The Independent: Pilots ignore alerts over faulty planes
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ITALY
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its great to see the Ryanair knockers at work so quickly on this thread.Anyone who works for Ryanair and has worked in other companies will tell you from a maintenence point of view those airplanes are completely clean and you would never feel pressured to carry anything. Its the one area that money is no object.
Suppose Ryanair are to blame for the high price of oil too???????????
Suppose Ryanair are to blame for the high price of oil too???????????
Guest
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere between E17487 and F75775
Age: 80
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Wings Blows It
I spent 25 years in the aerospace industry where good voice procedures from a professional mission control team could mean the difference between success or the loss of a spacecraft costing millions.
Applying those same standards to their ATC voice procedures at my local hub, Ryanair crew are excellently trained and highly professional.
Oh yes, and as a very frequent SLF with FR I don't have any complaints either.
Can we please cut the spurious snide remarks against Ryanair ? Or present facts to bolster your comments ?
RaF
Applying those same standards to their ATC voice procedures at my local hub, Ryanair crew are excellently trained and highly professional.
Oh yes, and as a very frequent SLF with FR I don't have any complaints either.
Can we please cut the spurious snide remarks against Ryanair ? Or present facts to bolster your comments ?
RaF
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my opinion, for what it's worth, there's an awful lot of 'reduced' maintenance going on at the moment, with carriers that can ill afford it. Remember one incident to a lot of carriers these days will be their last, but i'm fed up with banging my head against the wall. As we all know safety is number one, and when engineering do not recognise this, its time for them to sit at FL350, with that rather odd smell permeating around them.............if you know what I mean. 25 years after my first solo I would have hoped that in the UK it would be getting better.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Uk
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a pi$$ing contest between Aircraft Engineers International (AEI) and the companies that employ their members. AEI have involved the regulator so as to strengthen their position, ALEA are also in the game to promote their members.
To quote mercenary pilot
Pilots are probably the most trusted professionals in the public's eyes and there's a good reason behind it.
To quote MP again
If the engineers union want us to keep their members busy chasing up part numbers for speed-bugs, light bulbs and other non essential items during turn arounds then so be it.
Commercial pressures are there every day in our jobs, and with airlines margins getting smaller and smaller with competition and fuel prices etc etc we all need to be aware of our responsibilities:
Flight Safety Foundation’s “Certifier’s Oath:
Upon My Honour, I swear that I shall hold in sacred trust the rights and privileges conferred upon me as a certifier. Knowing full well that the safety and lives of others are dependent upon my skill and judgement, I shall never knowingly subject others to risks which I would not be willing to assume for myself, or those dear to me. In discharging this trust, I pledge myself never to undertake work or approve work which I feel to be beyond the limits of my knowledge, nor shall I allow any non-certified superior to persuade me to approve aircraft or equipment as airworthy against my better judgement, nor shall I permit my judgement to be influenced by money or other personal gain, nor shall I pass as airworthy aircraft or equipment about which I am in doubt, either as a result of direct inspection or uncertainty regarding the ability of others who have worked on it to accomplish their work satisfactorily. I realise the grave responsibility which is mine as a certifier, to exercise my judgement on the airworthiness of aircraft and equipment. I therefore, pledge unyielding adherence to these ideals for the advancement of aviation and for the dignity of my vocation".
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balpa, which represents British pilots, said members were doing nothing wrong. Carolyn Evans, head of flight safety, said: "Planes are allowed to fly with certain minor defects and pilots make their report at the end of their operations for the day. For any major faults, the aircraft is grounded straight away."
Does this also now apply at outstations? - can the write up of defects be deferred a couple of days until the aircraft gets home?
The Independant
Well Well as usual you lot just fell for it hook line and sinker some one publishes a little snippet and all you super heros are so busy putting your wonderful ideas to paper. why on earth dont you just ignore it ? I would not even soil my botty by using that grubby little newspaper in the bog house
G.O.G.
G.O.G.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ostend, Belgium
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as a reminder, aircraft maintenance experts from around the world were holding a conference in London in September 2007 to discuss what they describe as “a worrying downtrend in standards” in aircraft maintenance across Europe. More on Flight News | “Worrying downtrend“ in European aviation maintenance.
Should their (above as “grubby” labelled) message be ignored? I don’t think, this is wise.
Should their (above as “grubby” labelled) message be ignored? I don’t think, this is wise.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
The article fails to recognize the obvious flaw in the argument - if an aircraft was put at risk due to the Commander making a flawed or unauthorized engineering decision, the responsible person will arrive at the scene of the accident about 120ft before the unwitting pax.
As for this bunch of jokers (AEI) stirring up the usual tosh about the professionalism or integrity of Flight crew versus that of Engineers, it's the same as the old joke about the pig and the chicken's contribution to a bacon and egg breakfast - the pig is committed, the chicken is interested (Flt Engineers excepted).
The story itself is of course true. Of course snags are carried, of course the aircraft miraculously goes U/S upon RTB, but there is nothing random or unprofessional in the way it happens. Start telling 180 sun-seekers they are stopping in Malaga at 3am for a blown logo light and see how much the appreciation of the finer skills of licensed engineers versus a few thousand hours of line experience from the front seat works out for you.
As for this bunch of jokers (AEI) stirring up the usual tosh about the professionalism or integrity of Flight crew versus that of Engineers, it's the same as the old joke about the pig and the chicken's contribution to a bacon and egg breakfast - the pig is committed, the chicken is interested (Flt Engineers excepted).
The story itself is of course true. Of course snags are carried, of course the aircraft miraculously goes U/S upon RTB, but there is nothing random or unprofessional in the way it happens. Start telling 180 sun-seekers they are stopping in Malaga at 3am for a blown logo light and see how much the appreciation of the finer skills of licensed engineers versus a few thousand hours of line experience from the front seat works out for you.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bean counters in every airline see engineering as a major drain on finances and if they had their way the engineer would be no longer.
Go back in your box or evidence your defamatory remark.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: North America
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How often are aircraft even being reported to have leaking cabin pressure?
For some reason I've always had more breathing problems in an airliner than in a C172 w/o oxygen at 10,000 ft.
Or at least the lack of oxygen is more noticeable.
For some reason I've always had more breathing problems in an airliner than in a C172 w/o oxygen at 10,000 ft.
Or at least the lack of oxygen is more noticeable.
Strange thing for BALPA to say. When did the law change that allows Flight Crew discretion on when to report defects?
Does this also now apply at outstations? - can the write up of defects be deferred a couple of days until the aircraft gets home?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: EGTT
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's interesting to read just how much rubbish gets printed in these comics these days. As soo as I read the part about air conditioning providing oxygen I closed my browser window.
What a load of junk. Are all journalists completely incompitent at writing something factual, or do they believe that the average IQ in this country is so low that every single item in the news needs to be 'dumbed down'.
Rant over
What a load of junk. Are all journalists completely incompitent at writing something factual, or do they believe that the average IQ in this country is so low that every single item in the news needs to be 'dumbed down'.
Rant over
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Uk
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What tosh Mr Brown. Any "beancounter" (as you so disparagingly refer to them) worth his/her salt would know that the long-term costs can be lowered by higher maintenance standards today - such as ETOPS maintenance of non-ETOPS aircraft.
Go back in your box or evidence your defamatory remark.
Go back in your box or evidence your defamatory remark.
http://www.airengineers.org/docs/int...ry_general.pdf
http://www.airengineers.org/docs/new...r_shortage.pdf
Evidence suggests that although the "Beancounters" are fully aware of the problem, they are not doing much about it. So if you don't mind Re-Heat I'll stay on my "box" a little longer.
As for this bunch of jokers (AEI) stirring up the usual tosh about the professionalism or integrity of Flight crew versus that of Engineers
http://www.airengineers.org/docs/news/paper_tigers1.pdf
We are on the same side here, safety first ALWAYS
Its not about you or me, him, her, us or them. This is really about money and safety and where we should draw the line and in the current economic climate we are all coming under more and more pressure with less resources at our disposal. All I can say is "Watch your back" because some of these airlines may well be gone soon and lets hope we all at least still have our licences if not our jobs.
Mistrust in Management
Two's in and Full Wings have neatly expressed the situation.
I'll expand a little for the benefit of interested parties:
In all the airlines I've flown for since 1976 (which are very few - actually 3 directly and about 7 or 8 on ACMI - BA and QF being the main carriers I worked directly for) it was (and is) common practice to enter defects back into base where appropriate.
'Where appropriate' means that as the Captain I am not going to ground the aircraft for a defect that can be deferred by a simple signature with a biro - I fly the aircraft back to base and enter the defect on the leg back.
If the defect affects fllight safety it goes into the tech log immediately and the aircraft is grounded.
By not entering the defect that 'does not affect slight safety' into the tech log on the sector that the defect occurs I am tecnically 'breaking the law'. I have discussed this matter with two CAA Flight Ops Inspectors who a)recognise why it happens, and b) understand the need commercially.
The Engineers (I was an LAE) are kicking up a fuss about nothing that has been going on for years. All they may achieve is a rule change that allows these practices. Their fuss may prompt a rule change that allows Captains to make decisions on serviceabily regarding engineering - that would be a backwards step in regard to safety. BE VERY CAREFUL IN WHAT YOU WISH FOR ASI
Regards
Exeng
In all the airlines I've flown for since 1976 (which are very few - actually 3 directly and about 7 or 8 on ACMI - BA and QF being the main carriers I worked directly for) it was (and is) common practice to enter defects back into base where appropriate.
'Where appropriate' means that as the Captain I am not going to ground the aircraft for a defect that can be deferred by a simple signature with a biro - I fly the aircraft back to base and enter the defect on the leg back.
If the defect affects fllight safety it goes into the tech log immediately and the aircraft is grounded.
By not entering the defect that 'does not affect slight safety' into the tech log on the sector that the defect occurs I am tecnically 'breaking the law'. I have discussed this matter with two CAA Flight Ops Inspectors who a)recognise why it happens, and b) understand the need commercially.
The Engineers (I was an LAE) are kicking up a fuss about nothing that has been going on for years. All they may achieve is a rule change that allows these practices. Their fuss may prompt a rule change that allows Captains to make decisions on serviceabily regarding engineering - that would be a backwards step in regard to safety. BE VERY CAREFUL IN WHAT YOU WISH FOR ASI
Regards
Exeng
Last edited by exeng; 20th Jul 2008 at 10:19.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
scare mongering!
Dear independant,
Just a thought, How many crashes, near misses, and throroughly scary headline grabbing events (close to schools and built up areas if you prefer) have you reported on since you came into print that were the direct result of flight crews flying with defects permitted under the MEL for that aircraft ?
Dear Yamaha,
Ive read some of your other posts... you really do have a problem with airlines in general, eh? Give it a rest. ta.
There may be paperwork etc etc however, I do not believe the professional guys I work with fly aircraft with problems that threaten lives of pax and crews alike.
end of.
Just a thought, How many crashes, near misses, and throroughly scary headline grabbing events (close to schools and built up areas if you prefer) have you reported on since you came into print that were the direct result of flight crews flying with defects permitted under the MEL for that aircraft ?
Dear Yamaha,
Ive read some of your other posts... you really do have a problem with airlines in general, eh? Give it a rest. ta.
There may be paperwork etc etc however, I do not believe the professional guys I work with fly aircraft with problems that threaten lives of pax and crews alike.
end of.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why enter a defect, if it grounds the aircraft away from base.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Midgetboy
How often are aircraft even being reported to have leaking cabin pressure?
For some reason I've always had more breathing problems in an airliner than in a C172 w/o oxygen at 10,000 ft.
Or at least the lack of oxygen is more noticeable.
For some reason I've always had more breathing problems in an airliner than in a C172 w/o oxygen at 10,000 ft.
Or at least the lack of oxygen is more noticeable.
If your cabin alt was 10'000ft on an airliner you would hear the distant sound of cabin warnings from the cockpit.
I suggest you buy yourself a watch with altimeter function and monitor the cabin alt on your next flight. This should put you mind at rest and ease your breathing problems.
I would also recommend a trip to your flight doc to check your health.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I have a very simple answer when the Flight Engineer mentions that a particular system has a fault...'put it in the tech log, now.'
If he, for some reason declines, I take the tech log and write it in, myself.
End of story.
It is then up to the company (or contract) maintenence engineers to either fix the defect -or- sign off the aircraft, in accordance with the MEL/CDL.
Ah ha, I can hear you say, 411A is a hard-nosed SOB.
Yep, sure am, where maintenance is concerned.
However, as we carry our own maintenence engineers, this seldom becomes a problem.
Yes, the company has to make a profit, but it will absolutely not do so at my (maintenance) expense.
Case closed.
OTOH, 411A has been known to be of great assistance to ground engineers.
Example.
No oil pressure light on the CAWP for engine number one.
No light test either.
GE goes out to have a look at the Cannon plug on the oil pressure transmitter.
I tell him not to bother, first go down in the FESC, pull out the relavant ILCB and use a soft pencil eraser to clean the contacts.
He does so, problem solved.
Make no mistake, pilots should (need) to get somewhat involved with the maintenance folks, at least to report defects properly, and lets face facts...it takes two to tango.
In short, give the guys a break, they work hard.
If he, for some reason declines, I take the tech log and write it in, myself.
End of story.
It is then up to the company (or contract) maintenence engineers to either fix the defect -or- sign off the aircraft, in accordance with the MEL/CDL.
Ah ha, I can hear you say, 411A is a hard-nosed SOB.
Yep, sure am, where maintenance is concerned.
However, as we carry our own maintenence engineers, this seldom becomes a problem.
Yes, the company has to make a profit, but it will absolutely not do so at my (maintenance) expense.
Case closed.
OTOH, 411A has been known to be of great assistance to ground engineers.
Example.
No oil pressure light on the CAWP for engine number one.
No light test either.
GE goes out to have a look at the Cannon plug on the oil pressure transmitter.
I tell him not to bother, first go down in the FESC, pull out the relavant ILCB and use a soft pencil eraser to clean the contacts.
He does so, problem solved.
Make no mistake, pilots should (need) to get somewhat involved with the maintenance folks, at least to report defects properly, and lets face facts...it takes two to tango.
In short, give the guys a break, they work hard.
Last edited by 411A; 20th Jul 2008 at 07:24.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Uk
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Engineers (I was an LAE) are kicking up a fuss about nothing that has been going on for years. All they may achieve is a rule change that allows these practices. Their fuss may prompt a rule change that allows Captains to make decisions on serviceabily regarding engineering - that would be a backwards step in regard to safety. BE VERY CAREFUL IN WHAT YOU WISH FOR ASI
In all the airlines I've flown for since 1976 (which are very few - actually 3 directly and about 7 or 8 on ACMI - BA and QF being the main carriers I worked directly for) it was (and is) common practice to enter defects back into base where appropriate.
'Where appropriate' means that as the Captain I am not going to ground the aircraft for a defect that can be deferred by a simple signature with a biro - I fly the aircraft back to base and enter the defect on the leg back.
'Where appropriate' means that as the Captain I am not going to ground the aircraft for a defect that can be deferred by a simple signature with a biro - I fly the aircraft back to base and enter the defect on the leg back.