I always understood that certain engineering procedures required a dual inspection, such as after work on critical items like flying controls.

If this final check of pitot covers removed rests with engineering, should there not be a dual inspection given the critical nature of this item?

There is. The engineer has to physically display the covers to the pilots demonstrating that they have been removed. We are lucky to get one engineer at a gate, let alone two.

Thinking outside of box, maybe it is time to redesign pitot tubes to eliminate need for covers?

Or design the aircraft such that the probes and ports are always located such that flight crew can visually confirm there are no covers on them.

Tiger Moth I flew had such an arrangement that blocked off the tube when there was no airflow, available from Spruce aircraft supplies.


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e151534f8.jpeg

Do they rattle much at Mach 0.85 in the Moth?

for something that stick's out like fluro dogs ball's you'll think the problem lie's with the incompetent ground handler's AMSA and now rebranded heston. you can have all the procedues in the world but if the dispatch guy has no clue doesn't bother looking up and seeing REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT FLAGS 1meter from his incompetent head this wiill just continue

There is no reason that gates couldn’t have a private webcam showing the aircraft. The crew could then monitor in real time the baggage loading, fueling and yes, pitot covers. “How hard can it be?”he asked rhetorically.

:D hahaha, ahhh I got a good laugh at that

Quite hard when airlines share multiple gates at multiple airports that none of them own. I guess that's why they employ their own ground handlers and engineering. If aircraft manufacturers thought it was so dire, you'd think there'd be an electronic monitoring system. If Airbus et al can build in cameras so the pilots can see where the wheels are, and the punters can see a nice view ahead from the tail, perhaps they can put ones so the pilots can see if the various pins and covers have been removed. Or carry them all on the flight deck. If they aren't in the rack, don't push back.

There's the problem right there....it doesn't say "Remove Before Taxi". The engineers are obviously of the belief that the pilot will take them off at line up.

A BNE engineer showed me the correct number of pitot tube covers just before push back. I asked him if the covers were from my aircraft and he said no. He was scamming the system by carrying around a spare set of covers to fool flight crews with.

And…

What did you do next?

That’s funny, right there.

(Re your subsequent post drawing a distinction between “Flight” on a “Remove Before” cover on the one hand and taxi then take off on the other: Don’t forget where the rules say a ‘flight’ starts and when flight crews commence logging - and rightly claiming - numero uno responsibility ‘flight time’…)

Tie the covers to the gate or something fwd and in line.... not rocket science ffs. Use some string and ingenuity.

Certainly my comment was tongue in cheek, and there's a reason why pre-flight checks come before pre-take-off checks. It doesn't matter what is written on them if they are forgotten about.

Would leaving them heated during turnarounds deter a wasp from moving in? Or would they “burn out” or fail due extended use?

After push back on many aircraft the nose gear pin is held up so both pilots can see it. Is there any reason why the pitot covers can't be held up one by one so the pilots can see them?

What about old mate whom Motorola says is in the habit of: "scamming the system by carrying around a spare set of covers to fool flight crews with"?

Only too happy to provide some light relief. The point is, someone in the 1930's recognised a problem and came up with a solution that was simple using the technology available at the time. Is it beyond the wit of man (or woman), who can build your .85M vehicle, to come up with a modern day equivalent. Kelly Johnson or Joe Sutter could have solved the problem during their coffee break if they saw the need.