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.;)

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 !!:confused:

Explain to me again, how this is NOT a safety issue. :rolleyes: :eek:


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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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 :rolleyes: 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. :confused:

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. :(

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.:eek:

Same reason passengers used to pay such high fares to have a flight engineer on flightdeck of B767:rolleyes:

Boeing must be cacking themselves again:yuk:

So Winstun by that reckoning, none would be even cheaper than one. The point being made, is that cost cutting DIRECTLY effects safety in aviation .

Finally you understand. :rolleyes:

YES, of course 3 independent inspections would be SAFER than 2, which is SAFER than 1. :D

3 would COST more than 2, which COSTS more than 1, but it is OBVIOUSLY SAFER, as even you now finally admit. :D

Please forgive me as I am only an Engineer, I don't understand what you mean about taxes. :confused:

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. ;)

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?

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.

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?

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.
:confused:

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.

PLEASE accept my humble apologies, I have just realised the plan. :rolleyes:

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. :D

Your comments on the Ansett B767s just shows how little you do know of the Industry, it is true what I said. :rolleyes:

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 :eek: ) 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...........

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!! ;)

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

Winstun,

Well done..please keep posting. You just continue to back up the arguements of airsupport. You'll become a believer yet.

I'm with amos. :)

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.

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!

Okay, that's a couple more, I figure about 50 to go yet. :rolleyes:

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. :rolleyes:

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. :eek:

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. ;)

I've getting a very powerful feeling of deja vu around here.:p

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. :eek:

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.

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 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!

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.

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.

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. :rolleyes:

GOD help us if the Australian Airline Industry is to sink to those standards. :(

To airsupport
I agree totally with what you say about the (lack of)
maintenance on some of the a/craft that turned up during the period in mention.Scary stuff

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!!

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?

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 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. :rolleyes:

I cannot believe anyone does not understand that. :eek:

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. :rolleyes:

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. :rolleyes:

See what i mean about being anal. :ugh:
Get a life my friend.

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!!!!!!

Apart from your absolutely ludicrous conspiracy theory, who are these 'sinister engineers'?

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.

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. :rolleyes: