AW139 lost tail taxying DOH
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Aviation International News today
New Standards Proposed for Composite Helo Parts
Yesterday, the FAA published a proposed NPRM covering new airworthiness standards for composite structures on normal category rotorcraft under FAR Parts 27 and 29. A proposed new section in the regulations establishes guidelines for damage tolerance and fatigue testing of these structures. Applicants would need to demonstrate that components that are “principal structural elements” (PSEs) of the rotorcraft would not suffer catastrophic failure under static and fatigue loads throughout the rotorcraft’s operational life or prescribed inspection intervals by performing damage tolerance evaluations of the strength of the parts, detail design points and fabrication techniques. Parts covered under the NPRM include PSEs of the airframe as well as main- and tail-rotor drive systems, main and tail rotor blades and hubs, rotor controls, fixed and movable control surfaces, engine and transmission mountings, landing gear, and “fabrication techniques deemed critical by the FAA.” The FAA said it does not expect the new NPRM to increase operator costs because “inspection time for a composite part will be the same as or less than for a metallic part inspection.” However, the agency requests “comments regarding this assumption.” The comment period closes April 6.
Link to NPRM here FR Doc E9-31381
New Standards Proposed for Composite Helo Parts
Yesterday, the FAA published a proposed NPRM covering new airworthiness standards for composite structures on normal category rotorcraft under FAR Parts 27 and 29. A proposed new section in the regulations establishes guidelines for damage tolerance and fatigue testing of these structures. Applicants would need to demonstrate that components that are “principal structural elements” (PSEs) of the rotorcraft would not suffer catastrophic failure under static and fatigue loads throughout the rotorcraft’s operational life or prescribed inspection intervals by performing damage tolerance evaluations of the strength of the parts, detail design points and fabrication techniques. Parts covered under the NPRM include PSEs of the airframe as well as main- and tail-rotor drive systems, main and tail rotor blades and hubs, rotor controls, fixed and movable control surfaces, engine and transmission mountings, landing gear, and “fabrication techniques deemed critical by the FAA.” The FAA said it does not expect the new NPRM to increase operator costs because “inspection time for a composite part will be the same as or less than for a metallic part inspection.” However, the agency requests “comments regarding this assumption.” The comment period closes April 6.
Link to NPRM here FR Doc E9-31381
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NPRM
Thanks Brian
I'll read the document to see if they actually address the issue of bond durability as well. The FAA lump composites and adhesive bonded structure in the same bucket. It is important that they specifically call out bond durability tests, because if they rely just on damage tolerance, static strength and fatigue testing then they are wasting their time. It is possible to manufacture a bonded structure which is designed to be damage tolerant and which meets static and fatigue requirements, but still disbonds in service.
Regards
blakmax
I'll read the document to see if they actually address the issue of bond durability as well. The FAA lump composites and adhesive bonded structure in the same bucket. It is important that they specifically call out bond durability tests, because if they rely just on damage tolerance, static strength and fatigue testing then they are wasting their time. It is possible to manufacture a bonded structure which is designed to be damage tolerant and which meets static and fatigue requirements, but still disbonds in service.
Regards
blakmax
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine Deck Delamination
Any operators out there that have had to deal with this? I know that ERA has had some issues. We will be converting to A139s soon and I know that this is another of the debonding issues that we may have to contend with.
wde
wde
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Response to NPRM
For Brian Abraham (and anyone else interested)
I have reviewed the NPRM and yes, it will address cohesion type failures (fracture of the adhesive) but not adhesion failures (disbonding at the interface).
I am drafting a submission in response.
In response to wde and hoping not to start the hornets buzzing again, I am not surprised that other components have disbonded. Micro-voiding is process driven, not component driven and any optomised structure produced in the same environment is susceptible to reduced strength. If you can get photos of the disbonded surfaces to me or at least PM me for my contact details, I would be happy to comment offline.
Regards
Blakmax
I have reviewed the NPRM and yes, it will address cohesion type failures (fracture of the adhesive) but not adhesion failures (disbonding at the interface).
I am drafting a submission in response.
In response to wde and hoping not to start the hornets buzzing again, I am not surprised that other components have disbonded. Micro-voiding is process driven, not component driven and any optomised structure produced in the same environment is susceptible to reduced strength. If you can get photos of the disbonded surfaces to me or at least PM me for my contact details, I would be happy to comment offline.
Regards
Blakmax
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: foot of a mountain
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have not read the document and will get to it. Does this now affect all manufacturers? How will this affect for instance the 350 canopies/starflex(365 as well)/sleeves, fenestron vertical stabilisers, 120 tailboom, EC composite blades that have accumulated millions of hours? Same with 76 TR paddles, nomex alluminium frame, etc? Are these components and their procedures that have been in service for many years and hours now also subject to retesting and/certification?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NPRM
VP
It is my understanding that the new rule applies to structures certified after the rule is released. It would only apply to the structures you describe if they were sufficiently modified to warrant recertification.
Regards
It is my understanding that the new rule applies to structures certified after the rule is released. It would only apply to the structures you describe if they were sufficiently modified to warrant recertification.
Regards
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Aviation International News today. Posted merely for those who may have an interest in following up what might be on offer.
NIAR To Host Online Composites Maintenance Course
An online composites maintenance technology course begins March 1 and is hosted by Wichita State University’s National Institute for Aviation Research (NIAR) and Wichita Area Technical College through the National Center for Aviation Training. The course, sponsored by the FAA, focuses on critical composite materials maintenance and repair safety issues, according to NIAR. Students will learn principles of composite materials technology, including composites repair and maintenance and associated safety issues. Subjects covered include overview of composites technology, damage detection and repair processes. The course costs between $950 and $1,174, depending on whether credit hours are needed, and requires a 70-hour commitment during an eight-week period. After taking the composites maintenance technology course, students can opt to learn more at a three-day hands-on lab, for an additional cost of between $1,000 and $1,224. Charles Seaton, who has more than 30 years’ experience in aircraft design, manufacturing and modification, developed and will teach the online course.
NIAR To Host Online Composites Maintenance Course
An online composites maintenance technology course begins March 1 and is hosted by Wichita State University’s National Institute for Aviation Research (NIAR) and Wichita Area Technical College through the National Center for Aviation Training. The course, sponsored by the FAA, focuses on critical composite materials maintenance and repair safety issues, according to NIAR. Students will learn principles of composite materials technology, including composites repair and maintenance and associated safety issues. Subjects covered include overview of composites technology, damage detection and repair processes. The course costs between $950 and $1,174, depending on whether credit hours are needed, and requires a 70-hour commitment during an eight-week period. After taking the composites maintenance technology course, students can opt to learn more at a three-day hands-on lab, for an additional cost of between $1,000 and $1,224. Charles Seaton, who has more than 30 years’ experience in aircraft design, manufacturing and modification, developed and will teach the online course.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Repair course
Brian
The only problem is that many such courses teach exactly what is in the SRM, which with regard to surface preparations for metals and heater blanket usage is rubbish. If they teach a reliable, effective method for producing durable repairs, then the technician can not implement it because he must follow the approved SRM which contains the rubbish. Catch 22 until the SRMs are corrected. The most effective means to do this is to send the OEM staff to a course which teaches effective repair methods so they know how bad their recomended processes are and take action to correct them.
And just to be clear, I have not seen the syllabus for this course and I know NAIR are a reputable organisation. However, my concern is that the content may be driven by user procedures rather than procedures based on reliable science.
Regards
blakmax
The only problem is that many such courses teach exactly what is in the SRM, which with regard to surface preparations for metals and heater blanket usage is rubbish. If they teach a reliable, effective method for producing durable repairs, then the technician can not implement it because he must follow the approved SRM which contains the rubbish. Catch 22 until the SRMs are corrected. The most effective means to do this is to send the OEM staff to a course which teaches effective repair methods so they know how bad their recomended processes are and take action to correct them.
And just to be clear, I have not seen the syllabus for this course and I know NAIR are a reputable organisation. However, my concern is that the content may be driven by user procedures rather than procedures based on reliable science.
Regards
blakmax
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Aviation International News today
Manufacturer Promising New AW139 Tailbooms
In the wake of a tailboom failure on a Gulf Airways AW139 in August, AgustaWestland is assuring customers with helicopters on order that it will deliver them with a newly designed boom starting in April. The tailboom on the Gulf AW139 failed while the helicopter was taxiing on the ground in Doha, Qatar. There were no injuries. That boom exhibited signs of debonding, as have numerous other AW139 tailbooms, according to several operators. Some of the debonding is severe enough to require replacement of the entire tailboom. Since the incident in Qatar, both the EASA and FAA have issued emergency Airworthiness Directives. The AW139 airframe and components are made under contract by PZL Swidnik in Poland and Turkish Aerospace Industries. The new tailboom will use a different composite technique and an aluminum skin bonded to honeycomb, according to one U.S.-based AW139 customer. It’s still unclear when the new-design boom will be available for in-service AW139s. An AgustaWestland spokesman told AIN that the company would issue a statement regarding the AW139 tailboom “in the very near term.”
Manufacturer Promising New AW139 Tailbooms
In the wake of a tailboom failure on a Gulf Airways AW139 in August, AgustaWestland is assuring customers with helicopters on order that it will deliver them with a newly designed boom starting in April. The tailboom on the Gulf AW139 failed while the helicopter was taxiing on the ground in Doha, Qatar. There were no injuries. That boom exhibited signs of debonding, as have numerous other AW139 tailbooms, according to several operators. Some of the debonding is severe enough to require replacement of the entire tailboom. Since the incident in Qatar, both the EASA and FAA have issued emergency Airworthiness Directives. The AW139 airframe and components are made under contract by PZL Swidnik in Poland and Turkish Aerospace Industries. The new tailboom will use a different composite technique and an aluminum skin bonded to honeycomb, according to one U.S.-based AW139 customer. It’s still unclear when the new-design boom will be available for in-service AW139s. An AgustaWestland spokesman told AIN that the company would issue a statement regarding the AW139 tailboom “in the very near term.”
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberfreeze or the Sandpit
Age: 58
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ach well, at least it's fitted with A/C
Back to work in the back of the 139 soon.
Excerpts from e-mail today
"
the reason for the tailboom failure on the Gulf Helicopters AW 139 has been identified as a weakening of the structure caused by an earlier tailboom strike (March 2009). This damage was not detected during post-incident inspections and the weakened tailboom structure failed when a high (not excessive) load was placed on it during the ground taxi. AW has developed new ultrasonic tests to be applied to any tailboom that has suffered any form of impact damage to ensure that the potential internal damage can be detected. Furthermore, AW have developed a modification (Bollettino Tecnico 139-200) to strengthen the tailboom structure by the addition of ‘doubler’ plates and extended longerons. In addition, and most importantly, the investigation proved that the well-known tailboom delamination problem did not contribute to the failure. This delamination problem appears to have been addressed in the latest generation tailbooms, which have aluminium (Al) skins.”
"
At 0645 hours on 25th August 2009, the AW 139 Helicopter with registration mark A7-GHC (S/N 31225) was ready for take off and while performing the U-turn during taxing in the direction of the taxiway, the tail boom structure collapsed. This helicopter had a tail boom strike prior incident prior to this event. An Aircraft Accident Investigation Committee with Accredited Representative from the Italian AIB (ANSV) and an Advisor from the Manufacturer was created by the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority (QCAA) to perform the investigation. The Helicopter with the failed tail boom assembly was examined and inspected at the location of the event and later sent to the Manufacturer facility in Italy for further testing, investigation, evaluation and modifications under the Qatar AAIC oversight.
Based on the results of the investigation, the tail boom fracture under ground taxing load was recognized as static failure mode. The structure collapse derived from compression failure of the RH panel with external skin bucking and tension failure on the LH side panel. The RH panel failed area resulted in an external skin debonding for about 40% of the section involving the flat and curved zones.
The helicopter than went through a series of modifications at the manufacturer facility in Italy, was tested and its airworthiness is approved by the manufacturer and Qatar Civil Aviation Authority. This helicopter returned to Gulf Helicopters in Doha last week.
Improvements and modifications done to the AW 139 fleet:
1. The first step of improvements implemented a new manufacturing process and design of the panels. The design of manufacturing has been improved by introducing supported adhesive on all the panel surface.
2. The second step of improvements implemented the production curing phase of the panels. The load pressure during autoclave curing process has been increased to enhance adhesion of the honeycomb in the corners areas.
3. The third step of improvements introduced metallic (aluminium) Flexcore honeycomb and increased the pressure during autoclave curing process. Mandatory periodic destructive test every 25 manufactured panels are required in addition to the curing coupons tests.
4. The fourth improvement step reinforced the tail fin area spars to enhance the tail boom.
5. Gulf Helicopter Aircraft maintenance Program requirements for this helicopter has been reviewed and approved by QCAA. Gulf Helicopters and its helicopter fleet is under continuing safety monitoring and oversight surveillance by the QCAA.
Shellair conducted an audit of Gulf Helicopters after arrival of this aircraft in Doha, which incorporated ConocoPhillips audit requirements. The audit team is satisfied that the tail boom modification on the AW139 helicopter A7GHC has been incorporated and that Gulf Helicopters maintenance staff are competent to conduct ongoing inspection requirements on the tail boom.
Based on the improvements done to the aircraft and the subsequent positive audit by Shellair of Gulf Helicopters, Qatargas 3&4 Shareholders Aviation Advisors have approved the resumption of AW 139 Helicopter A7-GHC flights for our operations.
"
end quote:
ahhhh, the gentle glow of fire round yer ringpiece from sunshine being blown up yer hoop . .
I realise Spinwing is happy enough to go to work in one so have no real issues with doing the same, I just _wish_ they didn't treat us like 3 year olds.
Official line from company "Mr Manufacturer has made it all better"
Unofficial line used by rigpigs "spent _just_ enough money to get away with it . ."
Excerpts from e-mail today
"
the reason for the tailboom failure on the Gulf Helicopters AW 139 has been identified as a weakening of the structure caused by an earlier tailboom strike (March 2009). This damage was not detected during post-incident inspections and the weakened tailboom structure failed when a high (not excessive) load was placed on it during the ground taxi. AW has developed new ultrasonic tests to be applied to any tailboom that has suffered any form of impact damage to ensure that the potential internal damage can be detected. Furthermore, AW have developed a modification (Bollettino Tecnico 139-200) to strengthen the tailboom structure by the addition of ‘doubler’ plates and extended longerons. In addition, and most importantly, the investigation proved that the well-known tailboom delamination problem did not contribute to the failure. This delamination problem appears to have been addressed in the latest generation tailbooms, which have aluminium (Al) skins.”
"
At 0645 hours on 25th August 2009, the AW 139 Helicopter with registration mark A7-GHC (S/N 31225) was ready for take off and while performing the U-turn during taxing in the direction of the taxiway, the tail boom structure collapsed. This helicopter had a tail boom strike prior incident prior to this event. An Aircraft Accident Investigation Committee with Accredited Representative from the Italian AIB (ANSV) and an Advisor from the Manufacturer was created by the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority (QCAA) to perform the investigation. The Helicopter with the failed tail boom assembly was examined and inspected at the location of the event and later sent to the Manufacturer facility in Italy for further testing, investigation, evaluation and modifications under the Qatar AAIC oversight.
Based on the results of the investigation, the tail boom fracture under ground taxing load was recognized as static failure mode. The structure collapse derived from compression failure of the RH panel with external skin bucking and tension failure on the LH side panel. The RH panel failed area resulted in an external skin debonding for about 40% of the section involving the flat and curved zones.
The helicopter than went through a series of modifications at the manufacturer facility in Italy, was tested and its airworthiness is approved by the manufacturer and Qatar Civil Aviation Authority. This helicopter returned to Gulf Helicopters in Doha last week.
Improvements and modifications done to the AW 139 fleet:
1. The first step of improvements implemented a new manufacturing process and design of the panels. The design of manufacturing has been improved by introducing supported adhesive on all the panel surface.
2. The second step of improvements implemented the production curing phase of the panels. The load pressure during autoclave curing process has been increased to enhance adhesion of the honeycomb in the corners areas.
3. The third step of improvements introduced metallic (aluminium) Flexcore honeycomb and increased the pressure during autoclave curing process. Mandatory periodic destructive test every 25 manufactured panels are required in addition to the curing coupons tests.
4. The fourth improvement step reinforced the tail fin area spars to enhance the tail boom.
5. Gulf Helicopter Aircraft maintenance Program requirements for this helicopter has been reviewed and approved by QCAA. Gulf Helicopters and its helicopter fleet is under continuing safety monitoring and oversight surveillance by the QCAA.
Shellair conducted an audit of Gulf Helicopters after arrival of this aircraft in Doha, which incorporated ConocoPhillips audit requirements. The audit team is satisfied that the tail boom modification on the AW139 helicopter A7GHC has been incorporated and that Gulf Helicopters maintenance staff are competent to conduct ongoing inspection requirements on the tail boom.
Based on the improvements done to the aircraft and the subsequent positive audit by Shellair of Gulf Helicopters, Qatargas 3&4 Shareholders Aviation Advisors have approved the resumption of AW 139 Helicopter A7-GHC flights for our operations.
"
end quote:
ahhhh, the gentle glow of fire round yer ringpiece from sunshine being blown up yer hoop . .
I realise Spinwing is happy enough to go to work in one so have no real issues with doing the same, I just _wish_ they didn't treat us like 3 year olds.
Official line from company "Mr Manufacturer has made it all better"
Unofficial line used by rigpigs "spent _just_ enough money to get away with it . ."
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps you should leave the accident investigation and aerospace engineering to the experts (though next time you feel the tail thumping the deck as you head off on leave best tell someone).
All Shell's Aviation Advisors are leading experts in composite structures and bonding technology and have determined that modern aircraft like the S-92 and AW139 are far safer than earlier types:
Rotor & Wing Magazine :: 7/7=1
Shell Aircraft have now audited and GHC and got them to do an extensive SMS Self Assessment booklet too so you can be assured that everything is fine.
So what I suggest you do is:
Or of course if you work for bp:
At least you can be sure of Shell!
All Shell's Aviation Advisors are leading experts in composite structures and bonding technology and have determined that modern aircraft like the S-92 and AW139 are far safer than earlier types:
Rotor & Wing Magazine :: 7/7=1
Shell Aircraft have now audited and GHC and got them to do an extensive SMS Self Assessment booklet too so you can be assured that everything is fine.
So what I suggest you do is:
Or of course if you work for bp:
At least you can be sure of Shell!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish I had your confidence Shell. I have read the report and I can see issues with it. For one, to produce the "hidden" failure mode (which is nothing more than core shear failure) the specimens were severely distorted and retained that distorted shape on unloading after failure (See the figure on slide 33). Such distortion would be obvious to anyone using a Mark 1 eyeball and would have been easily observed during the repair procedure.
Secondly, the strength loss of 30% is consitent with the results of our tests involving micro-voiding of the adhesive as discussed in one of my previous postings.
Unless the manufacturer takes action to minimise exposure of his uncured adhesive products to humid environments, then nothing will change. The strength of the structure and hence the level of safety will be determined by the humidity on the day the components were manufactured.
Secondly, the strength loss of 30% is consitent with the results of our tests involving micro-voiding of the adhesive as discussed in one of my previous postings.
Unless the manufacturer takes action to minimise exposure of his uncured adhesive products to humid environments, then nothing will change. The strength of the structure and hence the level of safety will be determined by the humidity on the day the components were manufactured.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blakmax
Slide 33? Is there a PPT?
Was there actually a repair after the tail boom was first damaged?
SM
Posters are funny.
But you are still a typical ignorant sHELL t0ss-p0t though.
Slide 33? Is there a PPT?
Was there actually a repair after the tail boom was first damaged?
SM
Posters are funny.
But you are still a typical ignorant sHELL t0ss-p0t though.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberfreeze or the Sandpit
Age: 58
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SM,
I actually have a fairly high regard for Shell aviation services and were it not for your involvement, would currently be walking from the project.
I've been in the biz long enough to remember the excruciating pain caused by being SLF on Chinooks doing 5+ hour flights from the northern North Sea (Saturday "milk" runs) and was one of the bears who refused point blank to get back on a Chinook after you tried to reintroduce them.
(But we all make mistakes, yours (Shell aviation) was to think we would actually do as we were told)
As to 20+ year old blades with known lightning strike damage causing the death of (think it was) 11 guys in the southern North Sea a couple of years ago, part of getting to work.
As to the comment: "Leave it to the experts"
generally I do (In my own field, I am one) but I know I screw up from time to time, not thinking you are any different. Although if you have been with Shell long enough maybe you do . 
Blackmax;
There is more of a "culture" thing going on here than purely structural issues (although, were it not for the structural issues, we wouldn't see the "culture" stuff)
Deal with the SLF patronisingly enough for long enough and we'll tell you where to get off.
we've done it before and we'll do it again.
I quite like the 139's as a bus to get to work in, it's got AC, very smooth, and the way they are parked at GHC I can do my own mk1 eyeball inspection of the stbd aft panel on the way out, if it's "creased" you'll be 1 pax down on the flight and I'll be working somewhere else.
please, please, please tell me you don't really believe that . . ?
(or worse, believe that _I'LL_ believe that? )
Have the utmost regard for the boys n girls responsible for taking me to work,
Have fairly high regard for those in the back office who decide which group of boys n girls take me to work.
SM, Don't kid yourself that the bears think you are all knowing experts,
This last missive "from on high" was borderline in the credibility department at best. (partly the delivery method, which should not be gone into in a public fora, suffice to say there is a village in India looking for their idiot, we have him on long term contract in Doha...)
I actually have a fairly high regard for Shell aviation services and were it not for your involvement, would currently be walking from the project.
I've been in the biz long enough to remember the excruciating pain caused by being SLF on Chinooks doing 5+ hour flights from the northern North Sea (Saturday "milk" runs) and was one of the bears who refused point blank to get back on a Chinook after you tried to reintroduce them.
(But we all make mistakes, yours (Shell aviation) was to think we would actually do as we were told)
As to 20+ year old blades with known lightning strike damage causing the death of (think it was) 11 guys in the southern North Sea a couple of years ago, part of getting to work.
As to the comment: "Leave it to the experts"
generally I do (In my own field, I am one) but I know I screw up from time to time, not thinking you are any different. Although if you have been with Shell long enough maybe you do . Blackmax;
There is more of a "culture" thing going on here than purely structural issues (although, were it not for the structural issues, we wouldn't see the "culture" stuff)
Deal with the SLF patronisingly enough for long enough and we'll tell you where to get off.
we've done it before and we'll do it again.
I quite like the 139's as a bus to get to work in, it's got AC, very smooth, and the way they are parked at GHC I can do my own mk1 eyeball inspection of the stbd aft panel on the way out, if it's "creased" you'll be 1 pax down on the flight and I'll be working somewhere else.
Shell Aircraft have now audited and GHC and got them to do an extensive SMS Self Assessment booklet too so you can be assured that everything is fine.
(or worse, believe that _I'LL_ believe that?
)Have the utmost regard for the boys n girls responsible for taking me to work,
Have fairly high regard for those in the back office who decide which group of boys n girls take me to work.
SM, Don't kid yourself that the bears think you are all knowing experts,
This last missive "from on high" was borderline in the credibility department at best. (partly the delivery method, which should not be gone into in a public fora, suffice to say there is a village in India looking for their idiot, we have him on long term contract in Doha...)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmmm .....
......suffice to say there is a village in India looking for their idiot, we have him on long term contract ...)
Actually there are a many villages in India (and other places too) with an endless supply of 'em .... rather sad really
... but there we go!
......suffice to say there is a village in India looking for their idiot, we have him on long term contract ...)
Actually there are a many villages in India (and other places too) with an endless supply of 'em .... rather sad really
... but there we go!
Airwave, try not to let SM wind you up - he's well known for his inflammatory posts which, sadly, people bite on. He winds me up - and I work for Shell Whether he does, I'm not clear on, but I certainly hope not as he does himself and his colleagues a diservice if so 
Whether he does, I'm not clear on, but I certainly hope not as he does himself and his colleagues a diservice if so
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passengers are simply customers for a service that they don't fully understand.
Decisions on such complex matters should be left with the expert providers of such services (the company logistics dept) and their specialist advisors.
This is part of High Reliability Organisation philosophy - deference to expertise. The alternative is anarchy.
Imagine if every pilot demanded to see the Safety Case for the platfrom they landed on or wanted to review mud logging data just in case there might be a blow-out!
Decisions on such complex matters should be left with the expert providers of such services (the company logistics dept) and their specialist advisors.
This is part of High Reliability Organisation philosophy - deference to expertise. The alternative is anarchy.
Imagine if every pilot demanded to see the Safety Case for the platfrom they landed on or wanted to review mud logging data just in case there might be a blow-out!
More SM bollocks
