Dodgy J* pilot ferrys dodgy A320 out of Indonesia
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aust
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airsupport,
you keep saying that "there is no problem as long as the pilots were happy to take it on the ferry". The problem is, in most companies, not just Jetstar it's a big call for a pilot to reject an aircraft based on the grounds being discussed in this particular situation because there are people like you out there that "can't see anything wrong it" or "don't know what the problem is". This sort of attitude inadvertantly puts pressure on the pilot to accept an aircraft that they may might not be all that happy with. Sad but true. If people like our old mate M&M accept aircraft with these sort of defects, then what is that saying to the ave line pilot? Then again maybe he didn't notice it!!...after all, i wasn't written up in Singapore!!
you keep saying that "there is no problem as long as the pilots were happy to take it on the ferry". The problem is, in most companies, not just Jetstar it's a big call for a pilot to reject an aircraft based on the grounds being discussed in this particular situation because there are people like you out there that "can't see anything wrong it" or "don't know what the problem is". This sort of attitude inadvertantly puts pressure on the pilot to accept an aircraft that they may might not be all that happy with. Sad but true. If people like our old mate M&M accept aircraft with these sort of defects, then what is that saying to the ave line pilot? Then again maybe he didn't notice it!!...after all, i wasn't written up in Singapore!!
Ferry flight or not; if the aircraft was not in the configuration that the flight manual states, then it requires an ATP or it doesn't fly. Full Stop. Finish. No More.
It doesn't matter which country the aircraft was maintained in or who is intending to operate it.
If you can't see the problem with this then you are "living cloud cuckoo land" and have "a mental problem".
It doesn't matter which country the aircraft was maintained in or who is intending to operate it.
If you can't see the problem with this then you are "living cloud cuckoo land" and have "a mental problem".
Nunc est bibendum
Following on from ODL's comments, flight with gear down is permitted in the aircraft ops manual. Brakes either work or they don't. Having panels in different place I the OHP is not covered by FCOM, MEL, MMEL or anything else. If an ATP was given then it may be a different story. Even if it was, it's still a significant safety issue.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I spent some 40 years in the Industry, mainly in Australia, but also in many other parts of the World with Aussie registered aircraft, and I do know how things used to work, not sure how they work now as I am retired.
It appears to me on reading all the posts again that maybe some of you have a problem with this particular Pilot, not so much what happened.
As I have no personal or professional interest in this issue I will leave it to you lot.
Thank you.
It appears to me on reading all the posts again that maybe some of you have a problem with this particular Pilot, not so much what happened.
As I have no personal or professional interest in this issue I will leave it to you lot.
Thank you.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aust
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no personal problem with the pilot...never met him. Just don't have much time for people who should know better giving bad examples to others. My understanding is he can be a bit of a hard one on others...just seems he doesn't apply the same standards to himself!
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The wild west was tamed long ago, airsupport.
Modern aircraft aren't patched up with baling twine anymore (office staples, maybe...but not baling twine).
This A320 was flown by a cowboy. Time for him to hang up his spurs, methinks.
Modern aircraft aren't patched up with baling twine anymore (office staples, maybe...but not baling twine).
This A320 was flown by a cowboy. Time for him to hang up his spurs, methinks.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry AS I was being sarcastic. Just pretending I was in the Qantas spokesmodels shoes for a bit. If you believed management nothing is related to safety until people are dead. They just don't understand the swiss cheese model.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The post by "Utah'' which seems to be missing now was completely out of order, IF you are a Commercial Pilot with an Airline ''Utah'' I am VERY pleased I am now retired and hardly ever fly. 
I have had the pleasure to work with many great Pilots over the decades, although mainly of course pre dispute ones.
It still appears to me that the main problem for most of you is the Pilot that did this rather than what he actually did.
Jetro6UL,
That is very sad, oh for the days when we used to send A320s back to SYD and MEL with hi speed tape holding external panels on.
Steve,
Sorry about that, I didn't know you were in to sarcasm.
Best regards to all,
I have had the pleasure to work with many great Pilots over the decades, although mainly of course pre dispute ones.
It still appears to me that the main problem for most of you is the Pilot that did this rather than what he actually did.
Jetro6UL,
That is very sad, oh for the days when we used to send A320s back to SYD and MEL with hi speed tape holding external panels on.
Steve,
Sorry about that, I didn't know you were in to sarcasm.
Best regards to all,
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear airsupport
The post is still there (#36) on page 2 of the thread (get your knitting glasses checked) the only reason it would have been removed is if you complained about it as the post has already been checked by administration prior to posting (kinda like checking an overhead panel before you fly).
The scary thing is it seems you are not a "g up" but actually genuine about your posts. Lets just say the feeling is mutual buddy, am glad your sucking on butterscotch these days & not responsible for any aircraft I'm operating!
The scary thing is it seems you are not a "g up" but actually genuine about your posts. Lets just say the feeling is mutual buddy, am glad your sucking on butterscotch these days & not responsible for any aircraft I'm operating!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The post is still there (#36) on page 2 of the thread (get your knitting glasses checked) the only reason it would have been removed is if you complained about it as the post has already been checked by administration prior to posting (kinda like checking an overhead panel before you fly).
The scary thing is it seems you are not a "g up" but actually genuine about your posts. Lets just say the feeling is mutual buddy, am glad your sucking on butterscotch these days & not responsible for any aircraft I'm operating!
The scary thing is it seems you are not a "g up" but actually genuine about your posts. Lets just say the feeling is mutual buddy, am glad your sucking on butterscotch these days & not responsible for any aircraft I'm operating!
It was NOT there earlier, I can only guess it was being checked as it was so disgusting, and now for some reason it has been put back.
I would not waste my time complaining about someone like you.
It is Pilots like you, IF you even are one that give Pilots a bad name.
Now, now children...
Depending on how one's viewing priorities are set up (ie newest first or chronological order), the post may have been on page 1 or 2...
So you're both right. Move on.
So you're both right. Move on.
Airsupport - must be gettin' lonely on that island...
If the "facts" ever see the light of day (eg, ATP, maintenance authority thingy, etc), then we'll in be a much better situation to further chastise what, on the surface, appears to be an appalling lack of judgement AND oversight.
If the "facts" ever see the light of day (eg, ATP, maintenance authority thingy, etc), then we'll in be a much better situation to further chastise what, on the surface, appears to be an appalling lack of judgement AND oversight.
Knowing what is behind the overhead panels on the A320 I find it very hard to believe that anyone could just swap them around, the looms of wire behind the VUs are just not long enough to randomly move them about.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually have a bit of respect for airsupport in that he is probably from that nostalgic era when pilots and engineers were actually listened to and respected.
Dispatch (engineers) said that aircraft is a bit dodgy we're not that comfortable with it being taken out. The pilot had a bit of a chat with the ground engineer who had dealt with the problem and either said "Okay we go" or the engineer said "It's stuffed" and the pilot said "We aren't going". That was the end of story, the bean counter, the PR person,etc didn't get a look in.
The pilots worked out that if worse came to worse they could always divert and still get it safely on the ground somewhere. The worst result was better than the result that they, and the Company, were currently looking at.
Also the pilots (who actually had their bums strapped to the aircraft) backed their experience and judgement, and knew that Chief Pilot ( one level above God) would back them to the hilt based on the actions of a reasonable person.The ground engineer gave his unbiased opinion to the PIC and his gut feeling on the airworthiness of the aircraft. Even if there was no drama, the pilots knew that the CP would kick their arse if they had done something dodgy just to make schedule.
Which brings us back to the airsupport argument, if the operating crew have 'bent' a rule in line with their own definition of airmanship based on the best information at that time, or whether they have 'bent' a rule to appease schedule before safety?
We can all cite examples of stupid 'rules' that do nothing to enhance safety, be it in the cockpit, cabin or ground. And also examples where there are no rules beyond common sense to enforce legitimate safety concerns.
Unfortunately there are no rules that say use common sense and experience to deal with the problem. This would put about three layers of management hacks on to the dole queue.
Airsupport, times have moved on. It may or may not have been dodgy, but the individuals are not entrusted with that responsibilty any more.
Dispatch (engineers) said that aircraft is a bit dodgy we're not that comfortable with it being taken out. The pilot had a bit of a chat with the ground engineer who had dealt with the problem and either said "Okay we go" or the engineer said "It's stuffed" and the pilot said "We aren't going". That was the end of story, the bean counter, the PR person,etc didn't get a look in.
We had an Electra many years (decades) ago, here in BNE undergoing a routine scheduled service, one engine was found to be just about full filter of metal. No spare in BNE, only spare engine was in MEL. Even a ferry flight could not DEPART on 3 engines, so the Crew took it as a ferry to MEL with the engine just idling on take off, once airborne they shut it down, contacted ATC to tell them they had suffered an engine failure and were continuing to MEL on three engines.
Also the pilots (who actually had their bums strapped to the aircraft) backed their experience and judgement, and knew that Chief Pilot ( one level above God) would back them to the hilt based on the actions of a reasonable person.The ground engineer gave his unbiased opinion to the PIC and his gut feeling on the airworthiness of the aircraft. Even if there was no drama, the pilots knew that the CP would kick their arse if they had done something dodgy just to make schedule.
Which brings us back to the airsupport argument, if the operating crew have 'bent' a rule in line with their own definition of airmanship based on the best information at that time, or whether they have 'bent' a rule to appease schedule before safety?
We can all cite examples of stupid 'rules' that do nothing to enhance safety, be it in the cockpit, cabin or ground. And also examples where there are no rules beyond common sense to enforce legitimate safety concerns.
Unfortunately there are no rules that say use common sense and experience to deal with the problem. This would put about three layers of management hacks on to the dole queue.
Airsupport, times have moved on. It may or may not have been dodgy, but the individuals are not entrusted with that responsibilty any more.