Preflight Checks, Have Your Say!!
Persona non grata
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, there is only one true "Lame". 
What's that I hear people saying, "thank goodness".......
IF what is now posted at "another site" is true, it would appear that appropriately Licenced Lames will soon disappear from the Line altogether even in Capital Cities, starting in Hobart.
IF it is true, and Lames have been sold out by their own Association, it will spread all over Australia rapidly.
Whatever your personal feelings are about this, it is a ridiculous reduction in safety standards built up over decades, just for the sake of the almighty dollar.
I just pray that Australia's good safety record does not suffer too much.
What's that I hear people saying, "thank goodness".......
IF what is now posted at "another site" is true, it would appear that appropriately Licenced Lames will soon disappear from the Line altogether even in Capital Cities, starting in Hobart.
IF it is true, and Lames have been sold out by their own Association, it will spread all over Australia rapidly.
Whatever your personal feelings are about this, it is a ridiculous reduction in safety standards built up over decades, just for the sake of the almighty dollar.
I just pray that Australia's good safety record does not suffer too much.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of insight
The Australian Gliding Assn requires a certified inspector to sign up new pilots for preflight "daily inspections" of aircraft. Said inspectors used to induce some anaomalies per a checklist and invite candidates into the hangar to conduct a test "preflight". As a club instructor I used to get a kick out of watching, just to see who would miss what.
Invariably, although having had instruction on exactly what to look for, all candidates would miss something crucial and fail first time around. It was then impressed upon them by the inspector that the "daily" was vital as the a/c may have been worked on and the maintainers weren't infallible etc etc. In this particular club the same individuals were also required to do a walk-round between launches, double-check back-release functionality etc.
Now I know that sailplanes are simple gravity-defying machines but they are subject to the same laws of gravity as the four-engine airplanes that I flew (that had FE's). I was always content that the maintainers, FE's and the pilot (who signed for the airplane) had to do their own walk-arounds. I never felt incapable of missing something evident, but I was always reassured that three sets of eyes most likely would not. The types of accidents that can stem from missed anomalies on preflight are usually quite serious ones. Nonchalance about this preparatory stage of flight is to set the stage for an eventual nasty accident.
I'm with Orville. Keep the professional engineers on the look-out. Their qui vive might save a lot of butts. Why? Because they do know better than anyone else (including the pilot) what to look for/look at. Australia has an enviable record of air passenger safety. But after your first big one the inevitable introspective reflection will be that we allowed ourselves to become familiar and complacent. That's as sure as the fact that an egg will rot, given time.
In spite of all the bean-counters actively risk-managing and reassuring us, it is not risk-managing - that's a transparent fallacy. It is risk-taking not to do independent walk-rounds. 14.5K hours has taught me lots - and that simple truth was one of the first to go indelible.
The Australian Gliding Assn requires a certified inspector to sign up new pilots for preflight "daily inspections" of aircraft. Said inspectors used to induce some anaomalies per a checklist and invite candidates into the hangar to conduct a test "preflight". As a club instructor I used to get a kick out of watching, just to see who would miss what.
Invariably, although having had instruction on exactly what to look for, all candidates would miss something crucial and fail first time around. It was then impressed upon them by the inspector that the "daily" was vital as the a/c may have been worked on and the maintainers weren't infallible etc etc. In this particular club the same individuals were also required to do a walk-round between launches, double-check back-release functionality etc.
Now I know that sailplanes are simple gravity-defying machines but they are subject to the same laws of gravity as the four-engine airplanes that I flew (that had FE's). I was always content that the maintainers, FE's and the pilot (who signed for the airplane) had to do their own walk-arounds. I never felt incapable of missing something evident, but I was always reassured that three sets of eyes most likely would not. The types of accidents that can stem from missed anomalies on preflight are usually quite serious ones. Nonchalance about this preparatory stage of flight is to set the stage for an eventual nasty accident.
I'm with Orville. Keep the professional engineers on the look-out. Their qui vive might save a lot of butts. Why? Because they do know better than anyone else (including the pilot) what to look for/look at. Australia has an enviable record of air passenger safety. But after your first big one the inevitable introspective reflection will be that we allowed ourselves to become familiar and complacent. That's as sure as the fact that an egg will rot, given time.
In spite of all the bean-counters actively risk-managing and reassuring us, it is not risk-managing - that's a transparent fallacy. It is risk-taking not to do independent walk-rounds. 14.5K hours has taught me lots - and that simple truth was one of the first to go indelible.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: HEAVEN
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankyou for your support, I wonder how many pilots are behind you in this support. A campaign started by the A.L.A.E.A. may be about to put this to the test.
http://www.jetsafe.com.au/uploads/js..._interview.mov
http://www.jetsafe.com.au/uploads/js..._interview.mov
Persona non grata
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetstar hits trouble on safety
By Stefanie Balogh
May 3, 2004
QANTAS budget offshoot Jetstar will hit turbulence today when aircraft engineers begin a public campaign against its plans to allow pilots to carry out crucial pre-flight safety checks.
The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association's "Jetsafe" campaign will employ billboards, a website and Internet advertising to attack Jetstar's commitment to safety.
With the Virgin Blue budget rival to take to the skies in three weeks on May 25, the union is accusing it of skimping on maintenance costs.
"To ask a pilot to take on this job is akin to asking a motorist to conduct their own pink-slip inspection on their car," association federal secretary David Kemp said yesterday.
But Jetstar says aircraft-makers and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority approve of the way the airline conducted its safety checks.
Pilots, not engineers, have also carried out the checks for the past four years at Impulse Airlines, which forms the backbone of Jetstar's operations, without incident.
But Mr Kemp said the union's public campaign was about saying to travellers they "have a choice about the type of airline they want to fly with - one which puts maintenance and safety inspections at the highest priority or one that wants to shave them to save money".
The union threatened Virgin Blue with industrial action 18 months ago when it pursued a similar safety check regime, but the airline was forced to back down.
Pre-flight external inspections examine the condition of the aircraft and check no last-minute damage has occurred before take-off.
Jetstar spokesman Simon Westaway said travellers needed to remember safety was "absolutely paramount" at Jetstar.
"Jetstar will deliver the highest safety standards expected by the Australian travelling public," he said.
"We are part of the Qantas group so we will simply not participate in doing anything that would compromise ... passenger safety."
The Australian
This report appears on NEWS.com.au.
By Stefanie Balogh
May 3, 2004
QANTAS budget offshoot Jetstar will hit turbulence today when aircraft engineers begin a public campaign against its plans to allow pilots to carry out crucial pre-flight safety checks.
The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association's "Jetsafe" campaign will employ billboards, a website and Internet advertising to attack Jetstar's commitment to safety.
With the Virgin Blue budget rival to take to the skies in three weeks on May 25, the union is accusing it of skimping on maintenance costs.
"To ask a pilot to take on this job is akin to asking a motorist to conduct their own pink-slip inspection on their car," association federal secretary David Kemp said yesterday.
But Jetstar says aircraft-makers and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority approve of the way the airline conducted its safety checks.
Pilots, not engineers, have also carried out the checks for the past four years at Impulse Airlines, which forms the backbone of Jetstar's operations, without incident.
But Mr Kemp said the union's public campaign was about saying to travellers they "have a choice about the type of airline they want to fly with - one which puts maintenance and safety inspections at the highest priority or one that wants to shave them to save money".
The union threatened Virgin Blue with industrial action 18 months ago when it pursued a similar safety check regime, but the airline was forced to back down.
Pre-flight external inspections examine the condition of the aircraft and check no last-minute damage has occurred before take-off.
Jetstar spokesman Simon Westaway said travellers needed to remember safety was "absolutely paramount" at Jetstar.
"Jetstar will deliver the highest safety standards expected by the Australian travelling public," he said.
"We are part of the Qantas group so we will simply not participate in doing anything that would compromise ... passenger safety."
The Australian
This report appears on NEWS.com.au.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, who said it wouldn't happen?
This has been brewing for many months now and we just hope that the ALAEA have not their run too late.
http://www.jetsafe.com.au/
This appears to be a new ALAEA information site that they will use to attack the safety issues(not) behind the airline move to no man transits.
This definately want be swept under the carpet now.
This has been brewing for many months now and we just hope that the ALAEA have not their run too late.
http://www.jetsafe.com.au/
This appears to be a new ALAEA information site that they will use to attack the safety issues(not) behind the airline move to no man transits.
This definately want be swept under the carpet now.
Persona non grata
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just hope it isn't too late, with this business about QF in Hobart.
I have been spreading the word on several other web sites Worldwide.
Better go spread some more.............
I have been spreading the word on several other web sites Worldwide.
Better go spread some more.............
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: HEAVEN
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lame, the article by Stefanie Balogh, states "But Jetstar says aircraft-makers and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority approve of the way the airline conducted its safety checks."
Aviations Authorities make mistakes too, they are not fail-safe when being pressured by Big Business and Government.
I recently saw an interesting documentary on Alaska Air and the crash they had to have before the cut, cut ,cut philosphy bought them undone, not to mention the lost lives and broken families. These were Engineering deficiencies that went un-noticed, inspection schedules extended, falsification of documents, and defects that were found & declared serviceable by supervisors to expidite aircraft return to service.
The reduced inspection schedules had been OK'd by FAA and prior to this accident there had been an audit done on the airline, where they were unable to uncover the other unsafe practices.
We look to the world for "world's best Practice" even when they are proven to be flawed.
To date we have been able to maintain a good safety record why allow ourselves now to be dragged down to their levels.
Aviations Authorities make mistakes too, they are not fail-safe when being pressured by Big Business and Government.
I recently saw an interesting documentary on Alaska Air and the crash they had to have before the cut, cut ,cut philosphy bought them undone, not to mention the lost lives and broken families. These were Engineering deficiencies that went un-noticed, inspection schedules extended, falsification of documents, and defects that were found & declared serviceable by supervisors to expidite aircraft return to service.
The reduced inspection schedules had been OK'd by FAA and prior to this accident there had been an audit done on the airline, where they were unable to uncover the other unsafe practices.
We look to the world for "world's best Practice" even when they are proven to be flawed.
To date we have been able to maintain a good safety record why allow ourselves now to be dragged down to their levels.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: down on the farm
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I consider myself to be a conscientious pilot and try to conduct a thorough walk around in the little time we have on the 737. It was very sobering then when an engineer came to the cockpit recently and explained the aircraft was unserviceable. This was after my inspection – I had missed a crack in the pressure hull which was over an inch long.
I would suggest it was only his training and exposure which allowed him to find this defect for even when I when back to inspect the area I was still unable to find the problem. Until, that is, when he pushed the skin and the crack opened. He knew what to look for as a trained professional. My training I would think is probably typical of what most pilots receive, from another pilot, and was simply not adequate and I doubt ever will be.
Yes you will get away with a lot by having new aircraft, but they will age overtime, I would like to do likewise.
SS
I would suggest it was only his training and exposure which allowed him to find this defect for even when I when back to inspect the area I was still unable to find the problem. Until, that is, when he pushed the skin and the crack opened. He knew what to look for as a trained professional. My training I would think is probably typical of what most pilots receive, from another pilot, and was simply not adequate and I doubt ever will be.
Yes you will get away with a lot by having new aircraft, but they will age overtime, I would like to do likewise.
SS
Persona non grata
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS,
Your openess about that is refreshing.
This is what most people here are saying, certainly me.
Pilots MAY sometimes miss something, and YES so MIGHT Engineers sometimes.
That is why we should maintain what we have had for at least the last 40 years I know of personally (some say it is for 50 years), where BOTH a Pilot and an Engineer do an independent preflight inspection, before EVERY flight.
Best regards,
lame.
Your openess about that is refreshing.
This is what most people here are saying, certainly me.
Pilots MAY sometimes miss something, and YES so MIGHT Engineers sometimes.
That is why we should maintain what we have had for at least the last 40 years I know of personally (some say it is for 50 years), where BOTH a Pilot and an Engineer do an independent preflight inspection, before EVERY flight.
Best regards,
lame.
Suffering Sucotash,
If the tear in the pressure hull was over an inch long, it is reasonable to suspect that it was there for some time - it didn't just magically appear after 1 sector.
Did you ewver get an answer from the people who obviously investigated this major problem how long the tear existed?
I wonder who signed the daily?
The point of the above is that is good luck that an engineer found it. There exists numerous points on an aeroplane where stress problem could manifest themselves that don't get inspected by ANYBODY on turnarounds or daily inspections.
Again the engineers are chucking stones at pilots - the interview link where the ALAEA person mentions the previous campaign - if engineers want support from the majority of pilots they would do well not to insist that engineers are the only safety professionals on the ramp.
cooperation between pilots and engineers will work far better than animosity.
and yes LAME I know we disagree - we have been over it before!
If the tear in the pressure hull was over an inch long, it is reasonable to suspect that it was there for some time - it didn't just magically appear after 1 sector.
Did you ewver get an answer from the people who obviously investigated this major problem how long the tear existed?
I wonder who signed the daily?
The point of the above is that is good luck that an engineer found it. There exists numerous points on an aeroplane where stress problem could manifest themselves that don't get inspected by ANYBODY on turnarounds or daily inspections.
Again the engineers are chucking stones at pilots - the interview link where the ALAEA person mentions the previous campaign - if engineers want support from the majority of pilots they would do well not to insist that engineers are the only safety professionals on the ramp.
cooperation between pilots and engineers will work far better than animosity.
and yes LAME I know we disagree - we have been over it before!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Brisbane,
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Throughout this thread the term LAME is constantly bandied about.There are in general,2 classifications of LAME:airframe/engine(mechanical) and avionic (E/I/R).Almost without exception the examples of defects quoted as having been found by a LAME on pre-flights are of a physical/mechanical nature.Having looked at the syllabi for the category examinations it would seem that the only person who has training specific to structural inspections is the Mechanical LAME.Whilst not wishing to denigrate the avionic LAME,surely we should be looking at "horses for courses".Given that the mechanical tradestream receives the structural training, then should the responsibility for the pre-flight,(if required) rest with the a Mechanical LAME?Also, the ability to carry out a physical inspection is not something which magically appears the day you pick up your first Licence endorsement.An experienced AME may do just as well.Remember that most of the inspection work done during Heavy Maintenance is carried out by those same AME's. Hello?
Persona non grata
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a couple of points.
At all the Airlines and Contract Companies I have ever worked for, ONLY an Airframe LAME appropriately Licenced on that Aircraft, can automatically sign a preflight inspection.
Other LAMEs can be approved to, but ONLY after receiving considerable training.
I have been on contracts where because we did not have enough LAMEs to cover every Port, the Pilots had to have extra training on preflights, have a guess who trained them.......
Sure experience is a wonderful thing, same with Pilots.
dhdriver,
Yes obviously we are never going to agree.
Sadly though, I actually believed you when you said you were going to say no more on the subject.............
At all the Airlines and Contract Companies I have ever worked for, ONLY an Airframe LAME appropriately Licenced on that Aircraft, can automatically sign a preflight inspection.
Other LAMEs can be approved to, but ONLY after receiving considerable training.
I have been on contracts where because we did not have enough LAMEs to cover every Port, the Pilots had to have extra training on preflights, have a guess who trained them.......
Sure experience is a wonderful thing, same with Pilots.
dhdriver,
Yes obviously we are never going to agree.
Sadly though, I actually believed you when you said you were going to say no more on the subject.............
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Seaford Victoria
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAMEless Tarmac
The engineers are once again their own worst enenies! The Association has instructed engineering staff on tarmac to continue doing the turnaround. Some shifts in VB are following these instructions are it seems other shifts couldn't give a toss.
Another worry is the pilot"s work load. There has been one instance, that I know about, that a VB pilot sign the preflight before the aircraft touched down. He was not on board the aircraft on the next leg.
Another worry is the pilot"s work load. There has been one instance, that I know about, that a VB pilot sign the preflight before the aircraft touched down. He was not on board the aircraft on the next leg.
Cognac,
Not sure where you get your info from, but pilots don't sign the preflight box. We used to do it for classics under limited circumstances, but we don't touch it on the NG.
Also how do you know the pilot signed it - it is a small box and barely legible!
pilots only do a pilot exterior inspection - not a preflight check...
semantics I know, but some people get all in a twitter about the language!
just as an aside - why isn\'t there some jumping up and down about the use of unlicenced labour to do significant amounts of work on aeroplanes?
Particularly in heavy maintenance there are fewer and fewer LAME\'s signing for work, with significant amounts of the work done by AME\'s.
By the very nature of AME\'s they are unlicenced and as a consequence uncontrolled.
I would rather see this addressed as I see it as being a greater threat to safety than walkarounds on a turnaround.
Not sure where you get your info from, but pilots don't sign the preflight box. We used to do it for classics under limited circumstances, but we don't touch it on the NG.
Also how do you know the pilot signed it - it is a small box and barely legible!
pilots only do a pilot exterior inspection - not a preflight check...
semantics I know, but some people get all in a twitter about the language!
just as an aside - why isn\'t there some jumping up and down about the use of unlicenced labour to do significant amounts of work on aeroplanes?
Particularly in heavy maintenance there are fewer and fewer LAME\'s signing for work, with significant amounts of the work done by AME\'s.
By the very nature of AME\'s they are unlicenced and as a consequence uncontrolled.
I would rather see this addressed as I see it as being a greater threat to safety than walkarounds on a turnaround.
Persona non grata
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dhdriver,
I see you are at it again.
You obviously know nothing about Engineering, yet you post this ridiculous rubbish on a public forum.
You have criticised someone who dared to post something which you say is wrong about Pilots, then you yourself post a load of rubbish about Engineering.
You have made it clear numerous times, that you are quite happy to dispense with a system that a served us well for some 50 years, that is LAMEs doing preflight checks, yet you keep on about this idea of yours about AMEs, another system that has served us well for 50 years or more.
OF COURSE you can continue to post about this, even though you said you were not going to , but PLEASE get your facts right, this is a public forum, and incredibly someone might believe what you are posting. 
Lame.
I see you are at it again.
You obviously know nothing about Engineering, yet you post this ridiculous rubbish on a public forum.
You have criticised someone who dared to post something which you say is wrong about Pilots, then you yourself post a load of rubbish about Engineering.
You have made it clear numerous times, that you are quite happy to dispense with a system that a served us well for some 50 years, that is LAMEs doing preflight checks, yet you keep on about this idea of yours about AMEs, another system that has served us well for 50 years or more.
OF COURSE you can continue to post about this, even though you said you were not going to
, but PLEASE get your facts right, this is a public forum, and incredibly someone might believe what you are posting. Lame.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to add a little comment to the whole discussion.
I am one of those LAME's (since 1996). At the beginning of my "career" I thought that experience does not matter during inspections (be it preflight or detailed visuals in the hangar). My perception was that you can only look at a part of an aircraft one way, everyone will see the same thing, how hard can it be?
Very slowly over the years this attitude changed though, and only because of one reason, because over the years I have become much more experienced in inspecting and now pick up stuff that I would not have as an apprentice. The licence has nothing to do with it, experience counts! I still miss stuff and more experienced lames (or AME's, as I said the licence does not matter) explain to me what they are seeing, but that just helps me further and increases my training. I have just seen so many cracks and faults over the years that I start to know what to look for, know how to hold the torch (sounds stupid I know but it can be vital!), start to know the weak points of a certain design. Don't get me wrong I am nowhere near perfect and never will be but I am amazed how much better I can do inspections now than I used to many years ago. Not because of training (sure that helps too), but mostly because of experience.
A crack or corrosion can be a bastard, so well hidden that an experienced eye might make the difference.
I have also worked overseas for many years and have worked under a system that was a lameless tarmac. On our homebase, engineers did the first inspection of the day, and the pilots did the rest of the sectors until back home or on a major outstation. It worked fine I guess. I really can't tell if a lameless tarmac would be a safety risk, I guess not, but who really knows.
How does Qantas operate today, do they have a LAME at each port a Qantas jet lands to do the preflight inspection?
I am one of those LAME's (since 1996). At the beginning of my "career" I thought that experience does not matter during inspections (be it preflight or detailed visuals in the hangar). My perception was that you can only look at a part of an aircraft one way, everyone will see the same thing, how hard can it be?
Very slowly over the years this attitude changed though, and only because of one reason, because over the years I have become much more experienced in inspecting and now pick up stuff that I would not have as an apprentice. The licence has nothing to do with it, experience counts! I still miss stuff and more experienced lames (or AME's, as I said the licence does not matter) explain to me what they are seeing, but that just helps me further and increases my training. I have just seen so many cracks and faults over the years that I start to know what to look for, know how to hold the torch (sounds stupid I know but it can be vital!), start to know the weak points of a certain design. Don't get me wrong I am nowhere near perfect and never will be but I am amazed how much better I can do inspections now than I used to many years ago. Not because of training (sure that helps too), but mostly because of experience.
A crack or corrosion can be a bastard, so well hidden that an experienced eye might make the difference.
I have also worked overseas for many years and have worked under a system that was a lameless tarmac. On our homebase, engineers did the first inspection of the day, and the pilots did the rest of the sectors until back home or on a major outstation. It worked fine I guess. I really can't tell if a lameless tarmac would be a safety risk, I guess not, but who really knows.
How does Qantas operate today, do they have a LAME at each port a Qantas jet lands to do the preflight inspection?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DHDriver, I dont know what company you are talking about, AMEs can sign for work carried out but the work has to be checked and signed for by a LAME and that is the LAW.
The company I work for has more than a 50/50 ratio of AMEs to LAMEs.
The company I work for has more than a 50/50 ratio of AMEs to LAMEs.
LAME,
I have NEVER said I support removing LAME's from preflight inspections - my objection is to the campaign that says that the aeroplanes are going to fall from the sky if engineers don't do preflights - this is an industrial issue not a safety issue.
I am very happy having two sets of eyes doing preflights and have no desire to see engineers relegated to permanent night shift.
I DO object to the ALAEA inferring that pilots are incapable of doing preflights and that the lives of the passengers are at risk if a LAME doesn't do a preflight - this is where my objections lie.
Now with regards my post about AME's - where exactly are the incorrect facts? I know what goes on in some hangers - maybe not yours....
As for not posting any further - I said I'd stop posting on this because I thought that the public misinformation from the union had ceased. The new union campaign makes the topic fair game.
the AME system that you champion as having served us well for 50 years is akin to not having licenced first officers - the captain can supervise and signoff on any work done by the F/O - would you agree that this isn't an optimal solution? By raising this issue I am simply trying to point out that there are some real issues out there that are ignored.
I have a great deal of respect for a lot of LAME's, and all I want is to see a honest campaign that tells the truth not half truths that scare the public.
If we can get that then I fear that we will agree on a lot more things!!
and as it happens I know a fair bit about engineering!
I have NEVER said I support removing LAME's from preflight inspections - my objection is to the campaign that says that the aeroplanes are going to fall from the sky if engineers don't do preflights - this is an industrial issue not a safety issue.
I am very happy having two sets of eyes doing preflights and have no desire to see engineers relegated to permanent night shift.
I DO object to the ALAEA inferring that pilots are incapable of doing preflights and that the lives of the passengers are at risk if a LAME doesn't do a preflight - this is where my objections lie.
Now with regards my post about AME's - where exactly are the incorrect facts? I know what goes on in some hangers - maybe not yours....
As for not posting any further - I said I'd stop posting on this because I thought that the public misinformation from the union had ceased. The new union campaign makes the topic fair game.
the AME system that you champion as having served us well for 50 years is akin to not having licenced first officers - the captain can supervise and signoff on any work done by the F/O - would you agree that this isn't an optimal solution? By raising this issue I am simply trying to point out that there are some real issues out there that are ignored.
I have a great deal of respect for a lot of LAME's, and all I want is to see a honest campaign that tells the truth not half truths that scare the public.
If we can get that then I fear that we will agree on a lot more things!!
and as it happens I know a fair bit about engineering!