VB cutting corners on safety?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VB cutting corners on safety?
Have learnt that VirginBlue have put out an FCON to the crews stating that engineers will not be doing a preflight on the B737 NG's effective 20th Jan.
Is this going against the international standard that requires a licenced engineer to inspect an aircraft at each major port before the next flight? The pilots are not happy with losing the experience of an engineer checking their aircraft before flight and i am sure the passengers on board would like to know the aircraft was checked/cleared by an engineer before being released for flight.
Is this being done just to save money by reducing the number of engineers at the expense of safety?
Is this going against the international standard that requires a licenced engineer to inspect an aircraft at each major port before the next flight? The pilots are not happy with losing the experience of an engineer checking their aircraft before flight and i am sure the passengers on board would like to know the aircraft was checked/cleared by an engineer before being released for flight.
Is this being done just to save money by reducing the number of engineers at the expense of safety?
Tiga, it is important to get the FULL story before making statements.
It is my understanding from an engineer, that Casa has given the same approval ALSO to the red Rat in the following cases. "Where transit time is less than 4 hours" an engineers signature for a preflight inspection is not required. I further understand that the engineers intend to continue signing the preflight to cover their own butt!!
Yes, I am concerned that the airlines are trying to reduce preflight inspections of aircraft, but it is even more concerning that CASA is approving these moves!!
It is my understanding from an engineer, that Casa has given the same approval ALSO to the red Rat in the following cases. "Where transit time is less than 4 hours" an engineers signature for a preflight inspection is not required. I further understand that the engineers intend to continue signing the preflight to cover their own butt!!
Yes, I am concerned that the airlines are trying to reduce preflight inspections of aircraft, but it is even more concerning that CASA is approving these moves!!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Home Brew has a few good points but just remember that when airlines like QF go to ports in WA such as Broome,Kalgoorlie etc there are no ground engineers.
Im sure when they get to a port with an engineer that the aircraft would be seen to.
Even Virgin arent that cheap (yet,I hope!)
Im sure when they get to a port with an engineer that the aircraft would be seen to.
Even Virgin arent that cheap (yet,I hope!)
Virgin currently fly to many "regional" ports throughout Australia on short turnarounds, where there are no engineering facilities. In these cases, the tech crew do the pre-flight and any possible unserviceabilities found are reported to ops who then organise engineering to fly out to check it if it is a problem of a serious nature...
tiga...are you a professional fisherman?
Perhaps you could quote this international standard?
What you mean like the Daily Inspection?
Please define MAJOR port.
Is this going against the international standard that requires a licenced engineer to inspect an aircraft at each major port before the next flight?
and i am sure the passengers on board would like to know the aircraft was checked/cleared by an engineer before being released for flight.
at each major port before the next flight?
tiga you may not be aware that pilot certification of aircraft including jets on turnarounds and transits is now very common.
The alternative for some operators is to pay approx. US$350-600 at each stop.
The alternative for some operators is to pay approx. US$350-600 at each stop.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This matter was raised on this forum some months ago and generated considerable debate.
B772
Pilots cannot certify Return to Service. They may carry out a Flight Manual Inspection but there is no certification from a maintenance perspective
The safety issue of whether VB or the red rat will be able to remove engineers from the tarmac is still being vigorously debated as part of the Regulatory Reform Program. VB (and to a great extent QF) are simply trying to jump the gun to set precedent. And , as contrasted with what happens in Regional Centres, they are hell bent on removing the LAME from tarmac - everywhere! If you blokes, as pilots, aren't happy with this then make comment to CASA or your representative body.
The ONLY reason is as tiga first suggested - to save money
B772
Pilots cannot certify Return to Service. They may carry out a Flight Manual Inspection but there is no certification from a maintenance perspective
The safety issue of whether VB or the red rat will be able to remove engineers from the tarmac is still being vigorously debated as part of the Regulatory Reform Program. VB (and to a great extent QF) are simply trying to jump the gun to set precedent. And , as contrasted with what happens in Regional Centres, they are hell bent on removing the LAME from tarmac - everywhere! If you blokes, as pilots, aren't happy with this then make comment to CASA or your representative body.
The ONLY reason is as tiga first suggested - to save money
Last edited by AN LAME; 20th Jan 2003 at 08:25.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AN LAME...Well done. Could not agree more.
This is a cost cutting exercise and a subtle way of transferring more responsibility onto the Flight crew (without the appropriate training or renummeration).
Minor ports were allowed to be without Engineering support using the logic that transit checks through major ports would be good enough. Now the object is to remove Engineering from major ports and expect the flight crew to operate the A/C in isolation.
I was brought up to believe that Pilots fly planes and Engineers maintain them. If your NOT happy about this situation have your say....before its too late.
Have a look at the following link as well:
http://www.theaviationforum.com/NonC...ML/000040.html
This is a cost cutting exercise and a subtle way of transferring more responsibility onto the Flight crew (without the appropriate training or renummeration).
Minor ports were allowed to be without Engineering support using the logic that transit checks through major ports would be good enough. Now the object is to remove Engineering from major ports and expect the flight crew to operate the A/C in isolation.
I was brought up to believe that Pilots fly planes and Engineers maintain them. If your NOT happy about this situation have your say....before its too late.
Have a look at the following link as well:
http://www.theaviationforum.com/NonC...ML/000040.html
Last edited by Oz Geek; 21st Jan 2003 at 00:18.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yawnnn.........Get with the times my dear people. Boeings are designed to be preflighted by pilots. Sure, you have a problem or see something you don't like, call an engineer. Smacks of the old days when people in this country thought you needed a flight engineer on a 767. 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winstun....your apathy noted.
Boeings may be manufactured to be preflighted by pilots (an opinion, at best, that I'm not too sure will stand up in a court of law) but are pilots made to preflight Boeings??
And sure, call an Engineer when you have a problem...if they are still available on the line for you. This is the typical reactive response to maintenance operations as a whole....
What happens if the pilot on his pre flight (having done the Boeing Pilot Pre Flight course) notices a hydraulic leak that is within limits (because you have looked up the MM - which is of course available to you)???
Do you ignore it and wait until it fails providing someone else with the cost of the delay or do you write it in the A/C log so that the Tech specialists know there is a problem, can order parts, can organise tooling and down time at an appropriate port before it fails. Unfortunately once a pilot notes this in the log a LAME must certify the A/Cs release as it is a maintenance function under CARs. Remove the LAME from the system and this proactive response to airline operations is unavailable.
The type of operation without Engineering support can potentially lead to defects reported by word of mouth or on scrap bits of paper at the end of a shift. An efficient operation must have Air crew and Ground crew working together looking at the big picture...maybe an expansion of the Crew Resource Management logic should be looked at for airline operators.
As for the B767 quip....maybe we should have kept the Engineer and removed a pilot?? I wonder if your apathy would have been so apparent then.
Boeings may be manufactured to be preflighted by pilots (an opinion, at best, that I'm not too sure will stand up in a court of law) but are pilots made to preflight Boeings??
And sure, call an Engineer when you have a problem...if they are still available on the line for you. This is the typical reactive response to maintenance operations as a whole....
What happens if the pilot on his pre flight (having done the Boeing Pilot Pre Flight course) notices a hydraulic leak that is within limits (because you have looked up the MM - which is of course available to you)???
Do you ignore it and wait until it fails providing someone else with the cost of the delay or do you write it in the A/C log so that the Tech specialists know there is a problem, can order parts, can organise tooling and down time at an appropriate port before it fails. Unfortunately once a pilot notes this in the log a LAME must certify the A/Cs release as it is a maintenance function under CARs. Remove the LAME from the system and this proactive response to airline operations is unavailable.
The type of operation without Engineering support can potentially lead to defects reported by word of mouth or on scrap bits of paper at the end of a shift. An efficient operation must have Air crew and Ground crew working together looking at the big picture...maybe an expansion of the Crew Resource Management logic should be looked at for airline operators.
As for the B767 quip....maybe we should have kept the Engineer and removed a pilot?? I wonder if your apathy would have been so apparent then.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go again.
How on Earth can an Aircraft be designed to be preflighted by a Pilot, instead of an Engineer?
PLEASE EXPLAIN.
You may as well say that these Aircraft are designed to be flown normally on autopilot, usually three of them, so why do we need two other Pilots as well.
Don't tell me, I KNOW what you are going to say.........
The two Pilots are there in case something goes wrong, and one or both of them might have to actually fly the Aircraft, right.
Oddly enough, I always thought that was ONE of the many reasons that the LAMEs were there, just in case.
How on Earth can an Aircraft be designed to be preflighted by a Pilot, instead of an Engineer?
PLEASE EXPLAIN. You may as well say that these Aircraft are designed to be flown normally on autopilot, usually three of them, so why do we need two other Pilots as well.
Don't tell me, I KNOW what you are going to say.........
The two Pilots are there in case something goes wrong, and one or both of them might have to actually fly the Aircraft, right.
Oddly enough, I always thought that was ONE of the many reasons that the LAMEs were there, just in case.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the B767 quip....maybe we should have kept the Engineer and removed a pilot?? I wonder if your apathy would have been so apparent then.
Smacks of the old days when people in this country thought you needed a flight engineer on a 767.
Apparently, if Boeing design an aircraft such that it soes not require a preflight, they also supply a bubble for the aircraft to fly and taxi around in so that nothing outside THEIR design standard can a) hit the aircraft; b) be hit by the aircraft; c) be ingested by the aircraft's engine(s).
Winstun, whilst your apathy has been noted, don't mistake that for excused. It's cowboys like yourself who lead to situations where scraps of paper ARE the Maintenance log because you accepted the responsibility of someone whom you had absolutely no competence to replace.You then wonder why there is no-one there when something does go wrong and you don't have the qualifications to assess the aircraft airworthiness nor rectify any discrepancies.
I am curious. How would you propose to carry out a maintenance preflight in the standard 35 minute turnaround on a B737, taking into account the current heavy workload of both Tech Crew?
Thankfully I believe you are in the minority. And as I said in an earlier post, if you're not happy about it, complain to CASA, your representative body and your employer.
Last edited by AN LAME; 22nd Jan 2003 at 09:38.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day. I do not wish to enter into the debate, but can someone enlighten me on a rumour I have heard:
Do VB carry an engineer with them from BNE-DWN flights as there isn't one based in Darwin?
No disrespect to VB intended, I just wanted to know. Cheers,
NFR.
Edited for poor spelling!
Do VB carry an engineer with them from BNE-DWN flights as there isn't one based in Darwin?
No disrespect to VB intended, I just wanted to know. Cheers,
NFR.
Edited for poor spelling!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, I'm not apathetic nor a cowboy. Pilots DO have the qualifications to assess aircraft airworthiness. Happens everyday in the US with several thousand airliners. Why do pilots do a walkaround, if not? To strech their legs? I'm not inplying you don't need LAMEs. Pilots DO NOT have the qualifications to rectify any discrepencies (unless MEL specified/allowed). Big difference. You notice a hydaulic leak, you call a LAME. One not available at port, you phone a LAME and get advice. Still concerned, you don't fly. Satisfied and within MEL limits, of course you write it up. Aircraft can be released without a LAME signature per MEL relief. I respect the technical/engineering knowledge/experience of LAMEs in relation to pilots. However their job is to maintain/repair aircraft, not to preflight. That can be done safely by the pilot. Sure you can say, it's safer with a LAME. You can say it's safer done by a LAME with 20 years experience more than another with only a few years experience, etc, etc. During pushback, you don't need to be a LAME to make sure aircraft does not hit / ingest anything, etc. It really ain't that hard. Re the 767 F/E, do you know something Boeing and every other 767 operator in the world don't? Please tell.
Last edited by Winstun; 23rd Jan 2003 at 13:51.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With-out stirring up too big a debate,(I know a few will bite)If the engineer is removed from pre-flights (first flight of the day at least)How closely do you expect pilots to do preflights (most tend to look at the maintenance log carefully and glance momentarily at all other areas).I can't say that I've ever seen a pilot checking for life jackets being fitted(yes they do get removed,and not only for maintenance)nor climbing into wheel-wells checking off- wing slide bottle pressures (B767).The list goes on and on and wether it is relevant or not the words "Affordable safety"spring to mind.
If economics isn't the issue What is ??
If economics isn't the issue What is ??
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winstun,
Still waiting on your explanation, how these Aircraft are specifically designed to be preflighted by Pilots, PLEASE PLEASE EXPLAIN.
Nobody here, certainly NOT me, said that Pilots would NOT be ABLE to do it? I could train one of my primary school age Grandsons to DO the preflight, IF he sees something he doesn't like just come and tell Grandad.
This would, much like the Pilot doing it instead of an LAME, be much cheaper for the Airlines, however I for one would argue that it was definitely NOT as SAFE.
The vast majority of Captains that I have worked with over some 40 years in the Industry, do NOT want to do this. They prefer an LAME to do the preflight (as well as their own preflight). WHY??? Because it is SAFER.
Best regards,
airsupport
Still waiting on your explanation, how these Aircraft are specifically designed to be preflighted by Pilots, PLEASE PLEASE EXPLAIN.
Nobody here, certainly NOT me, said that Pilots would NOT be ABLE to do it? I could train one of my primary school age Grandsons to DO the preflight, IF he sees something he doesn't like just come and tell Grandad.
This would, much like the Pilot doing it instead of an LAME, be much cheaper for the Airlines, however I for one would argue that it was definitely NOT as SAFE.
The vast majority of Captains that I have worked with over some 40 years in the Industry, do NOT want to do this. They prefer an LAME to do the preflight (as well as their own preflight). WHY??? Because it is SAFER.
Best regards,
airsupport
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: back in europe
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winstun,
You are a goose mate.
If you think that you can replace the years of training and experience that a Licensed engineer brings to work each day then you are in lala land.
I have operated the B767 all around the world for the last 15yrs. There have been many, many situations where the only reason we have been able to dispatch has been the presence of a licenced engineer - not an AME with dispatch quals.
Despite my length of service on type, I still come across technical situations which are beyond my knowledge. Modern jet transports are complicated beasts, and as pilots we effectively are only told what we 'need to know' to operate the aircraft in flight and when under our control on the ground.
I have commented on VB previously on this forum, but as ever, QF is not far behind in cost inititives that erode safety margins.
All professional pilots should offer their support to the ALAEA in their efforts to stop the airlines doing away with LAME's in areas where they presently exist.
rgs
FS
You are a goose mate.
If you think that you can replace the years of training and experience that a Licensed engineer brings to work each day then you are in lala land.
I have operated the B767 all around the world for the last 15yrs. There have been many, many situations where the only reason we have been able to dispatch has been the presence of a licenced engineer - not an AME with dispatch quals.
Despite my length of service on type, I still come across technical situations which are beyond my knowledge. Modern jet transports are complicated beasts, and as pilots we effectively are only told what we 'need to know' to operate the aircraft in flight and when under our control on the ground.
I have commented on VB previously on this forum, but as ever, QF is not far behind in cost inititives that erode safety margins.
All professional pilots should offer their support to the ALAEA in their efforts to stop the airlines doing away with LAME's in areas where they presently exist.
rgs
FS