Engineers slam Virgin on Safety Pt2
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winstun,
When did LAME's ever think they needed F/E's on 767s.
I think you need to know your facts, there are International airlines that use LAMEs to do preflights,I know because I work for one.
When did LAME's ever think they needed F/E's on 767s.
I think you need to know your facts, there are International airlines that use LAMEs to do preflights,I know because I work for one.
Last edited by LAYME; 8th Mar 2003 at 02:28.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is about time that Jetcares management come clean as to the future of their engineers, re Virgin Tech and job security.
However for the Engineering Union to start flinging mud at the pilots is a very bad move. If they want to dish it out they should be prepared to cop it as well. And what, Engineers dont make mistakes or overlook things! Unfortunately it is just a few bitter engineers causing the grief, the majority of them do a great job and will continue to.
And as far as CASA is concerned, standing on the tarmac timing how long it takes for a pilot to do a walkaround is utter crap!! Where in the Boeing Ops manual does it say that you must take between 5-6 minutes for a thorough walkaround !!
However for the Engineering Union to start flinging mud at the pilots is a very bad move. If they want to dish it out they should be prepared to cop it as well. And what, Engineers dont make mistakes or overlook things! Unfortunately it is just a few bitter engineers causing the grief, the majority of them do a great job and will continue to.
And as far as CASA is concerned, standing on the tarmac timing how long it takes for a pilot to do a walkaround is utter crap!! Where in the Boeing Ops manual does it say that you must take between 5-6 minutes for a thorough walkaround !!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Explain to me again, how this is NOT a safety issue. 
PILOTS ACCUSED OF FUDGING SAFETY CHECKS
08-03-2003
VIRGIN Blue pilots have been observed completing pre-flight inspections in less than 60 seconds -- a procedure the airline admitted yesterday took at least five to 10 minutes to fully complete.
Allegations also surfaced yesterday that a number of Virgin pilots had signed off on the pre-flight section of the flight log before carrying out the inspections.
Virgin Blue commercial operations manager David Huttner said both claims were "baseless", but a Civil Aviation Safety Authority source has confirmed that during a surveillance operation last month a number of pilots rushed through their inspections in less than a minute.
Mr Huttner said yesterday he had been informed by pilots the inspection took five to 10 minutes. The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association estimates it takes 10 to 20 minutes.
However, Mr Huttner confirmed one pilot had been stood down "without prejudice " as a result of the CASA investigation into the airline's safety practices, but had later been reinstated.
CASA spokesman Peter Gibson had previously confirmed that after two days of secretly observing Virgin safety practices last month, a number of inspections had not been done properly.
Mr Gibson said pilots on some flights had been rushing checks and cutting corners.
The hasty inspection process was part of the reason why Virgin Blue was issued with a formal safety alert last week.
The issue has been raised again after a dispute between the engineers' association and Virgin Blue over the airline's safety practices.
Under new procedures at Virgin Blue, engineers are required to examine aircraft only at the beginning of the day. Pilots make visual checks between flights.
During a hearing in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission on the threat of strike action over the dispute, the engineers' association raised six "incidents" -- the most serious of which was an allegation that a pilot missed evidence of a possible bird strike, which was later picked up by a maintenance engineer.
An engine on the plane was found to be damaged and subsequently replaced.
As a result of the commission hearing engineers will now continue to check every domestic flight before take-off, while discussions between the two parties take place.
Allegations also were made by the engineers' association to CASA in a letter from president Michael O'Rance late last month that a number of pilots had pre -signed their pre-flight check forms.
Mr Gibson said the allegations referred to in the letter had not been investigated by CASA. He said since the formal notice to Virgin Blue the airline was "living up to its safety responsibilities".
He said the airline would continue to be monitored.
Mr Huttner said the airline would not continue to respond to allegations unless there was factual evidence.
PILOTS ACCUSED OF FUDGING SAFETY CHECKS
08-03-2003
VIRGIN Blue pilots have been observed completing pre-flight inspections in less than 60 seconds -- a procedure the airline admitted yesterday took at least five to 10 minutes to fully complete.
Allegations also surfaced yesterday that a number of Virgin pilots had signed off on the pre-flight section of the flight log before carrying out the inspections.
Virgin Blue commercial operations manager David Huttner said both claims were "baseless", but a Civil Aviation Safety Authority source has confirmed that during a surveillance operation last month a number of pilots rushed through their inspections in less than a minute.
Mr Huttner said yesterday he had been informed by pilots the inspection took five to 10 minutes. The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association estimates it takes 10 to 20 minutes.
However, Mr Huttner confirmed one pilot had been stood down "without prejudice " as a result of the CASA investigation into the airline's safety practices, but had later been reinstated.
CASA spokesman Peter Gibson had previously confirmed that after two days of secretly observing Virgin safety practices last month, a number of inspections had not been done properly.
Mr Gibson said pilots on some flights had been rushing checks and cutting corners.
The hasty inspection process was part of the reason why Virgin Blue was issued with a formal safety alert last week.
The issue has been raised again after a dispute between the engineers' association and Virgin Blue over the airline's safety practices.
Under new procedures at Virgin Blue, engineers are required to examine aircraft only at the beginning of the day. Pilots make visual checks between flights.
During a hearing in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission on the threat of strike action over the dispute, the engineers' association raised six "incidents" -- the most serious of which was an allegation that a pilot missed evidence of a possible bird strike, which was later picked up by a maintenance engineer.
An engine on the plane was found to be damaged and subsequently replaced.
As a result of the commission hearing engineers will now continue to check every domestic flight before take-off, while discussions between the two parties take place.
Allegations also were made by the engineers' association to CASA in a letter from president Michael O'Rance late last month that a number of pilots had pre -signed their pre-flight check forms.
Mr Gibson said the allegations referred to in the letter had not been investigated by CASA. He said since the formal notice to Virgin Blue the airline was "living up to its safety responsibilities".
He said the airline would continue to be monitored.
Mr Huttner said the airline would not continue to respond to allegations unless there was factual evidence.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Allegations is the key word. Not one iota of hard evidence has been presented. CASA's so-called experts were making observations from distant locations (some through binoculars) to try and "catch out" DJ Captains. This has got to be one of the lowest all time acts ever witnessed here in Oz aviation. It is an absolute disgrace and CASA should bow their collective heads in disgrace. You amateurs really are something else!
As happens in Europe and other parts of the world (in addition to Oz) pilots have been doing transit checks at remote ports without incident for many years. I personally would much prefer to have a LAME do an additional check to compliment mine. I have learned an enormous amount from many good engineers over the years and without their input, my knowledge base would not be a patch on what it is now. Pilot manuals simply don't cover alot of the "blood and guts" (pardon the pun) stuff that engineers manuals do. Nor do they need to. Here in lies the difference between "nice to know and need to know".
A pilot transit check done properly is not very different from an engineers check. As for the union claim that transit checks take 10 to 20 minutes... what absolute garbage!! I have never witnessed an engineer anywhere in the world take that long to do one.
Gentlemenn (and ladies). I smell a disgusting rat at work here. Pilots and engineers are the ONLY 2 professions in the airline industry. We have to work hard for many years to achieve our qualifications and most of us take our work seriously whilst trying to enjoy it at the same time. Folks we really do have to try and stick together no matter how tough things get at times. We have rogue pilots and rogue engineers (not to mention the NO BRAINERS in CASA) with agendas not in common with ours. We need a bi-partisan agreement to a common cause.
The union trying to use specific cases to undermine pilots and create fear in the community is ridiculous and does nothing to nurture our essential relationship. I recently pointed out a significant oversight (no IDG oil) to an engineer after a daily inspection (first flight of the day). I said I would say nothing and would appreciate him watching my back in future. In my opinion that is a far better way of doing business than running around stirring up trouble. We are both working for the same cause.
As AMOS and others have said, lets stick together lads. We have enough to contend with without this sort of dstraction.
As happens in Europe and other parts of the world (in addition to Oz) pilots have been doing transit checks at remote ports without incident for many years. I personally would much prefer to have a LAME do an additional check to compliment mine. I have learned an enormous amount from many good engineers over the years and without their input, my knowledge base would not be a patch on what it is now. Pilot manuals simply don't cover alot of the "blood and guts" (pardon the pun) stuff that engineers manuals do. Nor do they need to. Here in lies the difference between "nice to know and need to know".
A pilot transit check done properly is not very different from an engineers check. As for the union claim that transit checks take 10 to 20 minutes... what absolute garbage!! I have never witnessed an engineer anywhere in the world take that long to do one.
Gentlemenn (and ladies). I smell a disgusting rat at work here. Pilots and engineers are the ONLY 2 professions in the airline industry. We have to work hard for many years to achieve our qualifications and most of us take our work seriously whilst trying to enjoy it at the same time. Folks we really do have to try and stick together no matter how tough things get at times. We have rogue pilots and rogue engineers (not to mention the NO BRAINERS in CASA) with agendas not in common with ours. We need a bi-partisan agreement to a common cause.
The union trying to use specific cases to undermine pilots and create fear in the community is ridiculous and does nothing to nurture our essential relationship. I recently pointed out a significant oversight (no IDG oil) to an engineer after a daily inspection (first flight of the day). I said I would say nothing and would appreciate him watching my back in future. In my opinion that is a far better way of doing business than running around stirring up trouble. We are both working for the same cause.
As AMOS and others have said, lets stick together lads. We have enough to contend with without this sort of dstraction.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STOPWORK AT VIRGIN CALLED OFF
The Australian
7-3-2003
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.
The Australian
7-3-2003
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: Feb 2002
Location: east coast
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 to 20 minutes for a turnaround...what a crock of sh*t!!!!
Having been both an engineer [ 10 years ] and a current pilot, I feel I'm qualified to debate this issue. For a start there are pilots who have in the past and most probably will in the future, take walkarounds with a grain of salt...just going through the motions, observing but not looking. But as Sperm Bank has described, there has been numerous incidents where engineers have also neglected their duties....torches left between control rods, etc, etc. Any pilot/engineer who knows his aircraft well, knows where and how to look for defects.
This is an industrial issue.....end of story. The Engineers union crying to Casa....the wheel will turn. I wonder if Casa will also be spying when an aircraft arrives home from a trip and a turnarond is completed by engineers who are about two minutes from finishing their shift.....quickest turnaround in history!!!
Having been both an engineer [ 10 years ] and a current pilot, I feel I'm qualified to debate this issue. For a start there are pilots who have in the past and most probably will in the future, take walkarounds with a grain of salt...just going through the motions, observing but not looking. But as Sperm Bank has described, there has been numerous incidents where engineers have also neglected their duties....torches left between control rods, etc, etc. Any pilot/engineer who knows his aircraft well, knows where and how to look for defects.
This is an industrial issue.....end of story. The Engineers union crying to Casa....the wheel will turn. I wonder if Casa will also be spying when an aircraft arrives home from a trip and a turnarond is completed by engineers who are about two minutes from finishing their shift.....quickest turnaround in history!!!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go again. 
It never ceases to amaze me here, whenever people, obviously Pilots in THIS case, have lost the debate or cannot answer sensible questions, like the one I am still waiting for an answer to they attack the other people, in this case Engineers in general.
How anyone, let alone supposedly highly intelligent Pilots, can think that removing EITHER the Engineer's Preflight Inspection OR, AND I REPEAT OR, the Pilot's Preflight Inspection would NOT be LESS SAFE.
Two independent inspections MUST be safer than one.
I could cite many incidents I have seen over some 40 years in the Industry, but I will NOT, as I am a professional, it is a pity everyone here isn't.
It never ceases to amaze me here, whenever people, obviously Pilots in THIS case, have lost the debate or cannot answer sensible questions, like the one I am still waiting for an answer to
they attack the other people, in this case Engineers in general. How anyone, let alone supposedly highly intelligent Pilots, can think that removing EITHER the Engineer's Preflight Inspection OR, AND I REPEAT OR, the Pilot's Preflight Inspection would NOT be LESS SAFE.
Two independent inspections MUST be safer than one.
I could cite many incidents I have seen over some 40 years in the Industry, but I will NOT, as I am a professional, it is a pity everyone here isn't.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three independent inspections MUST be safer than two.
Moronic anal mentality that prevails like that of the previous post are the reason we pay high taxes in this country.
Same reason passengers used to pay such high fares to have a flight engineer on flightdeck of B767
Boeing must be cacking themselves again
Moronic anal mentality that prevails like that of the previous post are the reason we pay high taxes in this country.
Same reason passengers used to pay such high fares to have a flight engineer on flightdeck of B767
Boeing must be cacking themselves again
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally you understand.
YES, of course 3 independent inspections would be SAFER than 2, which is SAFER than 1.
3 would COST more than 2, which COSTS more than 1, but it is OBVIOUSLY SAFER, as even you now finally admit.
Please forgive me as I am only an Engineer, I don't understand what you mean about taxes.
As for the F/Es on the AN B767s, you have that wrong too.
Although most people, including you it seems, thought it was a waste of money and may have contributed to high air fares, that was NOT the case.
I was NOT and never have been an F/E, however I was involved with them, and Ansett did quite nicely out of them.
As Ansett were the only operator in the World with a F/E on board, much technical information on the B767 was collected by the Ansett F/Es, and used by Boeing after paying Ansett quite a substantial amount for this data.
YES, of course 3 independent inspections would be SAFER than 2, which is SAFER than 1.
3 would COST more than 2, which COSTS more than 1, but it is OBVIOUSLY SAFER, as even you now finally admit.
Please forgive me as I am only an Engineer, I don't understand what you mean about taxes.
As for the F/Es on the AN B767s, you have that wrong too.
Although most people, including you it seems, thought it was a waste of money and may have contributed to high air fares, that was NOT the case.
I was NOT and never have been an F/E, however I was involved with them, and Ansett did quite nicely out of them.
As Ansett were the only operator in the World with a F/E on board, much technical information on the B767 was collected by the Ansett F/Es, and used by Boeing after paying Ansett quite a substantial amount for this data.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I dunno if there is a right or wrong answer to this debate.
I do know that I have been performing preflight inspections for years with and without engineering support.
I believe that where such support is available it should be used.
But if that support is not available, should the aircraft be grounded? I don't think so.
It does seem to me that the whole issue is a bit of a beat up for an industrial agenda.
While that may be appropriate I just can't but help remember all the times I have been told "don't write it up, we don't have licence coverage" or "if you write it up it will cause a delay".
I guess at the end of it I don't particularly like all the accusations and counter accusations between two professional outfits that depend on each other for support in order to keep flying safe and to keep us all gainfully employed. For evey pilot who misses a particular thing on a walkaround I would imagine someone can quote an engineer missing something.
It is not the pilots that have gone public here. But we can support the use of engineer inspections at bases where engineers are available. Would that help?
I do know that I have been performing preflight inspections for years with and without engineering support.
I believe that where such support is available it should be used.
But if that support is not available, should the aircraft be grounded? I don't think so.
It does seem to me that the whole issue is a bit of a beat up for an industrial agenda.
While that may be appropriate I just can't but help remember all the times I have been told "don't write it up, we don't have licence coverage" or "if you write it up it will cause a delay".
I guess at the end of it I don't particularly like all the accusations and counter accusations between two professional outfits that depend on each other for support in order to keep flying safe and to keep us all gainfully employed. For evey pilot who misses a particular thing on a walkaround I would imagine someone can quote an engineer missing something.
It is not the pilots that have gone public here. But we can support the use of engineer inspections at bases where engineers are available. Would that help?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airsupport you seem intent on flogging a dead horse here to justify your OPINION. What debate have the pilots lost? There never was nor ever will be a safety issue whether or not an engineer does a pre-flight inspection. If there was, the millions of pre-flight inspections world wide over the years conducted only by pilots at remote NON -ENGINEERING ports would never have been allowed. Do you not agree? I have also witnessed a plethora of "quickies" by engineers so that they could get off to another a/c. I have far too many mates as engineers and respect for their profession to make devisive comments. However your EMOTIONAL argument lacks substance and more importantly FACTS. I can understand you wanting to protect your job, however whether you like it or not, this campaign is having a NEGATIVE effect on pilots and your continued sentiment if carried over to your workplace will do absolutely nothing to engender a positive working environment.
The UNION was WRONG to go public on this. It was a pathetic attempt to justify their position. There was obviously no for thought whatsoever and like it or not, they are aiming their criticism directly at pilots. The clowns in CASA who supported this farcical claim are also to blame. To put the whole thing in perspective, if Virgin were falling short of a safety margin, so is EVERY other airline in the world, because they all have occassions where pilots only perform pre-flight inspections.
So airsupport there is no safety issue. Over 50 years of history is testimony to that. All pilots want the engineers to stay on as they are. But to say they are required for the ongoing safety of the a/c is neanderthal diatribe. I think deep down you realise that.
Lets keep the emotion out of this debate (if we can call it a debate) and stick to the facts. The facts as they stand presented by CASA are vacuous in content and malicious in direction and presentation.
SHOW ME THE DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE WHICH SPECIFICALLY DETAILS THE LOWERING OF SAFETY STANDARDS. The "clutching at straws" propaganda presented by the union to date is baseless and without foundation. If it was serious, they would not recant their position just because the company said they would talk to them. They would be compromising their moral obligation to the community wouldn't they?
We need pilot and engineers working together. End of story! What we don't need is pretenders stirring up trouble and dividing the only 2 professions in the industry.
The UNION was WRONG to go public on this. It was a pathetic attempt to justify their position. There was obviously no for thought whatsoever and like it or not, they are aiming their criticism directly at pilots. The clowns in CASA who supported this farcical claim are also to blame. To put the whole thing in perspective, if Virgin were falling short of a safety margin, so is EVERY other airline in the world, because they all have occassions where pilots only perform pre-flight inspections.
So airsupport there is no safety issue. Over 50 years of history is testimony to that. All pilots want the engineers to stay on as they are. But to say they are required for the ongoing safety of the a/c is neanderthal diatribe. I think deep down you realise that.
Lets keep the emotion out of this debate (if we can call it a debate) and stick to the facts. The facts as they stand presented by CASA are vacuous in content and malicious in direction and presentation.
SHOW ME THE DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE WHICH SPECIFICALLY DETAILS THE LOWERING OF SAFETY STANDARDS. The "clutching at straws" propaganda presented by the union to date is baseless and without foundation. If it was serious, they would not recant their position just because the company said they would talk to them. They would be compromising their moral obligation to the community wouldn't they?
We need pilot and engineers working together. End of story! What we don't need is pretenders stirring up trouble and dividing the only 2 professions in the industry.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not about 'cutting costs'.
This is about 'cutting costs on overcosted practices that have prevailed in Australian operations for so long
'There is no safety issue here. ONE is sufficient.
Why do these arrogant people think they know more than Boeing and the rest of the world for that matter?
Airsupport,
If you are getting over 20K Oz razoos and don't think you're paying WAY too much tax, well, i can understand your mentality on efficiency and wastage.
Is this some sick joke?
This is about 'cutting costs on overcosted practices that have prevailed in Australian operations for so long
'There is no safety issue here. ONE is sufficient.
Why do these arrogant people think they know more than Boeing and the rest of the world for that matter?
Airsupport,
If you are getting over 20K Oz razoos and don't think you're paying WAY too much tax, well, i can understand your mentality on efficiency and wastage.
As Ansett were the only operator in the World with a F/E on board, much technical information on the B767 was collected by the Ansett F/Es, and used by Boeing after paying Ansett quite a substantial amount for this data.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Ansett 3 crew B767’s were “work practice” lemons concocted for industrial peace with one group of employees. Common sense prevailed in the rest of the B767/B744 aviation world.
Airbus likewise followed when they upgraded the A300/A310 to two crew operation.
Airbus likewise followed when they upgraded the A300/A310 to two crew operation.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the hell has this post got to do with 767 F/Es, the decision regarding 3 crew 767s by AN was made long before a lot of you probably learned to fly anyway and they are no more and the aircraft the they flew on, are standing idle after being converted to two crew by LAMEs. Build a bridge and get over it.
Question,
What overseas airlines DO NOT use LAMEs to do preflights,I know plenty who still do.
Question,
What overseas airlines DO NOT use LAMEs to do preflights,I know plenty who still do.
Last edited by LAYME; 10th Mar 2003 at 01:14.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PLEASE accept my humble apologies, I have just realised the plan.
IF we all say 100 times:-
IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE.
IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE.
IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE (ETC)
Then it will not be a safety issue, brilliant.
Trouble is, it is pure money saving idea, at the expense of safety.
Instead of attacking the Engineers, would one of you PLEASE explain the questions I asked earlier.
1. What are the BIG differences between a B737NG and a B737-300/400, that would be noticed on a walkaround on tarmac?
2. Are the Virgin Blue Pilots getting any extra salary and/or benefits for doing this work?
THANK YOU in anticipation of some answers instead of attacks.
Your comments on the Ansett B767s just shows how little you do know of the Industry, it is true what I said.
This thing some of you have about what happens in other Countries, I have done a little checking on some other sites, and I was surprised (guess I listen too much to you lot ) to find that even in the USA MOST Airlines insist on Engineers (Licenced A+P Mechanics) doing these checks, as well as Pilots, because it is SAFER...........
IF we all say 100 times:-
IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE.
IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE.
IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE (ETC)
Then it will not be a safety issue, brilliant.
Trouble is, it is pure money saving idea, at the expense of safety.
Instead of attacking the Engineers, would one of you PLEASE explain the questions I asked earlier.
1. What are the BIG differences between a B737NG and a B737-300/400, that would be noticed on a walkaround on tarmac?
2. Are the Virgin Blue Pilots getting any extra salary and/or benefits for doing this work?
THANK YOU in anticipation of some answers instead of attacks.
Your comments on the Ansett B767s just shows how little you do know of the Industry, it is true what I said.
This thing some of you have about what happens in other Countries, I have done a little checking on some other sites, and I was surprised (guess I listen too much to you lot
) to find that even in the USA MOST Airlines insist on Engineers (Licenced A+P Mechanics) doing these checks, as well as Pilots, because it is SAFER...........
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well! Airsupport has my support!
Sperm Bank however seems to have another agenda!
I remember on many occasions carrying a LAME on board for Pacific Ops, purely for ground support, yet the value of this guy,in the air or on the ground, was such that it spoilt me forever!
Bring back Flight Engineers...you betcha!!
Sperm Bank however seems to have another agenda!
I remember on many occasions carrying a LAME on board for Pacific Ops, purely for ground support, yet the value of this guy,in the air or on the ground, was such that it spoilt me forever!
Bring back Flight Engineers...you betcha!!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airsupport,
what exact data did Boeing extract from B767 F/Es that the computers (or pilots) did not pick up?
been there, done that, you talk nonsense.
if the USA adopted Australian regs and operational practice of our pilots, LAMEs, ATC, etc. their country would STOP
what exact data did Boeing extract from B767 F/Es that the computers (or pilots) did not pick up?
to find that even in the USA MOST Airlines insist on Engineers (Licenced A+P Mechanics) doing these checks, as well as Pilots, because it is SAFER...........
if the USA adopted Australian regs and operational practice of our pilots, LAMEs, ATC, etc. their country would STOP
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engineers versus CASA and the Operators (not pilots)
Winstun
The AN F/Es provided a substantial amount of real time trend monitoring and snapshot parameters that they could not capture without an F/E. It's common knowledge...but nothing to do with the topic.
However, I agree that if it weren't for industrial clout they would never have been there.
Gee, just like the LAMEs are being forced to do...
And of course there has never been a case of a US Operator being in breach of regulations.
The AN F/Es provided a substantial amount of real time trend monitoring and snapshot parameters that they could not capture without an F/E. It's common knowledge...but nothing to do with the topic.
However, I agree that if it weren't for industrial clout they would never have been there.
Gee, just like the LAMEs are being forced to do...
And of course there has never been a case of a US Operator being in breach of regulations.