Technical Faults Cause Most Accidents
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot terror.
To: 747FOCAL
The only error the pilot made was not knowing that the jackscrew was in a rapid stage of melt down. The error was in the maintenance practices of Alaska Airlines. The jackscrew had not been lubricated for a considerable time and the wear on the screw advanced quite quickly. This should have been detected during periodic checks but, it was not. The pilot was not aware of the advanced wear when he tried to trim out the tail plane.
Once the jackscrew failed the load was transferred to the attach point and it failed due to structural overload.
The only error the pilot made was not knowing that the jackscrew was in a rapid stage of melt down. The error was in the maintenance practices of Alaska Airlines. The jackscrew had not been lubricated for a considerable time and the wear on the screw advanced quite quickly. This should have been detected during periodic checks but, it was not. The pilot was not aware of the advanced wear when he tried to trim out the tail plane.
Once the jackscrew failed the load was transferred to the attach point and it failed due to structural overload.
Mr. "Zuckerman": how about the ATR crash at Roselawn, IN?
Our "guardians" at the FAA were aware of some loss of control problems concerning at least one or two European ATR-42s, but they ignored the entire issue of icing certification-until the crash. How does the FAA hear about problems onboard a foreign-registered plane thousands (hundreds) of miles from the US, when it is also certificated for operation by a US carrier? Is the foreign authority where a plane is manufactured, such as the French DGAC, German BL** or whatever, required to somehow notify each agency in every country where the plane operates? Or does the local aviation authority force the manufacturer to tell the foreigh authorities? If a Twin Otter were to crash in the jungles of New Guinea due to a design defect, would (i.e.) Transport Canada notify every other authority which certified the Canadian plane?
As for the fairly recent requirement-for the first time in US civil aviation history-for reserve crews to be given designated rest periods within consecutive days in which a crewmember is ALWAYS available for an almost immediate duty period, this happened ONLY because of dead civilian passengers on the MD-80 in Little Rock. The long duty period of both pilots became publicized. If it had been a cargo plane, as with the Connie Kallitta crew at NAS G'mo Bay, Cuba years ago (the DC-8 cartwheeled), then there might still be no RAP and required rest period (8 consecutive hours [with no calls from the company]in each 24) for crews on reserve/standby for six days in a row etc.
After THAT crash, the NTSB, for the FIRST TIME in US civil aviation history, claimed that crew fatigue was the primary cause! If they had pointed to fatigue many years ago, what would have been the abrasive result from the FAA??
Our "guardians" at the FAA were aware of some loss of control problems concerning at least one or two European ATR-42s, but they ignored the entire issue of icing certification-until the crash. How does the FAA hear about problems onboard a foreign-registered plane thousands (hundreds) of miles from the US, when it is also certificated for operation by a US carrier? Is the foreign authority where a plane is manufactured, such as the French DGAC, German BL** or whatever, required to somehow notify each agency in every country where the plane operates? Or does the local aviation authority force the manufacturer to tell the foreigh authorities? If a Twin Otter were to crash in the jungles of New Guinea due to a design defect, would (i.e.) Transport Canada notify every other authority which certified the Canadian plane?
As for the fairly recent requirement-for the first time in US civil aviation history-for reserve crews to be given designated rest periods within consecutive days in which a crewmember is ALWAYS available for an almost immediate duty period, this happened ONLY because of dead civilian passengers on the MD-80 in Little Rock. The long duty period of both pilots became publicized. If it had been a cargo plane, as with the Connie Kallitta crew at NAS G'mo Bay, Cuba years ago (the DC-8 cartwheeled), then there might still be no RAP and required rest period (8 consecutive hours [with no calls from the company]in each 24) for crews on reserve/standby for six days in a row etc.
After THAT crash, the NTSB, for the FIRST TIME in US civil aviation history, claimed that crew fatigue was the primary cause! If they had pointed to fatigue many years ago, what would have been the abrasive result from the FAA??
Last edited by Ignition Override; 26th Jan 2004 at 13:25.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coordination...
The FAA know about occurances on foreign manufactured aircraft and equipment in exactly the same way that we find out about occurances on USA manufactured aircraft and equipment. A general rule followed by airworthiness regulatory bodies around the world is that, an action that is made mandatory by the regulatory body in the country of manufacture and/or design, is automatically mandatory in the State of registration. Significant exceptions to this general rule are the USA and Australia, where foreign mandatories must first be converted to local action. Thus, US operators can ignore foreign mandatories unless they have been covered by equivalent US FAA action.
On your profile, Ignition Override, you say you are in air safety coordination. How do you actually perform this coordination perchance? In our engineering departments, we operators receive notification direct from the foreign regulators. Meanwhile our own regulatory body oversees our compliance because they are seperately advised by the State of manufacture. How? - simple enough - we are all required to subscribe to the relevant airworthiness documentation. In our case we subscribe to various publications from the FAA, French, German, Dutch, Italian and other regulatory bodies covering our aircraft and airborne equipment not to mention those from the regulators of our engineering customers.
As with the law, ignorance is no excuse.
On your profile, Ignition Override, you say you are in air safety coordination. How do you actually perform this coordination perchance? In our engineering departments, we operators receive notification direct from the foreign regulators. Meanwhile our own regulatory body oversees our compliance because they are seperately advised by the State of manufacture. How? - simple enough - we are all required to subscribe to the relevant airworthiness documentation. In our case we subscribe to various publications from the FAA, French, German, Dutch, Italian and other regulatory bodies covering our aircraft and airborne equipment not to mention those from the regulators of our engineering customers.
As with the law, ignorance is no excuse.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who knows what, when and where?
To: Blacksheep
In some cases the manufacturer will initiate an AD and send it to the operators but it has no strength until the certification authorities act on it. A case in point is an AD issued by Airbus after the Air Transat A-330 landed in the Azores with empty tanks. That AD was issued early last year and is yet to be acted on by the FAA and Canadian MOT. I do not know if the DGCA acted and created an AD, which then must be acted on by all countries in which A-330s are registered.
Here is another case in which there might be some confusion when an AD must be translated from the language in which it was originally written. The A-310 was suffering from looseness in the flange connections on the slat and flap drive system. The FAA and Canadian MOT translated the AD from French to English and the two ADs did not agree with each other. There was further confusion in both translations. The AD directed the inspection of the “Vespel © bushings” of which there were four at each flange connection. The bushings were wearing and in some cases disintegrating. Those bushings that were defective were to be replaced and all bushings were to be tested for electrical continuity. If there was electrical continuity the bushings were to be replaced. In a previous post in this thread I alluded to design faults one of which was that the flaps and slats were not grounded to the wing structure. One of the means to assure grounding was that the previously mentioned bushings were to be impregnated with a carbon material in order to carry any static electricity to the PCU and the PPU which were grounded to the wing structure. The AD stated that if there was electrical continuity through the bushings they were to be replaced by a bushing that was non-conductive. This further exacerbated the non-grounding condition so that static electricity could not drain off to the grounded PCU and the PPU. This will further ensure that if there is a lightning attachment on a partially extended slat the wing tip and a large portion of the outboard wing will be blown off due to the lightning energy being ducted into the fuel tank when it flashes over from the outboard slat jack. The certification authorities never acted on this problem and when I contacted the FAA, MOT and the DGCA they never acted on the possibility of a mis-translation of the above mentioned AD.
Who in hell is watching the store? The FAA and I assume the other certification authorities have what is termed a “Tombstone mentality”. In other words they won’t act on a problem until people are killed and then they might not authorize a change if it costs too much.
In some cases the manufacturer will initiate an AD and send it to the operators but it has no strength until the certification authorities act on it. A case in point is an AD issued by Airbus after the Air Transat A-330 landed in the Azores with empty tanks. That AD was issued early last year and is yet to be acted on by the FAA and Canadian MOT. I do not know if the DGCA acted and created an AD, which then must be acted on by all countries in which A-330s are registered.
Here is another case in which there might be some confusion when an AD must be translated from the language in which it was originally written. The A-310 was suffering from looseness in the flange connections on the slat and flap drive system. The FAA and Canadian MOT translated the AD from French to English and the two ADs did not agree with each other. There was further confusion in both translations. The AD directed the inspection of the “Vespel © bushings” of which there were four at each flange connection. The bushings were wearing and in some cases disintegrating. Those bushings that were defective were to be replaced and all bushings were to be tested for electrical continuity. If there was electrical continuity the bushings were to be replaced. In a previous post in this thread I alluded to design faults one of which was that the flaps and slats were not grounded to the wing structure. One of the means to assure grounding was that the previously mentioned bushings were to be impregnated with a carbon material in order to carry any static electricity to the PCU and the PPU which were grounded to the wing structure. The AD stated that if there was electrical continuity through the bushings they were to be replaced by a bushing that was non-conductive. This further exacerbated the non-grounding condition so that static electricity could not drain off to the grounded PCU and the PPU. This will further ensure that if there is a lightning attachment on a partially extended slat the wing tip and a large portion of the outboard wing will be blown off due to the lightning energy being ducted into the fuel tank when it flashes over from the outboard slat jack. The certification authorities never acted on this problem and when I contacted the FAA, MOT and the DGCA they never acted on the possibility of a mis-translation of the above mentioned AD.
Who in hell is watching the store? The FAA and I assume the other certification authorities have what is termed a “Tombstone mentality”. In other words they won’t act on a problem until people are killed and then they might not authorize a change if it costs too much.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lu Zuckerman,
Your right the bad maintenance got flight 261 into trouble in the first place. Where the pilot went wrong was in forgetting the GOLDEN RULE: FLY THE F.....ing damn airplane!!!
When the Jackscew intitially had problems they went into their first dive of which they recovered and got stabalized. Instead of choosing to land the airplane, the pilot chose to go out over the water and try and trouble shoot it so he would not have to land at 180 kts. Its when they started playing around with it that it broke entirely and they went in the water, backwards I add.
In my opinion the pilot should have landed that plane after the first dive. They blamed the jackscrew, but everybody at the FAA and Alaska knows what really caused that crash.
My grandpa once told me: Screw around, screw around and soon you wont be around when it comes to airplanes.
Your right the bad maintenance got flight 261 into trouble in the first place. Where the pilot went wrong was in forgetting the GOLDEN RULE: FLY THE F.....ing damn airplane!!!
When the Jackscew intitially had problems they went into their first dive of which they recovered and got stabalized. Instead of choosing to land the airplane, the pilot chose to go out over the water and try and trouble shoot it so he would not have to land at 180 kts. Its when they started playing around with it that it broke entirely and they went in the water, backwards I add.
In my opinion the pilot should have landed that plane after the first dive. They blamed the jackscrew, but everybody at the FAA and Alaska knows what really caused that crash.
My grandpa once told me: Screw around, screw around and soon you wont be around when it comes to airplanes.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True Lu, but each part of the industry acts independently. I know of no case, in any of the four operators that I've worked for over the past thirty four years, where we failed to act on engineering information directly concerning air safety as soon as the information was received. That is to say, maintenance action was already in hand long before any mandatory action was issed from any regulator. In several cases it was an operator that discovered an unsafe condition and initiated corrective action in conjunction with the aircraft manufacturer.
I know that not all operators are the same; some that operate on the margins and shave their costs to the bone may not act until they are forced to by regulators. If low-cost operations force maintenance departments to carry out only mandatory inspections and modifications, then standards of maintenance will fall and accidents caused by technical failures will rise. That's something for the customers to think about when they buy their cheap tickets - as in all commercial transactions, you get what you pay for.
I know that not all operators are the same; some that operate on the margins and shave their costs to the bone may not act until they are forced to by regulators. If low-cost operations force maintenance departments to carry out only mandatory inspections and modifications, then standards of maintenance will fall and accidents caused by technical failures will rise. That's something for the customers to think about when they buy their cheap tickets - as in all commercial transactions, you get what you pay for.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: I dunno
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cannot comment on whether these findings are true or not but we are in for problems with aircraft maintenance in the near future.
Due to the changes with the JAR licencing system and the addition of some of the electrical responsibility being transferred to A + C (B1) engineers we are creating a situation whereby we are asking engineers to work in a field which is more a specilisation of the avionics engineer. This is further compounded when you realise that this qualification can be gained at the minute by passing a series of multi-choice examinations with current questions readily available and no requirement for any oral examination or proof of practical ability.
We are heading down a road where we will soon have an engineering work force which will no longer have trade seperation ie A+C and Avionics but will eventially have a system similar to the american A+P system where the engineer is responsible for all aspects of the aircraft systems.
With the current system we have engineers who are highly skilled and trained in airframe and engine systems and another group also highly trained and skilled in electrical and avionic systems. This has the benefit of trade specialisation and the benefits this provides. If this changes you will have an engineer who is an "expert" in everything, but in reality will have his skills and experience in one dicipline or the other and a basic understanding of the other. This in my opinion is a recipe for mistakes and is a step backwards.
Due to the changes with the JAR licencing system and the addition of some of the electrical responsibility being transferred to A + C (B1) engineers we are creating a situation whereby we are asking engineers to work in a field which is more a specilisation of the avionics engineer. This is further compounded when you realise that this qualification can be gained at the minute by passing a series of multi-choice examinations with current questions readily available and no requirement for any oral examination or proof of practical ability.
We are heading down a road where we will soon have an engineering work force which will no longer have trade seperation ie A+C and Avionics but will eventially have a system similar to the american A+P system where the engineer is responsible for all aspects of the aircraft systems.
With the current system we have engineers who are highly skilled and trained in airframe and engine systems and another group also highly trained and skilled in electrical and avionic systems. This has the benefit of trade specialisation and the benefits this provides. If this changes you will have an engineer who is an "expert" in everything, but in reality will have his skills and experience in one dicipline or the other and a basic understanding of the other. This in my opinion is a recipe for mistakes and is a step backwards.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Itlbefine
Is this a problem? - do the US carriers have a larger amount of maintenace related accidents than UK carriers?
but will eventially have a system similar to the american A+P system where the engineer is responsible for all aspects of the aircraft systems.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: uk
Age: 60
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet 2, Nobody is saying there are more accidents with using the FAA ststem but to those of us using the JAR 66 licensing system can understand where Itlbefine is coming from.
For years the BCAR licence gave you A+C (Airframe and Engine) responsibilities and these alone on modern aircraft can be complexed as I am sure most people know and now we are all expected to get Electrics as well.
To me wiggly amps were always the domain of the avionic lads and will always remain so.
As an A+C engineer whilst I have an understanding of electrical systems my knowledge is nowhere as in depth as my avionic collegues as I am sure there Knowledge of some of the finer points of our art is much the same.
Now under the JAR/EASA system we are all expected to have in depth knowledge of electrics (no oral though,a definate backward step).
Hypothetically speaking,heres a scenario.....
One day your are going to be happily working away on an engine change and somebody is going to ask you to clear some electrical mod/repair off because you now have the coverage.You now have moved from an area that you are perfectly comfortable with and deal with everyday, to a position of having to release a task that you may not be altogether comfortable by virtue of the fact that all your life you have dealt with nuts and bolts, not wires and cables. You are obviously a very capable engineer as you hold the coverage that allows you to certify these tasks. How would you feel?This could happen to anyone of us in the future.
All our lives mechanics and avionics have been two sides of the same coin, but now the authorities want to merge the fields.Is this really good for the industry that relies and prides itself on the safety element everyday?
I have my own views but I also have to work within the current system of the day,like it or not.The only thing guys can do is rely on there own experiance and integraty when using there authorisations.Only time will tell if this has a direct impact on technical faults causing more accidents.
I for one hope that we can still rely on a safe industry and all accidents attributed to any reason can only be regarded as a tradgedy and lessons leant if required
For years the BCAR licence gave you A+C (Airframe and Engine) responsibilities and these alone on modern aircraft can be complexed as I am sure most people know and now we are all expected to get Electrics as well.
To me wiggly amps were always the domain of the avionic lads and will always remain so.
As an A+C engineer whilst I have an understanding of electrical systems my knowledge is nowhere as in depth as my avionic collegues as I am sure there Knowledge of some of the finer points of our art is much the same.
Now under the JAR/EASA system we are all expected to have in depth knowledge of electrics (no oral though,a definate backward step).
Hypothetically speaking,heres a scenario.....
One day your are going to be happily working away on an engine change and somebody is going to ask you to clear some electrical mod/repair off because you now have the coverage.You now have moved from an area that you are perfectly comfortable with and deal with everyday, to a position of having to release a task that you may not be altogether comfortable by virtue of the fact that all your life you have dealt with nuts and bolts, not wires and cables. You are obviously a very capable engineer as you hold the coverage that allows you to certify these tasks. How would you feel?This could happen to anyone of us in the future.
All our lives mechanics and avionics have been two sides of the same coin, but now the authorities want to merge the fields.Is this really good for the industry that relies and prides itself on the safety element everyday?
I have my own views but I also have to work within the current system of the day,like it or not.The only thing guys can do is rely on there own experiance and integraty when using there authorisations.Only time will tell if this has a direct impact on technical faults causing more accidents.
I for one hope that we can still rely on a safe industry and all accidents attributed to any reason can only be regarded as a tradgedy and lessons leant if required
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To: BLACKSHEEP
This is true regarding relatively simple changes to a system such as re wiring or installing a switch or a placard. However, on major design changes such as installing an inerting system in a fuel cell or the redesign of a rudder PCU, the FAA will determine the man-hours to effect the change, the cost of the modification itself, and the lost revenue to the airline(s). With these figures in hand they will perform a cost benefit analysis. This will be done to determine if the cost in human lives and the cost due to hull loss is less than the costs to the airline(s) to effect the change then the FAA will recommend against the change.
If public uproar is strong enough they may reverse their decision.
True Lu, but each part of the industry acts independently. I know of no case, in any of the four operators that I've worked for over the past thirty four years, where we failed to act on engineering information directly concerning air safety as soon as the information was received.
If public uproar is strong enough they may reverse their decision.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
asheng....
Gotta say that if youre not happy signing something, then DONT sign for it.
I've been A&C for 25 years with limited Avionic Extensions on my types. Over the past few years, with the introduction of more computer based systems (777, A320), we have had to adapt. It only seems natural that we take that last small step to achieve B1. You know what is required of you, and you know your own personal limitations. The choice is ours to make. Not an easy choice for some.
4Greens.........
Spot on, Maintainance or Pilot........ The result is the same.
Love
LP
Gotta say that if youre not happy signing something, then DONT sign for it.
I've been A&C for 25 years with limited Avionic Extensions on my types. Over the past few years, with the introduction of more computer based systems (777, A320), we have had to adapt. It only seems natural that we take that last small step to achieve B1. You know what is required of you, and you know your own personal limitations. The choice is ours to make. Not an easy choice for some.
4Greens.........
Spot on, Maintainance or Pilot........ The result is the same.
Love
LP
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pot and kettle. Which one is really black?
To: Lomapaseo
The FAA was informed in 1984 that the flap and slat system of a large commercial aircraft was ungrounded to the wing structure and in the event of a lightning attachment to a partially extended slat the lightning would be carried directly into a fuel tank. Yet, the FAA has taken no action in correcting this design fault.
The slat and flap drive as originally designed had the capability of draining low static voltages to the airframe but in the event of a lightning strike the system would be overloaded and it would fail.
A while back the FAA was notified that they may have mis translated an AD issued by the DGCA and in the process removed the ability of the system to drain the static charges from the slat and flap drive systems. Yet they took no action to determine if the AD had been mis translated. They were also informed that the FAA AD and the AD issued by Transport Canada were not in agreement on the same subject.
With the incorporation of this AD it will ensure that any lightning strike to a partially extended slat will be directed to the fuel tank.
Since you are with the FAA you can contact the Seattle office and talk to a Mr. Waterman or a Mr. Martenson
Still spewing the same misinformation LU
The slat and flap drive as originally designed had the capability of draining low static voltages to the airframe but in the event of a lightning strike the system would be overloaded and it would fail.
A while back the FAA was notified that they may have mis translated an AD issued by the DGCA and in the process removed the ability of the system to drain the static charges from the slat and flap drive systems. Yet they took no action to determine if the AD had been mis translated. They were also informed that the FAA AD and the AD issued by Transport Canada were not in agreement on the same subject.
With the incorporation of this AD it will ensure that any lightning strike to a partially extended slat will be directed to the fuel tank.
Since you are with the FAA you can contact the Seattle office and talk to a Mr. Waterman or a Mr. Martenson
Last edited by Lu Zuckerman; 3rd Feb 2004 at 22:05.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: uk
Age: 60
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Le Pen,
Couldn't agree more and I have always upheld this belief and luckily never been in a position where I have had to refuse to sign.
But you and I know that in this real world and someone, somewhere will end up feeling that scenario and having to cope with not only his own unease but probably have some commercial pressure placed upon him just to spice up the situation further. Hopefully common sense and experiance will prevail but my point was that the current licensing system noe allows for the situation to excist whereas before it couldn't.
Before anyone says it I am not some kind of dinosour harping back to the old days, I most certainly am not. I think change is a good aspect of all our lives and modernisation is great....If it works in the right direction to make our jobs less complicated.The only people to benefit from the JAR66 licences are the authorities and its mostly financial to them.As an engineer they don't really care too much what happens to you ( Have you tried to contact engineer licensing recently?) as long as you dont make an error that leads to there involvement.
Couldn't agree more and I have always upheld this belief and luckily never been in a position where I have had to refuse to sign.
But you and I know that in this real world and someone, somewhere will end up feeling that scenario and having to cope with not only his own unease but probably have some commercial pressure placed upon him just to spice up the situation further. Hopefully common sense and experiance will prevail but my point was that the current licensing system noe allows for the situation to excist whereas before it couldn't.
Before anyone says it I am not some kind of dinosour harping back to the old days, I most certainly am not. I think change is a good aspect of all our lives and modernisation is great....If it works in the right direction to make our jobs less complicated.The only people to benefit from the JAR66 licences are the authorities and its mostly financial to them.As an engineer they don't really care too much what happens to you ( Have you tried to contact engineer licensing recently?) as long as you dont make an error that leads to there involvement.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lu, I wasn't suggesting that the airlines design major modifications to deal with airworthiness related matters. I refer to the fact that we receive Service Bulletins from manufacturers and usually initiate action to incorporate those SBs long before the FAA get off their backsides and make any of them mandatory. We also discover potentially unsafe conditions when performing our inspections and draw the manufacturer's attention to them so they can make the necessary design changes.
We are but one small operator out of so many, but we have initiated several corrective modification actions to B757 and B767 aircraft over the past seventeen years. Three of my own design defect reports to Boeing ended in world-wide modification programmes, two of which were mandated by the FAA two years down the road. The point I make is that there is nothing unusual in that; its just what we do for a living.
We are but one small operator out of so many, but we have initiated several corrective modification actions to B757 and B767 aircraft over the past seventeen years. Three of my own design defect reports to Boeing ended in world-wide modification programmes, two of which were mandated by the FAA two years down the road. The point I make is that there is nothing unusual in that; its just what we do for a living.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand what you are saying.
To: BLACKSHEEP
I totally agree with what you are saying. The comment I was trying to get across is how the FAA handles the incorporation of major design changes. Although the FAA and the NTSB have the same boss the NTSB has to fight tooth-and-nail to get a change incorporated. Once the NTSB has determined what caused a problem and makes a recommendation for a change the FAA will do a cost benefit analysis to determine if the change should be incorporated keeping in mind how it will effect the operator and not the flying public. Lomapeseo does not agree with what I am saying. Keep em flying.
I totally agree with what you are saying. The comment I was trying to get across is how the FAA handles the incorporation of major design changes. Although the FAA and the NTSB have the same boss the NTSB has to fight tooth-and-nail to get a change incorporated. Once the NTSB has determined what caused a problem and makes a recommendation for a change the FAA will do a cost benefit analysis to determine if the change should be incorporated keeping in mind how it will effect the operator and not the flying public. Lomapeseo does not agree with what I am saying. Keep em flying.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: I dunno
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASHENG thanks for the support. I would have much more confidence in the system if the oral examinations were still in place as these would weed out those who have studied questions parrot fashion with the only intention of passing an exam, from those who have genuinely studied and had some practical training.
The plot thickens with the news that BA are in negotiations with the CAA to allow the granting of a full B1 licence without the need for even the multi choice examination, the criteria is still to be set but it is along the lines of hold AV extension and show that you can read and understand a wiring diagram !!!!
JET II I am making the assumption that you are a pilot, if not accept my apologies. I take it that you think then that given that most engeneers hold around 3 aircraft types on approval at any one time that the addition of another licence type on top of this is a good idea? This possibly equates to you flying one sector in an A320, the next sector in perhaps an RJ100 and a couple in a 757 and for good measure we will add a 5th sector as a No.1 Cabin crew. How does that sound, I deliberately didn't add a 6th sector as this would probably take you into discretion!
The plot thickens with the news that BA are in negotiations with the CAA to allow the granting of a full B1 licence without the need for even the multi choice examination, the criteria is still to be set but it is along the lines of hold AV extension and show that you can read and understand a wiring diagram !!!!
JET II I am making the assumption that you are a pilot, if not accept my apologies. I take it that you think then that given that most engeneers hold around 3 aircraft types on approval at any one time that the addition of another licence type on top of this is a good idea? This possibly equates to you flying one sector in an A320, the next sector in perhaps an RJ100 and a couple in a 757 and for good measure we will add a 5th sector as a No.1 Cabin crew. How does that sound, I deliberately didn't add a 6th sector as this would probably take you into discretion!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: *
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
List of Banned Operators
I'm not sure if I'm on the right forum but there was a program on Radio 4 tonight on air safety. Did anyone else catch it? It didn't present easy listening.
I had no idea there are operators allowed to fly into UK that are banned from flying into other European countries, because of their poor safety record. The list is in Holland with the JAA but the public can't get access to it. I don't suppose there's anyone out there on PPRUNE with access to this list of banned operators?
I had no idea there are operators allowed to fly into UK that are banned from flying into other European countries, because of their poor safety record. The list is in Holland with the JAA but the public can't get access to it. I don't suppose there's anyone out there on PPRUNE with access to this list of banned operators?
