HOW SAFE IS THE AIRPLANE YOU DRIVE?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lu Zuckerman..some good points there although I have to suggest that the actual number of incidents/accidents involving Airbus aircraft semms very low (perhaps by luck).
There are a significant number of problems with all of the Boeing range which are very serious.
737: Rudder hardovers, has killed people and only now taken seriously (how could it be ignored)
747: CTR tank fuel pumps. Killed all on TWA and destroyed Thai 737 recently.
767: Elevator problems of significance. Inferred that Egypt Air crash was suicide but this far from certain. Additionally on One Engine at MLW, the autopilot on this aircraft will not intercept a localiser without rolling inverted. Amazed it was certifiable.
MD11: Final report on SR111 not yet released but understand that when it is both airline and manufacturer will be criticised harshly. Particularly in relation to wiring circuits/insulation in area around O/H panel.
My point is that no single airframe manufacturer should be isolated in this regard. So far in terms of actual loss of life, Boeing appear to have more to answer for than Airbus - however Airbus should not become complacent.
I suppose it is all a matter of 'acceptable risk' (hate that term). The Kapton wiring fiasco is a great example. The US military won't jeopardise their aircrew with this stuff but airfliner manufacturers don't seem to care.
411A - I'm sorry but you seem like a very bitter old man. No doubts the same criticisms you level against young pilots were said of yourself years ago. Who cares if you can fly a great partial panel NDB approach on one engine in a DC6 or whatever - it isn't overly relevant any more.
The chance of being on partial panel (ie: a turn & slip indicator and a magnetic compass) is so remote it is deemed - rightly or wrongly, an 'acceptable risk'.
An ability to understand malfunctions of Flight Control Computers is deemed more relevant and these new guys sure are hot on that stuff. Even then (as a recent A300 incident in your company demonstrates) most of the new guys still have very good stick-and-rudder skills - which in that case saved the day.
The newer breed of pilots I do admit are not as skilled in certain areas as we are but it is largely in areas that are irrelevant. I am as happy to fly with most of these guys as I was with most of my peers ages ago.
Your comments re the L1011 are also a little deluded. Have flown most of these things and prefer my A340's and 777's any day. The Trimotor was overly complex (DLC!), underpowered, smelly and didn't have enough wheels! Nice to fly though.
There are a significant number of problems with all of the Boeing range which are very serious.
737: Rudder hardovers, has killed people and only now taken seriously (how could it be ignored)
747: CTR tank fuel pumps. Killed all on TWA and destroyed Thai 737 recently.
767: Elevator problems of significance. Inferred that Egypt Air crash was suicide but this far from certain. Additionally on One Engine at MLW, the autopilot on this aircraft will not intercept a localiser without rolling inverted. Amazed it was certifiable.
MD11: Final report on SR111 not yet released but understand that when it is both airline and manufacturer will be criticised harshly. Particularly in relation to wiring circuits/insulation in area around O/H panel.
My point is that no single airframe manufacturer should be isolated in this regard. So far in terms of actual loss of life, Boeing appear to have more to answer for than Airbus - however Airbus should not become complacent.
I suppose it is all a matter of 'acceptable risk' (hate that term). The Kapton wiring fiasco is a great example. The US military won't jeopardise their aircrew with this stuff but airfliner manufacturers don't seem to care.
411A - I'm sorry but you seem like a very bitter old man. No doubts the same criticisms you level against young pilots were said of yourself years ago. Who cares if you can fly a great partial panel NDB approach on one engine in a DC6 or whatever - it isn't overly relevant any more.
The chance of being on partial panel (ie: a turn & slip indicator and a magnetic compass) is so remote it is deemed - rightly or wrongly, an 'acceptable risk'.
An ability to understand malfunctions of Flight Control Computers is deemed more relevant and these new guys sure are hot on that stuff. Even then (as a recent A300 incident in your company demonstrates) most of the new guys still have very good stick-and-rudder skills - which in that case saved the day.
The newer breed of pilots I do admit are not as skilled in certain areas as we are but it is largely in areas that are irrelevant. I am as happy to fly with most of these guys as I was with most of my peers ages ago.
Your comments re the L1011 are also a little deluded. Have flown most of these things and prefer my A340's and 777's any day. The Trimotor was overly complex (DLC!), underpowered, smelly and didn't have enough wheels! Nice to fly though.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I normally only read. But this one requires a response to FL390. You must not be aware of the multitude of problems that have occured with Airbus Industries. This is only one of many. My company will not allow any employee to board an Airbus under any circumstances. Get the message son.
Guest
Posts: n/a
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Who cares if you can fly a great partial panel NDB approach on one engine in a DC6 or whatever </font>
It's not whether or not those skills are used to fly partial panel, asymmetric NDB circling approaches in a DC6. The point is I think 411A is making is whether or not those skills are there just in case they're needed.
Think of how many times incidents occur that require the exercise of just those skills eg the DC10 with that had an uncontained disk failure, or the Gimli Glider (to pick the first two to come to mind).
Nasty events & occurrences [i]will[/] happen but now the potential range of nasties has widened to include computerised & automated system malfunctions.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Indeed...and the partial panel SE NDB approach in the DC6 is something that simply isn't relevant any more. Good stick-and rudder however still is needed (and would have helped save China Airlies pax).
411A however strikes me as one of those miserable old sods who begrudges everybody else that has done better than himself (esp CX pilots) and has let this influence all his thoughts.
New pilots are no worse than the old guys - only with a different operational focus. I'm happy to fly with them anytime.
411A however strikes me as one of those miserable old sods who begrudges everybody else that has done better than himself (esp CX pilots) and has let this influence all his thoughts.
New pilots are no worse than the old guys - only with a different operational focus. I'm happy to fly with them anytime.
Guest
Posts: n/a
To: All,
It was not my intent to single out a specific aircraft. In a previous post in this thread I indicated that I have been involved in Reliability, Systems Safety and Maintainability since 1968 and from that time to today I have worked on all types or equipment and systems. In that post I indicated that on 90% of those assignments my recommendations for change and those of my colleagues were ignored because of the attitudes of design engineering. Their reasons for refusal were manifold and included, they didn’t want their designs criticized, they had a not invented here complex, they said it would add to program costs or, the suggested change would impact the schedule. Theses are a few as there were many more to include that they wouldn’t change the design on the basis of a few calculations from a “numbers cruncher”. This sadly in many cases was true. The RMS Engineers in many cases have no mechanical or electronic background other than that from the courses in University. They do not have a clue as to the actual operation of the equipment and they eventually look at the equipment and systems as mathematical entities and they end up manipulating number to make the systems meet the spec requirements relative to RMS.
The only Boeing system I ever worked on was the V-22 and I was fired from that program because I kept bringing up the possibility of decreasing the reliability of the hydraulic system because of a design peculiararity of the Bell designed Prop Rotors. On the Apache program I identified 27 different design defects that would effect RMS. My report to the US Army was time sensitive but it was held up beyond the due date by the assistant chief engineer because he did not agree with my usage of the terms shall and will. When I provided the proper usage references he released my report but it was too late and the 27 identified items were cast in concrete and contributed to the unreliability and poor maintainability of the AH-64. The Army is still paying for that engineers intransigence. I could go on and on.
Investigate any program from Civil Aircraft to automobiles and everything in-between and you will find the same problems.
------------------
The Cat
It was not my intent to single out a specific aircraft. In a previous post in this thread I indicated that I have been involved in Reliability, Systems Safety and Maintainability since 1968 and from that time to today I have worked on all types or equipment and systems. In that post I indicated that on 90% of those assignments my recommendations for change and those of my colleagues were ignored because of the attitudes of design engineering. Their reasons for refusal were manifold and included, they didn’t want their designs criticized, they had a not invented here complex, they said it would add to program costs or, the suggested change would impact the schedule. Theses are a few as there were many more to include that they wouldn’t change the design on the basis of a few calculations from a “numbers cruncher”. This sadly in many cases was true. The RMS Engineers in many cases have no mechanical or electronic background other than that from the courses in University. They do not have a clue as to the actual operation of the equipment and they eventually look at the equipment and systems as mathematical entities and they end up manipulating number to make the systems meet the spec requirements relative to RMS.
The only Boeing system I ever worked on was the V-22 and I was fired from that program because I kept bringing up the possibility of decreasing the reliability of the hydraulic system because of a design peculiararity of the Bell designed Prop Rotors. On the Apache program I identified 27 different design defects that would effect RMS. My report to the US Army was time sensitive but it was held up beyond the due date by the assistant chief engineer because he did not agree with my usage of the terms shall and will. When I provided the proper usage references he released my report but it was too late and the 27 identified items were cast in concrete and contributed to the unreliability and poor maintainability of the AH-64. The Army is still paying for that engineers intransigence. I could go on and on.
Investigate any program from Civil Aircraft to automobiles and everything in-between and you will find the same problems.
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tom Tipper---
You missed the boat once again. In over 30 years of airline flying, I have done very well, nearly all tax-free overseas. However, that avenue is closing for expat guys now, as airlines realise that very high pay (CX as an example) can no longer be supported due to competition from other lower cost carriers. The only places that you find the big bucks (Korean as an example) are where there is a large area of concern, and they have their own unique set of problems.
One of my last assignments was to qualify junior F/O's in older wide-body aircraft after they had been in the AirBus glass cockpit environment for an extended period.
The airline was so concerned about the lack of basic airmanship and situational awareness that the sim and line training program was extended to twice the normal in order to cater for the reduced flying skills.
The young guys sure may be hot stuff when it comes to computers, but when the screen goes blank, or the problem has not been seen before, the basic handling skills needed are just not there. OR, if they are, and the aircraft does not respond to the desired input from pilots (recent A320 in Spain), then the situation becomes grave indeed.
Nothing at all wrong with computers and highly automated flightdecks, so long as the required skills are THERE in the event of a problem. To advocate otherwise showes your basic lack of maturity
You missed the boat once again. In over 30 years of airline flying, I have done very well, nearly all tax-free overseas. However, that avenue is closing for expat guys now, as airlines realise that very high pay (CX as an example) can no longer be supported due to competition from other lower cost carriers. The only places that you find the big bucks (Korean as an example) are where there is a large area of concern, and they have their own unique set of problems.
One of my last assignments was to qualify junior F/O's in older wide-body aircraft after they had been in the AirBus glass cockpit environment for an extended period.
The airline was so concerned about the lack of basic airmanship and situational awareness that the sim and line training program was extended to twice the normal in order to cater for the reduced flying skills.
The young guys sure may be hot stuff when it comes to computers, but when the screen goes blank, or the problem has not been seen before, the basic handling skills needed are just not there. OR, if they are, and the aircraft does not respond to the desired input from pilots (recent A320 in Spain), then the situation becomes grave indeed.
Nothing at all wrong with computers and highly automated flightdecks, so long as the required skills are THERE in the event of a problem. To advocate otherwise showes your basic lack of maturity
Guest
Posts: n/a
411A I really must take exception to some of the drivell you are coming out with.
<some companies will not permit employees to travel on A320>
In the light of some of the over-patriotic protectionist scams that come out of the good old USA this is no surprise. American aircraft are built like American cars - Overweight, overpowered and very uneconomical. Check out the trend of Boeing market share in the world.
<...qualify junior F/O's in older wide-body aircraft after they had been in the AirBus glass cockpit environment for an extended period....airline was so concerned about the lack of basic airmanship and situational awareness that the sim and line training program was extended to twice the normal in order to cater for the reduced flying skills.>
- Having come from a well designed aircraft that has an interface that povides excellent situational awareness - I am not surprised. Airmanship comes from the experience gained as the sum total of your exposure to abnormal situations both practical and technical. If you are saying glass guys do not get exposure to practical 'situations' then you are clearly wrong. If you are saying that they do not get as much exposure to technical abnormals then this is probably true as the industry is becoming a safer place with more modern aircraft.
<the aircraft does not respond to the desired input from pilots (recent A320 in Spain), then the situation becomes grave indeed>
As has already been thrashed out they should recognised the signs of windshear earlier and executed the correct procedure - NOT continued into an uncontrollable situation.
In this business judgement is more important than flying skills (although a certain min standard is required).
FBW aircraft are here to stay. I was brought up on heavy metal with big levers & lots of big rods & cables. I have several thousand hours on both Boeing & Airbus types. I am currently a Captain on a Boeing but I would take the A3xx anyday for excellence of design, comfort & safety.
Put some reason behind your arguement or pipe down.
<some companies will not permit employees to travel on A320>
In the light of some of the over-patriotic protectionist scams that come out of the good old USA this is no surprise. American aircraft are built like American cars - Overweight, overpowered and very uneconomical. Check out the trend of Boeing market share in the world.
<...qualify junior F/O's in older wide-body aircraft after they had been in the AirBus glass cockpit environment for an extended period....airline was so concerned about the lack of basic airmanship and situational awareness that the sim and line training program was extended to twice the normal in order to cater for the reduced flying skills.>
- Having come from a well designed aircraft that has an interface that povides excellent situational awareness - I am not surprised. Airmanship comes from the experience gained as the sum total of your exposure to abnormal situations both practical and technical. If you are saying glass guys do not get exposure to practical 'situations' then you are clearly wrong. If you are saying that they do not get as much exposure to technical abnormals then this is probably true as the industry is becoming a safer place with more modern aircraft.
<the aircraft does not respond to the desired input from pilots (recent A320 in Spain), then the situation becomes grave indeed>
As has already been thrashed out they should recognised the signs of windshear earlier and executed the correct procedure - NOT continued into an uncontrollable situation.
In this business judgement is more important than flying skills (although a certain min standard is required).
FBW aircraft are here to stay. I was brought up on heavy metal with big levers & lots of big rods & cables. I have several thousand hours on both Boeing & Airbus types. I am currently a Captain on a Boeing but I would take the A3xx anyday for excellence of design, comfort & safety.
Put some reason behind your arguement or pipe down.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The only post with any incite so far comes from 411a.To defend the Eurobus simply because you have the misfortune to fly it is stupidity itself.I have flown most Boeing models and all have faults(not many though and the 777/744 are as perfect as you can get today).It would be refreshing to hear from an impartial Airbus driver who has the guts to 'come clean' on its obvious software design faults.
In the latest incident,I do think windshear is being used as a scapegoat.Comparisons to the microburst that occurred at DFW in August 1985 are a desperate effort to avoid culpability.By all accounts,the windshear encountered on this occasion was recoverable if the poor Spanish pilot had been allowed to execute that recovery.
THe design flaws of commercial aircraft only surface when the chips are down(ie.non-normal operaions).I am fully prepared to admit that the Airbus is a nice safe package under normal conditions,but it seems to me that when the unexpected happens ,extrication from those set of conditions is a real battle for the pilot.
It is how the Airbus has responded to these abnormal events that will serve as its final testament when judgement day comes in the year 2020 or so,and the aircraft is put out to pasture.
Leave FBW and software control laws to high performance military aircraft that need it.In commercial aviation,let the pilots fly the damned thing.
In the latest incident,I do think windshear is being used as a scapegoat.Comparisons to the microburst that occurred at DFW in August 1985 are a desperate effort to avoid culpability.By all accounts,the windshear encountered on this occasion was recoverable if the poor Spanish pilot had been allowed to execute that recovery.
THe design flaws of commercial aircraft only surface when the chips are down(ie.non-normal operaions).I am fully prepared to admit that the Airbus is a nice safe package under normal conditions,but it seems to me that when the unexpected happens ,extrication from those set of conditions is a real battle for the pilot.
It is how the Airbus has responded to these abnormal events that will serve as its final testament when judgement day comes in the year 2020 or so,and the aircraft is put out to pasture.
Leave FBW and software control laws to high performance military aircraft that need it.In commercial aviation,let the pilots fly the damned thing.
Guest
Posts: n/a
PAX speaking !
(but with a lot of sim and software background)
What happens in a fbw aircraft when the computer is presented with conditions/situations that nobody anticipated? We all know that most aviation tragedies are the result of a "chain" (eg the 1011 in the everglades way back - a couple of dozen "chain events")
Can a pilot with excellent "stick and rudder skills" do anything about it? Will the computer(s) allow him to exercise those skills?
I love travelling in the "ScareBus" - it's my preference "across the pond" against my alternative 767 (from a pax comfort aspect) I was impressed by the "glass cosckpit" when a kind GF skipper allowed me to visit while en-route to UK, but I was a tad nervous when there was a "tray table" where the "pole" should have been.
When sh|t comes to bust, can a good pilot, with great "stick&rudder", tell the computer(s) to "reggub off" and have full command of the aircraft.
(I'll admit that, with a trained monkey at the controls it's probably better for the computer to be saying "reggub off", but I don't want to fly in an aircraft with a trained monkey flying - I'd rather have a skilled aviator)
How much over-ride does a good pilot have??
------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!
(but with a lot of sim and software background)
What happens in a fbw aircraft when the computer is presented with conditions/situations that nobody anticipated? We all know that most aviation tragedies are the result of a "chain" (eg the 1011 in the everglades way back - a couple of dozen "chain events")
Can a pilot with excellent "stick and rudder skills" do anything about it? Will the computer(s) allow him to exercise those skills?
I love travelling in the "ScareBus" - it's my preference "across the pond" against my alternative 767 (from a pax comfort aspect) I was impressed by the "glass cosckpit" when a kind GF skipper allowed me to visit while en-route to UK, but I was a tad nervous when there was a "tray table" where the "pole" should have been.
When sh|t comes to bust, can a good pilot, with great "stick&rudder", tell the computer(s) to "reggub off" and have full command of the aircraft.
(I'll admit that, with a trained monkey at the controls it's probably better for the computer to be saying "reggub off", but I don't want to fly in an aircraft with a trained monkey flying - I'd rather have a skilled aviator)
How much over-ride does a good pilot have??
------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lu;
after reading your long ones (here and the other thread) i come away with-
the reason you didn't notify company A was basically the same reason the other companies did not want to tell company A-MONEY.
how can you "transfer" responsibility to the FAA?
and then you requested your name be withheld for same reason-MONEY.
i am in no way condemning, but as we evaluate the information in these threads about this and the cost of lifes, we have to remember that these companies are often run by PEOPLE just like us, and it is amazing what we all will do for the money.
though the specific details over the years have changed a bit, some of the big points in history haven't:
we aren't called serfs anymore, but the big money people still only care about their money and don't care about the "common" people who work and fly in their machines.
i really loved the line, "when the writer finished, the pilots would stare blankly out the window."
what else could they do?
they were evaluating what you told them and pondering if you had escaped from a mental hospital, (you came on board) or where the nearest suitable airport was.
can you imagine the pilots trying to tell their training departments to incorporate that info about a malfunction that is "not supposed" to happen?
they will be stared at! and blankly at that!
then your encouraging information about the wires/pins/connectors.
and you actually asked, "Isn't anyone interested in this subject?"
we're all staring out the windows!!
again, not condeming at all, but more like;
"uh, thanks for the information" stare out the window and wish it was legal to drink in cruise.
and as metro driver said, how much about the Boeings don't we know?
i am on the Boeing now-the classic 300/400's but they are aging as fast as i am.
i have a job offer to go the the Airbus 320 in NYC but NOW have a real problem with that.
at least i am familiar with the B737. but as they age, their weak spots will rise to the surface soon enough.
and who knows all about the new generations with all the pressure that Boeing has been under lately?
the only reason i still fly them at times is the same-MONEY. how many pilots will fly for free? we all want more money.
and that's just the aircraft itself.
let's not talk about the possible problems each time you let passengers and baggage on board. and don't read the labels on the soft drinks and think about what is really in the crew meals!!!
we'll all be JUMPING out of the windows!!!
so for the Boeing: keep some fuel in the center tanks, stay away from the barber pole, add ten knots to all the flap speeds and don't go to the high altitudes where the yellow lines in the speed tape get close together.
new proceedure for recurrent training should be two days in the sim and then at least one day reading all the threads about our specific aircraft!!
something's gonna get us:
airbus or angina
boeing or botulism
computers or colon cancer .........
again, thanks a lot for the information, but pardon me while i look out the window. a little of the "carpe diem" thing. enjoying the view before the thing goes inverted.
and on a diversion line of thought
i have always been amazed at how they legislate that pilots must have 8 to 12 hours between bottle and throttle, depending on what part of the world you fly in, and the people who rule the world, have wine in their hands when they make these and other world steering decisions.
and does any one really wonder why we chase the cabin crew every chance we get?? with aircraft the way they are, every chance might be our last.
cheers
after reading your long ones (here and the other thread) i come away with-
the reason you didn't notify company A was basically the same reason the other companies did not want to tell company A-MONEY.
how can you "transfer" responsibility to the FAA?
and then you requested your name be withheld for same reason-MONEY.
i am in no way condemning, but as we evaluate the information in these threads about this and the cost of lifes, we have to remember that these companies are often run by PEOPLE just like us, and it is amazing what we all will do for the money.
though the specific details over the years have changed a bit, some of the big points in history haven't:
we aren't called serfs anymore, but the big money people still only care about their money and don't care about the "common" people who work and fly in their machines.
i really loved the line, "when the writer finished, the pilots would stare blankly out the window."
what else could they do?
they were evaluating what you told them and pondering if you had escaped from a mental hospital, (you came on board) or where the nearest suitable airport was.
can you imagine the pilots trying to tell their training departments to incorporate that info about a malfunction that is "not supposed" to happen?
they will be stared at! and blankly at that!
then your encouraging information about the wires/pins/connectors.
and you actually asked, "Isn't anyone interested in this subject?"
we're all staring out the windows!!
again, not condeming at all, but more like;
"uh, thanks for the information" stare out the window and wish it was legal to drink in cruise.
and as metro driver said, how much about the Boeings don't we know?
i am on the Boeing now-the classic 300/400's but they are aging as fast as i am.
i have a job offer to go the the Airbus 320 in NYC but NOW have a real problem with that.
at least i am familiar with the B737. but as they age, their weak spots will rise to the surface soon enough.
and who knows all about the new generations with all the pressure that Boeing has been under lately?
the only reason i still fly them at times is the same-MONEY. how many pilots will fly for free? we all want more money.
and that's just the aircraft itself.
let's not talk about the possible problems each time you let passengers and baggage on board. and don't read the labels on the soft drinks and think about what is really in the crew meals!!!
we'll all be JUMPING out of the windows!!!
so for the Boeing: keep some fuel in the center tanks, stay away from the barber pole, add ten knots to all the flap speeds and don't go to the high altitudes where the yellow lines in the speed tape get close together.
new proceedure for recurrent training should be two days in the sim and then at least one day reading all the threads about our specific aircraft!!
something's gonna get us:
airbus or angina
boeing or botulism
computers or colon cancer .........
again, thanks a lot for the information, but pardon me while i look out the window. a little of the "carpe diem" thing. enjoying the view before the thing goes inverted.
and on a diversion line of thought
i have always been amazed at how they legislate that pilots must have 8 to 12 hours between bottle and throttle, depending on what part of the world you fly in, and the people who rule the world, have wine in their hands when they make these and other world steering decisions.
and does any one really wonder why we chase the cabin crew every chance we get?? with aircraft the way they are, every chance might be our last.
cheers
Guest
Posts: n/a
ExSim you hit the nail on the head. I for one want total direct control of my aircraft if ever the s**t hits the fan. Im not talking about simple things like engine failure but major bloodey catastrophes where everything is falling apart.
The A320 "chainsaw" incident spoke volumes about the Scarebus philosophy in eliminating the pilot out of the direct-control loop. Ive got almost 13,000 hours (8,000 total on medium jets) and you cant pull the wool over my eyes and say he could not have flown out of that manouver in that configuration if there were no damn computers on board. What amazed me was that the so-called experts said the A320 computer-input accomplished a survivable crash better than any pilot-input. Hello! What caused the bloodey thing to prang in the FIRST PLACE!
The A320 "chainsaw" incident spoke volumes about the Scarebus philosophy in eliminating the pilot out of the direct-control loop. Ive got almost 13,000 hours (8,000 total on medium jets) and you cant pull the wool over my eyes and say he could not have flown out of that manouver in that configuration if there were no damn computers on board. What amazed me was that the so-called experts said the A320 computer-input accomplished a survivable crash better than any pilot-input. Hello! What caused the bloodey thing to prang in the FIRST PLACE!
Guest
Posts: n/a
To: stator vane
Yes it is true that I didn’t contact company “A” because of money as to do so, I would have committed occupational suicide and would never work in Europe again. However after leaving that contract I worked on three different jobs in Europe and on all three I told my potential employers what I had done. I tried every thing to get my employer (Company D) to understand the ramifications of not complying with the contract and that if anything happened they would be financially liable. The reason I turned the problem over to the FAA was to eliminate my financial culpability should one of the aircraft get pranged and killed a lot of people. In the USA damages are unlimited in the event of a crash and the lawyers can go after anyone that had anything to do with the design of the aircraft including the RMS engineers. A case in point is the crash of a commercial CH-47 in the North Sea several years ago. The lawyers not only sued Boeing they went after the senior transmission designer and two of his men because the change they made to the gear boxes proved to be faulty resulting in the crash.
By turning the problem over to the FAA I went on record as having made them aware of the problem. Asking them to not mention my name was to protect my earning capability while working in Europe. Again that ties into money so, I guess I was guilty a second time. The FAA not only revealed the source of the information (me) they also made the report available to the RMS group at Boeing in Seattle. Even after company A was made aware of the problems the design was never changed. Now there are several questionable ADs on the slat and flap drive system. The original was written by company A and was translated from French to English by the FAA and the Canadian MOT. In reading the two English versions of the AD you would believe that they addressed two different aircraft. There is no telling what the French version said. I brought this problem to the attention of the FAA, the CAA and the DGCA and they were totally unresponsive. It just goes to show you, they don't care either.
------------------
The Cat
Yes it is true that I didn’t contact company “A” because of money as to do so, I would have committed occupational suicide and would never work in Europe again. However after leaving that contract I worked on three different jobs in Europe and on all three I told my potential employers what I had done. I tried every thing to get my employer (Company D) to understand the ramifications of not complying with the contract and that if anything happened they would be financially liable. The reason I turned the problem over to the FAA was to eliminate my financial culpability should one of the aircraft get pranged and killed a lot of people. In the USA damages are unlimited in the event of a crash and the lawyers can go after anyone that had anything to do with the design of the aircraft including the RMS engineers. A case in point is the crash of a commercial CH-47 in the North Sea several years ago. The lawyers not only sued Boeing they went after the senior transmission designer and two of his men because the change they made to the gear boxes proved to be faulty resulting in the crash.
By turning the problem over to the FAA I went on record as having made them aware of the problem. Asking them to not mention my name was to protect my earning capability while working in Europe. Again that ties into money so, I guess I was guilty a second time. The FAA not only revealed the source of the information (me) they also made the report available to the RMS group at Boeing in Seattle. Even after company A was made aware of the problems the design was never changed. Now there are several questionable ADs on the slat and flap drive system. The original was written by company A and was translated from French to English by the FAA and the Canadian MOT. In reading the two English versions of the AD you would believe that they addressed two different aircraft. There is no telling what the French version said. I brought this problem to the attention of the FAA, the CAA and the DGCA and they were totally unresponsive. It just goes to show you, they don't care either.
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just when I thought the forum was turning into a coffee klatsch.
Thanks for the post, Lu Z.
Next time, in order to grab the attention of bored and apathetic pilots, try to start out with your summary: how to solve the problem when we encounter it by immediately flipping those switches.
I´d like to know what else I should be on the lookout for.
411A, your point is unpopular, but I agree. And I´m not an old sod (yet).
Thanks for the post, Lu Z.
Next time, in order to grab the attention of bored and apathetic pilots, try to start out with your summary: how to solve the problem when we encounter it by immediately flipping those switches.
I´d like to know what else I should be on the lookout for.
411A, your point is unpopular, but I agree. And I´m not an old sod (yet).