Flip Flop Flyer

Fra DR.DK/Nyheder

"Sikkerhedsarbejdet i SAS har ikke været i orden - og det er gået ud over flysikkerheden.

Det er konklusionen i en endnu ikke offentliggjort redegørelse fra Statens Luftfartsvæsen til Trafikministeriet. Både i 1999 og i år 2000 har der været hvad der betegnes som "kritisable forhold" og "helt klare meget alvorlige svigt" i det skandinaviske luftfartsselskab, skriver Nyhedsmagasinet Ingeniøren.

Mange alvorlige hændelser Danske undersøgelser af SAS viste i 1999, at antallet af alvorlige hændelser var foruroligende højt, at personalet ikke prioriterede flyvesikkerheden højt nok - og at SAS' interne undersøgelser af uregelmæssigheder var for dårlige.

Statens Luftfartsvæsen blev opmærksom på problemerne i 1999, da SAS opdagede, at en række forskrifter, der skal garantere flyenes sikkerhed, ikke var overholdt for 26 DC-9-fly.

Redegørelsen afslører også, at SAS fælles tilsynsarbejde mellem Norge, Sverige og Danmark har haltet alvorligt og været præget af stridigheder, manglende ansvar og langsommelighed."

Hmmm .... Det er ikke ukendt at SAS intra-skandinaviske selv-justits har haltet lidt, for at sige det mildt, og jeg har altid fundet det underligt at lade en virksomhed foere tilsyn med sig selv. Men derfra og saa til at sige at SAS' generelt har et problem kan jeg ikke acceptere uden videre. Ja, der har vaeret mange problmer med Q400 og sagaen med det mangelende eftersyn paa MD vinger var heller ikke skide smart.

Men hvad er holdningen hos vore kollegaer i SAS ? Foeler i at man har slaekket paa sikkerheden, og at man i SAS har eller har haft en foelelse af bedre vidende og, maaske, uroerlighed ?

PS. .Jeg flyver med SK imorgen og er ganske tryg ved det (Med mindre de serverer en Q400 )

Scando

Nei, vi i SAS gjør vårt beste for at flysikkerheten skal være så dårlig som mulig. Vi er fullstendig likegyldige med om flyveapparatene vi har røven plassert i er flyvedyktige eller ikke. Vi venter spent på nye avsløringer fra juhlinissen. Vi måste ha jerndisplin annars går det åt Gottrøra!!!! Ops de va visst jag som va chef då, men de visste jag inte. Då. Eller nu. Jag vet inte helt hva jag menar. Tror jag. Vart er kameran?

PPPPrrrrffffttt från

Scando

[ 26 January 2002: Message edited by: Scando ]

[ 26 January 2002: Message edited by: Scando ]</p>

Payscale

Nej. Jeg vil ikke mene at flyvesikkerheder som så fejler noget. Der har været kritisable sager, men ikke sådan at fly og pax har været i direkte fare. . .Hver morgen vi står op er der risiko for at dagen bliver den sidste, men den bliver ikke farligere ved at flyve med SAS fremfor noget andet stort selskab. Vi er vist hverken bedre eller dårligere.

flapsforty

Seen with pasenger's eyes, as I often fly with you lot, SAS is better than many others! In fact, just posted this on the SLF Forum:

"Sadly (or happily depending on who you fly for/with) it is possible to completely avoid all the hand luggage hassle. I often get to work by flying SAS. Not only do they have a very inflexible and sensible handluggage policy, they actually strictly enforce it as well. Their pax know this (and Scandi's are a well disciplined bunch when sober) and therefor do not even dare to try any cr*p with oversized luggage.. .Ergo, space enough on even their smallest aircraft for everybody's bags and never a possible flight safety risk due over stuffed luggage bins.

I always observe this with great envy."

Even if handluggage is only a very small part of the overall safety picture, my compliments on the way SAS handles the whole handluggage question.. . I wish we were half as good! <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

Flip Flop Flyer

F40,

Ehhh, but when the 737 you expect to go on has changed to a Q400 (with much smaller overhead bins) Flip Flop's bag wouldn't quite fit there. Should be noted that the bag is a few sizes bigger than what is allowed, and yet SAS has never taken it off me. Only GlobeGround in BHX did that once.

My main "issue" with SAS is the reliance on self-control. In 2000 the head of the danish accident investigation board published a very cirtical paper on SAS. He was not backed by the danish CAA, and was forced to take his leave after pressure from SAS. A year later, the danish CAA publishes their report basically airing the same critique. I enjoy flying with SAS but would like to see them on a level playing field with other scandi operators. To my mind, SAS has enjoyed a privilige which they may have abused. However, I do not in any way consider them to be unsafe.

Zico

[quote]He was not backed by the danish CAA, and was forced to take his leave after pressure from SAS.<hr></blockquote>. .DonŽt believe everything you read in Ekstra Bladet! <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> . .And sadly, "Ingeniøren" pooh poohŽed in the piano this time. Usually a good mag. though.

[ 28 January 2002: Message edited by: Zico ]</p>

Flip Flop Flyer

Zico,

The information I have does not come from Ekstra Bladet.

I am a bit saddened by the lack of response from SK crews. Sure, I appreciate that you don't strap on a kite and fly off if you're not happy with it. But what is your feelings towards the apparent mindset in SK maintenance which seems to be "we know better and are checking ourselves so butt off". I mean, as drivers you rely on engineering to do their job properly, and to have the records and work double checked. What if those records are never checked by independent sources, and it has surfaced that SK has had a few cases where the records were not as they should be ? Are you as drivers happy with the fact that SAS are not being scrutinized independently, and that SAS' management seemingly rejects any remarks passed on by the CAA's with a rather arrogant attitude ? Is it not so, that safety must always comes first and last, and that no expenses should be spared in the pursuit of ever better safety standards ?

Nick Figaretto

I must admit that I do not have an "in-depth" knowledge of the structure of SAS' safety organisation and exactly how it works in relation to the three countries' CAAs. I know that SAS reports to STK (Skandinavisk Tilsynskontor) instead of to the CAAs. But doesn't STK consist of inspectors/employees from the three CAAs, and not from SAS?

And wasn't STK launched in the first place to make sure that SAS would be on a "level playing field" with other scandi operators? If it wasn't for STK, SAS would have had to relate to three different CAAs in all safety matters. (E.g. if a Danish registered airplane with Norwegian crew had an incident/accident in Sweden.)

The organisation of STK may be a privilege for SAS, but it is a privilege that was given to make sure SAS can compete on the same terms as "single-country" Scandinavian operators.

Nick.

Zico

Flip Flop Flyer,

Yes. We are, as you would be, as interested in safety and maintenance procedures being followed, as anybody. It is, afterall our butts on the line..everyday.. .But instead of reacting to journalists that seem to not care much about the thruths, and instead only care about sensations that sell newspapers/magazines, I am beginning to think that some SAS crew are getting mightily tired of always having to answer to articles that, sometimes more, sometimes less...got it wrong.

What is wrong with this article (from Ingeniøren)you ask. Well instead of me scanning in and posting the whole story that I have here in front of me, IŽd ask you to have a little patience with me, and wait and read the next issue of "Ingeniøren"..That is if the editor of that magazine accepts to publish the material that i have in front of me. If he doesnŽt, itŽs even more telling of his low morale w/regard to serious aviationjournalism. . .Mind you: 1) I am not the author of the material arriving at the editors desk, and 2) I have read "Ingeniøren" before, and always regarded it as a very good mag.

With regards to the ex-chief of the "havarikommision" and "who wanted him fired and why".. Well, you didnŽt get that info. from Ekstra Bladet. Sorry, you got it from the program "Rapporten", which doesnŽt make that info 1 ounce more reliable than if it was from Ekstra Bladet. All SAS crew here would testify to that. If you choose to believe us or not, is your choice.. .I donŽt mean to sound arrogant, but please give the facts a chance before we are requested to explain why we accept to fly around in "aircraft that are dangerous".

Rgds, Zico

Flip Flop Flyer

Zico,

Thank you for the information. Sadly "Ingenioeren" is not on sale in my neighborhood. The first time I did hear of the fired inspector it was indeed from "Rapporten", but since then have recived information from insiders in SAS, who more or less agreed with "Rapporten". Whether they were right or wrong remains to be seen, and I would be more than happy to be proven to be incorrect on this.

I have heard other stories from the TS deparment about missing Form 1's on a wide range of spareparts. I was told that SK and SR had a long relationship and together had devised their own standards for record keeping and, with a rather arrogant attitude, dismissed the regulations set forth by the CAA. On this issue SAS TS department had their fingers burned, as no EU operator can abandon the usage of Form 1 for spares.

This story, and others, coupled with the latest report and the "story" of the fired inspector has led me to belive that the safety culture in SAS' higher echolons could have become "infected" by the disease know as complacency.

I have friends who are engineers in SK, and on their level professionalism and a very strong safety culture rules above all. But what if that culture is not reflected by management ?

PropsAreForBoats

Flip Flop..

Indulge a layman: What is a "Form 1"?

Techman

Den redegørelse du nævner, må være en udløber af den fælles nordiske rapport om SAS, (fra 1999 hvis jeg husker ret), der nævnte en nedadgående tendens med hensyn til flight safety is SAS.. .Rapporten var hemmeligstemplet (stadig?), men den nævnte ting som, en manglene evne til at efterforske hændelser, specielt human factors, og en uvilje til at bruge externe konsulenter/experter.. .Derudover kom resultatet af efterforskningerne, sjældent ud til besætningerne. Hvilket jo gør en efterforskning ligegyldig.

Flip Flop Flyer

PAFB,

The Form 1 serves both as a certificate of conformity as well as providing traceability of the individual part or lot. By using a Form 1, any part of lot of parts (rivets or bolts for instance) can be traced back to the manufacturer, and will also provide reference to any testing performed on the part or lot.

I belive the correct name is "JAA Form 1", and somehow SAS and Swissair were under the impression that the systems they developed were better. They might have been, although I have doubts, but they were not in compliance with the JAA.

Nite_Flite

Hvad det hele vel kan koges ned til er om SAS er "farligere" end andre selskaber. Altså de selskaber som vi sammenligner os med og konkurrerer med. Der er svaret et absolut NEJ. Husk på at SAS er et scandinavisk aelskab og vi følger den strengeste lovgivning fra de tre lande.. .Så kan de da godt være at man forkaster et forslag fra CAA, fordi man nu engang anvender en anden standard. . .Det er vel ikke sådan at bare fordi der står SLV på deres kasket, at man skal føje sig til alt de kommer ud med. Store selskaber er med i lovgivningsprocessen igennem lobbyisme. Hvis de vil opnå noget, må de ha folk med i toppen.. .Det er normalt.

PS størrelsen på et stk. tilladt carry-on baggage er lige så stort på en B737 som i en Q400.

Techman

Nite_Flite, skal det forståes sådan at du ikke mener at SAS ikke skal følge JAA reglativer, hvis de mener at deres måde at gøre tingene på er bedre?.

For your info, så er det faktisk ikke tilladt at installere komponenter uden en JAA form one.

(Jeg går her ud fra at SAS ops og maint opererer under JAR)

TowerDog

flapsforty:

Therefore is spelled with an E at the end...

As for SAS flight safety and not:

Having flown as pax and in the cockpit many times, uh, not noticed anything that would up a red flag.. .A quality organization in my book, yet SAS have had their share of nasty accidents over the years.

The DC-10 in JFK comes to mind, so does the DC-9 in TRD and the DC-8 that hit the drink on approach and a few others.

The same goes for most other major airlines, with the exception of Quantas and Southwest:. .Them guys have been accident free for many years, uh, that is untill the B-747 in Bangkok and the B-737 in California.

It will happen to everybody sooner or later, some more than others, but I doubt SAS is anywhere close to climbing up the from the bottom to the top of the list.

Keep up the good work.

Nite_Flite

TECHMAN....

Nej det ville være at overtolke mig. Det er da klart at SAS skal følge JAR, men hvis vi har nationale/operator regler der strengere, så må vi godt bruge dem.. .Hvad er det med dig og den FORM 1? har du et trykkeri i fritiden?

Techman

Nu er det dig der overfortolker Nite_flite, hvor mange gange har jeg nævnt form 1?. . .En gang, hvis jeg tæller rigtigt.

Hvis de nationale krav overgår JAR, må man ikke alene følge dem, man skal!.

Men det var jo åbenbart ikke tilfældet her.

Læs mere i Jar 21 subpart K.

Flip Flop Flyer

Nite_Flite,

SAS hverken kan eller maa tilsidesaette JAA regler hvad angaar Form 1. Husk paa at SAS Component Maintenance ogsaa udfoere third party maintenance, og der var ihvertfald en kunde der ikke ville modtage dele uden en Form 1. Det var vistnok der hele miseren startede.

Hvad angaar lobbyisme vil jeg paa det kraftigeste tage afstand fra at airlines skal have lov til at udfoere denne form for virksomhed, naar det drejer sig om safety. Se blot paa FAA, det er jo ikke betryggende at lade en organisation baade forestaa safety og samtidig promote luftfart. Derfor er FAA udsat for meget heftig lobbyisme, og det kan ikke udelukkes at visse direktiver er blevet stoppet af airline lobbyisme, fordi det ville medfoere oegede udgifter for dem. Historien viser at dette er tilfaeldet, bl.a. med DC10 cargo door og man kan vel stille sig tvivlende overfor hvad FAA har besluttet med hensyn til 737 rudder / center fuel tank og 747 center fuel tank. Kom ikke og fortael mig, at FAA ikke var udsat for lobbyisme hvad disse typer angaar, og at det ikke i yderste konskvens kan have drastiske konsekvenser at man saetter oekonomi foer safety. Det er ihvertfald stik modsat det jeg har laert og laerer vore ansatte (ground - og cockpit crew).

Slutteligt, min carry-on er teknisk set for stor, men den passer fint i en standard overhead bin. Bare ikke paa Q400 .....

Nite_Flite

Ser men det. Det er altid rart med en form 1 (hvad det så end er!) in inderlommen.

Men har du så læst..

EU Document A5-0279/2001 Page 36/76.

"The body previously entrusted with air safety responsibilities at European level, the Joint Aviation Authority (JAA), an informal organisation set up in 1990 by the aviation authorities of the 15 Member States and various other European countries, has proved unable to fulfil the requirements for an efficient authority.All the proposals put forward by the JAA, even if they have emerged from the JAA consultation procedures, have to be processed once again in the framework of the Community's legislative procedures."

Stik den! Der røg mit JAR-FCL certifikat... <img src="smile.gif" border="0">