Grease-monkeys riding bicycles (part II)
 

Ladies, Gentlemen, and monkeys riding bicycles,

The first 108 posts of this thread can be found here.

AN LAME,

I am sorry to be so blunt, but I am concerned that you cannot read.

You claim :

Yet what I actually said was :

You are putting words into my mouth – and getting it wrong.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that your incorrect interpretations of the ICAO SARPs and Australian CARs have been entirely unavoidable since you seem to have a propensity to see words that are not actually on the page. :confused:

It’s going to be increasingly difficult to engage in a rational discussion if one party has a tendency to see things that are not really there. :(

You continue :

I repeat, I suggest that you are in a minority of one in regard to your interpretation of the ICAO SARPs – specifically, in your interpretation that an airline jet must be inspected by a licenced engineer prior to each and every flight.

I don’t see that ANY of the “apparent engineering background contributors” nor ANY of the “flying fraternity” have stated that they agree with your rather peculiar interpretation of the ICAO SARPs.

Please specify which of the “apparent engineering background contributors” and “flying fraternity” you say agree with your interpretation that the ICAO SARPs require a that a licenced aircraft engineer must inspect an airline jet aircraft prior to each and every flight.

Pilots fly the planes – I think we are in agreement on that part. Licenced engineers fix the planes – I think we would agree on that too. And I know that all pilots have a great deal of respect and indeed gratitude for engineers that fix the planes.

But you have intimated that pilots are incapable of conducting “walk around” inspections to a satisfactory standard, and that, in any case, a “walk around” inspection should properly be regarded as “secret engineers business” (like “secret women’s business”, perhaps :confused: )

Given that pilots are required to attain a level of competence in conducting “walk around” inspections as part of their initial training on type, and given that many pilots are required to conduct “walk around” inspections as part of their everyday tasks, your “utmost respect” would seem to be not quite as “utmost” as you might have us believe.

Do you recognise that your lack of respect for the professional competence of pilots in performing their required duties might rub people up the wrong way, or is it something that you do without realising?

AN LAME – you seem to be pursuing three separate lines of argument.

(1) That it is a legal requirement under ICAO SARPs that a licenced engineer must inspect an airline jet aircraft before each and every flight.

(2) That a licenced engineer must inspect an airline jet before each and every flight for safety reasons. You have suggested that pilots are incapable of conducting this inspection to a satisfactory standard, and you have suggested that there will be adverse safety outcomes - ie accidents and/or incidents – if a licenced engineer does not perform the inspections.

(3) That the job of the “walk around” inspection rightfully belongs to the licenced engineers because that is the way it has always been done in Australia.

On argument (1) I suggest that you are simply barking up the wrong tree. It is my view that your interpretation of ICAO SARPs is flawed. If it is not flawed, then why haven’t you, nor the ALAEA, nor anyone else challenged CASA in the Federal (or any other) Court?

On argument (2) I suggest that your safety concerns – if in fact they are genuine – are unfounded. The evidence from the mature and much larger aviation markets overseas simply does not support your assertions. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Argument (3) is simply an industrial relations issue – in effect a demarcation dispute. Demarcation disputes, in and of themselves, have nothing what so ever to do with safety.

Actually, you never inquired as to why I believe the ALAEA has been unscrupulous and aggressive. Once again, I think you are seeing words that aren’t there. :confused:

Your query was :

And to that, my reply was :

To answer your original query more directly, I don’t know, nor do I care, what the ALAEA’s unscrupulous and aggressive behaviour makes the AMWU, TWU or “an employee group in this same industry some 14 years ago?”

I guess that if the ALAEA wishes to lower its level of behaviour to that of the AMWU, or TWU, or the Painters and Dockers if you want to go the whole hog, then that is entirely its prerogative.

You seem to want to engage me on ’89 issues. You will continue to fail. I couldn’t give a rats bottom about ’89 issues.

To answer your new query, I believe that the ALAEA’s behaviour has been unscrupulous because they have been telling deliberate fibs and being knowingly misleading in their dealings with the media by pretending that :

(a) The current approved practice in Australian jet airlines is that a licenced engineer must ALWAYS perform a “walk around” inspection before each and every flight – which is demonstrably untrue.

(b) That Australia would be out of step with current approved practice overseas if Australia did not require that a licenced engineer must perform a “walk around” inspection before each and every flight – which is also demonstrably untrue.

(c) That the ALAEA’s motivation for its current CASA lobbying and media campaign is a benevolent concern for the safety of flight – when in reality the ALAEA’s true motivation is simply to feather the nests of itself and its members – ie a significant and obvious vested interest.

The ALAEA has been overly-aggressive because it has attempted to rail-road both the airline employers and the regulator into complying with its own industrial demands by means of a misleading public scare campaign – a scare campaign that has endeavoured to hoodwink the flying public into believing a series of lies and half-truths.

To be entirely frank, the ALAEA’s behaviour has been more akin to the kind of industrial thuggery that one might expect from a trade union representing a group of uneducated and unskilled blue-collar workers – rather than a group of licenced aircraft engineers. In this respect, perhaps I may have simply over-estimated the level of professionalism of the licenced engineers?

I do disagree with their argument, but I disagree more with their methods.

Engineers slam Virgin on Safety Pt2
 

Please ignore the BIK thread. Seems monkeys play a big part in his life...now if only he could sing and stop grabbing his crotch.


For those that wish to continue discussing this topic in a professional manner please do so.


Geek.
:)

Trying to play King Solomon here :=

BIK_116.80 posted the continuation first, but Oz Geek got the title more correct, so they're merged as we are not having two bites at it.

Might I make the observation that BIK_116.80 is entitled to respond to the "monkeys" issue, which if I recall correctly, was raised by the engineers.

Oz Geeks post is contradictory, on the one hand he passes a derogatory comment and on the other he pleads for professionalism.

Why don't we just concentrate on the professional discussion bit eh.

BIK

Seeing as you're not playing the man :rolleyes: ... I respect your right to hold an opinion even if that opinion is that my views are incorrect.

I was going to start quoting your quoting of my quotes however the fact is, I can't be bothered. Of course you will most likely take that as a sign of defeat, which I can assure you is not the case. The level of detail which you go into in your lengthy responses is IMHO a debate which needs to be carried out face to face.

Despite your assertion that my, and others view are not worthy of your time... I don't particularly care :eek: Having been involved in RPT for twenty years , I am of the opinion that the LAME's contribution to the safety and efficiency of the Australian industry is a significant resource that is currently under threat by those who would remove a 'slice of Swiss Cheese ' from James Reason's accident model... in the name of economic rationalism. You may take this as a personal affront on behalf of all the professional pilots out there... you appear to desire to do so. But if I may speak TO all those pilots ' I have the utmost respect for your skills, training and professionalism. However, in an industry which is moving to competency based training you have not received that training. That is not to say that you cannot be trained. (And then BIK may get the Industrial posture that he is so keen on developing) However at this point in time, and until otherwise, I believe the LAME is the appropriately qualified person.'

And as I have said in the past (BIK will be able to quote me chapter and verse I'm sure - in or out of context) there is a broader issue down the track if this continues - and that will be the commercial pressure on Tech Crews to carry defects because of a lack of an Engineering presence.

Cheers :p

'You can teach a monkey to ride a bike...'
( I have to keep typing it now knowing it annoys BIK so much. If I can paraphrase another old saying 'Small things annoy small minds') ;)

Nope – I never asserted any such thing. Another figment of your imagination I’m afraid. Am I reading a different thread to you or something?

:confused:

Whatever floats your boat, mate! You fill yer boots! lol :)

I stand corrected...inference.

'You can teach a monkey to ride a bike...' (You just wanted to see it again) :p

AN LAME;

I think you cannot really assert that your, and others' views are not worthy of BIK's time - I would say that BIK invested significant time and effort in the previous (lengthy) reply.

To my mind (and I'm not on either side, so regard myself as somewhat neutral), he makes some telling points.

Oz Geek, if his reply was not in a professional manner, please explain what would be?

I assume that you both accept that a well-thought-out and well-argued position is valid? Or is it just that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong - if so I will not deign to reply - that truly would not be worth anyone's time.

Groaner

Just so we don't misunderstand anyone here.

I did not say that Oz Greek was not being professional in his call for professionalism, just that his or anyones "monkey" remarks do not "add" to the debate.

So lets get on with it shall we, sans the bicycles and monkey routines shall we.

And just coz I like seeing it

"Play the ball not the man, lest you get injured."

As somebody who spent many years working in line maintenance in Syd, I am perplexed by the desire of some tech crew to see L.A.M.E.'s removed from the tarmac (the major carriers have been trying it for years). It may well pass, unfortunately, that a lot of experience and knowlege will be flushed off the tarmac in the near future, mainly in the drive to trim costs. Only after the engineers are gone and there is an incident or an accident after something was missed on a turnaround, will it dawn on those of you who are so keen to see the engineers go. That is, when something does go wrong, the first response of major airlines in this country has generally been not," what happened and how can we prevent it from happening again "but, "what happened and who can we screw". With the engineers gone, that will place the tech crew very much in the managements firing line (even more than you currently are). Don't believe me? Wait till something happens (and I certainly hope nothing does but, the law of averages will probably catch up with you at some point.)
To all the engineers that may be affected. Fear not, there will always be plenty of overnight work and if that's not your cup of tea, then Heavy Maintenance isn't so bad (that's where I've found work after sep 2001). Or you could be one of the lucky few "Super LAME's" left on the tarmac to apply M.E.L.'s, carry out fuel drains and basically keep your operation going with a box of bandaids and one arm tied behind your back. By all means keep up the good fight but, in the short term things don't look too good. Long term though I wouldn't be surprised to see a quiet return to the tarmac for the LAME. I hope so, for the safety of the travelling public in this country.
Cheers,
CC.

Oz Geek
Where the hell did I say I promise to stop posting? :mad: :mad:
Yet I never do?!?!?
89 posts in just under two years.....

Mate, I think your name sums you up. Why don't you read my (what is it now, 3? maybe 4?) posts in this topic again and think about it.

For your info, AN LAME and I have been down this topic extensively in the past. I don't mind at all if has a friendly dig at me, after all, I worked with him for many years. We know where we stand.

GTG! :mad:

I still can't work out why you flyboys are so anti!!!

It's no skin off your nose if we do transits, we're already there anyway and it gives you more time in the 'deck to do what you really need to do!!!

Why are you guys so against it???????


K

Hey Cruncher

I now realise that the answers to my maintenance woes had been worked out years ago by those with bigger tails!!

K

Not just engineers - CASA too!

Been busy and not had a chance to catch up with this thread. I'll have to post tomorrow as I saw a newspaper article about
CASA issuing a formal warning to Virgin re pilots not doing adequate daily/turnaround inspections.

I'll find the clip and post it in the morning for those that may be interested - unless of course someone out there has it handy and can do the honours. :D

Good to see everyone can maintain a civil conversation;)

GTG,

Sorry, took that as meaning you have had your say and would not post again...obviously your happy to continue to add your 2 cents anytime someone disagrees with you. You must have plenty of spare change.

Your relationship with AN LAME warms the cockles of my heart...it really does.

As for the thread topic...

Kanga,

I do not know ANY pilots that want to see the engineers off the tarmac. (not where I work anyway, nearly 400 pilots)
We want you there as much as you want to be there.

You must remember, its only a very minority (only a few actually) who have the time, or are bothered enough to post their opinion here.

As we suspect Clarence!

Travelling Toolbox,

This the item you mean?


(QUOTE)

AAP Friday February 28, 07:50 PM

Australia's aviation watchdog cracked down on Virgin Blue after surveillance revealed shortcomings in its maintenance checks. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) summoned Virgin representatives to a meeting in Brisbane and issued them with a formal notice over the breaches.

CASA said it was within its guidelines for pilots to conduct the maintenance checks but they were not being thoroughly carried out. "We have had a series of discussions with Virgin Blue today about the issue of turnaround checks," CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said.

"The issue for us is the pilots have got to do these checks properly and what we have found in the course of audits and some surveillance of Virgin Blue is that some of these checks are not being done as thoroughly as they should be by the pilots."
The audit was carried out earlier this month and the checks were placed under surveillance for several days this week.

There was no evidence passenger safety was at risk at any time, but the safety shortcomings were serious enough for a formal warning to be issued, CASA said. "We've got no evidence that anything went wrong with the aircraft because they were subject to shortcuts," Mr Gibson said.

Virgin Blue has undertaken to provide pilots with refresher training courses and issued an email bulletin reminding pilots of safety procedures and the need to carry out all tasks thoroughly.
It will also formally write to its pilots outlining the same points.

Mr Gibson said CASA was satisfied that if those measures were undertaken, Virgin could continue to use pilots to carry out the checks.

Virgin Blue commercial head David Huttner said CASA and the company had come to agreement on the issue. "We had a meeting with CASA to discuss their concerns, and we have agreed with CASA to some amendments to our system," he said.
"There will also be a review process in the coming months.
"But CASA has agreed with that, our pilot system will be continued."

The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association said by using pilots to conduct pre-takeoff safety checks, airlines were watering down an aviation safety system currently among the best in the world. The union's federal executive this week endorsed a series of industry-wide stopwork meetings to consider the issue, starting in Brisbane on March 10.

Virgin maintains the airline has always adhered to safety regulations set by both the aircraft manufacturer and CASA.

But the airline is on notice that it will be watched. "What we are going to do is keep a higher level of surveillance of Virgin Blue in the coming days, weeks and perhaps months to make sure these checks are being done properly," Mr Gibson said.

(ENDQUOTE)

Best regards,

airsupport.

I would prefer to keep out of this lively debate IF it is just going to get personal, as usual.

However it would appear to me that many Pilots are not that happy with this new idea either, and would prefer the status quo.

I happened to be in the Airservices Australia Offices at Brisbane Airport yesterday, have a guess what they were discussing?

Seems most ATC people think it is an unnecessary reduction in safety.

As for the general public, I have had 2 people who are nothing to do with the Industry, but fly as passengers a lot, ask me in the last few days, had I heard of this and what I thought of it?

They both also thought it was a ridiculous exercise in penny pinching, and was making their travelling less safe.

Even IF they all have it wrong (which I don't think they do), there will have to be some smooth talking to convince all these people that safety is NOT being compromised. :(

Oz Geek,
Sounds like you're doing the same buddy. Ever heard of right of reply?

Yes about the topic.......

GTG

AN LAME, tried sending you a PM, but your inbox is full......

I reckon that the majority of pilots are happy to have engineers continue doing transit checks..BUT when the engineers - or more appropriately their union starts calling it a safety issue in the press we take offence.

I for one do not believe that the removal of engineers is a SAFETY issue. The inference is that the Pilots - the ones who strap their behinds into the aeroplane - are incapable of doing the walkaround - which quite clearly is not the case.

The ALAEA can squawk as loudly as it likes just DON'T call it a safety issue cause it isn't!

THAT is why the pilots are getting anti.

PS Having engineers follow you around when you are doing a walkaround to see if they can trip you up is just petty and not worthy of a professional.

If you are an engineer and doing this - please stop it - because it makes you look petty and is just getting the pilots more offside.

ABC Online

ABC News - Plane engineers allege Virgin safety scares

Posted: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:52 AEDT

Plane engineers allege Virgin safety scares


The Australian Industrial Relations Commission has begun hearing how changes to Virgin Blue's pre-flight safety system are allegedly compromising public safety.

The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association has been summoned to the commission after calling a stop-work meeting for next Monday.

Virgin Blue has decided that apart from the first check of the day, all other plane inspections should be conducted by pilots.

But the association's Michael O'Rance says downgrading aircraft engineers' role in preflight safety checks is dangerously lowering standards.

He says the association will detail six critical safety incidents over the past month in which public safety was compromised under the new guidelines, and his members welcome the chance to put their case to the IRC.

Am I missing something ?
I was under the impression pilots had to do a walk around wether the engineers are there and do one, or not.

I'm with stupid.

Correct..as per the AFM but not for maintenance.

DeHav.
I understand the nature of yours and others opposition now at least. But I can assure you that no LAME, nor I imagine the ALAEA, is attempting to disparage pilots. If that's your take on the issue then that is unfortunate

Thurs "Sydney Morning Herald"

Virgin pilots failed plane-check duties
By Greg Roberts
March 6 2003

Virgin Blue has been formally rapped over the knuckles after failing to act on warnings that its pilot safety inspections were inadequate.

As the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) issued the airline with a formal corrective notice yesterday, the authority's corporate affairs manager, Peter Gibson, said: "We were checking on the pilots and the pilots weren't doing the inspections properly."

The move coincides with claims by the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association, denied by Virgin Blue, that public safety had been put at risk by changes in the airline's inspection procedures.

Mr Gibson said a CASA audit early last month found that pilots undertaking visual inspections of Virgin Blue aircraft on the tarmac during aircraft turnarounds - between landing and departure - were not doing so according to specified procedures.

"We did some subsequent surveillance last week and the problem had still not been fixed, so we issued them with a formal notice," Mr Gibson said.

He said the airline had written to its pilots advising them of the inspection requirements and had agreed its pilots should undertake refresher courses in inspections.

The engineers' union was summoned before the Industrial Relations Commission in Brisbane yesterday over a stop-work meeting it plans on Monday over the inspection issue.

The union's federal president, Michael O'Rance, said that since Virgin Blue stopped qualified engineers from conducting turnaround inspections in January on its new generation 737s, directing pilots to do them instead, public safety had been jeopardised.

Mr O'Rance said engineers had defied the directive by inspecting aircraft after pilots had inspected them, discovering major defects missed by the pilots.

They included the engine of a plane in Brisbane bound for Sydney which had been struck by a bird and had to be removed; a torn tyre which had to be changed on a plane in Adelaide bound for Melbourne; and a broken landing light on a plane in Adelaide bound for Sydney.

Mr O'Rance said engineers noticed that a pilot on one aircraft in Sydney had recorded in a logbook that he had conducted an inspection when he had not.

"The change in pre-flight inspections has put domestic passengers at risk because these inspections should be undertaken by qualified engineers," Mr O'Rance said.

Virgin Blue's head of commercial, David Hutner, said the pilot inspections were in accordance with Boeing and CASA guidelines for new generation 737s.

"CASA had simply said to us that certain things needed to be done, that things could be done better, and now we've worked out a program with them to do that," Mr Hutner said.

He said the pilot of the aircraft with the engine which had been struck by a bird had not overlooked the damage but he had gone home ill before being able to conduct his inspection.

"A lot of the union's accusations are false; they are using scare tactics to run their own jobs agenda."

Well there you go. :eek:

PLEASE tell me that some of you who insist this is NOT a safety issue, are now convinced it IS sadly very much a safety issue. :(

How any reasonable person could say it is NOT a safety issue is beyond me. :rolleyes:

Surely 2 independent inspections MUST be safer than 1 inspection, whether it is by one Pilot OR one Engineer. It may well be more costly, but it MUST be safer. :rolleyes:

IF the fact that you are Captains, and you think it offends you, the same would apply if they proposed to do away with the Pilot's inspection, it would be LESS SAFE than now if ONLY LAMEs did the inspections, it is NOT a reflection on Pilots.

Four eyes are better than two. :rolleyes:

And I don't mean people wearing glasses should do all the preflights either. ;)

Virgin pilots have made safety check mistakes: engineers
By MATTHEW DENHOLM
06mar03

VIRGIN Blue has been forced to defend its safety record against claims of recent serious lapses.

Aircraft engineers yesterday outlined a series of faults alleged to have been missed in safety checks by pilots last month.
Virgin Blue ended pre-flight safety checks by licensed aircraft maintenance engineers in late January.

It directed its pilots to perform the visual checks between flights.

The move has been approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, but was yesterday condemned by former CASA maintenance standards chief, Ken Cannane.

Mr Cannane explained to The Daily Telegraph that pilots were insufficiently skilled to detect all faults which can emerge in aircraft.

"They are happy to spend money training pilots but they want to cut costs on maintenance down to nothing," Mr Cannane said.

"This is mad cost-cutting."

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the safety watchdog had no problem with pilots conducting the pre-flight checks – just as long as they were being performed properly.

He said Virgin Blue had promised to improve the checks after CASA surveillance found cases of pilots cutting corners and rushing.

"We will be doing surveillance on them fairly regularly and if we find that improvements haven't been made, we'll take further action if necessary," Mr Gibson said.

"From our perspective it doesn't matter who does the checks – pilots or engineers – as long as they are done properly."

But the Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association pointed to six cases between February 10 and 27 when pilots allegedly didn't do the checks properly.

The most serious of these is that a pilot failed to detect a bird strike in an engine of a plane at Brisbane airport on February 24.

After an engineer spotted feathers and blood, an inspection found severe damage and the engine was replaced.

Virgin Blue head of commercial operations David Huttner said the pilot involved went off duty sick. But he said the replacement pilot would have spotted the damage if the engineer had not done so first.

Other allegations include:

 A pre-flight safety check was signed as completed by crew before a plane had even arrived at its Sydney airport terminal.

 A pilot safety check failed to detect a 3cm-deep tyre puncture on a flight from Adelaide. A broken landing light got through another check at Adelaide.

Mr Huttner said he was unable to respond to all the allegations yesterday, but believed they would prove to be "highly misleading".

"The union is trying to use scare tactics to drive its own agenda, when CASA and Boeing do not reach the same conclusion," he said.

"They both say the procedures we are using are the appropriate ones."

He said Virgin had an excellent safety record.


Of course you'd believe Peter Gibson before the former head of Maintenance Standards, Mr. Cannane, whom I believe was sacked by CASA over this issue!? :rolleyes:

Did the Pilot go home sick before or after the Engineer found the bird strike? :rolleyes:

...or after he'd been told 'if you don't toe the company line'...

Boeing & CASA
 

An important fact that seems to have been overlooked is that the Boeing MPD for the 737NG does not require a full blown engineering check durring turn-arounds.

This is acceptable to CASA, and the operator of these aircraft.

With newer technology, we continue to make progress regarless of the ludities within the industry.

Navigators and in-flight Engineers are no longer requried, but the same "saftey" arguments were made when they left.

With greater reliability, new technolgies, materials and MSG3 design philosophies, there is really no need for an Engineer to perform a check durring transits, as long as the pilot performs the check to the manufactures recommendation.

Notes:

1) In Europe this is standard practice.

2) QF do the same thing in regional ports - so whats the difference ? Are we going to apply the same standards to all operators and aircraft ?

Just as a side issue, half the problem ( pilots not doing proper walkarounds ) is probably that less than 12 months ago, some Virgin captains were doing walkarounds on light A/C :rolleyes:

airsupport

re: newspaper clipping.

Yeah that'll be the one. Thanks for that. ;)

Travelling Toolbox,

No worries. :D

I'm with stupid,

I was under the impression that the Virgin Blue Captains were the most experienced in the business, being mainly people that were Captains prior to 19**, is this NOT true? :confused:

ozdog,

Boeing (and Airbus) will say anything to sell you the Aircraft. :rolleyes:

As I said on the previous post, and nobody was able to answer, PLEASE explain...........

Given that the Pilots and the Airlines say it is just a visual look around the exterior of the Aircraft, nothing deeper than that, what are the major differences visually to the exterior of a B737NG (that does not need an Engineer) as compared to say a B737-300/400 (that did require an Engineer) ? :confused:

Best regards to all,

airsupport.

airsupport

It's tiring, but we'll press on.

And to put some balance into the assertion that Boeing don't require it, that's because FAA require it in the majority of transits, unless there is a specific dispensation given for a particular outport, which then needs to be carefully assessed, before the Operators Ops Spec is amended to allow a pilot preflight only. In conjunction with that, the engineering preflight both before and after that outport is also amended to include more stringent preflight requirements, for instance tyre and brake wear etc.

'You can teach...' oops :p

Cheers

AN LAME

Lets get back on thread shall we chaps.

That year and/or Virgins/QFs recruiting policies have nothing to do with the thrust of this particular subject.

Which if I understand it correctly is, whether or not engineers are "required" to do turnaround walk arounds, or is it safe for them "to be done by appropriately trained pilots."

:cool: QF663. BNE-ADL Mon.03/03/'03 1h 30m late pushing back.Reason;(from Capt's P.A.) Inspection req'd due to lightning strike which was detected by the "Duty ENGINEER " during his "walkaround".

Interesting discussion this!
Been in the business for 40 yrs now, both domestically and on international ops.
Like most of my fellow pilots I know full well how to carry out an efficient walk around...don't really need an engineer to back me up...however , having said that I'm always pleased that they do back me up and always pleased to take their advice if neccessary!
Let's work together fellows, not pull apart! ;)

Group hug and full marks for amos 2. :D ;)

Fact; The Regs allow pilots to do walk-arounds and DJ has ammended their manuals to allow this.

Yes, I would PREFER a LAME/AME to "have a look" at the same time as myself, however the regulations as they currently are allow pilots to do the walk around themselves. What is required to change the regs? How can we work TOGETHER to remedy this situation?

Are we in a position to change the regulations? Ask yourself. What does it take to change the regulations?

Personally, if everyone had a full body search, travelled NUDE and without carry-on luggage we could be guaranteed that no-one had weapons! Is this likely to happen? Ask yourself again.

Looks somewhat like "affordable safety" or maybe even ETOPS where we work on the probability of a certain occurrence.

I've said it before - Opinions are like @rseholes. Everyones got one, and they're all different!:)

Agree wholeheartedly with amos2's sentiment

Time............this is only about time.

The time is takes Australian LAMEs to catch up with the rest of the world.

'member when they they thought you needed a flight engineer on the B767:rolleyes:

Stopwork at Virgin called off
By Steve Creedy
07mar03

VIRGIN Blue engineers have called off planned industrial action, after the carrier agreed to talks on controversial changes to pre-flight transit checks on newer aircraft.

The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association had planned a stopwork meeting on Monday to discuss safety fears about Virgin's move to have pilots, rather than engineers, do pre-flight transit checks on next-generation 737s.
Union officials said that allowing pilots to conduct the checks would compromise safety. The airline claims it's a demarcation dispute.

The union called off the stopwork meeting after Virgin agreed to talks, and said it was happy for engineers to continue carrying out inspections along with pilots.

The union also agreed to withdraw six "hazard reports" to the Australian Industrial Commission involving pilot checks.

But officials last night refused to back away from the reports, which are disputed by Virgin. They include allegations that pilot inspections missed a blown and cracked landing light, a damaged nose wheel tyre, and an engine damaged by a bird strike.

Union president Mick O'Rance said the parties would meet next week and had agreed not to argue publicly in the meantime.

He said he believed Virgin aircraft would be safe as long as engineers continued to do the pre-flight inspections.

A joint statement issued last night said: "The parties have cleared the air in relation to issues identified, and look forward to engaging in discussion in the future."

The issue first surfaced last week, when The Australian reported the engineers' safety concerns, as well as a Civil Aviation Safety Authority crackdown on Virgin for failing to ensure pilot checks were properly carried out.

Although CASA said there was no evidence the problems resulted in safety incidents or risk, it found pilots had been rushing the checks and cutting corners.

It heightened its surveillance of Virgin, and issued an order for corrective action.

Virgin agreed to write to pilots stressing the need to follow procedures, and give them refresher training.

CASA and manufacturer Boeing say pilot checks are appropriate for newer planes, because they're more reliable and have computers capable of recognising faults.

But former CASA head of maintenance standards Ken Cannane said the checks should be done by engineers.

He said it made no economic sense not to take advantage of using departure checks at manned maintenance ports.

"Why risk lowering safety standards that have kept Australian aviation safe for many generations?" he said.

Still waiting? :rolleyes:

PLEASE explain the HUGE differences just by looking at them. ;)

Incidentally I also agree 100% with amos2. :D

Like amos2, I have also been in the Industry for 40 years, both in Australia and Worldwide. (No we are NOT the same person ;) ).

I have said from the start of these 2 threads, that I would be just as opposed to a plan to have the Pilots not do preflights.

It is NOT an anti Pilot thing, to have ONLY Engineers do preflights would also be a reduction is safety, I have been there and done that, while it gives one a nice warm feeling that the Pilots trust you that much, 2 independent inspections MUST be safer than 1. :rolleyes:

This would apply to Aircraft, trains, buses, ships, even your family car.