Engineers slam Virgin on safety
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Gibson said the latest surveillance found pilots on some flights had been rushing the checks and cutting corners, although there was no evidence this had resulted in any safety incidents or risks.
BIK
Could you answer two questions for me? Why does an International flight require a LAME certified maintenance preflight Inspection but a Domestic Flight does not? And why are you advocating two different levels of safety?
By the way, if the ALAEA is ' an unscrupulpous and aggressive union', what does that make the AMWU, or the TWU or dare I say it, an employee group in this same industry some 14 years ago?
AN LAME
M8 ithink you may need to chill a bit and maybe catch up with the times. Unfortunately it looks as if theres not much you or anyone can do to change Boeing and/or CASA mind on this except to make sure that pilots are being more vigulant in the future. By the way what airline in the world are actually employing full time monkeys to fly these days anyway!! Wakeup and have a banna!!!
M8 ithink you may need to chill a bit and maybe catch up with the times. Unfortunately it looks as if theres not much you or anyone can do to change Boeing and/or CASA mind on this except to make sure that pilots are being more vigulant in the future. By the way what airline in the world are actually employing full time monkeys to fly these days anyway!! Wakeup and have a banna!!!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Downunder
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While doing a walkaround on a 737, the engineer doing his walk around spotted that 2 of the N1 blades had overlapped and locked together. As the engine was windmilling quite quickly, I had to ask how the hell he could tell that, and I was shown by the engineer that where the blades were stuck together there was a very small gap and you could see it "flash" as they rotated past. Until then I would never have picked that up, how many other drivers of any rank would pick that up?
How often are we shown those Swiss cheese models about how accidents happen? These guys are trained to do their job like we are trained to do ours. Removing them from the equation is like pulling out a layer of that block of Swiss cheese. It might not be the contributing factor to an accident but it sure as hell reduces the defenses against an occurrence.
One last thought. If you as captain sign the return to service, and consequently something happens (be it an accident or something falling off the jet) and people are hurt, I would think that the first person that the injured parties legal team will come after will be the person who signed the return to service. Oh and I'm sure that the company would stand behind the Captain as well......probably way behind.
How often are we shown those Swiss cheese models about how accidents happen? These guys are trained to do their job like we are trained to do ours. Removing them from the equation is like pulling out a layer of that block of Swiss cheese. It might not be the contributing factor to an accident but it sure as hell reduces the defenses against an occurrence.
One last thought. If you as captain sign the return to service, and consequently something happens (be it an accident or something falling off the jet) and people are hurt, I would think that the first person that the injured parties legal team will come after will be the person who signed the return to service. Oh and I'm sure that the company would stand behind the Captain as well......probably way behind.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIK.....,
As I said earlier, people are quoting Boeing as the source for this who does what, so I posted verbatim from Boeing's web site.
Boeing point out that ALL these inspections are done by "maintenance crews".
Any reasonable person would realise that a member of the "maintenance crew" would be a maintenance person, be they Licenced or Unlicenced.
Assuming that you are a Pilot, you MUST be the ONLY Pilot I have heard of in over 40 years in the Industry, that WANTS to be called part of the "maintenance crew". 
IF you are the least serious, I sincerely hope you are soon given the same pay and conditions as the rest of the "maintenance crew".
airsupport.
As I said earlier, people are quoting Boeing as the source for this who does what, so I posted verbatim from Boeing's web site.
Boeing point out that ALL these inspections are done by "maintenance crews".
Any reasonable person would realise that a member of the "maintenance crew" would be a maintenance person, be they Licenced or Unlicenced.
Assuming that you are a Pilot, you MUST be the ONLY Pilot I have heard of in over 40 years in the Industry, that WANTS to be called part of the "maintenance crew".
IF you are the least serious, I sincerely hope you are soon given the same pay and conditions as the rest of the "maintenance crew".
airsupport.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Qld Aust
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it everytime a LAME makes any comment about the differences in the professions of Aircrew and Licenced Engineers that the old "Sour Grapes" trash gets dug out. I certainly would prefer a trained specialist to give my machine the OK to fly than a quick look around at it myself. Most engineers are not disgruntled individuals who always wanted to fly and this was second best but chose the profession they are in. It really shows the insecurity of certain aircrew when they dig up this furfie. Just maybe some pilots were not good enough to be engineers so they became pilots. Pilots fly aeroplanes and Engineers fix and maintain them. It is as simple as that.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Pole Vaulter, if you are a Pilot and don't mind being called a trained monkey, then more power to ya, I personally don't like it.
This whole post has been going down the road of how superior engineers are, I'm surprised no one else picked it up ( if you want quotes, I'll go back through the thread and find them all )
I'm sick of hearing this crap about how long it takes to becomne an engineer blah. blah, blah. Both jobs require some degree of skill and intelligence, and there are bad eggs in both positions.
At the end of the day, we are the ones that have to take those crates into the sky, while the engineers sit safely on the ground.
Speak to the captain of the Sioux city DC10 about the superiority of engineers ( trying to cut corners ).
At the end of the day, if our job is so easy ( trained monkey ) for the money, then the ones whinging about it can go and become pilots, it is after all a free country.
Oh, and just on the topic of the thread, the airline I flew for did hundreds of turnarounds a week at remote ports with no engineers ( RPT jet ) with no major incidents ( related to the turnarounds ) in 10 years. That is not to say that an A/C was never grounded at an outport, that happened a bit.
This whole post has been going down the road of how superior engineers are, I'm surprised no one else picked it up ( if you want quotes, I'll go back through the thread and find them all )
I'm sick of hearing this crap about how long it takes to becomne an engineer blah. blah, blah. Both jobs require some degree of skill and intelligence, and there are bad eggs in both positions.
At the end of the day, we are the ones that have to take those crates into the sky, while the engineers sit safely on the ground.
Speak to the captain of the Sioux city DC10 about the superiority of engineers ( trying to cut corners ).
At the end of the day, if our job is so easy ( trained monkey ) for the money, then the ones whinging about it can go and become pilots, it is after all a free country.
Oh, and just on the topic of the thread, the airline I flew for did hundreds of turnarounds a week at remote ports with no engineers ( RPT jet ) with no major incidents ( related to the turnarounds ) in 10 years. That is not to say that an A/C was never grounded at an outport, that happened a bit.
OK, lets look at maintenance in general.
The ALAEA says it is dangerous for pilots to do walkarounds - fair enough - it is a free world and they are entitled to their opinion.
I say that having car mechanics working as AME's doing heavy maintenance on aeroplanes under the supervision of one or two LAME's is dangerous. But funnily enough the ALAEA don't make a public outcry about that.
The whole "LAME is better than a pilot" thing is a little lame (pardon the pun) when you consider the "unsafe" practices that engineers get up to.
I have seen a team of AME's working on an aeroplane under going heavy maintenance with the two supervising LAME's signing work cards for work that they had never been near.
I have seen guys do a walkaround (not a daily) on a transit, come up onto the flight deck and get the log, and go off and get a properly licenced engineer to sign it - even though that licenced engineer had not even seen the aeroplane.
If we are going to slag each other off, maybe we should have a bit of balance.
We don't get a bloke with a private pilots licence to fly as co-pilots - we have at least two properly trained and endorsed pilots operating the machine. If we were to follow the LAME/AME style of setup we would have the Captain as the licenced guy and the co-pilot as the AME.
Maybe the AFAP should start a scare campaign about AME's
It would be as much about safety as the ALAEA's current campaign
The ALAEA says it is dangerous for pilots to do walkarounds - fair enough - it is a free world and they are entitled to their opinion.
I say that having car mechanics working as AME's doing heavy maintenance on aeroplanes under the supervision of one or two LAME's is dangerous. But funnily enough the ALAEA don't make a public outcry about that.
The whole "LAME is better than a pilot" thing is a little lame (pardon the pun) when you consider the "unsafe" practices that engineers get up to.
I have seen a team of AME's working on an aeroplane under going heavy maintenance with the two supervising LAME's signing work cards for work that they had never been near.
I have seen guys do a walkaround (not a daily) on a transit, come up onto the flight deck and get the log, and go off and get a properly licenced engineer to sign it - even though that licenced engineer had not even seen the aeroplane.
If we are going to slag each other off, maybe we should have a bit of balance.
We don't get a bloke with a private pilots licence to fly as co-pilots - we have at least two properly trained and endorsed pilots operating the machine. If we were to follow the LAME/AME style of setup we would have the Captain as the licenced guy and the co-pilot as the AME.
Maybe the AFAP should start a scare campaign about AME's
It would be as much about safety as the ALAEA's current campaign
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Pole Vaulter said, it's simply amazing how whenever an Engineer states that they are more appropriately qualified to do something in aviation, that some pilots take it as a personal affront.
But for those morons out there who have never heard of the saying 'You can teach a monkey to ride a bike but you can't teach him to fix it', it is a light hearted dig. If your IQ level isn't up to a bit of humour... don't read. Money ain't everything and from what I hear from the more rational of you lot, an ATPL career can be as exciting as watching paint dry - and hopefully a LAME somewhere has helped it to be that way, i.e. providing you with a safe machine!
But for those morons out there who have never heard of the saying 'You can teach a monkey to ride a bike but you can't teach him to fix it', it is a light hearted dig. If your IQ level isn't up to a bit of humour... don't read. Money ain't everything and from what I hear from the more rational of you lot, an ATPL career can be as exciting as watching paint dry - and hopefully a LAME somewhere has helped it to be that way, i.e. providing you with a safe machine!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take it by the way this thread has turned nasty, that you Pilots have conceded losing the debate.
There is NO doubt whatever that the best person to do Engineering work is an Engineer.
Equally true, the best person to do the Piloting is a Pilot.
The best and safest way to do preflights is to have two independent preflights, one by a Pilot and one by an Engineer.
I wish I had a dollar for every time I have heard Pilots say on long flights that they are bored stiff, as AN LAME pointed out, this is due in a large part to the work of the Engineers.
Also the uncalled for comments about Engineers shows just how much some of you know about it. An appropriately Licenced LAME does NOT HAVE to actually do the work himself/herself, they could be looking after several Aircraft at the same time (unlike a Pilot)however he/she takes the responsibility.
There is NO doubt whatever that the best person to do Engineering work is an Engineer.
Equally true, the best person to do the Piloting is a Pilot.
The best and safest way to do preflights is to have two independent preflights, one by a Pilot and one by an Engineer.
I wish I had a dollar for every time I have heard Pilots say on long flights that they are bored stiff, as AN LAME pointed out, this is due in a large part to the work of the Engineers.
Also the uncalled for comments about Engineers shows just how much some of you know about it. An appropriately Licenced LAME does NOT HAVE to actually do the work himself/herself, they could be looking after several Aircraft at the same time (unlike a Pilot)however he/she takes the responsibility.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For I'm with stupid re; Sioux City, as far as I can remember the fault in the disc was there since manufacture and not something visible to the naked eye, all the walkrounds in the world by engineers or flt crew would never have picked this up. However the captain of said aircraft was probably eternally grateful that the systems he did have left worked which I feel I must point out were and are mainted by engineers on deeper work than a walkround. It could have been a lot worse but some times "luck" is on your side, and yes I do remember people died.
We as engineers are in our job to maintain your and the aircraft's safety, I'm not a frustrated driver, in fact I'm rather proud of what I do. Having spent numerous flights in the jump seat I believe I picked the more interesting career. Every day is different.
On the other hand I'm eternally grateful to you lot for getting me to the beach twice a year and home again, and no doubt I'll sing your praises even higher if one day the aircraft I'm in is landed safely in an emergency.
Both sides play a part, however I still believe each of us are specialists in our own department. I don't tell you guys how to fly, so don't tell me what is an acceptable level of maintenance.
We as engineers are in our job to maintain your and the aircraft's safety, I'm not a frustrated driver, in fact I'm rather proud of what I do. Having spent numerous flights in the jump seat I believe I picked the more interesting career. Every day is different.
On the other hand I'm eternally grateful to you lot for getting me to the beach twice a year and home again, and no doubt I'll sing your praises even higher if one day the aircraft I'm in is landed safely in an emergency.
Both sides play a part, however I still believe each of us are specialists in our own department. I don't tell you guys how to fly, so don't tell me what is an acceptable level of maintenance.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Surely we are only talking about pilot transit checks, which may involve removing/installing the U/C pins - way back when we used to do this in the old F-27 at all out stations - I don't think there is any suggestion of pilots taking to the beast with sleeves rolled up and spanners at the ready, just of pilots doing what they have always been required to do, ie, a pre-flight which may for a first flight of the day or transit or prolonged turn around where the acft is towed and the APU shutdown/restarted require one or two additional items, all within the crews competence and authority to do. Some colleagues of mine were flying for a UK Operator (737's, 767's, 757's) and the crews were required to all the above plus supervise/carry out refuelling and oil checks - I don;t think anyone would suggest the CAA UK was a "lax" aviation authority? "Luddites" is the right word for people who see this as a reduction in "safety".
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am at a loss for words (almost ) to begin to understand how anyone can say that it is NOT a reduction in safety.
We have a system where (at most ports) there are 2 independent preflight inspections carried out on the Aircraft prior to flight.
To change this so that there is ONLY one inspection carried out MUST be LESS safe.
This is NOT, repeat NOT, an anti Pilot thing, it would also be a reduction in safety, and I would still be just as opposed to it, if the Pilot's inspection were done away with and you just had the Engineer's inspection.
It must be safer to have 2 independent inspections.
I have been asked where that Boeing info came from, I guess people don't believe it , although it is a little hard to find.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/safety/flash.html
Go to this link, then you select from a menu, this was something like "maintenance inspections", there are also other things for Pilots and F/As etc.......
) to begin to understand how anyone can say that it is NOT a reduction in safety. We have a system where (at most ports) there are 2 independent preflight inspections carried out on the Aircraft prior to flight.
To change this so that there is ONLY one inspection carried out MUST be LESS safe.
This is NOT, repeat NOT, an anti Pilot thing, it would also be a reduction in safety, and I would still be just as opposed to it, if the Pilot's inspection were done away with and you just had the Engineer's inspection.
It must be safer to have 2 independent inspections.
I have been asked where that Boeing info came from, I guess people don't believe it
, although it is a little hard to find. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/safety/flash.html
Go to this link, then you select from a menu, this was something like "maintenance inspections", there are also other things for Pilots and F/As etc.......
Join Date: May 2000
Location: australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crikey!!
It's not like the cost of transit checks comes out of Pilot's wages!!
What happened to working as a team?? All the crews I work with are fabulous guys and girls, I'd hate to think that this is a superficial cover for all the expressions posted here!!!
K
It's not like the cost of transit checks comes out of Pilot's wages!!
What happened to working as a team?? All the crews I work with are fabulous guys and girls, I'd hate to think that this is a superficial cover for all the expressions posted here!!!
K
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kanga767,
Interesting point, and something I had not thought of previously, about Pilot's wages.
Are the Pilots at Virgin Blue getting any increase in salary or benefits for being the only people doing preflights?
IF they are going to do this, they SHOULD get something for the extra responsibility involved?
As for safety, my Wife and I had to go out for a while this morning, and prior to leaving the house we BOTH went around to make sure all the doors were locked, and the iron and toaster were turned off, also no taps left running etc.
Now obviously just one of us could have done it, and it would have meant a quicker departure, but we thought it was safer for both of us to check everything before departure.
Best regards,
airsupport.
Interesting point, and something I had not thought of previously, about Pilot's wages.
Are the Pilots at Virgin Blue getting any increase in salary or benefits for being the only people doing preflights?
IF they are going to do this, they SHOULD get something for the extra responsibility involved?
As for safety, my Wife and I had to go out for a while this morning, and prior to leaving the house we BOTH went around to make sure all the doors were locked, and the iron and toaster were turned off, also no taps left running etc.
Now obviously just one of us could have done it, and it would have meant a quicker departure, but we thought it was safer for both of us to check everything before departure.
Best regards,
airsupport.
This whole thread is not, or shouldn't be, about whether pilots are monkeys and can or cannot do a preflight inspection.
The whole thing is about the claim that the removal of engineers to do preflight inspections is UNSAFE.
I guess that the first thing to do is have a look at overseas markets and see if any aeroplanes that were not inspected by an engineer preflight have crashed as a result of an engineering fault that was evident prior to flight. A look closer top home to check the low capacity RPT aeroplanes where the PILOT does the daily as well as preflight inspection, and see what the accident rates are like for engineering related fatalities and injuries - and hull losses.
If the answer is no - then there is NO demonstrable reduction in safety.
There may well be a percieved reduction in safety but is it real?
We would be having this arguement if we previously had 12 hourly inspections rather than 24 hourly inspections - and then decided to go to 24 hr inspections only. It is the same thing
It appears on the face of it to be a reduction of safety - but as we all know - 24 hr inspection - ie the daily - are perfectly reasonable and safe.
The same applies to pilot inspections. There is NO regulatory requirement to have an engineer conduct the preflight inspection. There is no quantifiable safety benefit to having the engineer conduct the preflight inspection.
So WHY do it?
Is it better - most likely yes.
Would I like to have an extra set of eyes look over the aeroplane? - Yes
Do I feel uncomfortable doing the inspection by myself as the captain of the aeroplane? - NO
The majority of pilots are smart enough monkeys to get someone else in for a second opinion if there is any question about something - I know I do.
I reckon that the ALAEA should be keeping its powder dry to fight the fights that NEED fighting, not running a scare campaign designed to retain a work practice.
This is primarily an industrial issue NOT a safety issue.
But then I am a monkey with 4 bars - not a grease monkey!
The whole thing is about the claim that the removal of engineers to do preflight inspections is UNSAFE.
I guess that the first thing to do is have a look at overseas markets and see if any aeroplanes that were not inspected by an engineer preflight have crashed as a result of an engineering fault that was evident prior to flight. A look closer top home to check the low capacity RPT aeroplanes where the PILOT does the daily as well as preflight inspection, and see what the accident rates are like for engineering related fatalities and injuries - and hull losses.
If the answer is no - then there is NO demonstrable reduction in safety.
There may well be a percieved reduction in safety but is it real?
We would be having this arguement if we previously had 12 hourly inspections rather than 24 hourly inspections - and then decided to go to 24 hr inspections only. It is the same thing
It appears on the face of it to be a reduction of safety - but as we all know - 24 hr inspection - ie the daily - are perfectly reasonable and safe.
The same applies to pilot inspections. There is NO regulatory requirement to have an engineer conduct the preflight inspection. There is no quantifiable safety benefit to having the engineer conduct the preflight inspection.
So WHY do it?
Is it better - most likely yes.
Would I like to have an extra set of eyes look over the aeroplane? - Yes
Do I feel uncomfortable doing the inspection by myself as the captain of the aeroplane? - NO
The majority of pilots are smart enough monkeys to get someone else in for a second opinion if there is any question about something - I know I do.
I reckon that the ALAEA should be keeping its powder dry to fight the fights that NEED fighting, not running a scare campaign designed to retain a work practice.
This is primarily an industrial issue NOT a safety issue.
But then I am a monkey with 4 bars - not a grease monkey!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does an aircraft have to actually crash before it is considered unsafe?
How about an incident? Does this have no effect on reputation as perceived by the customers (general public)?
Do we want an incident-free industry or just an accident-free industry??
How about an incident? Does this have no effect on reputation as perceived by the customers (general public)?
Do we want an incident-free industry or just an accident-free industry??
I'll amend my question to accident/incident...
Whilst I would personally like an extra set of eyes I believe that the "safety" arguement is an emotional one not a real one
Maybe the better option would be to point out the COST benefits of having the engineers around.
Have a look at the delays that result when a pilot delays an aeroplane whilst waiting for an engineer to check something. Quantify that as a dollar amount and make the case using the thing that bean counters understand - Dollars.
The emotion is killing the arguement - no matter how valid the un derlying point may be.
Airsupport - I may have admitted to being a monkey - but at least I understand how management works - and I know that making the "just because" arguement, without providing any objective proof to back up my assertions, will not work in the short term.
It may be that the delays that result from continually waiting for an engineer to arrive to check something that an uncertain pilot has found will make the economics of keeping the engineers around more palatable - but you need a sound arguement to get past first base with the management
Whilst I would personally like an extra set of eyes I believe that the "safety" arguement is an emotional one not a real one
Maybe the better option would be to point out the COST benefits of having the engineers around.
Have a look at the delays that result when a pilot delays an aeroplane whilst waiting for an engineer to check something. Quantify that as a dollar amount and make the case using the thing that bean counters understand - Dollars.
The emotion is killing the arguement - no matter how valid the un derlying point may be.
Airsupport - I may have admitted to being a monkey - but at least I understand how management works - and I know that making the "just because" arguement, without providing any objective proof to back up my assertions, will not work in the short term.
It may be that the delays that result from continually waiting for an engineer to arrive to check something that an uncertain pilot has found will make the economics of keeping the engineers around more palatable - but you need a sound arguement to get past first base with the management