Engineers slam Virgin on Safety Pt2
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with stupid.
Correct..as per the AFM but not for maintenance.
DeHav.
I understand the nature of yours and others opposition now at least. But I can assure you that no LAME, nor I imagine the ALAEA, is attempting to disparage pilots. If that's your take on the issue then that is unfortunate
Correct..as per the AFM but not for maintenance.
DeHav.
BUT when the engineers - or more appropriately their union starts calling it a safety issue in the press we take offence.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thurs "Sydney Morning Herald"
Virgin pilots failed plane-check duties
By Greg Roberts
March 6 2003
Virgin Blue has been formally rapped over the knuckles after failing to act on warnings that its pilot safety inspections were inadequate.
As the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) issued the airline with a formal corrective notice yesterday, the authority's corporate affairs manager, Peter Gibson, said: "We were checking on the pilots and the pilots weren't doing the inspections properly."
The move coincides with claims by the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association, denied by Virgin Blue, that public safety had been put at risk by changes in the airline's inspection procedures.
Mr Gibson said a CASA audit early last month found that pilots undertaking visual inspections of Virgin Blue aircraft on the tarmac during aircraft turnarounds - between landing and departure - were not doing so according to specified procedures.
"We did some subsequent surveillance last week and the problem had still not been fixed, so we issued them with a formal notice," Mr Gibson said.
He said the airline had written to its pilots advising them of the inspection requirements and had agreed its pilots should undertake refresher courses in inspections.
The engineers' union was summoned before the Industrial Relations Commission in Brisbane yesterday over a stop-work meeting it plans on Monday over the inspection issue.
The union's federal president, Michael O'Rance, said that since Virgin Blue stopped qualified engineers from conducting turnaround inspections in January on its new generation 737s, directing pilots to do them instead, public safety had been jeopardised.
Mr O'Rance said engineers had defied the directive by inspecting aircraft after pilots had inspected them, discovering major defects missed by the pilots.
They included the engine of a plane in Brisbane bound for Sydney which had been struck by a bird and had to be removed; a torn tyre which had to be changed on a plane in Adelaide bound for Melbourne; and a broken landing light on a plane in Adelaide bound for Sydney.
Mr O'Rance said engineers noticed that a pilot on one aircraft in Sydney had recorded in a logbook that he had conducted an inspection when he had not.
"The change in pre-flight inspections has put domestic passengers at risk because these inspections should be undertaken by qualified engineers," Mr O'Rance said.
Virgin Blue's head of commercial, David Hutner, said the pilot inspections were in accordance with Boeing and CASA guidelines for new generation 737s.
"CASA had simply said to us that certain things needed to be done, that things could be done better, and now we've worked out a program with them to do that," Mr Hutner said.
He said the pilot of the aircraft with the engine which had been struck by a bird had not overlooked the damage but he had gone home ill before being able to conduct his inspection.
"A lot of the union's accusations are false; they are using scare tactics to run their own jobs agenda."
Virgin pilots failed plane-check duties
By Greg Roberts
March 6 2003
Virgin Blue has been formally rapped over the knuckles after failing to act on warnings that its pilot safety inspections were inadequate.
As the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) issued the airline with a formal corrective notice yesterday, the authority's corporate affairs manager, Peter Gibson, said: "We were checking on the pilots and the pilots weren't doing the inspections properly."
The move coincides with claims by the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association, denied by Virgin Blue, that public safety had been put at risk by changes in the airline's inspection procedures.
Mr Gibson said a CASA audit early last month found that pilots undertaking visual inspections of Virgin Blue aircraft on the tarmac during aircraft turnarounds - between landing and departure - were not doing so according to specified procedures.
"We did some subsequent surveillance last week and the problem had still not been fixed, so we issued them with a formal notice," Mr Gibson said.
He said the airline had written to its pilots advising them of the inspection requirements and had agreed its pilots should undertake refresher courses in inspections.
The engineers' union was summoned before the Industrial Relations Commission in Brisbane yesterday over a stop-work meeting it plans on Monday over the inspection issue.
The union's federal president, Michael O'Rance, said that since Virgin Blue stopped qualified engineers from conducting turnaround inspections in January on its new generation 737s, directing pilots to do them instead, public safety had been jeopardised.
Mr O'Rance said engineers had defied the directive by inspecting aircraft after pilots had inspected them, discovering major defects missed by the pilots.
They included the engine of a plane in Brisbane bound for Sydney which had been struck by a bird and had to be removed; a torn tyre which had to be changed on a plane in Adelaide bound for Melbourne; and a broken landing light on a plane in Adelaide bound for Sydney.
Mr O'Rance said engineers noticed that a pilot on one aircraft in Sydney had recorded in a logbook that he had conducted an inspection when he had not.
"The change in pre-flight inspections has put domestic passengers at risk because these inspections should be undertaken by qualified engineers," Mr O'Rance said.
Virgin Blue's head of commercial, David Hutner, said the pilot inspections were in accordance with Boeing and CASA guidelines for new generation 737s.
"CASA had simply said to us that certain things needed to be done, that things could be done better, and now we've worked out a program with them to do that," Mr Hutner said.
He said the pilot of the aircraft with the engine which had been struck by a bird had not overlooked the damage but he had gone home ill before being able to conduct his inspection.
"A lot of the union's accusations are false; they are using scare tactics to run their own jobs agenda."
Last edited by Wirraway; 5th Mar 2003 at 15:07.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well there you go. 
PLEASE tell me that some of you who insist this is NOT a safety issue, are now convinced it IS sadly very much a safety issue.
How any reasonable person could say it is NOT a safety issue is beyond me.
Surely 2 independent inspections MUST be safer than 1 inspection, whether it is by one Pilot OR one Engineer. It may well be more costly, but it MUST be safer.
IF the fact that you are Captains, and you think it offends you, the same would apply if they proposed to do away with the Pilot's inspection, it would be LESS SAFE than now if ONLY LAMEs did the inspections, it is NOT a reflection on Pilots.
Four eyes are better than two.
And I don't mean people wearing glasses should do all the preflights either.
PLEASE tell me that some of you who insist this is NOT a safety issue, are now convinced it IS sadly very much a safety issue.
How any reasonable person could say it is NOT a safety issue is beyond me.
Surely 2 independent inspections MUST be safer than 1 inspection, whether it is by one Pilot OR one Engineer. It may well be more costly, but it MUST be safer.
IF the fact that you are Captains, and you think it offends you, the same would apply if they proposed to do away with the Pilot's inspection, it would be LESS SAFE than now if ONLY LAMEs did the inspections, it is NOT a reflection on Pilots.
Four eyes are better than two.
And I don't mean people wearing glasses should do all the preflights either.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin pilots have made safety check mistakes: engineers
By MATTHEW DENHOLM
06mar03
VIRGIN Blue has been forced to defend its safety record against claims of recent serious lapses.
Aircraft engineers yesterday outlined a series of faults alleged to have been missed in safety checks by pilots last month.
Virgin Blue ended pre-flight safety checks by licensed aircraft maintenance engineers in late January.
It directed its pilots to perform the visual checks between flights.
The move has been approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, but was yesterday condemned by former CASA maintenance standards chief, Ken Cannane.
Mr Cannane explained to The Daily Telegraph that pilots were insufficiently skilled to detect all faults which can emerge in aircraft.
"They are happy to spend money training pilots but they want to cut costs on maintenance down to nothing," Mr Cannane said.
"This is mad cost-cutting."
CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the safety watchdog had no problem with pilots conducting the pre-flight checks – just as long as they were being performed properly.
He said Virgin Blue had promised to improve the checks after CASA surveillance found cases of pilots cutting corners and rushing.
"We will be doing surveillance on them fairly regularly and if we find that improvements haven't been made, we'll take further action if necessary," Mr Gibson said.
"From our perspective it doesn't matter who does the checks – pilots or engineers – as long as they are done properly."
But the Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association pointed to six cases between February 10 and 27 when pilots allegedly didn't do the checks properly.
The most serious of these is that a pilot failed to detect a bird strike in an engine of a plane at Brisbane airport on February 24.
After an engineer spotted feathers and blood, an inspection found severe damage and the engine was replaced.
Virgin Blue head of commercial operations David Huttner said the pilot involved went off duty sick. But he said the replacement pilot would have spotted the damage if the engineer had not done so first.
Other allegations include:
A pre-flight safety check was signed as completed by crew before a plane had even arrived at its Sydney airport terminal.
A pilot safety check failed to detect a 3cm-deep tyre puncture on a flight from Adelaide. A broken landing light got through another check at Adelaide.
Mr Huttner said he was unable to respond to all the allegations yesterday, but believed they would prove to be "highly misleading".
"The union is trying to use scare tactics to drive its own agenda, when CASA and Boeing do not reach the same conclusion," he said.
"They both say the procedures we are using are the appropriate ones."
He said Virgin had an excellent safety record.
Of course you'd believe Peter Gibson before the former head of Maintenance Standards, Mr. Cannane, whom I believe was sacked by CASA over this issue!?
By MATTHEW DENHOLM
06mar03
VIRGIN Blue has been forced to defend its safety record against claims of recent serious lapses.
Aircraft engineers yesterday outlined a series of faults alleged to have been missed in safety checks by pilots last month.
Virgin Blue ended pre-flight safety checks by licensed aircraft maintenance engineers in late January.
It directed its pilots to perform the visual checks between flights.
The move has been approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, but was yesterday condemned by former CASA maintenance standards chief, Ken Cannane.
Mr Cannane explained to The Daily Telegraph that pilots were insufficiently skilled to detect all faults which can emerge in aircraft.
"They are happy to spend money training pilots but they want to cut costs on maintenance down to nothing," Mr Cannane said.
"This is mad cost-cutting."
CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the safety watchdog had no problem with pilots conducting the pre-flight checks – just as long as they were being performed properly.
He said Virgin Blue had promised to improve the checks after CASA surveillance found cases of pilots cutting corners and rushing.
"We will be doing surveillance on them fairly regularly and if we find that improvements haven't been made, we'll take further action if necessary," Mr Gibson said.
"From our perspective it doesn't matter who does the checks – pilots or engineers – as long as they are done properly."
But the Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association pointed to six cases between February 10 and 27 when pilots allegedly didn't do the checks properly.
The most serious of these is that a pilot failed to detect a bird strike in an engine of a plane at Brisbane airport on February 24.
After an engineer spotted feathers and blood, an inspection found severe damage and the engine was replaced.
Virgin Blue head of commercial operations David Huttner said the pilot involved went off duty sick. But he said the replacement pilot would have spotted the damage if the engineer had not done so first.
Other allegations include:
A pre-flight safety check was signed as completed by crew before a plane had even arrived at its Sydney airport terminal.
A pilot safety check failed to detect a 3cm-deep tyre puncture on a flight from Adelaide. A broken landing light got through another check at Adelaide.
Mr Huttner said he was unable to respond to all the allegations yesterday, but believed they would prove to be "highly misleading".
"The union is trying to use scare tactics to drive its own agenda, when CASA and Boeing do not reach the same conclusion," he said.
"They both say the procedures we are using are the appropriate ones."
He said Virgin had an excellent safety record.
Of course you'd believe Peter Gibson before the former head of Maintenance Standards, Mr. Cannane, whom I believe was sacked by CASA over this issue!?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: brisbane
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing & CASA
An important fact that seems to have been overlooked is that the Boeing MPD for the 737NG does not require a full blown engineering check durring turn-arounds.
This is acceptable to CASA, and the operator of these aircraft.
With newer technology, we continue to make progress regarless of the ludities within the industry.
Navigators and in-flight Engineers are no longer requried, but the same "saftey" arguments were made when they left.
With greater reliability, new technolgies, materials and MSG3 design philosophies, there is really no need for an Engineer to perform a check durring transits, as long as the pilot performs the check to the manufactures recommendation.
Notes:
1) In Europe this is standard practice.
2) QF do the same thing in regional ports - so whats the difference ? Are we going to apply the same standards to all operators and aircraft ?
This is acceptable to CASA, and the operator of these aircraft.
With newer technology, we continue to make progress regarless of the ludities within the industry.
Navigators and in-flight Engineers are no longer requried, but the same "saftey" arguments were made when they left.
With greater reliability, new technolgies, materials and MSG3 design philosophies, there is really no need for an Engineer to perform a check durring transits, as long as the pilot performs the check to the manufactures recommendation.
Notes:
1) In Europe this is standard practice.
2) QF do the same thing in regional ports - so whats the difference ? Are we going to apply the same standards to all operators and aircraft ?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Travelling Toolbox,
No worries.
I'm with stupid,
I was under the impression that the Virgin Blue Captains were the most experienced in the business, being mainly people that were Captains prior to 19**, is this NOT true?
ozdog,
Boeing (and Airbus) will say anything to sell you the Aircraft.
As I said on the previous post, and nobody was able to answer, PLEASE explain...........
Given that the Pilots and the Airlines say it is just a visual look around the exterior of the Aircraft, nothing deeper than that, what are the major differences visually to the exterior of a B737NG (that does not need an Engineer) as compared to say a B737-300/400 (that did require an Engineer) ?
Best regards to all,
airsupport.
No worries.
I'm with stupid,
I was under the impression that the Virgin Blue Captains were the most experienced in the business, being mainly people that were Captains prior to 19**, is this NOT true?
ozdog,
Boeing (and Airbus) will say anything to sell you the Aircraft.
As I said on the previous post, and nobody was able to answer, PLEASE explain...........
Given that the Pilots and the Airlines say it is just a visual look around the exterior of the Aircraft, nothing deeper than that, what are the major differences visually to the exterior of a B737NG (that does not need an Engineer) as compared to say a B737-300/400 (that did require an Engineer) ?
Best regards to all,
airsupport.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airsupport
It's tiring, but we'll press on.
And to put some balance into the assertion that Boeing don't require it, that's because FAA require it in the majority of transits, unless there is a specific dispensation given for a particular outport, which then needs to be carefully assessed, before the Operators Ops Spec is amended to allow a pilot preflight only. In conjunction with that, the engineering preflight both before and after that outport is also amended to include more stringent preflight requirements, for instance tyre and brake wear etc.
'You can teach...' oops
Cheers
AN LAME
It's tiring, but we'll press on.
And to put some balance into the assertion that Boeing don't require it, that's because FAA require it in the majority of transits, unless there is a specific dispensation given for a particular outport, which then needs to be carefully assessed, before the Operators Ops Spec is amended to allow a pilot preflight only. In conjunction with that, the engineering preflight both before and after that outport is also amended to include more stringent preflight requirements, for instance tyre and brake wear etc.
'You can teach...' oops
Cheers
AN LAME
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets get back on thread shall we chaps.
That year and/or Virgins/QFs recruiting policies have nothing to do with the thrust of this particular subject.
Which if I understand it correctly is, whether or not engineers are "required" to do turnaround walk arounds, or is it safe for them "to be done by appropriately trained pilots."
That year and/or Virgins/QFs recruiting policies have nothing to do with the thrust of this particular subject.
Which if I understand it correctly is, whether or not engineers are "required" to do turnaround walk arounds, or is it safe for them "to be done by appropriately trained pilots."
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: darwin australia
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF663. BNE-ADL Mon.03/03/'03 1h 30m late pushing back.Reason;(from Capt's P.A.) Inspection req'd due to lightning strike which was detected by the "Duty ENGINEER " during his "walkaround".
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting discussion this!
Been in the business for 40 yrs now, both domestically and on international ops.
Like most of my fellow pilots I know full well how to carry out an efficient walk around...don't really need an engineer to back me up...however , having said that I'm always pleased that they do back me up and always pleased to take their advice if neccessary!
Let's work together fellows, not pull apart!
Been in the business for 40 yrs now, both domestically and on international ops.
Like most of my fellow pilots I know full well how to carry out an efficient walk around...don't really need an engineer to back me up...however , having said that I'm always pleased that they do back me up and always pleased to take their advice if neccessary!
Let's work together fellows, not pull apart!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The Tap!
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fact; The Regs allow pilots to do walk-arounds and DJ has ammended their manuals to allow this.
Yes, I would PREFER a LAME/AME to "have a look" at the same time as myself, however the regulations as they currently are allow pilots to do the walk around themselves. What is required to change the regs? How can we work TOGETHER to remedy this situation?
Are we in a position to change the regulations? Ask yourself. What does it take to change the regulations?
Personally, if everyone had a full body search, travelled NUDE and without carry-on luggage we could be guaranteed that no-one had weapons! Is this likely to happen? Ask yourself again.
Looks somewhat like "affordable safety" or maybe even ETOPS where we work on the probability of a certain occurrence.
I've said it before - Opinions are like @rseholes. Everyones got one, and they're all different!
Yes, I would PREFER a LAME/AME to "have a look" at the same time as myself, however the regulations as they currently are allow pilots to do the walk around themselves. What is required to change the regs? How can we work TOGETHER to remedy this situation?
Are we in a position to change the regulations? Ask yourself. What does it take to change the regulations?
Personally, if everyone had a full body search, travelled NUDE and without carry-on luggage we could be guaranteed that no-one had weapons! Is this likely to happen? Ask yourself again.
Looks somewhat like "affordable safety" or maybe even ETOPS where we work on the probability of a certain occurrence.
I've said it before - Opinions are like @rseholes. Everyones got one, and they're all different!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time............this is only about time.
The time is takes Australian LAMEs to catch up with the rest of the world.
'member when they they thought you needed a flight engineer on the B767
The time is takes Australian LAMEs to catch up with the rest of the world.
'member when they they thought you needed a flight engineer on the B767
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stopwork at Virgin called off
By Steve Creedy
07mar03
VIRGIN Blue engineers have called off planned industrial action, after the carrier agreed to talks on controversial changes to pre-flight transit checks on newer aircraft.
The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association had planned a stopwork meeting on Monday to discuss safety fears about Virgin's move to have pilots, rather than engineers, do pre-flight transit checks on next-generation 737s.
Union officials said that allowing pilots to conduct the checks would compromise safety. The airline claims it's a demarcation dispute.
The union called off the stopwork meeting after Virgin agreed to talks, and said it was happy for engineers to continue carrying out inspections along with pilots.
The union also agreed to withdraw six "hazard reports" to the Australian Industrial Commission involving pilot checks.
But officials last night refused to back away from the reports, which are disputed by Virgin. They include allegations that pilot inspections missed a blown and cracked landing light, a damaged nose wheel tyre, and an engine damaged by a bird strike.
Union president Mick O'Rance said the parties would meet next week and had agreed not to argue publicly in the meantime.
He said he believed Virgin aircraft would be safe as long as engineers continued to do the pre-flight inspections.
A joint statement issued last night said: "The parties have cleared the air in relation to issues identified, and look forward to engaging in discussion in the future."
The issue first surfaced last week, when The Australian reported the engineers' safety concerns, as well as a Civil Aviation Safety Authority crackdown on Virgin for failing to ensure pilot checks were properly carried out.
Although CASA said there was no evidence the problems resulted in safety incidents or risk, it found pilots had been rushing the checks and cutting corners.
It heightened its surveillance of Virgin, and issued an order for corrective action.
Virgin agreed to write to pilots stressing the need to follow procedures, and give them refresher training.
CASA and manufacturer Boeing say pilot checks are appropriate for newer planes, because they're more reliable and have computers capable of recognising faults.
But former CASA head of maintenance standards Ken Cannane said the checks should be done by engineers.
He said it made no economic sense not to take advantage of using departure checks at manned maintenance ports.
"Why risk lowering safety standards that have kept Australian aviation safe for many generations?" he said.
By Steve Creedy
07mar03
VIRGIN Blue engineers have called off planned industrial action, after the carrier agreed to talks on controversial changes to pre-flight transit checks on newer aircraft.
The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association had planned a stopwork meeting on Monday to discuss safety fears about Virgin's move to have pilots, rather than engineers, do pre-flight transit checks on next-generation 737s.
Union officials said that allowing pilots to conduct the checks would compromise safety. The airline claims it's a demarcation dispute.
The union called off the stopwork meeting after Virgin agreed to talks, and said it was happy for engineers to continue carrying out inspections along with pilots.
The union also agreed to withdraw six "hazard reports" to the Australian Industrial Commission involving pilot checks.
But officials last night refused to back away from the reports, which are disputed by Virgin. They include allegations that pilot inspections missed a blown and cracked landing light, a damaged nose wheel tyre, and an engine damaged by a bird strike.
Union president Mick O'Rance said the parties would meet next week and had agreed not to argue publicly in the meantime.
He said he believed Virgin aircraft would be safe as long as engineers continued to do the pre-flight inspections.
A joint statement issued last night said: "The parties have cleared the air in relation to issues identified, and look forward to engaging in discussion in the future."
The issue first surfaced last week, when The Australian reported the engineers' safety concerns, as well as a Civil Aviation Safety Authority crackdown on Virgin for failing to ensure pilot checks were properly carried out.
Although CASA said there was no evidence the problems resulted in safety incidents or risk, it found pilots had been rushing the checks and cutting corners.
It heightened its surveillance of Virgin, and issued an order for corrective action.
Virgin agreed to write to pilots stressing the need to follow procedures, and give them refresher training.
CASA and manufacturer Boeing say pilot checks are appropriate for newer planes, because they're more reliable and have computers capable of recognising faults.
But former CASA head of maintenance standards Ken Cannane said the checks should be done by engineers.
He said it made no economic sense not to take advantage of using departure checks at manned maintenance ports.
"Why risk lowering safety standards that have kept Australian aviation safe for many generations?" he said.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still waiting?
PLEASE explain the HUGE differences just by looking at them.
Incidentally I also agree 100% with amos2.
Like amos2, I have also been in the Industry for 40 years, both in Australia and Worldwide. (No we are NOT the same person ).
I have said from the start of these 2 threads, that I would be just as opposed to a plan to have the Pilots not do preflights.
It is NOT an anti Pilot thing, to have ONLY Engineers do preflights would also be a reduction is safety, I have been there and done that, while it gives one a nice warm feeling that the Pilots trust you that much, 2 independent inspections MUST be safer than 1.
This would apply to Aircraft, trains, buses, ships, even your family car.
PLEASE explain the HUGE differences just by looking at them.
Incidentally I also agree 100% with amos2.
Like amos2, I have also been in the Industry for 40 years, both in Australia and Worldwide. (No we are NOT the same person
).I have said from the start of these 2 threads, that I would be just as opposed to a plan to have the Pilots not do preflights.
It is NOT an anti Pilot thing, to have ONLY Engineers do preflights would also be a reduction is safety, I have been there and done that, while it gives one a nice warm feeling that the Pilots trust you that much, 2 independent inspections MUST be safer than 1.
This would apply to Aircraft, trains, buses, ships, even your family car.