One more lawsuit
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STW,
I'm not with CX anymore, so I very rarely post, but I feel I have to take issue with you on your very one-sided post in reply to V for V. I had a very interesting experience among many, and saw absolutely the worst of maintenance and dispatch.
When I was a TCC with CX operating the -400 in about 2010, I had a potentially very interesting problem on arrival at the aircraft, prior to dispatch on a HKG-PAR flight. Cut a long story short, from the Tech Log, in the previous 6 sectors, twice the autopilot when engaged, had dropped out on approach at 800' ish. However, maintenance had twice cleared the aircraft to subsequently depart, with no fault found (begs the question of why they didn't pull the QAR).
Now it happens that LVP was forecast for PAR, so I had a vested interest in a perfectly working autopilot. I remonstrated at length with both MX and despatch about the wisdom of taking this particular aircraft, but of course they just said there were no ADDs associated with this, so no reason not to go. I eventually had an argument with the DM, and got to the point where he threatened me and asked if I was refusing to take the aircraft. Loads of Europe flights go at that time of night, so I just wanted to swap aircraft.
Question, what would you do?
Moving on, we got to PAR. LVP in force and CAT3B required. ALT was Brusselles, temps
+5/+4. On the approach to PAR passing 800', guess what, autopilot drops out. G/A followed by Diversion to Brusselles. Autopilot could only be engaged in HDG SEL and ALT.
Fortunately had loaded heaps of extra fuel due total mistrust of CX Eng, Dispatch and DM. Arrived in Brussels in effectively a large Cessna, fit only for day VFR.
Manual ILS to land, and all ended fine, but Brussels fogged out about 15 mins after arrival.
On the ground for the next 4+ hours, HKG were trying to despatch me back to PAR. I refused and said I would only despatch in CAVOK conditions. Eventually stood down and arrived at hotel in PAR 25 hours after leaving HKG. Guess who I had a fight with back in HKG but the GMO, MH. Have a guess as to my opinion of him now?
Guess what my priority in my next SIM was? Yes, a manual ILS in CAT3B conditions. Very interesting let me tell you - concentrates the mind!
So in response to your post, you're either not a skipper in CX, have only been in the Company 10 minutes, had a charmed life in all your operations, or are indeed a Management stooge.
I have no axe to grind with CX, as I left on good terms in 2015 after 20+ years there, but on so many counts, the company was broken then, and the likes of GL (sadly) and MH seem to have completely lost the plot. So yes, V for V is very accurate in what he says, and knowing Annabel very well, she is a very calm, confident and capable individual, so will only be taking CX to court for a very good reason. Let it rest there STW, and bear in mind the saying - 'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than open one's mouth and have all doubt removed'.
I'm not with CX anymore, so I very rarely post, but I feel I have to take issue with you on your very one-sided post in reply to V for V. I had a very interesting experience among many, and saw absolutely the worst of maintenance and dispatch.
When I was a TCC with CX operating the -400 in about 2010, I had a potentially very interesting problem on arrival at the aircraft, prior to dispatch on a HKG-PAR flight. Cut a long story short, from the Tech Log, in the previous 6 sectors, twice the autopilot when engaged, had dropped out on approach at 800' ish. However, maintenance had twice cleared the aircraft to subsequently depart, with no fault found (begs the question of why they didn't pull the QAR).
Now it happens that LVP was forecast for PAR, so I had a vested interest in a perfectly working autopilot. I remonstrated at length with both MX and despatch about the wisdom of taking this particular aircraft, but of course they just said there were no ADDs associated with this, so no reason not to go. I eventually had an argument with the DM, and got to the point where he threatened me and asked if I was refusing to take the aircraft. Loads of Europe flights go at that time of night, so I just wanted to swap aircraft.
Question, what would you do?
Moving on, we got to PAR. LVP in force and CAT3B required. ALT was Brusselles, temps
+5/+4. On the approach to PAR passing 800', guess what, autopilot drops out. G/A followed by Diversion to Brusselles. Autopilot could only be engaged in HDG SEL and ALT.
Fortunately had loaded heaps of extra fuel due total mistrust of CX Eng, Dispatch and DM. Arrived in Brussels in effectively a large Cessna, fit only for day VFR.
Manual ILS to land, and all ended fine, but Brussels fogged out about 15 mins after arrival.
On the ground for the next 4+ hours, HKG were trying to despatch me back to PAR. I refused and said I would only despatch in CAVOK conditions. Eventually stood down and arrived at hotel in PAR 25 hours after leaving HKG. Guess who I had a fight with back in HKG but the GMO, MH. Have a guess as to my opinion of him now?
Guess what my priority in my next SIM was? Yes, a manual ILS in CAT3B conditions. Very interesting let me tell you - concentrates the mind!
So in response to your post, you're either not a skipper in CX, have only been in the Company 10 minutes, had a charmed life in all your operations, or are indeed a Management stooge.
I have no axe to grind with CX, as I left on good terms in 2015 after 20+ years there, but on so many counts, the company was broken then, and the likes of GL (sadly) and MH seem to have completely lost the plot. So yes, V for V is very accurate in what he says, and knowing Annabel very well, she is a very calm, confident and capable individual, so will only be taking CX to court for a very good reason. Let it rest there STW, and bear in mind the saying - 'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than open one's mouth and have all doubt removed'.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Nippi
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STW,
Are you serious??. CX despatch is the worst I have ever experienced. You have lost any credibility with believing that they are anything but good printing technicians
As far as our maintenance goes. It is sliding into the proverbial toilet.
No US airline would have continued after a derversion due to smoke in the cockpit. CX,once again got lucky.
Are you serious??. CX despatch is the worst I have ever experienced. You have lost any credibility with believing that they are anything but good printing technicians
As far as our maintenance goes. It is sliding into the proverbial toilet.
No US airline would have continued after a derversion due to smoke in the cockpit. CX,once again got lucky.
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dropknee, there was no smoke in the cockpit.
Tekling, I have no ground to question your report, but please keep in mind it is anecdotal and doesn' t automatically speak for the organization as such.
I think controversies between engineering and the cpt are part of the system, they are unavoidable. I think Cathay Maintenance is alright, in my experience, but ok, thats anecdotal as well if you like
Oriental Flyer,
you are entitled to your opinion, no question. Take the aircraft or don't. If you would have refused the flight from Shemya that would have been also fine. That is my point: in Cathay you can not accept an aircraft, you can refuse to operate. I do not know of any case this has led to personal problems.
Landflap and Airprofit, there was a damaged recuircuit fan. It smelled, so they landed in Pasy. Then, after hours on ground, they continued to Anc I believe. Thats it. What more information do you need? My point is: what is the big fuss? These fans fail occasionally, and then you can smell it for a few seconds. I am not questioning the decision to go to Shemya, far from it, just saying there was no actual danger.
Mng Mole: is that a hard rule, only 5 posts = management? Interesting. For the record: my point is that this kind of travesty is hurting our totally justified position elsewhere, where it counts, in the present negotiations. I said it in my post, we need to chose our battles, and not just blindly shoot at everything that moves.
Tekling, I have no ground to question your report, but please keep in mind it is anecdotal and doesn' t automatically speak for the organization as such.
I think controversies between engineering and the cpt are part of the system, they are unavoidable. I think Cathay Maintenance is alright, in my experience, but ok, thats anecdotal as well if you like
Oriental Flyer,
you are entitled to your opinion, no question. Take the aircraft or don't. If you would have refused the flight from Shemya that would have been also fine. That is my point: in Cathay you can not accept an aircraft, you can refuse to operate. I do not know of any case this has led to personal problems.
Landflap and Airprofit, there was a damaged recuircuit fan. It smelled, so they landed in Pasy. Then, after hours on ground, they continued to Anc I believe. Thats it. What more information do you need? My point is: what is the big fuss? These fans fail occasionally, and then you can smell it for a few seconds. I am not questioning the decision to go to Shemya, far from it, just saying there was no actual danger.
Mng Mole: is that a hard rule, only 5 posts = management? Interesting. For the record: my point is that this kind of travesty is hurting our totally justified position elsewhere, where it counts, in the present negotiations. I said it in my post, we need to chose our battles, and not just blindly shoot at everything that moves.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STW is the old Sam Ting Wong. He’s an FO on the 747 and probably fancies himself experienced. I flew with him once many years back when he was an SO. Not impressed. Nuff said!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STW,
I don't want to labour a point so this is my last example, but only helps to reinforce my poor opinion of Mx, Despatch, Ops, and Management:
Passengers all loaded (on a 777 ER) 20 min to push back, so we start the APU. after 30sec, the fire bells sound and we get the red EICAS warning FIRE APU. Meanwhile 2 engineers on the jump seats have their heads in the MAT. I turn to them and ask if they're doing fire tests or some such thing. Guess what, they just sat there like stunned mullets, and offered no response at at all!!
So FO and I carried out the drills, and fired the extinguisher. Couldn't get any response for anyone on the ground, so despatched the FO outside, and spoke to the cabin crew by doors 5. FIRE APU still on the upper EICAS.
Cut another long story short, established there was no fire, so false warning. Then the Engineer tried to despatch us with a red FIRE APU on the upper EICAS!! Quite unbelievable.
Had a long chat with IOC who just wanted to swap the APU fire card for an identical one from one of the engines - quite extraordinary. So FIRE ENG L/R was going to be my next fun exercise! I eventually demanded one of the senior engineers from IOC come down to the aircraft.
He did, but this guy 'grumped' into the cockpit, and the first thing he did was demand to know why we had fired the APU fire extinguisher. Then a big row ensued, and I kicked this guy out of the cockpit, and said don't come back until he knocked on the door, said good morning and apologised. He eventually did this, but having had enough, I offloaded the pax, and left the aircraft, and told him not to bother me until he found another aircraft.
This they eventually did, and we despatched.
The wash up was that I was summoned to the 3rd floor and had a huge row with MH. Eventually got a very begrudging apology from him, but how unprofessional of him, and indeed all the engineers involved....... And you say you've never experienced anything bad from them! I'm speechless!!!
Enough said I think?
I don't want to labour a point so this is my last example, but only helps to reinforce my poor opinion of Mx, Despatch, Ops, and Management:
Passengers all loaded (on a 777 ER) 20 min to push back, so we start the APU. after 30sec, the fire bells sound and we get the red EICAS warning FIRE APU. Meanwhile 2 engineers on the jump seats have their heads in the MAT. I turn to them and ask if they're doing fire tests or some such thing. Guess what, they just sat there like stunned mullets, and offered no response at at all!!
So FO and I carried out the drills, and fired the extinguisher. Couldn't get any response for anyone on the ground, so despatched the FO outside, and spoke to the cabin crew by doors 5. FIRE APU still on the upper EICAS.
Cut another long story short, established there was no fire, so false warning. Then the Engineer tried to despatch us with a red FIRE APU on the upper EICAS!! Quite unbelievable.
Had a long chat with IOC who just wanted to swap the APU fire card for an identical one from one of the engines - quite extraordinary. So FIRE ENG L/R was going to be my next fun exercise! I eventually demanded one of the senior engineers from IOC come down to the aircraft.
He did, but this guy 'grumped' into the cockpit, and the first thing he did was demand to know why we had fired the APU fire extinguisher. Then a big row ensued, and I kicked this guy out of the cockpit, and said don't come back until he knocked on the door, said good morning and apologised. He eventually did this, but having had enough, I offloaded the pax, and left the aircraft, and told him not to bother me until he found another aircraft.
This they eventually did, and we despatched.
The wash up was that I was summoned to the 3rd floor and had a huge row with MH. Eventually got a very begrudging apology from him, but how unprofessional of him, and indeed all the engineers involved....... And you say you've never experienced anything bad from them! I'm speechless!!!
Enough said I think?
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: All over
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dropknee, there was no smoke in the cockpit.
Tekling, I have no ground to question your report, but please keep in mind it is anecdotal and doesn' t automatically speak for the organization as such.
I think controversies between engineering and the cpt are part of the system, they are unavoidable. I think Cathay Maintenance is alright, in my experience, but ok, thats anecdotal as well if you like
Oriental Flyer,
you are entitled to your opinion, no question. Take the aircraft or don't. If you would have refused the flight from Shemya that would have been also fine. That is my point: in Cathay you can not accept an aircraft, you can refuse to operate. I do not know of any case this has led to personal problems.
Landflap and Airprofit, there was a damaged recuircuit fan. It smelled, so they landed in Pasy. Then, after hours on ground, they continued to Anc I believe. Thats it. What more information do you need? My point is: what is the big fuss? These fans fail occasionally, and then you can smell it for a few seconds. I am not questioning the decision to go to Shemya, far from it, just saying there was no actual danger.
Mng Mole: is that a hard rule, only 5 posts = management? Interesting. For the record: my point is that this kind of travesty is hurting our totally justified position elsewhere, where it counts, in the present negotiations. I said it in my post, we need to chose our battles, and not just blindly shoot at everything that moves.
Tekling, I have no ground to question your report, but please keep in mind it is anecdotal and doesn' t automatically speak for the organization as such.
I think controversies between engineering and the cpt are part of the system, they are unavoidable. I think Cathay Maintenance is alright, in my experience, but ok, thats anecdotal as well if you like
Oriental Flyer,
you are entitled to your opinion, no question. Take the aircraft or don't. If you would have refused the flight from Shemya that would have been also fine. That is my point: in Cathay you can not accept an aircraft, you can refuse to operate. I do not know of any case this has led to personal problems.
Landflap and Airprofit, there was a damaged recuircuit fan. It smelled, so they landed in Pasy. Then, after hours on ground, they continued to Anc I believe. Thats it. What more information do you need? My point is: what is the big fuss? These fans fail occasionally, and then you can smell it for a few seconds. I am not questioning the decision to go to Shemya, far from it, just saying there was no actual danger.
Mng Mole: is that a hard rule, only 5 posts = management? Interesting. For the record: my point is that this kind of travesty is hurting our totally justified position elsewhere, where it counts, in the present negotiations. I said it in my post, we need to chose our battles, and not just blindly shoot at everything that moves.
Really ? We knew this this for sure when the aircraft departed SYA for ANC ? How ? Did a MX crew qualified on the 777 find, isolate, and inspect (with Boeing's blessing if necessary) what had happened and effect field repairs ?
Did the crew know this for sure prior to departing for ANC that the problem was fixed ? Was the aircraft THOROUGHLY inspected following an in-flight fire (a reportable event by NTSB standards--and based on where this occurred they would have the appropriate primary jurisdiction) and properly signed off by maintenance personnel qualified on the 777 and subsequently accepted by the skipper following this event ? Was there a complete lack of coercion toward continuing the flight ? Were they completely sure prior to dispatching for the second flight (and properly dispatched with all the I's dotted and T's crossed) that the electrical power to the offending circuit (s) had been properly secured (by MX) and what the offending circuits actually were ?
Was the source of the smoke and fumes positively identified (by aircraft inspection) and crew (and passengers) offered medical attention as needed ?
I agree a recirc fan packing it in is probably not a huge deal. But was the crew certain of this (and that there was no lingering smoldering in the ducting or fan) after a thorough aircraft inspection ?
FWIW Smoke and fume events are a big deal amongst US carriers. And not to be taken casually.
And recirc fans are specifically addressed as a potential source of in-flight fire in FAA AC_120-80A
49 CFR 830 delineates the reporting requirements for accidents and incidents which occur in US jurisdictional areas. 830.5 is the section where immediate notification is required.
Did this happen as a part of the event as it was required ? (I am sure in time an ASR would address this but I wonder how the NTSB--or FAA-- after notified would look at the re-dispatch of an airplane which had encountered an in-flight fire unless that aircraft had had a proper and comprehensive inspection) :
§830.5 Immediate notification.
The operator of any civil aircraft, or any public aircraft not operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United States, or any foreign aircraft shall immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) office,1 when:....
(4) In-flight fire;
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would of been more prudent to ask if it was OK to start the APU first!
Don't forget Line Maintenance in HKG is done by HAECO not CX Engineers, not saying HAECO are all bad and CX Line maintenance are all good but you do need to differentiate.
Don't forget Line Maintenance in HKG is done by HAECO not CX Engineers, not saying HAECO are all bad and CX Line maintenance are all good but you do need to differentiate.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STW is an idiot,,,,,”i have never experienced any mx problems,,,,” wow good luck to you your total contribution to the total cx movement of aircraft is neglible so your inference of your total experience is again neglible. Some pilots never ever divert their whole career......doesnt mean planes dont bloody divert. I havent had the gamut of teklings walks to the 3rd floor but i sure has hell had some rotten mainentance with the argurments, telephone calls to IOC and angry managers on the phone harunging me to accept.
That being said I have had dealings with dedicated engineers who wouldnt release aircraft to me...which sends CX ENG into fits of rage and the follow on attempts to coerce me into bullying the engineers for a release...mind boggles doesnt it that management are trying to convince you to accept an unsafe aircraft amd now drag you into bulling the engineer to release unsafe aircraft to you!!!!!
VforVendetta nailed it.....we dont know but what we do know is that the company is neglient and wilful in its lack of transparency....threre is little in the way of feedback or support...and quiet a few if us have been put into the unenviable position of being bullied ...its just another nail for the coffins that something bad is coming.
That being said I have had dealings with dedicated engineers who wouldnt release aircraft to me...which sends CX ENG into fits of rage and the follow on attempts to coerce me into bullying the engineers for a release...mind boggles doesnt it that management are trying to convince you to accept an unsafe aircraft amd now drag you into bulling the engineer to release unsafe aircraft to you!!!!!
VforVendetta nailed it.....we dont know but what we do know is that the company is neglient and wilful in its lack of transparency....threre is little in the way of feedback or support...and quiet a few if us have been put into the unenviable position of being bullied ...its just another nail for the coffins that something bad is coming.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Nippi
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Permission to start the APU is not required. If they don’t want you to start it. Put a note in the logbook
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with slasher , following a smoke / fire event of electrical origin one has to consider if the electrical cabling to that particular unit or other cables in the same loom were heat damaged from a short circuit thereby degrading the insulation. The potential for another inflight event without thoroughly inspecting all the cabling is significantly greater.
There are a number of un answered questions surrounding this event that still have to come out
What ever the outcome of the legal action I’m sure she would only have taken this action if she felt she had a case
There are a number of un answered questions surrounding this event that still have to come out
What ever the outcome of the legal action I’m sure she would only have taken this action if she felt she had a case
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Facts be damned. Hope she gives CX a good pasting. Too many unanswered questions after all these years. And who would wager against CX mgmt having broken procedure and policy? Call me a cynic ��
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STW: my interest remains as this is a public forum for rumours and news and my questions were not answered by you having informed us that you had discussed the incident and obtained satisfactory answers. Was it unidentified smoke/fumes or was it identified. The decision to divert to the nearest suitable alternate suggests that the Commander felt the need for urgency. Even if it was identified (the recirc fan), fumes can overcome very rapidly. "Big fuss"?Oh yeah ! I remain interested in the time lapse. Three years to bring a court case ; WHY ? Talk of Licence loss. Did she, didn't she ; WHY ? WHO ? Really interesting. Once on the ground, was she under immense commercial pressure to operate an uncleared aircraft ?If you are satisfied with the answers you got, I simply ask that you share those answers.
Would of been more prudent to ask if it was OK to start the APU first!
Take off the slippers, put down the soy latte and get down on the line.
Surely you are not making engineering decisions?
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spannersatcx,
I didn't want to get back onto these forums, but I felt I had to call out your ignorance. You are very clearly an armchair engineer working in IOC, similar to the one who visited the cockpit, and you only serve to illustrate the attitude that leads to so many complaints.
In my APU incident, the aircraft had been cleared for flight, I had signed for it. No ADDs. As has already been pointed out, the crew do not need permission to start the APU. If engineers do not want the APU started at the normal time, it should be annotated in the tech log, there should be a red and white sticker on the switch, and I should at least be advised of this - enough? Oh and the aircraft should not have been released for flight.
I am well aware that the engineers that attend the aircraft are HAECO ones. The engineer who came down from IOC was CX.
The HAECO engineers looking into the MAT a) should not have been doing so after I had accepted the aircraft, and b) should at least have spoken some English.
This was another problem on the line in that so many people waltz in and out of the cockpit prior to push back, with no reference to the skipper, just doing there own thing.
With all due respect, Spannersatcx, your post only serves to illustrate why there are so many problems like this in the company. Find out the facts before you comment!
I didn't want to get back onto these forums, but I felt I had to call out your ignorance. You are very clearly an armchair engineer working in IOC, similar to the one who visited the cockpit, and you only serve to illustrate the attitude that leads to so many complaints.
In my APU incident, the aircraft had been cleared for flight, I had signed for it. No ADDs. As has already been pointed out, the crew do not need permission to start the APU. If engineers do not want the APU started at the normal time, it should be annotated in the tech log, there should be a red and white sticker on the switch, and I should at least be advised of this - enough? Oh and the aircraft should not have been released for flight.
I am well aware that the engineers that attend the aircraft are HAECO ones. The engineer who came down from IOC was CX.
The HAECO engineers looking into the MAT a) should not have been doing so after I had accepted the aircraft, and b) should at least have spoken some English.
This was another problem on the line in that so many people waltz in and out of the cockpit prior to push back, with no reference to the skipper, just doing there own thing.
With all due respect, Spannersatcx, your post only serves to illustrate why there are so many problems like this in the company. Find out the facts before you comment!
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a pandora's box here regarding the crew actions and checklists and I for one would rather they didn't get aired on a public forum. Nor can I see it is going to help our cause (for want of a better term) when specialists from Boeing and everywhere else pull the events apart in court. Contrary to what's on here GL shared much of was learnt from the tech issue and subsequent diversion. At the end of the day it's her choice I suppose.