Preflight Checks, Have Your Say!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: HEAVEN
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Critical Issue - Preflights
The following is a quote from a topic " Critical Issues" a discussion thread on "AirMech". This is only one of the topics that is presenting it self as an important milestone in the move towards cheaper Airlines, but does the public really want cheaper airfares when it may be at the expense of safety.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As for the pilots, they unfortunately suffer from the same minority problem as ourselves; a couple of gungho heroes willing to toe the company line to suck themselves further up the food chain, whilst the majority realise the safety benefits of Engineers carrying out preflights both from the perspective of our technical knowledge and the 'two-sets-of-eyes-are-better-than-one'principle."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More can be seen on :-
http://www.airmech.co.uk/ubb/ultimat.../2.html#000017[COLOR=darkblue]
Safety versus cheaper fares, look at what has happened in recent times there has been 100's of millions of dollars spent on the increase in security to make passenger air travel safer, and the public have come to accept it. Obviously arriving at your destination is more important than cost, so why do airline operators continue to look at ways of reducing costs that make travel less safer than it is now.
This is not an issue where engineers are saying that they can do the job better, only that this is a task that they are trained to do and given Australias record, obviously do it well. Pilots should continue to do their preflights as should engineers, they both compliment each other. The Manufacturers are saying that the New Generation of Aircraft are more reliable, but it is not these newer systems relating to reliability that the preflight is monitoring. The standard preflight is looking for damage sustained during its last flight and whilst on the ground during the transit. Bird strikes, hail damage, Lightening strikes, landing lights inpacted, wing tips scrapped ( cross wind landing), engine pod impact ( cross wind), pylon bolt failure, signs of heavy landings( skin buckled or twisted) fairings secure, catering truck, loaders or aerobridge impact with aircraft, hydraulic leaks, fuel leaks and not to mention the miriade of faults that can be found on landing gears ( tyres and brakes). These are all things that I have had occassion to find on aircraft during a Transit preflight that were not reported by the pilot, and would still occur on any aircraft regardless of it being a New Gen. or not. Now multiply my experence with that of the many thousands of engineers in Australia doing exactly the same routine and guarantee me that if this check was to stop, and one of the many incidents that goes undetected would not indanger the lives of passengers and crew one day.
I make no apologise, I wish to sound provocative because this is a subject that needs to be in the public forum, and one which will keeps getting swept under the carpet.
Money talks, is this money controlling the Media also?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As for the pilots, they unfortunately suffer from the same minority problem as ourselves; a couple of gungho heroes willing to toe the company line to suck themselves further up the food chain, whilst the majority realise the safety benefits of Engineers carrying out preflights both from the perspective of our technical knowledge and the 'two-sets-of-eyes-are-better-than-one'principle."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More can be seen on :-
http://www.airmech.co.uk/ubb/ultimat.../2.html#000017[COLOR=darkblue]
Safety versus cheaper fares, look at what has happened in recent times there has been 100's of millions of dollars spent on the increase in security to make passenger air travel safer, and the public have come to accept it. Obviously arriving at your destination is more important than cost, so why do airline operators continue to look at ways of reducing costs that make travel less safer than it is now.
This is not an issue where engineers are saying that they can do the job better, only that this is a task that they are trained to do and given Australias record, obviously do it well. Pilots should continue to do their preflights as should engineers, they both compliment each other. The Manufacturers are saying that the New Generation of Aircraft are more reliable, but it is not these newer systems relating to reliability that the preflight is monitoring. The standard preflight is looking for damage sustained during its last flight and whilst on the ground during the transit. Bird strikes, hail damage, Lightening strikes, landing lights inpacted, wing tips scrapped ( cross wind landing), engine pod impact ( cross wind), pylon bolt failure, signs of heavy landings( skin buckled or twisted) fairings secure, catering truck, loaders or aerobridge impact with aircraft, hydraulic leaks, fuel leaks and not to mention the miriade of faults that can be found on landing gears ( tyres and brakes). These are all things that I have had occassion to find on aircraft during a Transit preflight that were not reported by the pilot, and would still occur on any aircraft regardless of it being a New Gen. or not. Now multiply my experence with that of the many thousands of engineers in Australia doing exactly the same routine and guarantee me that if this check was to stop, and one of the many incidents that goes undetected would not indanger the lives of passengers and crew one day.
I make no apologise, I wish to sound provocative because this is a subject that needs to be in the public forum, and one which will keeps getting swept under the carpet.
Money talks, is this money controlling the Media also?
Last edited by Orville; 22nd Jan 2004 at 04:19.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Extract from the ALAEA Nov News letter.
Link:
http://www.alaea.asn.au/html/news/e-...20%20final.htm
General News:
TV Effort Earns Tick
The ALAEA has described the first public comments of newly-installed Civil Aviation Authority (CASA) chief, Bruce Byron, as encouraging. ALAEA Federal Secretary, David Kemp, said Byron’s televised comments on airline safety sent a positive message to the industry. “CASA is under pressure from some airlines to reduce safety requirements, a move the ALAEA has argued strong against,” Mr Kemp said. “We need to ensure that our members – the fulltime safety professionals who have delivered Australia a world-leading reputation – are given the resources and power to do their jobs properly. We look forward to working with the CASA leadership to do just that.” The ALAEA has written to Mr Byron, seeking a meeting where we can outline our perspective on the airline industry.
More information at: http://www.casa.gov.au/hotopics/other/03-10-30and.htm
Link:
http://www.alaea.asn.au/html/news/e-...20%20final.htm
General News:
TV Effort Earns Tick
The ALAEA has described the first public comments of newly-installed Civil Aviation Authority (CASA) chief, Bruce Byron, as encouraging. ALAEA Federal Secretary, David Kemp, said Byron’s televised comments on airline safety sent a positive message to the industry. “CASA is under pressure from some airlines to reduce safety requirements, a move the ALAEA has argued strong against,” Mr Kemp said. “We need to ensure that our members – the fulltime safety professionals who have delivered Australia a world-leading reputation – are given the resources and power to do their jobs properly. We look forward to working with the CASA leadership to do just that.” The ALAEA has written to Mr Byron, seeking a meeting where we can outline our perspective on the airline industry.
More information at: http://www.casa.gov.au/hotopics/other/03-10-30and.htm
Any bean counter will cut costs to the bare minimum of safety. The actual minimum level is unproveable, and the cost cutting will continue downwards, especially in this current cut-throat low cost environment.
Trouble is that the only way they can be shown that they have taken levels too far down is when 200 people and a 737 are in smithereens.
Trouble is that the only way they can be shown that they have taken levels too far down is when 200 people and a 737 are in smithereens.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orville
I read on the link to AirMech that engineers shouldn't expect to much support from their collegues behind the wheel, as money seems to be their motivator and not safety.
This has already been shown in the poor attempt by Virgin to introduce a LAMELESS tarmac, and CASA's intervention, suggesting that their pilots pick up their game and do the preflight check more vigilantly. I believe last year they had missed some serious defects and CASA were not impressed.
Obviously the pay check at the end of the day is most important, as was also evident at QantasLink ( Impulse, Jetstar, Jet connect or what ever). Recently a check Captain was demotted for failing two pilots on their routine check, he was advised by the company??? " that it is not his job to fail pilots." So because he was doing his job correctly, giving priority to Safety ahead of carreer, he paid a penalty. Why don't we have more Crew, Ground and Tech. prepared to have or show a little integrity.
I read on the link to AirMech that engineers shouldn't expect to much support from their collegues behind the wheel, as money seems to be their motivator and not safety.
This has already been shown in the poor attempt by Virgin to introduce a LAMELESS tarmac, and CASA's intervention, suggesting that their pilots pick up their game and do the preflight check more vigilantly. I believe last year they had missed some serious defects and CASA were not impressed.
Obviously the pay check at the end of the day is most important, as was also evident at QantasLink ( Impulse, Jetstar, Jet connect or what ever). Recently a check Captain was demotted for failing two pilots on their routine check, he was advised by the company??? " that it is not his job to fail pilots." So because he was doing his job correctly, giving priority to Safety ahead of carreer, he paid a penalty. Why don't we have more Crew, Ground and Tech. prepared to have or show a little integrity.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: HEAVEN
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems obvious from the response,or rather lack thereof, that this thread has received, ( my apologises to Vortsa and Compressor Stall) that the airlines are going to be able to continue to do what ever they wish. As long as everyone gets their paycheck at the end of the day "alls well", or is it?
CASA were blind to the cost cutting exercises carried out by an airline in recent years, which was driven by the bean counters. These bean counters don't rely on working for an airline to keep bread on the table, they have the ability to move into a different industry to perfect their skills, which may mean destroying the lives of a completely different employment base, but that's another story. My concern is for those who were left behind in the aftermath of their last #### up. Of greater concern is the possibility of a serious incident that may cost lives. And I hope I'm not around to witness it, but if I am I will be the conscience of every soul left behind.
Ask the employees of that past airline, who pays their wages now? I am convinced that there were whistle blowers, and those that could see the writing on the wall along time before the doors were shut, but unfortunately they were too few, and as this thread testifies, there are too few again.
The safety in our skies is obviously of concern to those who fly and specially those who fly professionally. Reading the comments to Dick Smith, there are those who are passionate about safety in the skies, then why can't you see the consequences in changing a system which has proven to be SAFE for one that has obvious flaws.
What we are seeing in the Industry now is Risk Management, that is too say the value of these cost cutting exercises verses the cost of litigation if something serious happens, and the bean counters have calculated that to payout on an aviation disaster is cheaper than the money saved over 10 to 15 years worth of cost cutting. What value do you put on the lives of your family or collegues? The share holders might be fortunate to see at least an extra 1 or 2 cents value per share but do they realise how far their shares will plummet following an incident.
Qantas were being offered Ansett at $1.00 in its last days, and they declined.
CASA were blind to the cost cutting exercises carried out by an airline in recent years, which was driven by the bean counters. These bean counters don't rely on working for an airline to keep bread on the table, they have the ability to move into a different industry to perfect their skills, which may mean destroying the lives of a completely different employment base, but that's another story. My concern is for those who were left behind in the aftermath of their last #### up. Of greater concern is the possibility of a serious incident that may cost lives. And I hope I'm not around to witness it, but if I am I will be the conscience of every soul left behind.
Ask the employees of that past airline, who pays their wages now? I am convinced that there were whistle blowers, and those that could see the writing on the wall along time before the doors were shut, but unfortunately they were too few, and as this thread testifies, there are too few again.
The safety in our skies is obviously of concern to those who fly and specially those who fly professionally. Reading the comments to Dick Smith, there are those who are passionate about safety in the skies, then why can't you see the consequences in changing a system which has proven to be SAFE for one that has obvious flaws.
What we are seeing in the Industry now is Risk Management, that is too say the value of these cost cutting exercises verses the cost of litigation if something serious happens, and the bean counters have calculated that to payout on an aviation disaster is cheaper than the money saved over 10 to 15 years worth of cost cutting. What value do you put on the lives of your family or collegues? The share holders might be fortunate to see at least an extra 1 or 2 cents value per share but do they realise how far their shares will plummet following an incident.
Qantas were being offered Ansett at $1.00 in its last days, and they declined.
Last edited by Orville; 28th Jan 2004 at 18:40.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orville, You are definetely correct with your assesment of the proposed QF maintenance system changes. The problem of bean counters running airlines has been with us for some time, we have seen the collapse of AN and similar episodes in the states. It's a pity that many of the managers who oversaw the AN saga have now found themselves jobs at QF and are trying the same tricks again. Maybe they have learnt their lessons well and will calculate their own departures from the airline a little better or earlier as the case may be.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would Qantas fare if CASA were to do an audit on the way they prepare an Aircraft for flight, follow the link below and see how Korean Airlines went. I have extracted a few of the more pertinent points for those who do not wish to read the entire contents.
http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/...rean_audit.htm
"3. FE's do not do thorough preflight, sometimes sloppy. They do it in record time and would not pick up any problems because of the rush they are in."
"9. Crew must use a torch for preflight at night, this is sometimes not done."
"14. FE does not check emergency escape slide."
"15. During the audit process, a number of observer headsets were found to be unserviceable. Many portable oxygen bottles did not have full face masks, and most were not connected to them. A full inspection of all emergency and fire fighting equipment should be done to bring this up to standard. All crew should have continuity training on all on board emergency and safety equipment."
"21. No hydraulic system should be pressurized without clearance from the ground. This is basic airmanship."
"52. Maintenance on all Korean Air aircraft is generally excellent and aircraft seldom carry inop. Stickers. The classic aircraft however have a problem with the fuel tanks as fuel tends to "disappear" below 80 000 lbs. and some "reappears" after landing. Gauges must be dripped regularly to monitor this, as it must be corrected. The generally good technical status of the aircraft has played a big role in reducing the numbers of incident/accidents.
53. KAL maintenance is often word of mouth. Crew will pass on snags, engineering will repair them and nothing will be written in the tech log. This is dangerous, as the aircraft never develops a "history". This history is vital in aircraft maintenance and safety. All snag MUST be written up and preferably in English so everyone can understand."
Whilst these are only of few of the shortcommings that were present with Korean Airlines (hopefully now rectified) and I note that there were other insites into Engineering also non flattering, my main reference is the Preflight Check. When a check is left to just one person whether it be Pilot or Grd. Engineer an oversight may one day lead to a serious incident, surely two sets of eyes are better than one. The whole philosphy of modern aircraft is redundant system and this should also be for visual inspections. Even in Engineering duplicate inspections is common and mandatory when dealing with systems that are primary to safe flight.
I previously noted that Virgin had their wings clipped last year for not doing proper preflights.
My thanks go to Alex Paterson for making this document available.
http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/...rean_audit.htm
"3. FE's do not do thorough preflight, sometimes sloppy. They do it in record time and would not pick up any problems because of the rush they are in."
"9. Crew must use a torch for preflight at night, this is sometimes not done."
"14. FE does not check emergency escape slide."
"15. During the audit process, a number of observer headsets were found to be unserviceable. Many portable oxygen bottles did not have full face masks, and most were not connected to them. A full inspection of all emergency and fire fighting equipment should be done to bring this up to standard. All crew should have continuity training on all on board emergency and safety equipment."
"21. No hydraulic system should be pressurized without clearance from the ground. This is basic airmanship."
"52. Maintenance on all Korean Air aircraft is generally excellent and aircraft seldom carry inop. Stickers. The classic aircraft however have a problem with the fuel tanks as fuel tends to "disappear" below 80 000 lbs. and some "reappears" after landing. Gauges must be dripped regularly to monitor this, as it must be corrected. The generally good technical status of the aircraft has played a big role in reducing the numbers of incident/accidents.
53. KAL maintenance is often word of mouth. Crew will pass on snags, engineering will repair them and nothing will be written in the tech log. This is dangerous, as the aircraft never develops a "history". This history is vital in aircraft maintenance and safety. All snag MUST be written up and preferably in English so everyone can understand."
Whilst these are only of few of the shortcommings that were present with Korean Airlines (hopefully now rectified) and I note that there were other insites into Engineering also non flattering, my main reference is the Preflight Check. When a check is left to just one person whether it be Pilot or Grd. Engineer an oversight may one day lead to a serious incident, surely two sets of eyes are better than one. The whole philosphy of modern aircraft is redundant system and this should also be for visual inspections. Even in Engineering duplicate inspections is common and mandatory when dealing with systems that are primary to safe flight.
I previously noted that Virgin had their wings clipped last year for not doing proper preflights.
My thanks go to Alex Paterson for making this document available.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well some good gen found by you guys. It's as if all the lames I work with think the no man transit is a foregone conclusion because the managers have been told that engineers do not get involved in aircraft handling overseas. Can some of you British and American engineers let us know who handles the aircraft where you come from? In particular the following functions - refuelling, eng oil checks, initial headset arrival and chocks, aircraft walk around, log certification, defect rectification and pushback.
thanks
thanks
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: HEAVEN
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome to the forum Fordran, and some good investigating done by Vortsa. With nearly 1000 readers now there must be other contributors with a point of view, I don't care what side of the fence you stand on, you must think something. I might have it all wrong and this is not important enough to debate.
I WILL REMOVE THIS DISCUSSION THREAD IF THERE IS ENOUGH RESPONSE TO THE NEGATIVE.
I WILL REMOVE THIS DISCUSSION THREAD IF THERE IS ENOUGH RESPONSE TO THE NEGATIVE.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that the issue here isn't the reliability of the new generation equipment, whether it be Boeing or Airbus.
Walkarounds are for casting an experienced eye towards 'adverse environmental interaction', something that no amount of designing can prevent.
Some facets of the industry lose sight of that.
K
Walkarounds are for casting an experienced eye towards 'adverse environmental interaction', something that no amount of designing can prevent.
Some facets of the industry lose sight of that.
K
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: OZ
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still believe that two sets of eyes(pilot & engineer) are better than one,found that they complement each other.I only wish the clock could be wound back so the "gingerbeers" contracted to VB could still do transit inspections at VB without the threats of disipline action/job loss.We all just want the aircraft to fly safely!
Good luck to everyone at QF as i think you are going to need it as major work practise changes are likley soon.
Good luck to everyone at QF as i think you are going to need it as major work practise changes are likley soon.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With no engineer doing a transit preflight check on arrival many things can be overlooked. Here is a good example of what can go wrong.
This morning I did a preflight on and a/c that flew in from overseas. The radome had an area of condensation on it, localised in one spot.
Condensation means, obviously, that particular area is colder than ambient temperature, possibly ice biuld up that hasn't thawed.
Because of the shape and aero-dynamic loads around a radome, ice will not biuld up on the surface so the ice would have to be below the surface. How would ice get below the surface? Two ways, moisture left inside the radome when it was last opened or the obvious pin hole in the outer layer allowing ingestion of water below the surface. Now every time the ice forms and then subsequently melts the delamination grows larger, as the delamination grows larger the amount of ice forming gets larger until the radome structurally fails, this maybe preceeded on the radar screen by a large pattern created from an abnormal return.
I had a similar occurance on an a/c many years ago that cased structural failure and warranted the radome replaced before further flt( many hours later).
The point I am trying to make here is that by the time the Tech. Crew get down stairs to carry out a walk around all the evidence has evaporated.
This type of occurance has also been witnessed on the Engine nacelle of a 747. So serious was this, that Boeing would not even give permission for the Operator to return home for repairs, a few days later the nacelle was replaced.
This morning I did a preflight on and a/c that flew in from overseas. The radome had an area of condensation on it, localised in one spot.
Condensation means, obviously, that particular area is colder than ambient temperature, possibly ice biuld up that hasn't thawed.
Because of the shape and aero-dynamic loads around a radome, ice will not biuld up on the surface so the ice would have to be below the surface. How would ice get below the surface? Two ways, moisture left inside the radome when it was last opened or the obvious pin hole in the outer layer allowing ingestion of water below the surface. Now every time the ice forms and then subsequently melts the delamination grows larger, as the delamination grows larger the amount of ice forming gets larger until the radome structurally fails, this maybe preceeded on the radar screen by a large pattern created from an abnormal return.
I had a similar occurance on an a/c many years ago that cased structural failure and warranted the radome replaced before further flt( many hours later).
The point I am trying to make here is that by the time the Tech. Crew get down stairs to carry out a walk around all the evidence has evaporated.
This type of occurance has also been witnessed on the Engine nacelle of a 747. So serious was this, that Boeing would not even give permission for the Operator to return home for repairs, a few days later the nacelle was replaced.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Brisbane,
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fordran,of the issues you raised the only one which would require an engineer (licensed) is Log Certification.All other tasks can be, and in a lot of cases are,legally carried out by a "suitably trained" person.That person could well be an AME.
Vortsa,most of the items you listed wrt KAL relate to basic training and corporate culture,not the ability of the individuals to carry out the tasks etc.
Orville,are you saying that it's not possible to train pilots to do preflights which involve inspection for those problems you have illustrated?I hope not.
The " extra pair of eyes" was an issue that was raised by Flight Engineers many years ago in defence of their presence on the Flight Deck,and we know what good it did them.
It is my understanding,and I am willing to be corrected,that there is no "transit inspection" in the Boeing documentation,or indeed in the operator's MSM's.If this is so, then what " approved data" would you use to carry out this "inspection" to,as this would become scheduled maintenance?Would this then mean that the individual might be open to action from the authorities for carrying out unauthorised maintenance,and where would it leave your employer wrt their Certificate of Approval? Anybody out there?
Vortsa,most of the items you listed wrt KAL relate to basic training and corporate culture,not the ability of the individuals to carry out the tasks etc.
Orville,are you saying that it's not possible to train pilots to do preflights which involve inspection for those problems you have illustrated?I hope not.
The " extra pair of eyes" was an issue that was raised by Flight Engineers many years ago in defence of their presence on the Flight Deck,and we know what good it did them.
It is my understanding,and I am willing to be corrected,that there is no "transit inspection" in the Boeing documentation,or indeed in the operator's MSM's.If this is so, then what " approved data" would you use to carry out this "inspection" to,as this would become scheduled maintenance?Would this then mean that the individual might be open to action from the authorities for carrying out unauthorised maintenance,and where would it leave your employer wrt their Certificate of Approval? Anybody out there?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: OZ
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30/30 GREEN LIGHT
You hit the nail on the head so to speak as that is exactly how VB removed engineers from doing preflights during transits.VB changed their System of Maintenance to reflect the Boeing MPD document,then instructed the maintenance providers that anyone found to be in breach of the System Of Maintenance would be also in breach of the CASA REGULATIONS and that audits would commence to monitor compliance.The maintenance providers(holders of the Certificates of Approval under CAR 30) then enforced said policy as their certificate of approvals where as "stake" informing staff they have no problems sacrificing personnel to protect their CofA if required.
You hit the nail on the head so to speak as that is exactly how VB removed engineers from doing preflights during transits.VB changed their System of Maintenance to reflect the Boeing MPD document,then instructed the maintenance providers that anyone found to be in breach of the System Of Maintenance would be also in breach of the CASA REGULATIONS and that audits would commence to monitor compliance.The maintenance providers(holders of the Certificates of Approval under CAR 30) then enforced said policy as their certificate of approvals where as "stake" informing staff they have no problems sacrificing personnel to protect their CofA if required.
Last edited by DDG; 30th Jan 2004 at 15:20.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: HEAVEN
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DDG.
You are correct and it is precisely that which we are lobbying to prevent from happening in other work places. And as has already been pointed out, CASA have a few reservations as to the way VB are compying with there current position.
30/30 Green
I think you may have missed the point of Vortsa’s last entry, he was clearly pointing out that what he found during his latest transit/ pre-flight, would not have been evident when the crew carried out their pre-flight, some 30 or more minutes later. I must agree with his assessment that these types of events can lead to more serious incidents down the track.
My point is not that a Pilot can’t be trained to carryout this task because I believe they already do and are extremely competent at it but that an extra set of eyes can sometimes pick up what the other misses and this would and does go both ways.
With your questioning of Fordran understanding of who is ultimately responsible please read the following extract from a ???????????? Company Systems Manual. Quite clear and specific, yes another person may carry out these duties but ultimately still the responsibility of the LAME.
And my understanding on a/c that still use Flight Engineers and right up until they were removed from the others the Pilot delegated the F/E to do the walk around, this may possibly be why some pilots don’t have the experience required. I have also noted that on 747-400 it is common to see the second officer doing the pre-flight, also delegated by the Pilot.( unfortunately there experience on large commercial a/c is limited)
These are but a few extracts only, the actual Transit pre-flight check is more area specific. ie; detailed inspections
Company Manual ( Airline withheld)
A. The LAME in charge of the aircraft is responsible to see that all persons assigned to the task of arrival, departure and marshalling of aircraft:
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
B. The Departure Engineer in charge of the push-out and departure of aircraft similarly accepts the responsibility for the guidance of the aircraft and for the avoidance of obstructions during this manoeuvre. This responsibility ceases following the "ALL CLEAR TO TAXI" acknowledgment from the Flight Crew of the aircraft.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
M. Engineer to carry out Pre-flight check/Transit check as required for that aircraft type.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
N On completion of Pre-flight check/Transit check enter cabin, review cabin log and rectify defects as required.[COLOR=darkblue]
You are correct and it is precisely that which we are lobbying to prevent from happening in other work places. And as has already been pointed out, CASA have a few reservations as to the way VB are compying with there current position.
30/30 Green
I think you may have missed the point of Vortsa’s last entry, he was clearly pointing out that what he found during his latest transit/ pre-flight, would not have been evident when the crew carried out their pre-flight, some 30 or more minutes later. I must agree with his assessment that these types of events can lead to more serious incidents down the track.
My point is not that a Pilot can’t be trained to carryout this task because I believe they already do and are extremely competent at it but that an extra set of eyes can sometimes pick up what the other misses and this would and does go both ways.
With your questioning of Fordran understanding of who is ultimately responsible please read the following extract from a ???????????? Company Systems Manual. Quite clear and specific, yes another person may carry out these duties but ultimately still the responsibility of the LAME.
And my understanding on a/c that still use Flight Engineers and right up until they were removed from the others the Pilot delegated the F/E to do the walk around, this may possibly be why some pilots don’t have the experience required. I have also noted that on 747-400 it is common to see the second officer doing the pre-flight, also delegated by the Pilot.( unfortunately there experience on large commercial a/c is limited)
These are but a few extracts only, the actual Transit pre-flight check is more area specific. ie; detailed inspections
Company Manual ( Airline withheld)
A. The LAME in charge of the aircraft is responsible to see that all persons assigned to the task of arrival, departure and marshalling of aircraft:
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
B. The Departure Engineer in charge of the push-out and departure of aircraft similarly accepts the responsibility for the guidance of the aircraft and for the avoidance of obstructions during this manoeuvre. This responsibility ceases following the "ALL CLEAR TO TAXI" acknowledgment from the Flight Crew of the aircraft.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
M. Engineer to carry out Pre-flight check/Transit check as required for that aircraft type.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
N On completion of Pre-flight check/Transit check enter cabin, review cabin log and rectify defects as required.[COLOR=darkblue]
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
I was brought up on Daily Inspections (conducted mostly by LAMEs in accordance with a formalised System of Maintenance procedure) good for up to 36 hours in certain circumstances and Pre-flight inspections (conducted by a member of the operating crew in accordance with either an OEM recommended checklist or the company OM). In the absence of maintenance support, the operating crew Pre-flight Inspection was the only transit inspection.
Pilots have been approved under many SoMs to conduct and certify for Daily Inspections.
There is a balance between no line maintenance presence and grounding the aircraft in the absence of a maintenance presence. The ALAEA has a charter to maximise LAME employment and management has a charter to minimise cost - the operating crew are just meat in the sandwich.
However, I think that it is true that the employment balance will be established in practise by delays in turnarounds caused by waiting for some form of maintenance assessment or assistance, offset by the productivity of line maintenance teams given the arrival/departure frequency and alternative tasking. Even VB's aircraft will stop being brand new shortly.
It is a great pity that most CASA AWIs cannot come to a dispassionate analysis of the required balance because they are for the most part current members of the ALAEA or maintain close ties.
Stay Alive
I was brought up on Daily Inspections (conducted mostly by LAMEs in accordance with a formalised System of Maintenance procedure) good for up to 36 hours in certain circumstances and Pre-flight inspections (conducted by a member of the operating crew in accordance with either an OEM recommended checklist or the company OM). In the absence of maintenance support, the operating crew Pre-flight Inspection was the only transit inspection.
Pilots have been approved under many SoMs to conduct and certify for Daily Inspections.
There is a balance between no line maintenance presence and grounding the aircraft in the absence of a maintenance presence. The ALAEA has a charter to maximise LAME employment and management has a charter to minimise cost - the operating crew are just meat in the sandwich.
However, I think that it is true that the employment balance will be established in practise by delays in turnarounds caused by waiting for some form of maintenance assessment or assistance, offset by the productivity of line maintenance teams given the arrival/departure frequency and alternative tasking. Even VB's aircraft will stop being brand new shortly.
It is a great pity that most CASA AWIs cannot come to a dispassionate analysis of the required balance because they are for the most part current members of the ALAEA or maintain close ties.
Stay Alive
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orville,
Your references to "LAME in charge" etc from the company manuals is now all being changed to "person in charge". I say our future does not appear to be in the hands of any regulator. The airline has decided to make these changes to cut costs and at this stage I have not seen any objection from the alaea.
Your references to "LAME in charge" etc from the company manuals is now all being changed to "person in charge". I say our future does not appear to be in the hands of any regulator. The airline has decided to make these changes to cut costs and at this stage I have not seen any objection from the alaea.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Out there somewhere
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can understand all the frustrations that you engineers are experiencing, and the inevitable outcome that will happen, and I offer my condolences. You have been an important part of aviation from the very beginning and with out your contribution we would not be flying now. I have always gotten on well with the engineers where I work and consider them to be very professional.
All this said, I would encourage you to continue to fight for your current position with- in the industry. My reasons are two fold.
Firstly, I do believe that we all want flight to be as safe as it possibly can, and my experiences have shown that removing the skill and dedication of many of the engineers would be a travesty if taken from the front line. Engineers seem to look at many problems from a different perspective and have taught me many new concepts over the years. Your assistance on many occasions has reduced crew workloads and mine.
Secondly, although I feel this battle you may well loose, there will always be a need for engineers and your skills will evolve as our aircraft have to, and to a high level of technical skill. My remorse is for the position of piloting these newer generations of aircraft. Maybe not in my lifetime, but somewhere in the future, I see my position being made redundant. A pilot less cockpit is not all that far from the truth, and with computers basically flying the aircraft now, removing the human factor will, without doubt, make flying safer. UAV’s are now an important part of military aviation and will continue to improve. Once they have shown their reliability in the field commercial applications will follow.
With the progress of aviation over the last 100 years this just might happen in my lifetime. So you see of all the dinosaurs you may well be the one to survive.
Good luck with your fight.
All this said, I would encourage you to continue to fight for your current position with- in the industry. My reasons are two fold.
Firstly, I do believe that we all want flight to be as safe as it possibly can, and my experiences have shown that removing the skill and dedication of many of the engineers would be a travesty if taken from the front line. Engineers seem to look at many problems from a different perspective and have taught me many new concepts over the years. Your assistance on many occasions has reduced crew workloads and mine.
Secondly, although I feel this battle you may well loose, there will always be a need for engineers and your skills will evolve as our aircraft have to, and to a high level of technical skill. My remorse is for the position of piloting these newer generations of aircraft. Maybe not in my lifetime, but somewhere in the future, I see my position being made redundant. A pilot less cockpit is not all that far from the truth, and with computers basically flying the aircraft now, removing the human factor will, without doubt, make flying safer. UAV’s are now an important part of military aviation and will continue to improve. Once they have shown their reliability in the field commercial applications will follow.
With the progress of aviation over the last 100 years this just might happen in my lifetime. So you see of all the dinosaurs you may well be the one to survive.
Good luck with your fight.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fordran
Have you ever stopped to think that the ALAEA my be working behind the scenes to prevent the removal of qualified LAMEs from the Preflight Inspection? Sometimes it is better strategically to play your cards close to your chest rather than chest thumping and postulating like some other industry groups.
QF have been playing you blokes for the last eighteen months on this issue, following the 'throw enough sh!t and some of it will stick' philosophy. They, despite their own belief to the contrary, have to have changes to their Manual approved by CASA. If that was going to be granted, why hasn't it already?
Sadly the strategy appears to be working when I read some of the whining and whinging on this and other forums.
Just remember it's not over until the Fat Lady sings.
"You can teach a monkey to ride a bike..."
Have you ever stopped to think that the ALAEA my be working behind the scenes to prevent the removal of qualified LAMEs from the Preflight Inspection? Sometimes it is better strategically to play your cards close to your chest rather than chest thumping and postulating like some other industry groups.
QF have been playing you blokes for the last eighteen months on this issue, following the 'throw enough sh!t and some of it will stick' philosophy. They, despite their own belief to the contrary, have to have changes to their Manual approved by CASA. If that was going to be granted, why hasn't it already?
Sadly the strategy appears to be working when I read some of the whining and whinging on this and other forums.
Just remember it's not over until the Fat Lady sings.
"You can teach a monkey to ride a bike..."
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: HEAVEN
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOCKSOn behalf of all LAMEs, thank you for your words of support.
I think we may have seen the same program on the discovery channel, and yes I agree they are making good progress with these new flight systems. Knowing what I know about aircraft computer systems I would still feel very uncomfortable being a passenger sitting down the back and having no pilot in the cockpit. You will always have my support on that issue.