The Independent: Pilots ignore alerts over faulty planes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Independent: Pilots ignore alerts over faulty planes
Morning.
I usually let my colleague Shoey do the posting here, but I wondered what the forum made of this little number in the Independent today:
Pilots ignore alerts over faulty planes - This Britain, UK - The Independent
The AEI quotes a figure of 80-90% of faults unreported until the end of the day's sectors. Could any of these be serious enough in your experience to force an aircraft to go 'tech'.
Should a non-urgent fault be reported immediately? How does this work in practice?
Any advice gratefully received.
I usually let my colleague Shoey do the posting here, but I wondered what the forum made of this little number in the Independent today:
Pilots ignore alerts over faulty planes - This Britain, UK - The Independent
The AEI quotes a figure of 80-90% of faults unreported until the end of the day's sectors. Could any of these be serious enough in your experience to force an aircraft to go 'tech'.
Should a non-urgent fault be reported immediately? How does this work in practice?
Any advice gratefully received.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It states midway through the article that such claims have been made for a while, but no evidence found to support such claims.
It also glosses over / omits any understanding of minimum equipment or permitted deferred defects.
A fishing expedition by the Independent I would conclude.
It also glosses over / omits any understanding of minimum equipment or permitted deferred defects.
A fishing expedition by the Independent I would conclude.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: DisneyLux SARL
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
found many pilots only reported faults such as brake fluid leaks and loss of cabin pressure after their homebound flight or after the day's flights.
......................
Quote:
The organisation behind the investigation said that the Helios airliner crash in 2005, when a Boeing 737 crashed into a Greek hillside, killing all 121 on board, was partly caused by a failure to report a fault. In a catalogue of errors in the run-up to the crash, the pilots failed to record an error in resetting a crucial air-conditioning switch. Soon after the airliner took off from Cyprus, the crew and passengers passed out because of a lack of oxygen.
I hope the people named in this fairytale (article) are aware of the context their comments are being used in.
found many pilots only reported faults such as brake fluid leaks and loss of cabin pressure after their homebound flight or after the day's flights.
......................
Quote:
The organisation behind the investigation said that the Helios airliner crash in 2005, when a Boeing 737 crashed into a Greek hillside, killing all 121 on board, was partly caused by a failure to report a fault. In a catalogue of errors in the run-up to the crash, the pilots failed to record an error in resetting a crucial air-conditioning switch. Soon after the airliner took off from Cyprus, the crew and passengers passed out because of a lack of oxygen.
I hope the people named in this fairytale (article) are aware of the context their comments are being used in.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my experience the only occasion this really happens is when you get a problem at the end of a sector that is an acceptable defect but you do not have engineering at the airfield you are at, in these circumstances the Captain should enter the defect into the tech. log and defer it for rectification at base, many of course then just leave it until back at base anyway because entering it down route actually achieves very little apart from paperwork!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the source of the story. Not an 'Independent' fishing trip/investigation but a press release from the AEI. Copied below.
I don't know this organisation well, hence my request for your responses
CAPELLE AAN DEN IJSSEL, The Netherlands, July 15 /PRNewswire/ -- Earlier
this year AEI the global body representing Aircraft Maintenance
Engineers requested its members to check as many aircraft logbooks as
possible within the airlines they work for, in order to investigate if Pilots
are reporting defects as they occur. As reported in earlier AEI Press
Releases http://www.airengineers.org/AEI-press-releases , it can now be
confirmed the majority of European Pilots do not always report defects as and
when they occur. They are delayed until it is more convenient for the
airlines to carry out repairs.
This selective reporting creates a situation where aircraft regularly
take-off in an unsafe condition. Great concern is the continuous
looking-in-the-opposite-direction behaviour by the regulators who despite
being informed about this practice choose not to act. In October 2007 AEI
challenged all European Authorities, to carry out a logbook review of the
airlines under their control. Not one single European authority indicated
that they would be prepared to take up our challenge, ignoring the safety
implication.
This shocking lack of response from the regulators makes it clear to us
that they do not want to open "Pandora's box" as it will reveal some unwanted
truths about abused regulation. AEI is concerned that European Authorities
and Inspectors have allowed themselves to become too close to those airlines
they should be regulating.
AEI last year suggested to the European Transport Committee that less
than 50% of audit findings uncovered in 2006 had actually been resolved.
Unfortunately AEI has strong reasons to believe that this year is no better.
Unfortunately the European regulatory structure to protect European
citizens is nothing more than a toothless tiger when called to react. The
system takes far too long to correct anomalies, is susceptible to politics
and the controlling organisation (the EU) does not have the flexibility to
act when actually needed. Furthermore the backbone of the regulatory
structure, accountability, is nonexistent. The recent investigation into the
Helios tragedy is an excellent example. The official report is critical of
the regulating authorities both national and international, but nothing of
any significance has really changed or improved and nobody has yet been held
accountable.
Such failings of regulatory oversight leaves the European Travelling
public unaware and uncertain if the airlines they use are in fact fulfilling
their obligations by operating to the required levels of safety. Such
failings also significantly increase the "risks" associated with flying.
At this year's AEI congress in Malmo, Sweden, AEI will again be
highlighting these failings and reminding the Authorities and EU Transport
Committee of their responsibilities.
It seems they may have lost sight of the fact that air safety is no
accident.
I don't know this organisation well, hence my request for your responses
CAPELLE AAN DEN IJSSEL, The Netherlands, July 15 /PRNewswire/ -- Earlier
this year AEI the global body representing Aircraft Maintenance
Engineers requested its members to check as many aircraft logbooks as
possible within the airlines they work for, in order to investigate if Pilots
are reporting defects as they occur. As reported in earlier AEI Press
Releases http://www.airengineers.org/AEI-press-releases , it can now be
confirmed the majority of European Pilots do not always report defects as and
when they occur. They are delayed until it is more convenient for the
airlines to carry out repairs.
This selective reporting creates a situation where aircraft regularly
take-off in an unsafe condition. Great concern is the continuous
looking-in-the-opposite-direction behaviour by the regulators who despite
being informed about this practice choose not to act. In October 2007 AEI
challenged all European Authorities, to carry out a logbook review of the
airlines under their control. Not one single European authority indicated
that they would be prepared to take up our challenge, ignoring the safety
implication.
This shocking lack of response from the regulators makes it clear to us
that they do not want to open "Pandora's box" as it will reveal some unwanted
truths about abused regulation. AEI is concerned that European Authorities
and Inspectors have allowed themselves to become too close to those airlines
they should be regulating.
AEI last year suggested to the European Transport Committee that less
than 50% of audit findings uncovered in 2006 had actually been resolved.
Unfortunately AEI has strong reasons to believe that this year is no better.
Unfortunately the European regulatory structure to protect European
citizens is nothing more than a toothless tiger when called to react. The
system takes far too long to correct anomalies, is susceptible to politics
and the controlling organisation (the EU) does not have the flexibility to
act when actually needed. Furthermore the backbone of the regulatory
structure, accountability, is nonexistent. The recent investigation into the
Helios tragedy is an excellent example. The official report is critical of
the regulating authorities both national and international, but nothing of
any significance has really changed or improved and nobody has yet been held
accountable.
Such failings of regulatory oversight leaves the European Travelling
public unaware and uncertain if the airlines they use are in fact fulfilling
their obligations by operating to the required levels of safety. Such
failings also significantly increase the "risks" associated with flying.
At this year's AEI congress in Malmo, Sweden, AEI will again be
highlighting these failings and reminding the Authorities and EU Transport
Committee of their responsibilities.
It seems they may have lost sight of the fact that air safety is no
accident.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: south east UK
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its in the Independent - which is actually slightly to the left of the socialist worker, and has a well known editorial anti-aviation stance, and very poor standards of journolism (a bit like the BBC really)
Its a pity all these parasitic journos don't realise that they are reliant on the rest of the economy for their jobs and livelyhoods (as they are entirely parasitic and contribute nothing to the economy) and a such should really attempt to speak positivly of the industries that are suffering during these hard times. But nope, yet more attempts to bash the aviation industry.
Its a pity all these parasitic journos don't realise that they are reliant on the rest of the economy for their jobs and livelyhoods (as they are entirely parasitic and contribute nothing to the economy) and a such should really attempt to speak positivly of the industries that are suffering during these hard times. But nope, yet more attempts to bash the aviation industry.
Paxing All Over The World
Pax speaking
This is a pi$$ing contest between Aircraft Engineers International (AEI) and the companies that employ their members. AEI have involved the regulator so as to strengthen their position, ALEA are also in the game to promote their members.
The engineers, understandably, wish to demonstrate that their members have the best interests of the clients (pax) at heart and that cost cutting measures should not be made in engineering.
From the article:
We shall never know the truth about this matter.
This is a pi$$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.
The engineers, understandably, wish to demonstrate that their members have the best interests of the clients (pax) at heart and that cost cutting measures should not be made in engineering.
From the article:
CAA said it carried out inspections of logbooks and was satisfied with its safety measures. Richard Taylor, a spokesman, said: "The AEI have been making these claims for some time, but they have so far failed to provide us with specific examples. We have carried out our own checks and have found no discrepancies. If they do have any documentary evidence that anyone is failing to report faults, they have a duty to pass on this information to us. Information can be passed to us in complete confidence." But Robert Alway, head of Alea, which represents 2,000 maintenance engineers in the United Kingdom, said that his members had come under pressure from employers for revealing fault data.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Carolyn sum's it up nicely
Maybe someone needs to show a reporter what its like to defer a Cat D defect during a 30min turn round. Also the fact that leaving it to the end of the techlog sheet or the day finish on most time expired defects actually doesn't give any advantage to the crew or company as the expiry time starts at midnight.
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."
Last edited by mad_jock; 18th Jul 2008 at 11:05.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This seems to be like most "yes they do" "no they don't" scenarios.
The claim and counter claim's will continue for a while before the truth is revealed.
From where I am sitting though, why would anybody make such a claim if there is absolutely no truth in it?
Who has most to lose, who has most to gain?
Engineers would lose complete respect if untrue as would pilots if true.
As this seems to be engineers making claims (according to the Independent), my money would be on the claims being true.
The claim and counter claim's will continue for a while before the truth is revealed.
From where I am sitting though, why would anybody make such a claim if there is absolutely no truth in it?
Who has most to lose, who has most to gain?
Engineers would lose complete respect if untrue as would pilots if true.
As this seems to be engineers making claims (according to the Independent), my money would be on the claims being true.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: deco stop
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course its true
why enter a defect, if it grounds the aircraft away from base.
wait until you have a full sheet of paper, and then enter Tech Log, the day of your C check.
windy
wait until you have a full sheet of paper, and then enter Tech Log, the day of your C check.
windy
the pilots failed to record an error in resetting a crucial air-conditioning switch
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Glorious West Sussex
Age: 76
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
foxmoth
And of course compliance with the law of the land, which is why aviation is so safe.
TP
because entering it down route actually achieves very little apart from paperwork!
TP
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the pilots failed to record an error in resetting a crucial air-conditioning switch
Anyway, i'm digressing. Bottom line, The Helios accident has nothing to do with the rest of the article in the Independant, its just sloppy reporting.
I know what the article is getting at but it is sensationalism in the extreme. Pilots are probably the most trusted professionals in the public's eyes and there's a good reason behind it. We do not take chances with human lives and would certainly not risk our licences and careers by flying an aircraft which is not airworthy. 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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
surprised this hasn't drawn a comment
So it's true
The budget airline Ryanair said it had not seen the pattern of reporting AEI alleged but that it was "aware that it was a problem for other airlines".
Join Date: May 2002
Location: England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strange I would assume Ryanair to be the worst offender of such crimes! Lets face it most places they go dont have proper terminal or ATC facilities let alone engineering! Did hear from people that escaped that the pilots were made to perform certain engineering functions! Would you trust a pilot with a screwdriver? Doesnt really matter if you do or not pilots are not allowed to carry a screw driver through security anyway!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: BHX-MAN-EMA
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Wings
Are you stupid or just plain ignorant.
Your statement concerning Ryanair and defects, airports, ATC etc are totally inaccurate.
Their standards (RYR) are some of the highest in the industry, the aircraft carry few if any deferred defects, and the engineering is excellent.
Smaller airports have limited facilities yes, that's normal for regional airports but they are licenced by their respective aviation authorities, and approved for Ryanair's operations by the IAA.
The airports are more cost effective than major hubs, that's why they are used for a low cost operation.
Flights can transit through these airports quicker than through a large airport and the same can be said for the passengers.
I fly (Flight Crew) for a living and travel with Ryanair on my European trips.
Are you stupid or just plain ignorant.
Your statement concerning Ryanair and defects, airports, ATC etc are totally inaccurate.
Their standards (RYR) are some of the highest in the industry, the aircraft carry few if any deferred defects, and the engineering is excellent.
Smaller airports have limited facilities yes, that's normal for regional airports but they are licenced by their respective aviation authorities, and approved for Ryanair's operations by the IAA.
The airports are more cost effective than major hubs, that's why they are used for a low cost operation.
Flights can transit through these airports quicker than through a large airport and the same can be said for the passengers.
I fly (Flight Crew) for a living and travel with Ryanair on my European trips.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Anywhere that pays
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DD
- as ??'flight crew'?? you may wish to think again about that? The point RW was making was that ANY airline, with no engineering support contract at some of its destinations (ie engineer on 'call out'= expensive and big delay) MIGHT just have the odd defect 'carried' home?
Please note I have not used the 'R' word.
Are you stupid or just plain ignorant.
Please note I have not used the 'R' word.