Virgin puts brakes on VARA
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Singapore
Age: 56
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Managers Perspective (and Prince)-
How can the MR not be in effect for the flight? You can't SFP a pax flight (if you can, let me know who your contact is so I can start using them
), so normal MR CAR/CASR procedures would have been in place.
Anyway, any crew or engineer (or maintenance controllers - or the operations guys looking at the flight data downloads, etc, etc) can cease the MR under CAR47. Nothing unique right there and I don't see any smoking gun by quoting it.
You probably should be quoting SDRs.
Who does the ATR engineering stuff? Toll?
How can the MR not be in effect for the flight? You can't SFP a pax flight (if you can, let me know who your contact is so I can start using them
), so normal MR CAR/CASR procedures would have been in place. Anyway, any crew or engineer (or maintenance controllers - or the operations guys looking at the flight data downloads, etc, etc) can cease the MR under CAR47. Nothing unique right there and I don't see any smoking gun by quoting it.
You probably should be quoting SDRs.
Who does the ATR engineering stuff? Toll?
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop and think about this - the only thing that saved 50+ pax & crew was a serendipitous bird strike & a keen eye. What would have happened without the bird strike, subsequent diligent inspection & professionalism of the engineer? If the rumours of the substantial damage are correct, then it would appear a major fatality was inevitable, in time.
Would the investigation have conclusively linked the the previous turbulence incident & the systemic failures (company maintenance & regulatory oversight) or seek to apportion blame to someone else who couldn't speak for themselves?
If we are now down to lady Fortuna for safety inspections, have we descended to the inverse Reason Model, where the holes are the defences?
This appears to be a very interesting snapshot of a grand failure in progress, captured at the point where the regulators can't wriggle out of their own failures of oversight & are caught in the cover-up. No doubt the spin will be: "this was a one-off, see the system worked, nothing bad happened". We all know differently.
Would the investigation have conclusively linked the the previous turbulence incident & the systemic failures (company maintenance & regulatory oversight) or seek to apportion blame to someone else who couldn't speak for themselves?
If we are now down to lady Fortuna for safety inspections, have we descended to the inverse Reason Model, where the holes are the defences?
This appears to be a very interesting snapshot of a grand failure in progress, captured at the point where the regulators can't wriggle out of their own failures of oversight & are caught in the cover-up. No doubt the spin will be: "this was a one-off, see the system worked, nothing bad happened". We all know differently.
I don't understand why ATR would manufacture a repair.
Exactly what motivation is there for them?
It would be no skin off their nose to say it is unfit for repair and sell them a replacement airframe.
Any repair, even manufacturer designed, carries elevated risk of compromised structural integrity - and associated liability, especially as time goes on.
Tell them it's scrap and fly home to France. I would.
Exactly what motivation is there for them?
It would be no skin off their nose to say it is unfit for repair and sell them a replacement airframe.
Any repair, even manufacturer designed, carries elevated risk of compromised structural integrity - and associated liability, especially as time goes on.
Tell them it's scrap and fly home to France. I would.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slippery Pete.
I don't know about you.
But I wouldn't feel that excited as a passenger boarding an aircraft type that, once it encounters severe turbulence the airframe is written off.
As an airline executive, I wouldn't be that excited about purchasing or leasing an aircraft type, that once it experienced severe turbulence the airframe is written off.
As an insurer, I wouldn't be that excited about insuring an aircraft that once it experiences severe turbulence may be written off.
As a pilot training provider..........nah.... I won't go there.
MC
I don't know about you.
But I wouldn't feel that excited as a passenger boarding an aircraft type that, once it encounters severe turbulence the airframe is written off.
As an airline executive, I wouldn't be that excited about purchasing or leasing an aircraft type, that once it experienced severe turbulence the airframe is written off.
As an insurer, I wouldn't be that excited about insuring an aircraft that once it experiences severe turbulence may be written off.
As a pilot training provider..........nah.... I won't go there.
MC
I don't understand why ATR would manufacture a repair.
Exactly what motivation is there for them?
It would be no skin off their nose to say it is unfit for repair and sell them a replacement airframe.
Any repair, even manufacturer designed, carries elevated risk of compromised structural integrity - and associated liability, especially as time goes on.
Tell them it's scrap and fly home to France. I would.
Exactly what motivation is there for them?
It would be no skin off their nose to say it is unfit for repair and sell them a replacement airframe.
Any repair, even manufacturer designed, carries elevated risk of compromised structural integrity - and associated liability, especially as time goes on.
Tell them it's scrap and fly home to France. I would.
Boeing send an army of engineers to fix aircraft that would be on the verge of being written off eg, VH-NXE in Darwin... Design the repair, new maintenance schedule covering the repair (if required) and away you go.
Hi Master Caution.
Agree wholeheartedly, but...
The inference earlier in the thread is that the controls were inadvertently split by the two pilots and that during the ensuing mayhem large and opposite elevator inputs caused severe torsional forces on the tail.
I'm pretty sure the type has seen severe turbulence since certification without any airframe damage.
Agree wholeheartedly, but...
The inference earlier in the thread is that the controls were inadvertently split by the two pilots and that during the ensuing mayhem large and opposite elevator inputs caused severe torsional forces on the tail.
I'm pretty sure the type has seen severe turbulence since certification without any airframe damage.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The pineapple plantation
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two more F100's on the way and potentially another A320, Melbourne and Launceston on the sched for the ATR, some more FIFO contracts recently won off other operators, increase in RPT for F100's, so it sounds like the foot is squarely planted on the little peddle!
Last edited by Riding the Goat; 22nd Sep 2014 at 03:50.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B737 replacing the Ejet in PER
Riding the Goat,
The Ejet flying in PER is being replaced by the B737. At least another 2 737 are being based there and the Ejet crews who bid for the B737 have been advised.
The Ejet flying in PER is being replaced by the B737. At least another 2 737 are being based there and the Ejet crews who bid for the B737 have been advised.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Townsville
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin puts brakes on VARA
Seems like the park brake will be set for sometime. Not sure what has happening. Been on hold file for 12 months now with VARA and still no sign of start. Can anyone shed some further light on the slowdown?
