Engineer) ? :confused:

Best regards to all,

airsupport.

[AN LAME]

airsupport

It's tiring, but we'll press on.

And to put some balance into the assertion that Boeing don't require it, that's because FAA require it in the majority of transits, unless there is a specific dispensation given for a particular outport, which then needs to be carefully assessed, before the Operators Ops Spec is amended to allow a pilot preflight only. In conjunction with that, the engineering preflight both before and after that outport is also amended to include more stringent preflight requirements, for instance tyre and brake wear etc.

'You can teach...' oops :p

Cheers

AN LAME

[Woomera]

Lets get back on thread shall we chaps.

That year and/or Virgins/QFs recruiting policies have nothing to do with the thrust of this particular subject.

Which if I understand it correctly is, whether or not engineers are "required" to do turnaround walk arounds, or is it safe for them "to be done by appropriately trained pilots."

[mauswara]

:cool: QF663. BNE-ADL Mon.03/03/'03 1h 30m late pushing back.Reason;(from Capt's P.A.) Inspection req'd due to lightning strike which was detected by the "Duty ENGINEER " during his "walkaround".

[amos2]

Interesting discussion this!
Been in the business for 40 yrs now, both domestically and on international ops.
Like most of my fellow pilots I know full well how to carry out an efficient walk around...don't really need an engineer to back me up...however , having said that I'm always pleased that they do back me up and always pleased to take their advice if neccessary!
Let's work together fellows, not pull apart! ;)

[Woomera]

Group hug and full marks for amos 2. :D ;)

[liquid_gold]

Fact; The Regs allow pilots to do walk-arounds and DJ has ammended their manuals to allow this.

Yes, I would PREFER a LAME/AME to "have a look" at the same time as myself, however the regulations as they currently are allow pilots to do the walk around themselves. What is required to change the regs? How can we work TOGETHER to remedy this situation?

Are we in a position to change the regulations? Ask yourself. What does it take to change the regulations?

Personally, if everyone had a full body search, travelled NUDE and without carry-on luggage we could be guaranteed that no-one had weapons! Is this likely to happen? Ask yourself again.

Looks somewhat like "affordable safety" or maybe even ETOPS where we work on the probability of a certain occurrence.

I've said it before - Opinions are like @rseholes. Everyones got one, and they're all different!:)

[AN LAME]

Agree wholeheartedly with amos2's sentiment

[Winstun]

Time............this is only about time.

The time is takes Australian LAMEs to catch up with the rest of the world.

'member when they they thought you needed a flight engineer on the B767:rolleyes:

[AN LAME]

Stopwork at Virgin called off
By Steve Creedy
07mar03

VIRGIN Blue engineers have called off planned industrial action, after the carrier agreed to talks on controversial changes to pre-flight transit checks on newer aircraft.

The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association had planned a stopwork meeting on Monday to discuss safety fears about Virgin's move to have pilots, rather than engineers, do pre-flight transit checks on next-generation 737s.
Union officials said that allowing pilots to conduct the checks would compromise safety. The airline claims it's a demarcation dispute.

The union called off the stopwork meeting after Virgin agreed to talks, and said it was happy for engineers to continue carrying out inspections along with pilots.

The union also agreed to withdraw six "hazard reports" to the Australian Industrial Commission involving pilot checks.

But officials last night refused to back away from the reports, which are disputed by Virgin. They include allegations that pilot inspections missed a blown and cracked landing light, a damaged nose wheel tyre, and an engine damaged by a bird strike.

Union president Mick O'Rance said the parties would meet next week and had agreed not to argue publicly in the meantime.

He said he believed Virgin aircraft would be safe as long as engineers continued to do the pre-flight inspections.

A joint statement issued last night said: "The parties have cleared the air in relation to issues identified, and look forward to engaging in discussion in the future."

The issue first surfaced last week, when The Australian reported the engineers' safety concerns, as well as a Civil Aviation Safety Authority crackdown on Virgin for failing to ensure pilot checks were properly carried out.

Although CASA said there was no evidence the problems resulted in safety incidents or risk, it found pilots had been rushing the checks and cutting corners.

It heightened its surveillance of Virgin, and issued an order for corrective action.

Virgin agreed to write to pilots stressing the need to follow procedures, and give them refresher training.

CASA and manufacturer Boeing say pilot checks are appropriate for newer planes, because they're more reliable and have computers capable of recognising faults.

But former CASA head of maintenance standards Ken Cannane said the checks should be done by engineers.

He said it made no economic sense not to take advantage of using departure checks at manned maintenance ports.

"Why risk lowering safety standards that have kept Australian aviation safe for many generations?" he said.

[airsupport]

Still waiting? :rolleyes:

PLEASE explain the HUGE differences just by looking at them. ;)

Incidentally I also agree 100% with amos2. :D

Like amos2, I have also been in the Industry for 40 years, both in Australia and Worldwide. (No we are NOT the same person ;) ).

I have said from the start of these 2 threads, that I would be just as opposed to a plan to have the Pilots not do preflights.

It is NOT an anti Pilot thing, to have ONLY Engineers do preflights would also be a reduction is safety, I have been there and done that, while it gives one a nice warm feeling that the Pilots trust you that much, 2 independent inspections MUST be safer than 1. :rolleyes:

This would apply to Aircraft, trains, buses, ships, even your family car.

[LAYME]

Winstun,
When did LAME's ever think they needed F/E's on 767s.
I think you need to know your facts, there are International airlines that use LAMEs to do preflights,I know because I work for one.;)

[SKYCAMEL]

It is about time that Jetcares management come clean as to the future of their engineers, re Virgin Tech and job security.

However for the Engineering Union to start flinging mud at the pilots is a very bad move. If they want to dish it out they should be prepared to cop it as well. And what, Engineers dont make mistakes or overlook things! Unfortunately it is just a few bitter engineers causing the grief, the majority of them do a great job and will continue to.

And as far as CASA is concerned, standing on the tarmac timing how long it takes for a pilot to do a walkaround is utter crap!! Where in the Boeing Ops manual does it say that you must take between 5-6 minutes for a thorough walkaround !!:confused:

[airsupport]

Explain to me again, how this is NOT a safety issue. :rolleyes: :eek:


PILOTS ACCUSED OF FUDGING SAFETY CHECKS

08-03-2003


VIRGIN Blue pilots have been observed completing pre-flight inspections in less than 60 seconds -- a procedure the airline admitted yesterday took at least five to 10 minutes to fully complete.

Allegations also surfaced yesterday that a number of Virgin pilots had signed off on the pre-flight section of the flight log before carrying out the inspections.

Virgin Blue commercial operations manager David Huttner said both claims were "baseless", but a Civil Aviation Safety Authority source has confirmed that during a surveillance operation last month a number of pilots rushed through their inspections in less than a minute.

Mr Huttner said yesterday he had been informed by pilots the inspection took five to 10 minutes. The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association estimates it takes 10 to 20 minutes.

However, Mr Huttner confirmed one pilot had been stood down "without prejudice " as a result of the CASA investigation into the airline's safety practices, but had later been reinstated.

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson had previously confirmed that after two days of secretly observing Virgin safety practices last month, a number of inspections had not been done properly.

Mr Gibson said pilots on some flights had been rushing checks and cutting corners.

The hasty inspection process was part of the reason why Virgin Blue was issued with a formal safety alert last week.

The issue has been raised again after a dispute between the engineers' association and Virgin Blue over the airline's safety practices.

Under new procedures at Virgin Blue, engineers are required to examine aircraft only at the beginning of the day. Pilots make visual checks between flights.

During a hearing in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission on the threat of strike action over the dispute, the engineers' association raised six "incidents" -- the most serious of which was an allegation that a pilot missed evidence of a possible bird strike, which was later picked up by a maintenance engineer.

An engine on the plane was found to be damaged and subsequently replaced.

As a result of the commission hearing engineers will now continue to check every domestic flight before take-off, while discussions between the two parties take place.

Allegations also were made by the engineers' association to CASA in a letter from president Michael O'Rance late last month that a number of pilots had pre -signed their pre-flight check forms.

Mr Gibson said the allegations referred to in the letter had not been investigated by CASA. He said since the formal notice to Virgin Blue the airline was "living up to its safety responsibilities".

He said the airline would continue to be monitored.

Mr Huttner said the airline would not continue to respond to allegations unless there was factual evidence.

[Sperm Bank]

Allegations is the key word. Not one iota of hard evidence has been presented. CASA's so-called experts were making observations from distant locations (some through binoculars) to try and "catch out" DJ Captains. This has got to be one of the lowest all time acts ever witnessed here in Oz aviation. It is an absolute disgrace and CASA should bow their collective heads in disgrace. You amateurs really are something else!

As happens in Europe and other parts of the world (in addition to Oz) pilots have been doing transit checks at remote ports without incident for many years. I personally would much prefer to have a LAME do an additional check to compliment mine. I have learned an enormous amount from many good engineers over the years and without their input, my knowledge base would not be a patch on what it is now. Pilot manuals simply don't cover alot of the "blood and guts" (pardon the pun) stuff that engineers manuals do. Nor do they need to. Here in lies the difference between "nice to know and need to know".

A pilot transit check done properly is not very different from an engineers check. As for the union claim that transit checks take 10 to 20 minutes... what absolute garbage!! I have never witnessed an engineer anywhere in the world take that long to do one.

Gentlemenn (and ladies). I smell a disgusting rat at work here. Pilots and engineers are the ONLY 2 professions in the airline industry. We have to work hard for many years to achieve our qualifications and most of us take our work seriously whilst trying to enjoy it at the same time. Folks we really do have to try and stick together no matter how tough things get at times. We have rogue pilots and rogue engineers (not to mention the NO BRAINERS in CASA) with agendas not in common with ours. We need a bi-partisan agreement to a common cause.

The union trying to use specific cases to undermine pilots and create fear in the community is ridiculous and does nothing to nurture our essential relationship. I recently pointed out a significant oversight (no IDG oil) to an engineer after a daily inspection (first flight of the day). I said I would say nothing and would appreciate him watching my back in future. In my opinion that is a far better way of doing business than running around stirring up trouble. We are both working for the same cause.

As AMOS and others have said, lets stick together lads. We have enough to contend with without this sort of dstraction.

[airsupport]

STOPWORK AT VIRGIN CALLED OFF

The Australian
7-3-2003


Virgin Blue engineers have called off planned industrial action, after the carrier agreed to talks on controversial changes to pre-flight transit checks on newer aircraft.

The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association had planned a stopwork meeting on Monday to discuss safety fears about Virgin's move to have pilots , rather than engineers, do pre-flight transit checks on next-generation 737s.

Union officials said that allowing pilots to conduct the checks would compromise safety.

The airline claims it's a demarcation dispute.

The union called off the stopwork meeting after Virgin agreed to talks, and said it was happy for engineers to continue carrying out inspections along with pilots.

The union also agreed to withdraw six "hazard reports" to the Australian Industrial Commission involving pilot checks.

But officials last night refused to back away from the reports, which are disputed by Virgin. They include allegations that pilot inspections missed a blown and cracked landing light, a damaged nose wheel tyre, and an engine damaged by a bird strike.

Union president Mick O'Rance said the parties would meet next week and had agreed not to argue publicly in the meantime.

He said he believed Virgin aircraft would be safe as long as engineers continued to do the pre-flight inspections.

A joint statement issued last night said: "The parties have cleared the air in relation to issues identified, and look forward to engaging in discussion in the future. "

The issue first surfaced last week, when The Australian reported the engineers' safety concerns, as well as a Civil Aviation Safety Authority crackdown on Virgin for failing to ensure pilot checks were properly carried out.

Although CASA said there was no evidence the problems resulted in safety incidents or risk, it found pilots had been rushing the checks and cutting corners.

It heightened its surveillance of Virgin, and issued an order for corrective action.

Virgin agreed to write to pilots stressing the need to follow procedures, and give them refresher training.

CASA and manufacturer Boeing say pilot checks are appropriate for newer planes, because they're more reliable and have computers capable of recognising faults.

But former CASA head of maintenance standards Ken Cannane said the checks should be done by engineers.

He said it made no economic sense not to take advantage of using departure checks at manned maintenance ports.

"Why risk lowering safety standards that have kept Australian aviation safe for many generations?" he said.

[50 Cal]

10 to 20 minutes for a turnaround...what a crock of sh*t!!!!
Having been both an engineer [ 10 years ] and a current pilot, I feel I'm qualified to debate this issue. For a start there are pilots who have in the past and most probably will in the future, take walkarounds with a grain of salt...just going through the motions, observing but not looking. But as Sperm Bank has described, there has been numerous incidents where engineers have also neglected their duties....torches left between control rods, etc, etc. Any pilot/engineer who knows his aircraft well, knows where and how to look for defects.

This is an industrial issue.....end of story. The Engineers union crying to Casa....the wheel will turn. I wonder if Casa will also be spying when an aircraft arrives home from a trip and a turnarond is completed by engineers who are about two minutes from finishing their shift.....quickest turnaround in history!!!

[airsupport]

Here we go again. :(

It never ceases to amaze me here, whenever people, obviously Pilots in THIS case, have lost the debate or cannot answer sensible questions, like the one I am still waiting for an answer to :rolleyes: they attack the other people, in this case Engineers in general. :(

How anyone, let alone supposedly highly intelligent Pilots, can think that removing EITHER the Engineer's Preflight Inspection OR, AND I REPEAT OR, the Pilot's Preflight Inspection would NOT be LESS SAFE. :confused:

Two independent inspections MUST be safer than one.

I could cite many incidents I have seen over some 40 years in the Industry, but I will NOT, as I am a professional, it is a pity everyone here isn't. :(

[Winstun]

Three independent inspections MUST be safer than two.

Moronic anal mentality that prevails like that of the previous post are the reason we pay high taxes in this country.:eek:

Same reason passengers used to pay such high fares to have a flight engineer on flightdeck of B767:rolleyes:

Boeing must be cacking themselves again:yuk:

[rockarpee]

So Winstun by that reckoning, none would be even cheaper than one. The point being made, is that cost cutting DIRECTLY effects safety in aviation .

[airsupport]

Finally you understand. :rolleyes:

YES, of course 3 independent inspections would be SAFER than 2, which is SAFER than 1. :D

3 would COST more than 2, which COSTS more than 1, but it is OBVIOUSLY SAFER, as even you now finally admit. :D

Please forgive me as I am only an Engineer, I don't understand what you mean about taxes. :confused:

As for the F/Es on the AN B767s, you have that wrong too. ;)

Although most people, including you it seems, thought it was a waste of money and may have contributed to high air fares, that was NOT the case.

I was NOT and never have been an F/E, however I was involved with them, and Ansett did quite nicely out of them. ;)


As Ansett were the only operator in the World with a F/E on board, much technical information on the B767 was collected by the Ansett F/Es, and used by Boeing after paying Ansett quite a substantial amount for this data. ;)

[fistfokker]

Well I dunno if there is a right or wrong answer to this debate.

I do know that I have been performing preflight inspections for years with and without engineering support.

I believe that where such support is available it should be used.

But if that support is not available, should the aircraft be grounded? I don't think so.

It does seem to me that the whole issue is a bit of a beat up for an industrial agenda.

While that may be appropriate I just can't but help remember all the times I have been told "don't write it up, we don't have licence coverage" or "if you write it up it will cause a delay".

I guess at the end of it I don't particularly like all the accusations and counter accusations between two professional outfits that depend on each other for support in order to keep flying safe and to keep us all gainfully employed. For evey pilot who misses a particular thing on a walkaround I would imagine someone can quote an engineer missing something.

It is not the pilots that have gone public here. But we can support the use of engineer inspections at bases where engineers are available. Would that help?

[Sperm Bank]

Airsupport you seem intent on flogging a dead horse here to justify your OPINION. What debate have the pilots lost? There never was nor ever will be a safety issue whether or not an engineer does a pre-flight inspection. If there was, the millions of pre-flight inspections world wide over the years conducted only by pilots at remote NON -ENGINEERING ports would never have been allowed. Do you not agree? I have also witnessed a plethora of "quickies" by engineers so that they could get off to another a/c. I have far too many mates as engineers and respect for their profession to make devisive comments. However your EMOTIONAL argument lacks substance and more importantly FACTS. I can understand you wanting to protect your job, however whether you like it or not, this campaign is having a NEGATIVE effect on pilots and your continued sentiment if carried over to your workplace will do absolutely nothing to engender a positive working environment.

The UNION was WRONG to go public on this. It was a pathetic attempt to justify their position. There was obviously no for thought whatsoever and like it or not, they are aiming their criticism directly at pilots. The clowns in CASA who supported this farcical claim are also to blame. To put the whole thing in perspective, if Virgin were falling short of a safety margin, so is EVERY other airline in the world, because they all have occassions where pilots only perform pre-flight inspections.

So airsupport there is no safety issue. Over 50 years of history is testimony to that. All pilots want the engineers to stay on as they are. But to say they are required for the ongoing safety of the a/c is neanderthal diatribe. I think deep down you realise that.

Lets keep the emotion out of this debate (if we can call it a debate) and stick to the facts. The facts as they stand presented by CASA are vacuous in content and malicious in direction and presentation.

SHOW ME THE DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE WHICH SPECIFICALLY DETAILS THE LOWERING OF SAFETY STANDARDS. The "clutching at straws" propaganda presented by the union to date is baseless and without foundation. If it was serious, they would not recant their position just because the company said they would talk to them. They would be compromising their moral obligation to the community wouldn't they?

We need pilot and engineers working together. End of story! What we don't need is pretenders stirring up trouble and dividing the only 2 professions in the industry.

[Winstun]

This is not about 'cutting costs'.
This is about 'cutting costs on overcosted practices that have prevailed in Australian operations for so long
'There is no safety issue here. ONE is sufficient.
Why do these arrogant people think they know more than Boeing and the rest of the world for that matter?

Airsupport,
If you are getting over 20K Oz razoos and don't think you're paying WAY too much tax, well, i can understand your mentality on efficiency and wastage.

As Ansett were the only operator in the World with a F/E on board, much technical information on the B767 was collected by the Ansett F/Es, and used by Boeing after paying Ansett quite a substantial amount for this data.

Is this some sick joke?

[Snowballs]

The Ansett 3 crew B767’s were “work practice” lemons concocted for industrial peace with one group of employees. Common sense prevailed in the rest of the B767/B744 aviation world.
Airbus likewise followed when they upgraded the A300/A310 to two crew operation.
:confused:

[LAYME]

What the hell has this post got to do with 767 F/Es, the decision regarding 3 crew 767s by AN was made long before a lot of you probably learned to fly anyway and they are no more and the aircraft the they flew on, are standing idle after being converted to two crew by LAMEs. Build a bridge and get over it.

Question,

What overseas airlines DO NOT use LAMEs to do preflights,I know plenty who still do.

[airsupport]

PLEASE accept my humble apologies, I have just realised the plan. :rolleyes:

IF we all say 100 times:-

IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE.
IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE.
IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE (ETC)

Then it will not be a safety issue, brilliant. ;)

Trouble is, it is pure money saving idea, at the expense of safety. :(

Instead of attacking the Engineers, would one of you PLEASE explain the questions I asked earlier.

1. What are the BIG differences between a B737NG and a B737-300/400, that would be noticed on a walkaround on tarmac?

2. Are the Virgin Blue Pilots getting any extra salary and/or benefits for doing this work?

THANK YOU in anticipation of some answers instead of attacks. :D

Your comments on the Ansett B767s just shows how little you do know of the Industry, it is true what I said. :rolleyes:

This thing some of you have about what happens in other Countries, I have done a little checking on some other sites, and I was surprised (guess I listen too much to you lot :eek: ) to find that even in the USA MOST Airlines insist on Engineers (Licenced A+P Mechanics) doing these checks, as well as Pilots, because it is SAFER...........

[amos2]

Well! Airsupport has my support!
Sperm Bank however seems to have another agenda!
I remember on many occasions carrying a LAME on board for Pacific Ops, purely for ground support, yet the value of this guy,in the air or on the ground, was such that it spoilt me forever!
Bring back Flight Engineers...you betcha!! ;)

[Winstun]

airsupport,
what exact data did Boeing extract from B767 F/Es that the computers (or pilots) did not pick up?

to find that even in the USA MOST Airlines insist on Engineers (Licenced A+P Mechanics) doing these checks, as well as Pilots, because it is SAFER...........

been there, done that, you talk nonsense.
if the USA adopted Australian regs and operational practice of our pilots, LAMEs, ATC, etc. their country would STOP

[Oz Geek]

Winstun,

Well done..please keep posting. You just continue to back up the arguements of airsupport. You'll become a believer yet.

I'm with amos. :)

[AN LAME]

Winstun

The AN F/Es provided a substantial amount of real time trend monitoring and snapshot parameters that they could not capture without an F/E. It's common knowledge...but nothing to do with the topic.

However, I agree that if it weren't for industrial clout they would never have been there.

Gee, just like the LAMEs are being forced to do...

And of course there has never been a case of a US Operator being in breach of regulations.

[Sperm Bank]

Gentlemen I guess it is time some of us get in touch with the 21st century. Amos, flight engineers on modern a/c are finsihed forever. I don't think we need to cover that one again. My AGENDA as you put it is to keep this argument to the facts, nothing more nothing less.

Airsupport, I and many others have not and will not attack engineers despite your assertions otherwise.

1. I don't know and don't care what the differences are between the classic and the NG. I have no experience on the classic. To quote the Boeing 737 NG operations manual, Volume 1 page NP20.5 EXTERIOR INSPECTION "Prior to each flight, the flight crew must accomplish or verify that the maintenance crew has accomplished the following checks"..... There it is in black and white mate. No mention of 2 seperate checks being required. As I said I would prefer to have both pilot and engineer to complete transit checks. My OPINION however has nothing to do with the FACTS.

2. NO. Virgin pilots do not get any extra money to complete the checks. We should but we don't.

3. Perhaps you could now answer one of my questions. Why have airline pilots been allowed to perform transit checks in lieu of engineers for the last 50+ years as parts of airline SOP's? If it was in ANY way a safety issue it would have been stopped ages ago.

To re visit the topic "Engineers slam Virgin on safety". I ask once again to be shown how safety has or is being compromised. What I want to see and what is actually happening or being effected are 2 very different things. I say again lets keep the emotion out of the responses. Facts are sometimes hard to swallow so the responses have been embellished in an attempt to get the point of view across.

Older people in aviation (particularly Australian pilots and engineers) seem very reticent to change no matter how effective the argument for moving ahead. I think it is arguable whether taking away engineers from transit checks is a step in the right direction. That is not the issue though. The issue is does it effect safety. The answer is OF COURSE IT DOES NOT AFFECT SAFETY!

[airsupport]

Okay, that's a couple more, I figure about 50 to go yet. :rolleyes:

IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE.
IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE.
IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE
IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE.
IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE.

There, I figure about 45 more times and it will not be a safety issue ;) although now it's 44. :rolleyes:

Just to change the subject completely. ;)

On the way home this afternoon, I came upon a major intersection, that is dangerous at any time, and the traffic lights were not working. :eek:

As I got nearer the intersection I was VERY pleased to see that there were 4 police controlling the intersection.

Now it was still a bit of a nightmare but it would have been less safe with only 3 police, much less safe with 2 and deadly with only 1.

After I got through the intersection safely, I just couldn't help thinking that although it would have been cheaper to have only 2 police there, and they may have even been able to control it with no accidents, it WAS much SAFER with the 4 police keeping an eye on things. ;)

[gaunty]

I've getting a very powerful feeling of deja vu around here.:p

[airsupport]

Sorry to hear that, maybe you should consult a Doctor. :(

Please remember though, IF you are concerned for your safety, and NOT just the cost, you should seek two independent consultations, get a second opinion as they say. ;)

It is always SAFER, the first Doctor no matter how qualified and experienced MAY miss something. :eek:

[LAYME]

Winstun and Snowball,
You both seem to have a lot to say about what goes on outside Aus, just answer this question, which AIRLINE did you actually work for that did NOT require a LAE, LAME or A & P to sign off a preflight?
As I said in my previous posts, I know plenty who still do and I have been there and done it.

[notapilot00]

Yet another point to add.

I don't think anyone will argue that a pilot CANNOT perform a preflight given adequate training, but the fact is that, in Australia, pilots AREN'T given adequate training on preflights. This is evidenced by the number of times I have been asked by a pilot what the limits are on simple things like tyre and brake wear. If they had decent training, they wouldn't need to ask. I'm not saying that pilots shouldn't ask an engineer if they have a legitimate query, and I'm more than willing to help them out when they do, but simple things like tyres and brakes should be known.

Quite a few people have mentioned about practices in Europe, with pilots doing all preflights. Having spoken to a number of pilots from that part of the world, I know they are given a course on basic maintenance BEFORE they are able to perform a preflight. This course goes for something like 3 weeks. How much maintenance training do Australian pilots get?

Then there's the matter of time. Pilots don't get to start their preflight until all the passengers have disembarked, which can be 10 minutes after arrival. This doesn't leave much time to carry out a decent walk around with a 30 minute turn around, when they also have to attend to the rest of their cockpit duties. No wonder CASA notices them taking short cuts...they don't have much choice.

I guess it all comes down to common sense. Pilots have neither the time nor the training to carry out a decent preflight...engineers, however, have both. This, of course, can be rectified by giving pilots maintenance training and extending turn around times, but why bother? Engineers are there already, why not use them? But then again...the peolple who make these kinds of decisions could never be accused of having common sense, could they?

BTW...I am NOT having a go at pilots, I AM having a go at the bean counters and decision makers.

[HotDog]

I started my aviation carreer as a LAME, posted to several overseas bases. Secured a job as a flight engineer and flew with many pilots who were originally LAMEs but now in the left and right hand seats of heavy jets. All newly employed pilots sat the same ground school for type conversion as the flight engineers and were given the task of passing all the technical questions as presented by the CAD authority. Many of these pilots were absolute technical enthusiasts, tinkering with vintage cars or building their own kit planes to a very high standard. Doing a proper walkaround check on a 737 especially, is a piece of cake to most of them and in my opinion, this great hype about endangering the safety of flight due to pilot walkaround inspections, is a load of codswallop!

[LAYME]

Hotdog,
You again are missing the point, its called TRAINING, just because you do a pilots course, you cannot tell me that it automatically qualifies you to do preflights.
I have done these courses both here and overseas and nothing was mentioned about preflights, its up to the training F/E or training Capt to show you. How are they qualified?
A little knowledge is dangerous.

[Kwaj mate]

Not a pilot.
A well very constructed point in your discussion.
When the engineers send out an airplane with marginal limits on brakes & tyres, then the need is to discuss the problem with those very same engineers - NOT the pilots who are doing their pre-flight walk-rounds!
It is about time some of you blokes actually looked around you. Southwest (& others) have run schedules with 15 minute turns for a great number of years & they do not have a problem with getting the job done - including the walk-round.
Engineers are pushing the barrow a little too hard on this one.
Grow up - you're acting like a few of my mates back in 1989.

Hotdog - you are so right. Most blokes with any interest in his airplane can do the job. In some smaller companies worked in, the captain/FO will do a check even when GE's are available.

[airsupport]

Kwaj,

If I were you, I certainly wouldn't mention what happened in 1989 with reference to what we are talking about here. :(

Now you have raised it, that is a perfect example of what the Engineers are worried about safety wise.

The Engineers that were with the Airlines then (yes including me) worked daily with these imported Pilots. Although most of them were very nice people, I pray that Australia NEVER sinks to the level that those Aircraft were maintained.

The majority of Australian LAMEs at the time REFUSED to certify for these Aircraft, because of the condition they were in, and the way they were maintained (or NOT maintained). It really made us appreciate the professionalism of the 1989 Pilots, though by what you said, I guess you wouldn't understand that. :rolleyes:

GOD help us if the Australian Airline Industry is to sink to those standards. :(

[fruitloop]

To airsupport
I agree totally with what you say about the (lack of)
maintenance on some of the a/craft that turned up during the period in mention.Scary stuff

[rockarpee]

Winstun, forget it you are on a totally different subject!!!Unfortunately I cannot see it as anything but a degridation in safety. And I drive the things. For the sake of 7 odd minutes, the backup of a pro engineer is priceless. Unfortunately I know who is going to win on this one.

[LeadSled]

All,

After a Bex, a cup of tea, and a good lie down, have a search through the Flight Safety Foundation website, looking for various papers on flight safety and Australia.

Probably about five or six years ago, a very big survey of Australian aviation “professionals” was conducted. The purpose of the survey was to determine why said professionals thought Australia has a good safety record ( has it, see ATSB v. NTSB stats.??).

I found the results enlightening, the opinions were almost completely polarised, those within each major group, Pilots, ATC, and LAMEs all claimed Australia’s safety record was their doing, and the greatest menaces to maintaining their proud record were the other two groups

The FSF research was probably much more broad than respondents on pprune, so one can reasonably assume that the results were representative. What the results did show was a high level of antagonism towards, and disrespect for the professional competence of each group, by members of each other of the three groups.

A sad state of affairs, something I have not really come across outside Australia, and so often mirrored on this thread, and so many other threads on Dununder etc.

Tootle pip!!

[scrubba]

a few players saying the same things over and over!

my questions are simple:

is casa's peter gibson deliberatively provocative or terminally stupid?

who is ken cannane consulting for and what is his relationship with the alaea?

when casa conducted its reported surveillance, how many of the casa people are or were members of the alaea?

what role did rick leeds, ex president of the alaea and now casa maintenance guru play in ordering the surveillance?

what if any surveillance has case carried out on alaea members conducting transit exterior inspections?

is the alaea's position that every aircraft must be inspected by licenced maintenance personnel after every flight, regardless of size and passenger capacity?

[AN LAME]

scrubba

Some speculative answers

is casa's peter gibson deliberatively provocative or terminally stupid?
Yes to the first but I've been told he doesn't open his mouth without being briefed by the Executive (mainly pilots).

who is ken cannane consulting for and what is his relationship with the alaea?
Cannane Consulting has no relationship with the ALAEA.

when casa conducted its reported surveillance, how many of the casa people are or were members of the alaea?
The ALAEA does not represent any CASA stafff as they are not respondent to the CASA award. Who knows who carried out the surveillance?

what role did rick leeds, ex president of the alaea and now casa maintenance guru play in ordering the surveillance?
Unknown. However it is his boss Arthur White (ex military pilot)who is defending VBs performance and maintenance program. I believe Rick Leeds position is "Senior Compliance Auditor' not 'maintenance guru'.

what if any surveillance has case carried out on alaea members conducting transit exterior inspections?
Unknown. However, if any LAMEs are observed not carrying out maintenance correctly then I for one would expect them to be dealt with in an appropriate manner by CASA.

is the alaea's position that every aircraft must be inspected by licenced maintenance personnel after every flight, regardless of size and passenger capacity?
I don't believe so. Outports which have been assessed by CASA, together with appropriate pilot training would be able to operate on pilot preflight. Manned bases before and after those outports would need to be carried out by LAMEs. Suggest you refer to FAR 121.105 and 121.123 for an idea of what they're on about with regard to infrastructure required along routes.

[airsupport]

Some people, like rockarpee, seem to understand what it is all about, however others still don't get it, and continue to attack the Engineers. :(

It is NOT an anti Pilot thing, it is ONLY about 2 independent inspections being SAFER, albeit probably more COSTLY, than 1 solo inspection, whether by Pilots and/or Engineers. :rolleyes:

I cannot believe anyone does not understand that. :eek:

IF there is anyone out there that still does NOT understand that, forget Aircraft for a minute.

Let's say that you are a married man, with a lovely Wife and 2 small children, all of whom you love dearly. While you are away doing you Pilot thing, your Wife drives the family car aroiund all the time, kids to school etc etc.

Your Wife is a very good driver, but she is not a motor mechanic, so because you love them all so much and are away all the time, you have arranged for a local motor mechanic to check the car over regurlarly. You are indeed a very good Husband and Father. ;)

Now you buy a new car for your Wife and kids to use while you are away all the time, and the Salesman says that this car is so advanced it should never break down, and hardly ever needs servicing. :rolleyes:

Now IF you follow this Salesman's advice, just have your Wife check this new car while you are away from then on, dispense with the services of the motor mechanic, YES you will save money (you miserable person) but PLEASE PLEASE tell me that you do NOT think that your Wife and kids are as SAFE as they were before. :rolleyes:

[Winstun]

See what i mean about being anal. :ugh:
Get a life my friend.

[Sperm Bank]

Leadsled you are quite correct. The antagonism among a very few of the vacuous hard core from the three professions in this country is mind numbing to say the least. I did not experience ANY of it overseas!

Scrubba as you alluded to in your post, the purely political agenda CASA has embarked on is pathetic, without foundation and doing nothing to harness the relationship between pilots and engineers (or the media). Anyone who believes this is not an anti-pilot thing is deluding themselves! The accusations were that "pilots were not performing walk arounds correctly". The "alleged" impropriety was reported by some sinister engineers on a campaign of worthless self righteousness. They were wrong in what they did and are now found wanting in the truth department. When asked to provide evidence the response was mute. That's right, not a single shread of supporting evidence. Thankfully we only have a few of this kind of vindictive individual working in DJ. The majority of engineers I talk to on a daily basis are professionals in the truest sense of the word.

Police, doctors, mechanics cars etc. Whilst these analogies may provide you with some inner self comfort, they are irrelevant and not remotely close to the point. I have a toyota that the maunfacturer says requires a service every 5000 km's. I also have a BMW that the manufacturer says requires a service every 25,000 km's. One gets checked 5 times more than the other. Big deal! They are both SAFE. And NO the Toyota is not more safe than the BMW. I mean this argument is now becoming farcical.

Some of you guys have already admitted that a/c away from home base have transit checks done by pilots. If it was not SAFE, why would they be allowed?????? Some a/c do multiple flights away from home/engineering base. What should we do with those a/c?

Airsupport I answered your questions however you still have not answered mine.


If pilot transit checks on their own are unsafe or not as safe, why have they been performed without incident for the last 50+ years?

I think it is becoming quite apparent this subject is descending into a farce! This time next year it will all be forgotten and we will look back and say what was all the fuss about?

Brett Lee took a hat trick last night. One guy ended up in hospital. Word has it that it was not more safe having 2 batsmen at the crease rather than 1! What is the relevance? EXACTLY!!!!!!

[AN LAME]

Anyone who believes this is not an anti-pilot thing is deluding themselves! The "alleged" impropriety was reported by some sinister engineers on a campaign of worthless self righteousness.

Apart from your absolutely ludicrous conspiracy theory, who are these 'sinister engineers'?

And as for the professionalism of the DJ engineers, you are correct. Even in the face of losing there empolyment for standing up for their beliefs.

You have some serious issues spermbank... maybe you should go, have a bex and a lie down.

[airsupport]

Well I give up. :(

I am sure that the majority of Pilots understand perfectly, however some of the people on this thread, who say they are Pilots, have given me a real fear of flying for the first time in 50 odd years. :(

I will say no more on the subject. :rolleyes:

[amos2]

No plagiarising please An Lame!! ;)

[AN LAME]

My apologies to Bex :D

[Slab]

To add to the complexity of the situation........ can anyone explain how VH-VOC departed Syndey this morning with a reported "severe rattle below captains windshield"???? Turns out that a pitot cover was still installed!!!! Understandably, people make mistakes and minor things can be overlooked, but this is an absolute joke....... whoever's doing preflights in Sydney needs to rethink what they're doing.

[fruitbatflyer]

Goes back to what I said earlier here. The sign on time has to allow plenty of time to do an initial pre-flight and 45 minutes just does not cut it when all the other duties are considered. Doesn't matter whether an engineer has already been around the ship, taking off with a pitot cover, or gear pins, still installed, is ultimately the pilot's fault. Unless of course someone came along and fitted them AFTER the preflight, but that's a bit far-fetched even if you do hate the skipper's guts.

[Pimp Daddy]

I find it hard to believe that the aircraft took off with pitot cover installed - didn't they notice the fact that at 80kts one side still read zero?

[Slab]

Can't speak for what the tech crew saw or didn't see, but the cover was left installed on the standby system pitot probe.......