Dodgy J* pilot ferrys dodgy A320 out of Indonesia

[Eastmoore]

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

[airsupport]

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

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

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

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

[Jetro6UL]

There are a few questions to be answered:

• Was any cockpit maintenance recorded in the tech log?
• Who swapped the panels? An Indonesian engineer?
• Was the Indonesia based engineer type rated and company approved?
• Were appropriate maintenance testing procedures carried out on the reinstalled panels? (because it's mandatory that engineers perform installation functional checks on all affected systems when panels have been disconnected).
• Were the tech crew asked to account for their actions in accepting an aircraft with an obvious deficiency?

airsupport, this isn't "nothing".

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

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

[airsupport]

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

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

[Short_Circuit]

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

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

[ALLAH]

NEVER!!!.......

[-438]

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

[Pin37]

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

No, not true, the ONLY thing is that the job should have been done right in the first place.

[airsupport]

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

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

It is NOT saftey related or even safety related.

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

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

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

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

[Pin37]

It is NOT saftey related or even safety related.

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

[Icarus2001]

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

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

If it is stuffed it is stuffed.

[600ft-lb]

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

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

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

[Jetro6UL]

Originally Posted by airsupport

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

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

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

[Keg]

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

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

[Black Hands]

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

[Utah]

Dear airsupport (a pilot? Perhaps not?)

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

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

Option;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You with me airsupport??????

[airsupport]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[airsupport]

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

Dear airsupport,

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

This thread is located at:
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...-new-post.html

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


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

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

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

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

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../SAFO07006.pdf
***************


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

All the best,
PPRuNe Forums

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

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

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

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

[an3_bolt]

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

Effective communication requires both listening and understanding.

Cheers

[airsupport]

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

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