Pilots may fly solo over safety checks
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MEL,VIC,AUST
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AN LAME, All the info is in the final report, read it, specifically the 'recommendations'. Thats what the problems were originally.
BIK, you can find the annexes at the following link:ICAO Annexes
Cheers!
GTG!
BIK, you can find the annexes at the following link:ICAO Annexes
Cheers!
GTG!
Where are we going with this?
Do they intend to give all pilots special training to conduct the checks that a LAME would normally perform, or the dispensation for the maintenance action that would have been performed if a LAME had been available? Or will that power be bestowed on the pilot with the stroke of a pen?
If a pilot makes a bad judgement call on a light aircraft, he may end up killing a few people. But if the same were to happen on an airliner, he may end up killing hundreds. It's bad enough when qualified people get it wrong.
You would think that we would have an effective and reliable Government Dept that would protect the travelling public from this sort of hazard to aviation.
I guess we will just have to wait for the first major accident. Sigh...
If a pilot makes a bad judgement call on a light aircraft, he may end up killing a few people. But if the same were to happen on an airliner, he may end up killing hundreds. It's bad enough when qualified people get it wrong.
You would think that we would have an effective and reliable Government Dept that would protect the travelling public from this sort of hazard to aviation.
I guess we will just have to wait for the first major accident. Sigh...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if those who feel they are appropriately qualified to carry out this maintenance realise the liability they will be taking on. That is not to say that they are not capable as they are exposed to it every day through their own profession. But this involves a totally different field. I'm sure the operators will take out separate liability insurance! And they reckon that medical liability insurance is expensive! (You can only kill one at a time as a doctor.)
Then there is the small issue of hull insurance...
Given that commercial imperatives are driving the issue, it seems that not a lot of oncosts have come into the equation
Then there is the small issue of hull insurance...
Given that commercial imperatives are driving the issue, it seems that not a lot of oncosts have come into the equation
Really, where are we going with this?
We have expert Pilots who are trained to fly aircraft.
We have expert Engineers who are trained to maintain aircraft.
Now we have Public Servants who are apparently trained to dis-assemble Air Regulations that were designed to protect the travelling public from the greed of Airline Accountants who are too mean to employ enough LAMEs and pay them what they are worth?
We have expert Engineers who are trained to maintain aircraft.
Now we have Public Servants who are apparently trained to dis-assemble Air Regulations that were designed to protect the travelling public from the greed of Airline Accountants who are too mean to employ enough LAMEs and pay them what they are worth?
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am now convinced, more than ever, that this is purely an industrial relations issue, and is nothing to do with safety.
The safety regulator, CASA, sees no need for LAMEs to conduct pre-departure inspections. The pilots and their various unions, who would seem to have an obvious vested interest in the safety of the planes they fly, have been notably silent on the issue.
The only people making any noise about this are those who fear that their entrenched work practices will be threatened.
In a move that smacks of desperation, the LAME’s union has now chosen to try to intimidate the paying passengers with a misleading scare campaign.
Outside Australia, appropriately trained and authorised pilots conduct pre-departure inspections on airline jets thousands of times each day. Yet the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association would have us believe that this arrangement is entirely unsafe.
Who are they kidding?
From : smh.com.au
Airport grounds safety-checks ad
By Joseph Kerr and AAP
September 9 2002
Sydney Airport has banned an advertising billboard that could have raised passenger fears about air safety just before the September 11 anniversary.
The ad, saying "Would you get on a plane without it having a safety check?", was designed to create awareness of aircraft engineers' concerns about future regulatory changes.
Under the Civil Aviation Safety Authority plan, licensed engineers would no longer have to check aircraft for every flight. However, a spokesman for Sydney Airport said the ad had been rejected because "the subject material ... could have caused increased anxiety about safety and security amongst the travelling public".
"The timing was completely inappropriate as it was scheduled to go up close to the anniversary of September 11."
[mostly irrelevant section about bag screening omitted]
Meanwhile, the national secretary of the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association, David Kemp, said the safety billboards were designed to draw attention to plans to downgrade the role of licensed engineers, who had years of training.
"If the airports are serious about not alarming the public they should be publicly opposing the ... proposal rather than trying to censor our campaign," Mr Kemp said.
Under the new safety plans licensed engineers would still check planes before and after each day's flights.
But pilots would be given additional training to allow them to do the work when the plane was on the ground.
The safety regulator, CASA, sees no need for LAMEs to conduct pre-departure inspections. The pilots and their various unions, who would seem to have an obvious vested interest in the safety of the planes they fly, have been notably silent on the issue.
The only people making any noise about this are those who fear that their entrenched work practices will be threatened.
In a move that smacks of desperation, the LAME’s union has now chosen to try to intimidate the paying passengers with a misleading scare campaign.
Outside Australia, appropriately trained and authorised pilots conduct pre-departure inspections on airline jets thousands of times each day. Yet the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association would have us believe that this arrangement is entirely unsafe.
Who are they kidding?
From : smh.com.au
Airport grounds safety-checks ad
By Joseph Kerr and AAP
September 9 2002
Sydney Airport has banned an advertising billboard that could have raised passenger fears about air safety just before the September 11 anniversary.
The ad, saying "Would you get on a plane without it having a safety check?", was designed to create awareness of aircraft engineers' concerns about future regulatory changes.
Under the Civil Aviation Safety Authority plan, licensed engineers would no longer have to check aircraft for every flight. However, a spokesman for Sydney Airport said the ad had been rejected because "the subject material ... could have caused increased anxiety about safety and security amongst the travelling public".
"The timing was completely inappropriate as it was scheduled to go up close to the anniversary of September 11."
[mostly irrelevant section about bag screening omitted]
Meanwhile, the national secretary of the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association, David Kemp, said the safety billboards were designed to draw attention to plans to downgrade the role of licensed engineers, who had years of training.
"If the airports are serious about not alarming the public they should be publicly opposing the ... proposal rather than trying to censor our campaign," Mr Kemp said.
Under the new safety plans licensed engineers would still check planes before and after each day's flights.
But pilots would be given additional training to allow them to do the work when the plane was on the ground.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bindook, the ALAEA is not trying to "kid" anyone. Maybe they are the only union who has the balls to stand up to CASA and the operators in an issue that every paying passenger has the right to know about.
It is not an "industrial issue". Airlines will always require LAMEs to rectify and service aircraft, unless of course CASA deems it safe for wheel barrow salesmen to do that job.
The ALAEA is seriously concerned that the proposed regulation changes will lower the standard of safety the travelling public of Australia currently enjoys. No hidden agendas, no industrial concerns, simply the safety issue.
Quote: "In a move that smacks of desperation, the LAMEÂ’s union has now chosen to try to intimidate the paying passengers with a misleading scare campaign."
Sometimes adequate education in the public arena can be intimidating. I am glad they are educating the public, God knows the public deserves to know about it. I am positive the airlines won't tell them that the aircraft they are about to board hasn't been checked by a LAME.
Think about this issue from another angle. What if the LAMEs didnt make a big deal about this. Say the regs were changed and no-one cared. Then what happens if an accident occurred. What do you think the public would say? In the wash up I am quite sure serious questions would be asked as to why a LAME didn't check the aircraft and then watch the silent unions, the unthinking regulator and the cash filled airlines run for cover. They would all be blaming each other for the situation and who ends up suffering....Johnny Public ....thats who!!!!!
Why change a situation simply to change. It is currently boardering on unsafe, why legalise a less safe set of regs simply so the airlines can make more money.
I just hope the ALAEA wins this arguement and we never ever find out just how many lives a cost driven regulation really costs.
It is not an "industrial issue". Airlines will always require LAMEs to rectify and service aircraft, unless of course CASA deems it safe for wheel barrow salesmen to do that job.
The ALAEA is seriously concerned that the proposed regulation changes will lower the standard of safety the travelling public of Australia currently enjoys. No hidden agendas, no industrial concerns, simply the safety issue.
Quote: "In a move that smacks of desperation, the LAMEÂ’s union has now chosen to try to intimidate the paying passengers with a misleading scare campaign."
Sometimes adequate education in the public arena can be intimidating. I am glad they are educating the public, God knows the public deserves to know about it. I am positive the airlines won't tell them that the aircraft they are about to board hasn't been checked by a LAME.
Think about this issue from another angle. What if the LAMEs didnt make a big deal about this. Say the regs were changed and no-one cared. Then what happens if an accident occurred. What do you think the public would say? In the wash up I am quite sure serious questions would be asked as to why a LAME didn't check the aircraft and then watch the silent unions, the unthinking regulator and the cash filled airlines run for cover. They would all be blaming each other for the situation and who ends up suffering....Johnny Public ....thats who!!!!!
Why change a situation simply to change. It is currently boardering on unsafe, why legalise a less safe set of regs simply so the airlines can make more money.
I just hope the ALAEA wins this arguement and we never ever find out just how many lives a cost driven regulation really costs.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTB
I'd like to say great post...but some on this forum would say that would be industrial bias/pressure.
And this after '89. Talk about double standards. At least the ALAEA issue is safety.
And as for
... the term soft cocks comes to mind...I seem to recall gravy mumbling something along those lines earlier in the thread...maybe he's on to something?
I'd like to say great post...but some on this forum would say that would be industrial bias/pressure.
And this after '89. Talk about double standards. At least the ALAEA issue is safety.
And as for
The pilots and their various unions
Who else is doing this?
BIK:
I am very surprised to hear this. I guess that I am only familiar with my "Outside Australia" airline, and can verify that it doesn't happen here.
Can anyone put any names to airlines that have already established such a precedent?
Outside Australia, appropriately trained and authorised pilots conduct pre-departure inspections on airline jets thousands of times each day.
Can anyone put any names to airlines that have already established such a precedent?
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlexibleResponse,
There is no requirement under JAR-OPS or JAR-145 for a licensed engineer to inspect an aircraft before each and every flight.
There is a requirement for the aircraft to be inspected prior to each flight (a pre-departure inspection) but this can be done by a suitably trained and appropriately authorised pilot.
Under some approved systems of maintenance there is a "daily" or "72 hour" inspection which must be conducted by a licensed engineer.
I don't propose to list airlines here. I did attempt to send you an email, but your profile says you don't wish to receive them. Your choice I guess.
In the European airlines I am familiar with it would be unusual for an aircraft to fly more than two or three sectors without having a pre-departure inspection done by a licensed engineer.
Usually, when an aircraft passes through a company maintenance base the pre-departure inspection will be carried out by a licensed engineer. When away from a maintenance base the pre-departure inspection will be carried out by an appropriately trained and authorised pilot.
Sometimes a pilot will conduct the pre-departure inspection even at a company maintenance base if all the licensed engineers are otherwise engaged - eg on AOG work.
I am not aware of any safety issues arising from having suitably trained and appropriately authorised pilots conducting pre-departure inspections.
There is no requirement under JAR-OPS or JAR-145 for a licensed engineer to inspect an aircraft before each and every flight.
There is a requirement for the aircraft to be inspected prior to each flight (a pre-departure inspection) but this can be done by a suitably trained and appropriately authorised pilot.
Under some approved systems of maintenance there is a "daily" or "72 hour" inspection which must be conducted by a licensed engineer.
I don't propose to list airlines here. I did attempt to send you an email, but your profile says you don't wish to receive them. Your choice I guess.
In the European airlines I am familiar with it would be unusual for an aircraft to fly more than two or three sectors without having a pre-departure inspection done by a licensed engineer.
Usually, when an aircraft passes through a company maintenance base the pre-departure inspection will be carried out by a licensed engineer. When away from a maintenance base the pre-departure inspection will be carried out by an appropriately trained and authorised pilot.
Sometimes a pilot will conduct the pre-departure inspection even at a company maintenance base if all the licensed engineers are otherwise engaged - eg on AOG work.
I am not aware of any safety issues arising from having suitably trained and appropriately authorised pilots conducting pre-departure inspections.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not aware of any safety issues arising from having suitably trained and appropriately authorised pilots conducting pre-departure inspections.
A perfect example of the ignorant leading the gullible.
JAR 145 has nothing to do with when maintenance is called up - that is under the control of the operator which as BIK suggested is JAR-OPS or FAR121. A JAR145 simply provides the infrastructure and the QUALIFIED personnel to carry out maintenance - of which the transit/preflight inspection is but a small part.
And whilst we are discussing JARs, a quote from TGL 6: Definition of Line Maintenance:
JAR-145 Section 2 para 3.2.2. states:
"For the purpose of the AMCs/IEMs, line maintenance, sometimes referred to as light maintenance, generally consists of pre-flight , daily, weekly, A Check and B Check."
Last edited by AN LAME; 12th Sep 2002 at 10:18.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very sad to see that we are back to that again, IF it is good enough for the rest of the World, it should be good enough for Australia. 
Australia has always LED the World in Aviation Safety, why do WE have to be dragged down to the lowest level now.
People are quoting what is "good enough" in other Countries, I take it these are obviously foreign registered Aircraft?
With an Australian registered Aircraft operating off shore, as an example the numerous AWAS Aircraft that used to be wet leased out, a local LAME trained by AWAS always does each turnround OR an AWAS LAME goes with the Aircraft to do it.
Why on Earth do we have to reduce our safety standards to the lowest common denominator just to save a few dollars.
Australia has always LED the World in Aviation Safety, why do WE have to be dragged down to the lowest level now.
People are quoting what is "good enough" in other Countries, I take it these are obviously foreign registered Aircraft?
With an Australian registered Aircraft operating off shore, as an example the numerous AWAS Aircraft that used to be wet leased out, a local LAME trained by AWAS always does each turnround OR an AWAS LAME goes with the Aircraft to do it.
Why on Earth do we have to reduce our safety standards to the lowest common denominator just to save a few dollars.
Give Pilots Engineering Training?
BIK
What training package would you recommend and who would you recommend be empowered and responsible for issuing such authorisation?
I am not aware of any safety issues arising from having suitably trained and appropriately authorised pilots conducting pre-departure inspections.
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlexibleResponse,
In the ICAO jurisdictions I am familiar with, pre-departure inspection training must be carried out in accordance with an approved syllabus, as authorised by the national regulatory authority, and must be conducted by an “approved person”.
In the organisations I am familiar with the training is conducted by a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer, who must be licensed on type. If the trainees are pilots then they must be rated on type and must have flown the aircraft. The LAME who conducts the training certifies each trainee’s successful completion of the course. The trainee is then authorised to conduct and certify pre-departure inspections for that aircraft type.
airsupport,
I am interested in your statement that “Australia has always LED the World in Aviation Safety…”. Upon what do you base that assertion?
It seems to me that Australia has enjoyed a relatively low number of airline jet accidents, which is in line with the relatively small number of flights (when viewed in the context of the global industry). The generally very benign Australian weather conditions and topography are also a major factor.
I would be interested if you would refer to accident rates in your response.
When you say “…why do WE have to be dragged down to the lowest level now.” I start to get a bit worried. To me, that seems to sound a bit like the kind of “could never happen to us” superiority attitude that prevailed at a well-known Australian airline just before they had to take a drop ball and incur a two-shot penalty.
In the ICAO jurisdictions I am familiar with, pre-departure inspection training must be carried out in accordance with an approved syllabus, as authorised by the national regulatory authority, and must be conducted by an “approved person”.
In the organisations I am familiar with the training is conducted by a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer, who must be licensed on type. If the trainees are pilots then they must be rated on type and must have flown the aircraft. The LAME who conducts the training certifies each trainee’s successful completion of the course. The trainee is then authorised to conduct and certify pre-departure inspections for that aircraft type.
airsupport,
I am interested in your statement that “Australia has always LED the World in Aviation Safety…”. Upon what do you base that assertion?
It seems to me that Australia has enjoyed a relatively low number of airline jet accidents, which is in line with the relatively small number of flights (when viewed in the context of the global industry). The generally very benign Australian weather conditions and topography are also a major factor.
I would be interested if you would refer to accident rates in your response.
When you say “…why do WE have to be dragged down to the lowest level now.” I start to get a bit worried. To me, that seems to sound a bit like the kind of “could never happen to us” superiority attitude that prevailed at a well-known Australian airline just before they had to take a drop ball and incur a two-shot penalty.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was of course, as no doubt you realised 
, talking about Aviation Safety from an Engineering point of view. 
While good weather and lack of mountains would help Pilots, neither have much affect on Engineering Safety.
With your comment about "never happen to us", you have also confirmed MY view of this ridiculous proposal.
Boeing, Airbus and the Airlines are saying that these modern Aircraft do not need so much maintenance, and some Pilots (obviously including you) blindly accept that. If that is not "it will never happen to us" then I don't know what is.
, talking about Aviation Safety from an Engineering point of view. While good weather and lack of mountains would help Pilots, neither have much affect on Engineering Safety.
With your comment about "never happen to us", you have also confirmed MY view of this ridiculous proposal.
Boeing, Airbus and the Airlines are saying that these modern Aircraft do not need so much maintenance, and some Pilots (obviously including you) blindly accept that. If that is not "it will never happen to us" then I don't know what is.
Why is this necessary?
Its comforting to see that you recommend that Pilots be trained and licenced to conduct these checks and I presume signing the "Release for Flight" approval in the Aircraft Maintenance Log. I guess it will raise some rather interesting questions regarding deferred defects and continuing MEL/CDL items that require inspection for change or deterioration on a sector by sector basis.
One still has to ask the qustion "Why is this necessary?"
One still has to ask the qustion "Why is this necessary?"
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is this necessary?
The reason, and there is ONLY one reason, is to save money.
Sadly now, more than ever before, saving money is the number one priority, NOT safety.
The reason, and there is ONLY one reason, is to save money.
Sadly now, more than ever before, saving money is the number one priority, NOT safety.
