Engineers slam Virgin on Safety Pt2
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen I guess it is time some of us get in touch with the 21st century. Amos, flight engineers on modern a/c are finsihed forever. I don't think we need to cover that one again. My AGENDA as you put it is to keep this argument to the facts, nothing more nothing less.
Airsupport, I and many others have not and will not attack engineers despite your assertions otherwise.
1. I don't know and don't care what the differences are between the classic and the NG. I have no experience on the classic. To quote the Boeing 737 NG operations manual, Volume 1 page NP20.5 EXTERIOR INSPECTION "Prior to each flight, the flight crew must accomplish or verify that the maintenance crew has accomplished the following checks"..... There it is in black and white mate. No mention of 2 seperate checks being required. As I said I would prefer to have both pilot and engineer to complete transit checks. My OPINION however has nothing to do with the FACTS.
2. NO. Virgin pilots do not get any extra money to complete the checks. We should but we don't.
3. Perhaps you could now answer one of my questions. Why have airline pilots been allowed to perform transit checks in lieu of engineers for the last 50+ years as parts of airline SOP's? If it was in ANY way a safety issue it would have been stopped ages ago.
To re visit the topic "Engineers slam Virgin on safety". I ask once again to be shown how safety has or is being compromised. What I want to see and what is actually happening or being effected are 2 very different things. I say again lets keep the emotion out of the responses. Facts are sometimes hard to swallow so the responses have been embellished in an attempt to get the point of view across.
Older people in aviation (particularly Australian pilots and engineers) seem very reticent to change no matter how effective the argument for moving ahead. I think it is arguable whether taking away engineers from transit checks is a step in the right direction. That is not the issue though. The issue is does it effect safety. The answer is OF COURSE IT DOES NOT AFFECT SAFETY!
Airsupport, I and many others have not and will not attack engineers despite your assertions otherwise.
1. I don't know and don't care what the differences are between the classic and the NG. I have no experience on the classic. To quote the Boeing 737 NG operations manual, Volume 1 page NP20.5 EXTERIOR INSPECTION "Prior to each flight, the flight crew must accomplish or verify that the maintenance crew has accomplished the following checks"..... There it is in black and white mate. No mention of 2 seperate checks being required. As I said I would prefer to have both pilot and engineer to complete transit checks. My OPINION however has nothing to do with the FACTS.
2. NO. Virgin pilots do not get any extra money to complete the checks. We should but we don't.
3. Perhaps you could now answer one of my questions. Why have airline pilots been allowed to perform transit checks in lieu of engineers for the last 50+ years as parts of airline SOP's? If it was in ANY way a safety issue it would have been stopped ages ago.
To re visit the topic "Engineers slam Virgin on safety". I ask once again to be shown how safety has or is being compromised. What I want to see and what is actually happening or being effected are 2 very different things. I say again lets keep the emotion out of the responses. Facts are sometimes hard to swallow so the responses have been embellished in an attempt to get the point of view across.
Older people in aviation (particularly Australian pilots and engineers) seem very reticent to change no matter how effective the argument for moving ahead. I think it is arguable whether taking away engineers from transit checks is a step in the right direction. That is not the issue though. The issue is does it effect safety. The answer is OF COURSE IT DOES NOT AFFECT SAFETY!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, that's a couple more, I figure about 50 to go yet. 
IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE.
IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE.
IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE
IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE.
IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE.
There, I figure about 45 more times and it will not be a safety issue
although now it's 44.
Just to change the subject completely.
On the way home this afternoon, I came upon a major intersection, that is dangerous at any time, and the traffic lights were not working.
As I got nearer the intersection I was VERY pleased to see that there were 4 police controlling the intersection.
Now it was still a bit of a nightmare but it would have been less safe with only 3 police, much less safe with 2 and deadly with only 1.
After I got through the intersection safely, I just couldn't help thinking that although it would have been cheaper to have only 2 police there, and they may have even been able to control it with no accidents, it WAS much SAFER with the 4 police keeping an eye on things.
IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE.
IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE.
IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE
IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE.
IT IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE.
There, I figure about 45 more times and it will not be a safety issue
although now it's 44. Just to change the subject completely.
On the way home this afternoon, I came upon a major intersection, that is dangerous at any time, and the traffic lights were not working.
As I got nearer the intersection I was VERY pleased to see that there were 4 police controlling the intersection.
Now it was still a bit of a nightmare but it would have been less safe with only 3 police, much less safe with 2 and deadly with only 1.
After I got through the intersection safely, I just couldn't help thinking that although it would have been cheaper to have only 2 police there, and they may have even been able to control it with no accidents, it WAS much SAFER with the 4 police keeping an eye on things.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to hear that, maybe you should consult a Doctor. 
Please remember though, IF you are concerned for your safety, and NOT just the cost, you should seek two independent consultations, get a second opinion as they say.
It is always SAFER, the first Doctor no matter how qualified and experienced MAY miss something.
Please remember though, IF you are concerned for your safety, and NOT just the cost, you should seek two independent consultations, get a second opinion as they say.
It is always SAFER, the first Doctor no matter how qualified and experienced MAY miss something.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winstun and Snowball,
You both seem to have a lot to say about what goes on outside Aus, just answer this question, which AIRLINE did you actually work for that did NOT require a LAE, LAME or A & P to sign off a preflight?
As I said in my previous posts, I know plenty who still do and I have been there and done it.
You both seem to have a lot to say about what goes on outside Aus, just answer this question, which AIRLINE did you actually work for that did NOT require a LAE, LAME or A & P to sign off a preflight?
As I said in my previous posts, I know plenty who still do and I have been there and done it.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet another point to add.
I don't think anyone will argue that a pilot CANNOT perform a preflight given adequate training, but the fact is that, in Australia, pilots AREN'T given adequate training on preflights. This is evidenced by the number of times I have been asked by a pilot what the limits are on simple things like tyre and brake wear. If they had decent training, they wouldn't need to ask. I'm not saying that pilots shouldn't ask an engineer if they have a legitimate query, and I'm more than willing to help them out when they do, but simple things like tyres and brakes should be known.
Quite a few people have mentioned about practices in Europe, with pilots doing all preflights. Having spoken to a number of pilots from that part of the world, I know they are given a course on basic maintenance BEFORE they are able to perform a preflight. This course goes for something like 3 weeks. How much maintenance training do Australian pilots get?
Then there's the matter of time. Pilots don't get to start their preflight until all the passengers have disembarked, which can be 10 minutes after arrival. This doesn't leave much time to carry out a decent walk around with a 30 minute turn around, when they also have to attend to the rest of their cockpit duties. No wonder CASA notices them taking short cuts...they don't have much choice.
I guess it all comes down to common sense. Pilots have neither the time nor the training to carry out a decent preflight...engineers, however, have both. This, of course, can be rectified by giving pilots maintenance training and extending turn around times, but why bother? Engineers are there already, why not use them? But then again...the peolple who make these kinds of decisions could never be accused of having common sense, could they?
BTW...I am NOT having a go at pilots, I AM having a go at the bean counters and decision makers.
I don't think anyone will argue that a pilot CANNOT perform a preflight given adequate training, but the fact is that, in Australia, pilots AREN'T given adequate training on preflights. This is evidenced by the number of times I have been asked by a pilot what the limits are on simple things like tyre and brake wear. If they had decent training, they wouldn't need to ask. I'm not saying that pilots shouldn't ask an engineer if they have a legitimate query, and I'm more than willing to help them out when they do, but simple things like tyres and brakes should be known.
Quite a few people have mentioned about practices in Europe, with pilots doing all preflights. Having spoken to a number of pilots from that part of the world, I know they are given a course on basic maintenance BEFORE they are able to perform a preflight. This course goes for something like 3 weeks. How much maintenance training do Australian pilots get?
Then there's the matter of time. Pilots don't get to start their preflight until all the passengers have disembarked, which can be 10 minutes after arrival. This doesn't leave much time to carry out a decent walk around with a 30 minute turn around, when they also have to attend to the rest of their cockpit duties. No wonder CASA notices them taking short cuts...they don't have much choice.
I guess it all comes down to common sense. Pilots have neither the time nor the training to carry out a decent preflight...engineers, however, have both. This, of course, can be rectified by giving pilots maintenance training and extending turn around times, but why bother? Engineers are there already, why not use them? But then again...the peolple who make these kinds of decisions could never be accused of having common sense, could they?
BTW...I am NOT having a go at pilots, I AM having a go at the bean counters and decision makers.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I started my aviation carreer as a LAME, posted to several overseas bases. Secured a job as a flight engineer and flew with many pilots who were originally LAMEs but now in the left and right hand seats of heavy jets. All newly employed pilots sat the same ground school for type conversion as the flight engineers and were given the task of passing all the technical questions as presented by the CAD authority. Many of these pilots were absolute technical enthusiasts, tinkering with vintage cars or building their own kit planes to a very high standard. Doing a proper walkaround check on a 737 especially, is a piece of cake to most of them and in my opinion, this great hype about endangering the safety of flight due to pilot walkaround inspections, is a load of codswallop!
Last edited by HotDog; 12th Mar 2003 at 05:09.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hotdog,
You again are missing the point, its called TRAINING, just because you do a pilots course, you cannot tell me that it automatically qualifies you to do preflights.
I have done these courses both here and overseas and nothing was mentioned about preflights, its up to the training F/E or training Capt to show you. How are they qualified?
A little knowledge is dangerous.
You again are missing the point, its called TRAINING, just because you do a pilots course, you cannot tell me that it automatically qualifies you to do preflights.
I have done these courses both here and overseas and nothing was mentioned about preflights, its up to the training F/E or training Capt to show you. How are they qualified?
A little knowledge is dangerous.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ebye
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wear limits on brakes & tyres
Not a pilot.
A well very constructed point in your discussion.
When the engineers send out an airplane with marginal limits on brakes & tyres, then the need is to discuss the problem with those very same engineers - NOT the pilots who are doing their pre-flight walk-rounds!
It is about time some of you blokes actually looked around you. Southwest (& others) have run schedules with 15 minute turns for a great number of years & they do not have a problem with getting the job done - including the walk-round.
Engineers are pushing the barrow a little too hard on this one.
Grow up - you're acting like a few of my mates back in 1989.
Hotdog - you are so right. Most blokes with any interest in his airplane can do the job. In some smaller companies worked in, the captain/FO will do a check even when GE's are available.
A well very constructed point in your discussion.
When the engineers send out an airplane with marginal limits on brakes & tyres, then the need is to discuss the problem with those very same engineers - NOT the pilots who are doing their pre-flight walk-rounds!
It is about time some of you blokes actually looked around you. Southwest (& others) have run schedules with 15 minute turns for a great number of years & they do not have a problem with getting the job done - including the walk-round.
Engineers are pushing the barrow a little too hard on this one.
Grow up - you're acting like a few of my mates back in 1989.
Hotdog - you are so right. Most blokes with any interest in his airplane can do the job. In some smaller companies worked in, the captain/FO will do a check even when GE's are available.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kwaj,
If I were you, I certainly wouldn't mention what happened in 1989 with reference to what we are talking about here.
Now you have raised it, that is a perfect example of what the Engineers are worried about safety wise.
The Engineers that were with the Airlines then (yes including me) worked daily with these imported Pilots. Although most of them were very nice people, I pray that Australia NEVER sinks to the level that those Aircraft were maintained.
The majority of Australian LAMEs at the time REFUSED to certify for these Aircraft, because of the condition they were in, and the way they were maintained (or NOT maintained). It really made us appreciate the professionalism of the 1989 Pilots, though by what you said, I guess you wouldn't understand that.
GOD help us if the Australian Airline Industry is to sink to those standards.
If I were you, I certainly wouldn't mention what happened in 1989 with reference to what we are talking about here.
Now you have raised it, that is a perfect example of what the Engineers are worried about safety wise.
The Engineers that were with the Airlines then (yes including me) worked daily with these imported Pilots. Although most of them were very nice people, I pray that Australia NEVER sinks to the level that those Aircraft were maintained.
The majority of Australian LAMEs at the time REFUSED to certify for these Aircraft, because of the condition they were in, and the way they were maintained (or NOT maintained). It really made us appreciate the professionalism of the 1989 Pilots, though by what you said, I guess you wouldn't understand that.
GOD help us if the Australian Airline Industry is to sink to those standards.
Winstun, forget it you are on a totally different subject!!!Unfortunately I cannot see it as anything but a degridation in safety. And I drive the things. For the sake of 7 odd minutes, the backup of a pro engineer is priceless. Unfortunately I know who is going to win on this one.
All,
After a Bex, a cup of tea, and a good lie down, have a search through the Flight Safety Foundation website, looking for various papers on flight safety and Australia.
Probably about five or six years ago, a very big survey of Australian aviation “professionals” was conducted. The purpose of the survey was to determine why said professionals thought Australia has a good safety record ( has it, see ATSB v. NTSB stats.??).
I found the results enlightening, the opinions were almost completely polarised, those within each major group, Pilots, ATC, and LAMEs all claimed Australia’s safety record was their doing, and the greatest menaces to maintaining their proud record were the other two groups
The FSF research was probably much more broad than respondents on pprune, so one can reasonably assume that the results were representative. What the results did show was a high level of antagonism towards, and disrespect for the professional competence of each group, by members of each other of the three groups.
A sad state of affairs, something I have not really come across outside Australia, and so often mirrored on this thread, and so many other threads on Dununder etc.
Tootle pip!!
After a Bex, a cup of tea, and a good lie down, have a search through the Flight Safety Foundation website, looking for various papers on flight safety and Australia.
Probably about five or six years ago, a very big survey of Australian aviation “professionals” was conducted. The purpose of the survey was to determine why said professionals thought Australia has a good safety record ( has it, see ATSB v. NTSB stats.??).
I found the results enlightening, the opinions were almost completely polarised, those within each major group, Pilots, ATC, and LAMEs all claimed Australia’s safety record was their doing, and the greatest menaces to maintaining their proud record were the other two groups
The FSF research was probably much more broad than respondents on pprune, so one can reasonably assume that the results were representative. What the results did show was a high level of antagonism towards, and disrespect for the professional competence of each group, by members of each other of the three groups.
A sad state of affairs, something I have not really come across outside Australia, and so often mirrored on this thread, and so many other threads on Dununder etc.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a few players saying the same things over and over!
my questions are simple:
is casa's peter gibson deliberatively provocative or terminally stupid?
who is ken cannane consulting for and what is his relationship with the alaea?
when casa conducted its reported surveillance, how many of the casa people are or were members of the alaea?
what role did rick leeds, ex president of the alaea and now casa maintenance guru play in ordering the surveillance?
what if any surveillance has case carried out on alaea members conducting transit exterior inspections?
is the alaea's position that every aircraft must be inspected by licenced maintenance personnel after every flight, regardless of size and passenger capacity?
my questions are simple:
is casa's peter gibson deliberatively provocative or terminally stupid?
who is ken cannane consulting for and what is his relationship with the alaea?
when casa conducted its reported surveillance, how many of the casa people are or were members of the alaea?
what role did rick leeds, ex president of the alaea and now casa maintenance guru play in ordering the surveillance?
what if any surveillance has case carried out on alaea members conducting transit exterior inspections?
is the alaea's position that every aircraft must be inspected by licenced maintenance personnel after every flight, regardless of size and passenger capacity?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
scrubba
Some speculative answers
is casa's peter gibson deliberatively provocative or terminally stupid?
Yes to the first but I've been told he doesn't open his mouth without being briefed by the Executive (mainly pilots).
who is ken cannane consulting for and what is his relationship with the alaea?
Cannane Consulting has no relationship with the ALAEA.
when casa conducted its reported surveillance, how many of the casa people are or were members of the alaea?
The ALAEA does not represent any CASA stafff as they are not respondent to the CASA award. Who knows who carried out the surveillance?
what role did rick leeds, ex president of the alaea and now casa maintenance guru play in ordering the surveillance?
Unknown. However it is his boss Arthur White (ex military pilot)who is defending VBs performance and maintenance program. I believe Rick Leeds position is "Senior Compliance Auditor' not 'maintenance guru'.
what if any surveillance has case carried out on alaea members conducting transit exterior inspections?
Unknown. However, if any LAMEs are observed not carrying out maintenance correctly then I for one would expect them to be dealt with in an appropriate manner by CASA.
is the alaea's position that every aircraft must be inspected by licenced maintenance personnel after every flight, regardless of size and passenger capacity?
I don't believe so. Outports which have been assessed by CASA, together with appropriate pilot training would be able to operate on pilot preflight. Manned bases before and after those outports would need to be carried out by LAMEs. Suggest you refer to FAR 121.105 and 121.123 for an idea of what they're on about with regard to infrastructure required along routes.
Some speculative answers
is casa's peter gibson deliberatively provocative or terminally stupid?
Yes to the first but I've been told he doesn't open his mouth without being briefed by the Executive (mainly pilots).
who is ken cannane consulting for and what is his relationship with the alaea?
Cannane Consulting has no relationship with the ALAEA.
when casa conducted its reported surveillance, how many of the casa people are or were members of the alaea?
The ALAEA does not represent any CASA stafff as they are not respondent to the CASA award. Who knows who carried out the surveillance?
what role did rick leeds, ex president of the alaea and now casa maintenance guru play in ordering the surveillance?
Unknown. However it is his boss Arthur White (ex military pilot)who is defending VBs performance and maintenance program. I believe Rick Leeds position is "Senior Compliance Auditor' not 'maintenance guru'.
what if any surveillance has case carried out on alaea members conducting transit exterior inspections?
Unknown. However, if any LAMEs are observed not carrying out maintenance correctly then I for one would expect them to be dealt with in an appropriate manner by CASA.
is the alaea's position that every aircraft must be inspected by licenced maintenance personnel after every flight, regardless of size and passenger capacity?
I don't believe so. Outports which have been assessed by CASA, together with appropriate pilot training would be able to operate on pilot preflight. Manned bases before and after those outports would need to be carried out by LAMEs. Suggest you refer to FAR 121.105 and 121.123 for an idea of what they're on about with regard to infrastructure required along routes.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people, like rockarpee, seem to understand what it is all about, however others still don't get it, and continue to attack the Engineers.
It is NOT an anti Pilot thing, it is ONLY about 2 independent inspections being SAFER, albeit probably more COSTLY, than 1 solo inspection, whether by Pilots and/or Engineers.
I cannot believe anyone does not understand that.
IF there is anyone out there that still does NOT understand that, forget Aircraft for a minute.
Let's say that you are a married man, with a lovely Wife and 2 small children, all of whom you love dearly. While you are away doing you Pilot thing, your Wife drives the family car aroiund all the time, kids to school etc etc.
Your Wife is a very good driver, but she is not a motor mechanic, so because you love them all so much and are away all the time, you have arranged for a local motor mechanic to check the car over regurlarly. You are indeed a very good Husband and Father.
Now you buy a new car for your Wife and kids to use while you are away all the time, and the Salesman says that this car is so advanced it should never break down, and hardly ever needs servicing.
Now IF you follow this Salesman's advice, just have your Wife check this new car while you are away from then on, dispense with the services of the motor mechanic, YES you will save money (you miserable person) but PLEASE PLEASE tell me that you do NOT think that your Wife and kids are as SAFE as they were before.
It is NOT an anti Pilot thing, it is ONLY about 2 independent inspections being SAFER, albeit probably more COSTLY, than 1 solo inspection, whether by Pilots and/or Engineers.
I cannot believe anyone does not understand that.
IF there is anyone out there that still does NOT understand that, forget Aircraft for a minute.
Let's say that you are a married man, with a lovely Wife and 2 small children, all of whom you love dearly. While you are away doing you Pilot thing, your Wife drives the family car aroiund all the time, kids to school etc etc.
Your Wife is a very good driver, but she is not a motor mechanic, so because you love them all so much and are away all the time, you have arranged for a local motor mechanic to check the car over regurlarly. You are indeed a very good Husband and Father.
Now you buy a new car for your Wife and kids to use while you are away all the time, and the Salesman says that this car is so advanced it should never break down, and hardly ever needs servicing.
Now IF you follow this Salesman's advice, just have your Wife check this new car while you are away from then on, dispense with the services of the motor mechanic, YES you will save money (you miserable person) but PLEASE PLEASE tell me that you do NOT think that your Wife and kids are as SAFE as they were before.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled you are quite correct. The antagonism among a very few of the vacuous hard core from the three professions in this country is mind numbing to say the least. I did not experience ANY of it overseas!
Scrubba as you alluded to in your post, the purely political agenda CASA has embarked on is pathetic, without foundation and doing nothing to harness the relationship between pilots and engineers (or the media). Anyone who believes this is not an anti-pilot thing is deluding themselves! The accusations were that "pilots were not performing walk arounds correctly". The "alleged" impropriety was reported by some sinister engineers on a campaign of worthless self righteousness. They were wrong in what they did and are now found wanting in the truth department. When asked to provide evidence the response was mute. That's right, not a single shread of supporting evidence. Thankfully we only have a few of this kind of vindictive individual working in DJ. The majority of engineers I talk to on a daily basis are professionals in the truest sense of the word.
Police, doctors, mechanics cars etc. Whilst these analogies may provide you with some inner self comfort, they are irrelevant and not remotely close to the point. I have a toyota that the maunfacturer says requires a service every 5000 km's. I also have a BMW that the manufacturer says requires a service every 25,000 km's. One gets checked 5 times more than the other. Big deal! They are both SAFE. And NO the Toyota is not more safe than the BMW. I mean this argument is now becoming farcical.
Some of you guys have already admitted that a/c away from home base have transit checks done by pilots. If it was not SAFE, why would they be allowed?????? Some a/c do multiple flights away from home/engineering base. What should we do with those a/c?
Airsupport I answered your questions however you still have not answered mine.
If pilot transit checks on their own are unsafe or not as safe, why have they been performed without incident for the last 50+ years?
I think it is becoming quite apparent this subject is descending into a farce! This time next year it will all be forgotten and we will look back and say what was all the fuss about?
Brett Lee took a hat trick last night. One guy ended up in hospital. Word has it that it was not more safe having 2 batsmen at the crease rather than 1! What is the relevance? EXACTLY!!!!!!
Scrubba as you alluded to in your post, the purely political agenda CASA has embarked on is pathetic, without foundation and doing nothing to harness the relationship between pilots and engineers (or the media). Anyone who believes this is not an anti-pilot thing is deluding themselves! The accusations were that "pilots were not performing walk arounds correctly". The "alleged" impropriety was reported by some sinister engineers on a campaign of worthless self righteousness. They were wrong in what they did and are now found wanting in the truth department. When asked to provide evidence the response was mute. That's right, not a single shread of supporting evidence. Thankfully we only have a few of this kind of vindictive individual working in DJ. The majority of engineers I talk to on a daily basis are professionals in the truest sense of the word.
Police, doctors, mechanics cars etc. Whilst these analogies may provide you with some inner self comfort, they are irrelevant and not remotely close to the point. I have a toyota that the maunfacturer says requires a service every 5000 km's. I also have a BMW that the manufacturer says requires a service every 25,000 km's. One gets checked 5 times more than the other. Big deal! They are both SAFE. And NO the Toyota is not more safe than the BMW. I mean this argument is now becoming farcical.
Some of you guys have already admitted that a/c away from home base have transit checks done by pilots. If it was not SAFE, why would they be allowed?????? Some a/c do multiple flights away from home/engineering base. What should we do with those a/c?
Airsupport I answered your questions however you still have not answered mine.
If pilot transit checks on their own are unsafe or not as safe, why have they been performed without incident for the last 50+ years?
I think it is becoming quite apparent this subject is descending into a farce! This time next year it will all be forgotten and we will look back and say what was all the fuss about?
Brett Lee took a hat trick last night. One guy ended up in hospital. Word has it that it was not more safe having 2 batsmen at the crease rather than 1! What is the relevance? EXACTLY!!!!!!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone who believes this is not an anti-pilot thing is deluding themselves!
The "alleged" impropriety was reported by some sinister engineers on a campaign of worthless self righteousness.
And as for the professionalism of the DJ engineers, you are correct. Even in the face of losing there empolyment for standing up for their beliefs.
You have some serious issues spermbank... maybe you should go, have a bex and a lie down.
Last edited by AN LAME; 16th Mar 2003 at 07:38.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I give up.
I am sure that the majority of Pilots understand perfectly, however some of the people on this thread, who say they are Pilots, have given me a real fear of flying for the first time in 50 odd years.
I will say no more on the subject.
I am sure that the majority of Pilots understand perfectly, however some of the people on this thread, who say they are Pilots, have given me a real fear of flying for the first time in 50 odd years.
I will say no more on the subject.