Passenger safety compromised at TAP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good reply carnage. Perhaps this isn't a lost cause. Your paragraphs 1 + 4 are irrelevant.
So how far does one go before its time to say enough is enough. And then once enough is enough, what do you do about it?
This is a to the best of my knowledge reply and to confirm that you would need to ask AEI but I believe TAP pilots did the wrong thing at the wrong time causing AEI to lose patience with the diplomatic route for want of a better term.
Had some fantastic successes with previous CHIRP individuals but today you can forget them.
Yes I am making a statement that the EU hasn't the oomph to blacklist European Airlines. Politics has already prevented an operator being placed on the blacklist.
The reason the EASA doesn't publish it's audit findings is the same reason that airlines don't publish their own audit results: the public simply aren't qualified to make a reasonable assessment of the data. Audits find faults, it's their nature, but the travelling public cannot make an objective judgement about which faults are significant, which are trivial. Airlines would be unfairly damaged commerically by a process designed to improve their safety.
Not withstanding all the above, you are continuing to obfuscate the issue here. You may well have been reporting violations to the AEI for months (I trust you MORd and CHIRPed them too), but why has AEI chosen TAP specifically, and why have they timed this release in the middle of an industrial dispute with engineers?
Had some fantastic successes with previous CHIRP individuals but today you can forget them.
Yes I am making a statement that the EU hasn't the oomph to blacklist European Airlines. Politics has already prevented an operator being placed on the blacklist.
Last edited by Safety Concerns; 6th Jan 2009 at 05:59.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Portugal
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... "the public simply aren't qualified to make a reasonable assessment of the data. Audits find faults, it's their nature, but the travelling public cannot make an objective judgement about which faults are significant, which are trivial"...
You said it!
By the same reason none of us here is able to produce a correct assesment of the situation. We can only speculate for with the data we have, and we may believe it or not. Therefore we do not have the right to demand for any kind of evidence, for we are NO JURY!
Tomorrow (in time) when we realise AEI was right, we also will not have the right to come to public and diminish the responsable's image, for they would have been allready convicted.
Surely that does not apply to you and others like you, so full of themselves they can't see the tip of the iceberg.
In passed times, I have voted negatively against pilots performing maintenance, and you and others now proove me right, because you don't have the ability to see what is ahead of what your eyes see, being this essential in aviation.
You have the right to act the way you do! Just don't expect to be accepted by everyone!
Best Regards
You said it!
By the same reason none of us here is able to produce a correct assesment of the situation. We can only speculate for with the data we have, and we may believe it or not. Therefore we do not have the right to demand for any kind of evidence, for we are NO JURY!
Tomorrow (in time) when we realise AEI was right, we also will not have the right to come to public and diminish the responsable's image, for they would have been allready convicted.
Surely that does not apply to you and others like you, so full of themselves they can't see the tip of the iceberg.
In passed times, I have voted negatively against pilots performing maintenance, and you and others now proove me right, because you don't have the ability to see what is ahead of what your eyes see, being this essential in aviation.
You have the right to act the way you do! Just don't expect to be accepted by everyone!
Best Regards
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, well, well, some evidence has been posted on the AEI website.
Aircraft Engineers International
Looks to me as though aircraft have been flying that shouldn't have been.
Aircraft Engineers International
Looks to me as though aircraft have been flying that shouldn't have been.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jmig29
By the same reason none of us here is able to produce a correct assesment of the situation. We can only speculate for with the data we have, and we may believe it or not. Therefore we do not have the right to demand for any kind of evidence, for we are NO JURY!
Surely that does not apply to you and others like you, so full of themselves they can't see the tip of the iceberg.
In passed times, I have voted negatively against pilots performing maintenance, and you and others now proove me right, because you don't have the ability to see what is ahead of what your eyes see
You have the right to act the way you do! Just don't expect to be accepted by everyone!
Now that the AEI has finally decided to show us what it's got (nearly two weeks after releasing the press release) the evidence is hardly the bombshell we'd been led to expect. Frankly it's all a bit vague. Who cancelled the defects: the pilots who entered them or the covering engineer? If the latter did he do so on his own or in conjunction with the crew. Why is it so different to ACFing the defects or a simple "For Info" entry into the log?
Last edited by Carnage Matey!; 6th Jan 2009 at 07:39.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Portugal
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If you make a claim then you have to provide evidence to back it up or the claim is worthless."
Yes, in the right place such as a Court or EASA, not in a forum!
"Ranting does not a strong case make. You've previously put nothing in front of us but unsupported claims."
You are right and I apologise for ranting. Is just that in Portugal I'm not used to see such a lack of consideration for Safety, the victim's family may want to know which airline you fly, so they don't go in it. And by the way who is "us"? Who do you represent, apart from yourself?
....and what you put 'ahead of our eyes' was a press release with no evidence."
The evidences are there.
"If you would perform maintenance based on no evidence then perhaps you are in the wrong job?"
I'm not the one here sacrifying safety for money, and from your thinking I perform maintenance much safer than you can fly.
"You can act anyway you like, just don't expect to be accepted by anyone if you don't provide any evidence."
I don't have to, AEI is who must provide it, and as much as you don't like it, it is not you or any forum they are to provide the evidences. They have done it now just to shut someone (who could it be?). UNLESS you are one of the pilots involved? Then I could recognyze you some rights, but not by means of a forum.
"Who cancelled the defects: the pilots who entered them or the covering engineer?"
Did you even look at the documents? Where it says "Captain Acceptance"? What's the name and number there? And on the reporting field? Do you even know what the reporting field is?
"If the latter did he do so on his own or in conjunction with the crew."
There were no engineers that day, they were at strike, remember?
Why is it so different to ACFing the defects or a simple "For Info" entry into the log?
Where are you from? Do you even know what the word "safety" implies in aviation? Would you so lightly mix the two?
Finnally, I feel for the Pilots that had a bad decision that day, fortunatly no accidents occur, but they (and only those) must be held responsable, and YES I think AEI is right at least this time!
Best Regards and a happy new year.
Yes, in the right place such as a Court or EASA, not in a forum!
"Ranting does not a strong case make. You've previously put nothing in front of us but unsupported claims."
You are right and I apologise for ranting. Is just that in Portugal I'm not used to see such a lack of consideration for Safety, the victim's family may want to know which airline you fly, so they don't go in it. And by the way who is "us"? Who do you represent, apart from yourself?
....and what you put 'ahead of our eyes' was a press release with no evidence."
The evidences are there.
"If you would perform maintenance based on no evidence then perhaps you are in the wrong job?"
I'm not the one here sacrifying safety for money, and from your thinking I perform maintenance much safer than you can fly.
"You can act anyway you like, just don't expect to be accepted by anyone if you don't provide any evidence."
I don't have to, AEI is who must provide it, and as much as you don't like it, it is not you or any forum they are to provide the evidences. They have done it now just to shut someone (who could it be?). UNLESS you are one of the pilots involved? Then I could recognyze you some rights, but not by means of a forum.
"Who cancelled the defects: the pilots who entered them or the covering engineer?"
Did you even look at the documents? Where it says "Captain Acceptance"? What's the name and number there? And on the reporting field? Do you even know what the reporting field is?
"If the latter did he do so on his own or in conjunction with the crew."
There were no engineers that day, they were at strike, remember?
Why is it so different to ACFing the defects or a simple "For Info" entry into the log?
Where are you from? Do you even know what the word "safety" implies in aviation? Would you so lightly mix the two?
Finnally, I feel for the Pilots that had a bad decision that day, fortunatly no accidents occur, but they (and only those) must be held responsable, and YES I think AEI is right at least this time!
Best Regards and a happy new year.
Last edited by jmig29; 6th Jan 2009 at 10:44. Reason: correction
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jmig29 - There's no point getting all shouty about it or going on about courts and EASA. A claim was posted here, supported by yourself and Safety Concerns, without a shred of evidence being posted to support it. The fact of the matter is nobody is going to accept a claim based on your say so without seeing proof. Now that the alleged proof has been posted it is still far from clear what actually happened.
The timeline of events is unclear from the log. Did the defects occur inbound to ZAG/ORY or outbound into LIS? If the events were cancelled by the operating crew then why is that so different from an ACF? Airliners divert in Europe every day and not every diversion airfield has suitable engineering cover. Defects are ACFed all the time in that situation. None of the defects in those log pages would be unusual to an experienced A320 crew nor would they be regarded as significant. I suspect had they been encountered on a diversion to an off network station only the galley handset would have been reported and ACFed with the engine and pressurisation problems simply reported at the end of the day. The only difference on this occasion seems to be that they were expecting engineering cover then found out it wasn't actually there.
The timeline of events is unclear from the log. Did the defects occur inbound to ZAG/ORY or outbound into LIS? If the events were cancelled by the operating crew then why is that so different from an ACF? Airliners divert in Europe every day and not every diversion airfield has suitable engineering cover. Defects are ACFed all the time in that situation. None of the defects in those log pages would be unusual to an experienced A320 crew nor would they be regarded as significant. I suspect had they been encountered on a diversion to an off network station only the galley handset would have been reported and ACFed with the engine and pressurisation problems simply reported at the end of the day. The only difference on this occasion seems to be that they were expecting engineering cover then found out it wasn't actually there.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only difference on this occasion seems to be that they were expecting engineering cover then found out it wasn't actually there.
Then appear to have been caught with their pants down.....
Then appear to have been caught with their pants down.....
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really the same glad rag. If you divert from wherever you're going to Parochial Regional Airport are you going to ground the aircraft there due to a lack of company recognised cover for a minor issue you snagged earlier? Of course not. If it's not airworthiness it gets ACFed and you get it fixed at the next station with engineering cover. There really is no difference between that diversion and getting to your destination and unexpectedly finding no engineering cover. If its safe in the former scenario its still safe in the latter.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM,
I hear what you say, but the evidence (as seen on an internet forum LOL) of falsifying and deleting entries is quite compelling don't you think?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Portugal
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know some colleagues from TAP, let me see if I can talk to them, or if they let me explain to you pilots, exactly what has happenned.
Because in this forum, everyone was in hurry for proofs, but on a portuguese forum, all the pilots were asking how was it possible that the documents were published, and they're going to sue them, bla, bla, bla...
Best Regards
Because in this forum, everyone was in hurry for proofs, but on a portuguese forum, all the pilots were asking how was it possible that the documents were published, and they're going to sue them, bla, bla, bla...
Best Regards
Last edited by jmig29; 8th Jan 2009 at 22:26. Reason: correction
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: PORTUGAL
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jmig29,
You are not talking truth here. It is time for us to value truth a bit more. It is not true that in a portuguese forum all pilots are worried merely about who has placed so "secret documents" online. Only one or two person (hardly pilots) talked about that, asking if it is legal for an organization to put such items online. I too have the same question. Is it? But I am also worried about a possible compromise on safety. And am also, like we all should be, worried about being in a world where everything can be done and noone is punished. There are places where this subject is to be treated. And that place is not the web. If this proves to be untrue, if TAP is not compromising safety as so many state, there will be damaged made, terrible damage - Possibly beyond repair - on TAP's image as a corporation, as an airline. And that damage will backfire to all in the company. I am one of those fools that believe that public accusations like this one shall only be made when there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I start to feel a little misplaced on this world. May you all think a little bit about this? We are building a miserable world for the generations to come. Let us not leave that mark on history.
Cheers to you all.
And no, I do not work for TAP Portugal. I am flying on the Portuguese Air Force and my name is Gonçalo Silva Dias.
I would preety much like to know if everyone is corageous enough to state there name on the web while making some of the stupid and irresponsible comments I have seen throughout. Enough of this anonimacy BS.
You are not talking truth here. It is time for us to value truth a bit more. It is not true that in a portuguese forum all pilots are worried merely about who has placed so "secret documents" online. Only one or two person (hardly pilots) talked about that, asking if it is legal for an organization to put such items online. I too have the same question. Is it? But I am also worried about a possible compromise on safety. And am also, like we all should be, worried about being in a world where everything can be done and noone is punished. There are places where this subject is to be treated. And that place is not the web. If this proves to be untrue, if TAP is not compromising safety as so many state, there will be damaged made, terrible damage - Possibly beyond repair - on TAP's image as a corporation, as an airline. And that damage will backfire to all in the company. I am one of those fools that believe that public accusations like this one shall only be made when there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I start to feel a little misplaced on this world. May you all think a little bit about this? We are building a miserable world for the generations to come. Let us not leave that mark on history.
Cheers to you all.
And no, I do not work for TAP Portugal. I am flying on the Portuguese Air Force and my name is Gonçalo Silva Dias.
I would preety much like to know if everyone is corageous enough to state there name on the web while making some of the stupid and irresponsible comments I have seen throughout. Enough of this anonimacy BS.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goncalo seems worried about future employment prospects.
Goncalo, your colleagues are undermining safety, the rest is irrelevant. If your colleagues had behaved as they are legally required to, there would be nothing to post.
Where does the blame really lie?
A thief is a thief. It makes no difference if you steal a mars bar or someone's wallet or a car. It is quite clear to me from those documents the aircraft flew outside the legal framework currently in place in Europe for commercial aviation. There is no grading of the situation and as far as flying is concerned there can be no chances taken, by anyone.
Goncalo, your colleagues are undermining safety, the rest is irrelevant. If your colleagues had behaved as they are legally required to, there would be nothing to post.
Where does the blame really lie?
A thief is a thief. It makes no difference if you steal a mars bar or someone's wallet or a car. It is quite clear to me from those documents the aircraft flew outside the legal framework currently in place in Europe for commercial aviation. There is no grading of the situation and as far as flying is concerned there can be no chances taken, by anyone.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Portugal
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jmig29,
You are not talking truth here. It is time for us to value truth a bit more. It is not true that in a portuguese forum all pilots are worried merely about who has placed so "secret documents" online. Only one or two person (hardly pilots) talked about that, asking if it is legal for an organization to put such items online. I too have the same question. Is it? But I am also worried about a possible compromise on safety. And am also, like we all should be, worried about being in a world where everything can be done and noone is punished. There are places where this subject is to be treated. And that place is not the web. If this proves to be untrue, if TAP is not compromising safety as so many state, there will be damaged made, terrible damage - Possibly beyond repair - on TAP's image as a corporation, as an airline. And that damage will backfire to all in the company. I am one of those fools that believe that public accusations like this one shall only be made when there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I start to feel a little misplaced on this world. May you all think a little bit about this? We are building a miserable world for the generations to come. Let us not leave that mark on history.
Cheers to you all.
And no, I do not work for TAP Portugal. I am flying on the Portuguese Air Force and my name is Gonçalo Silva Dias.
I would preety much like to know if everyone is corageous enough to state there name on the web while making some of the stupid and irresponsible comments I have seen throughout. Enough of this anonimacy BS.
Do you know the truth more than me? Maybe you do! But that doesn't give you the right to call me a lyer, and I will not take that abuse! Everyone seems to know something, nobody says nothing. The only one who spoke some factual truth was SC, has the docs now published show.
On my side I'm willing to talk to some colleagues at TAP, they should know the facts behind the docs, which is something nobody in this forum so far has cared to figure out, what really has led to the docs publishing.
From what I've been told so far, for years the LAME's at TAP have been warning pilots discretly how they shouldn't get involved in their disput with the board. One way of getting involved is taking the planes without them being properly maintained, looks like that is what has happenned.
Looks like it has been only SOME pilots who did that, maybe pressured by comercial issues, which is not acceptable.
When I get some more info, I'll let you all know.
You are not talking truth here. It is time for us to value truth a bit more. It is not true that in a portuguese forum all pilots are worried merely about who has placed so "secret documents" online. Only one or two person (hardly pilots) talked about that, asking if it is legal for an organization to put such items online. I too have the same question. Is it? But I am also worried about a possible compromise on safety. And am also, like we all should be, worried about being in a world where everything can be done and noone is punished. There are places where this subject is to be treated. And that place is not the web. If this proves to be untrue, if TAP is not compromising safety as so many state, there will be damaged made, terrible damage - Possibly beyond repair - on TAP's image as a corporation, as an airline. And that damage will backfire to all in the company. I am one of those fools that believe that public accusations like this one shall only be made when there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I start to feel a little misplaced on this world. May you all think a little bit about this? We are building a miserable world for the generations to come. Let us not leave that mark on history.
Cheers to you all.
And no, I do not work for TAP Portugal. I am flying on the Portuguese Air Force and my name is Gonçalo Silva Dias.
I would preety much like to know if everyone is corageous enough to state there name on the web while making some of the stupid and irresponsible comments I have seen throughout. Enough of this anonimacy BS.
Do you know the truth more than me? Maybe you do! But that doesn't give you the right to call me a lyer, and I will not take that abuse! Everyone seems to know something, nobody says nothing. The only one who spoke some factual truth was SC, has the docs now published show.
On my side I'm willing to talk to some colleagues at TAP, they should know the facts behind the docs, which is something nobody in this forum so far has cared to figure out, what really has led to the docs publishing.
From what I've been told so far, for years the LAME's at TAP have been warning pilots discretly how they shouldn't get involved in their disput with the board. One way of getting involved is taking the planes without them being properly maintained, looks like that is what has happenned.
Looks like it has been only SOME pilots who did that, maybe pressured by comercial issues, which is not acceptable.
When I get some more info, I'll let you all know.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Portugal
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing to post, at least from a professional perspective. The so called evidence only goes far enough to say that mechanics cannot ground a plane, and that is this is all about.
Mechanics at TAP wanted to strike and groung planes, but since pilots exerted final authority, things just didn't went the right way for the mechanics. The strike was a flop. Still, i keep reading mechanic wording about pilots not being qualified to judge maintenance work, which is very true, i know nothing about wrench workb, but a pilot is qualified to acess the information and take decisions.
These slips (if actually true and not photoshop) show nothing out of the ordinary and surely dont show anything that poses safety risks for passengers, and that is the bottom line about all this. Speculating in the bad way about what is written in these slips is dishonest, specially for the passenger and unknowing public, and that is why i say this discussion has no place in a public place.
The quality record of the decisions made by TAP pilots speaks for itself. How many times have pilots grounded planes otherwise cleared by maintenance? If only i had a penny...
And who is Mr. Jorge anyway? How did he make these?
Mechanics at TAP wanted to strike and groung planes, but since pilots exerted final authority, things just didn't went the right way for the mechanics. The strike was a flop. Still, i keep reading mechanic wording about pilots not being qualified to judge maintenance work, which is very true, i know nothing about wrench workb, but a pilot is qualified to acess the information and take decisions.
These slips (if actually true and not photoshop) show nothing out of the ordinary and surely dont show anything that poses safety risks for passengers, and that is the bottom line about all this. Speculating in the bad way about what is written in these slips is dishonest, specially for the passenger and unknowing public, and that is why i say this discussion has no place in a public place.
The quality record of the decisions made by TAP pilots speaks for itself. How many times have pilots grounded planes otherwise cleared by maintenance? If only i had a penny...
And who is Mr. Jorge anyway? How did he make these?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh come on!!!
This is getting all too ridiculous.
First of all, you come here and say in quite an alarming tone that this airline is responsible, as a whole, for an alleged breach of passenger safety.
Then you see the ranting natives rushing in, all too eager to drop the hammer on same airline, biting the hand that feeds them in the process, because they’re not capable of understanding that (radical left wing) politics and real economy don’t mix in such difficult times, loosing the negotiating power held by other sectors of the company.
These people are only half dozen or so in a company of thousands, but they’re noisy, one track minded, and unpleasant as workers as well as socially. It seems that they’re born hating everything that sounds capitalist, even if they choose to work at it.
But hey, when the heat hits the kitchen, suddenly it’s not the company, oh no, it’s only a couple of pilots that had supposedly altered a pair of tech reports. So the company isn’t to blame after all, but they still had to snitch those guys for safety reasons (LOL), even if done illegally and in defaming manner, no matter what.
Oh wait, it’s getting real hot in the kitchen, so you begin to see the native rats fleeing fast ("I know some colleagues from TAP "etc) while we watch their cynical AEI colleague start washing his hands, which is the typical behavior from people that use others at their expense for their own (not so) hidden agenda, fooling the native Indians with mirrors and stuff. It would be extremely hilarious if it wasn’t a sad thing to watch. Poor sods.
Fortunately, TAP is a very responsible company, audited regularly by international authorities, and has an enormous confidence capital amongst their costumers, supplier chain and industry regulators.
Gonçalo, I do applaud your sincerity and truly hope that this subject will backfire right in the hands of those who’ve lit the Molotov cocktail in the first place. As we say down here “the dogs bark, the wagon keeps on going”.
GD&L
PS- Cientista ou Elefante?
This is getting all too ridiculous.
First of all, you come here and say in quite an alarming tone that this airline is responsible, as a whole, for an alleged breach of passenger safety.
Then you see the ranting natives rushing in, all too eager to drop the hammer on same airline, biting the hand that feeds them in the process, because they’re not capable of understanding that (radical left wing) politics and real economy don’t mix in such difficult times, loosing the negotiating power held by other sectors of the company.
These people are only half dozen or so in a company of thousands, but they’re noisy, one track minded, and unpleasant as workers as well as socially. It seems that they’re born hating everything that sounds capitalist, even if they choose to work at it.
But hey, when the heat hits the kitchen, suddenly it’s not the company, oh no, it’s only a couple of pilots that had supposedly altered a pair of tech reports. So the company isn’t to blame after all, but they still had to snitch those guys for safety reasons (LOL), even if done illegally and in defaming manner, no matter what.
Oh wait, it’s getting real hot in the kitchen, so you begin to see the native rats fleeing fast ("I know some colleagues from TAP "etc) while we watch their cynical AEI colleague start washing his hands, which is the typical behavior from people that use others at their expense for their own (not so) hidden agenda, fooling the native Indians with mirrors and stuff. It would be extremely hilarious if it wasn’t a sad thing to watch. Poor sods.
Fortunately, TAP is a very responsible company, audited regularly by international authorities, and has an enormous confidence capital amongst their costumers, supplier chain and industry regulators.
Gonçalo, I do applaud your sincerity and truly hope that this subject will backfire right in the hands of those who’ve lit the Molotov cocktail in the first place. As we say down here “the dogs bark, the wagon keeps on going”.
GD&L
PS- Cientista ou Elefante?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wondered how long it would take. Gear down and locked, it makes no difference as I mentioned earlier.
JFA god help us if your a pilot. You urgently need to revise your understanding of legislation and how far your so called authority goes. All those documents (assuming no tampering) CLEARLY show that those aircraft should not have continued flying. Therefore safety has been compromised.
Furthermore with Helios still a fresh memory, any pilot entering cabin pressure issues and then crossing it out due to lack of maintenance, strike or no strike, should be fired.
Your are not gods and you have no right to play with fare paying passengers lives. Your comments are a disgrace.
Wrong. You are not qualified to make technical decisions. The operator is legally bound to take his commercially operated aircraft to a Part 145 maintenance organisation when a fault raises its ugly head.
None of the evidence gives the pilot a way out. Once, twice or six hundred times it makes no difference. Safety has been compromised.
JFA god help us if your a pilot. You urgently need to revise your understanding of legislation and how far your so called authority goes. All those documents (assuming no tampering) CLEARLY show that those aircraft should not have continued flying. Therefore safety has been compromised.
Furthermore with Helios still a fresh memory, any pilot entering cabin pressure issues and then crossing it out due to lack of maintenance, strike or no strike, should be fired.
Your are not gods and you have no right to play with fare paying passengers lives. Your comments are a disgrace.
but a pilot is qualified to acess the information and take decisions.
None of the evidence gives the pilot a way out. Once, twice or six hundred times it makes no difference. Safety has been compromised.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Portugal
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An A/C is not airworthy when a problem reported has not been properly solved and signed-off (You can find this on Regulation 2042-2003, which includes Parts M, 66, 145 and 147). So, if the A/C did not have its CRS issued following a maintenance action, it is not airworthy and the pilots can not take the plane. I don't remember who said it was the pilots faults, I think if it comes to be true (which I believe in) Those pilots are in fact responsable, and so is the company. Responsability on those workers side, because they should know better than to take an non-airworthy A7C up to the air, responsability on the company's side, because they should not put comercial pressure on either pilots or whoever, safety wise.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Portugal
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And of course we all think of TAP as a very responsable company, that doesn't mean it can't go wrong, and this time is BIG WRONG.
If you know the dirty dozen, "complacence" is one of them. When it is said that "if it was safer earlier, it will be safer in the future" this is stupid, how do you know the malfunction won't get worst? When it is said that pilots ground A/C's released by maintenance staff, that means the A/C was released according to MEL, and the pilot just did not take it, it is in his right. One very different thing is taking an A/C not maintained/released properly, and that is violating the legal rules of airworthiness of the A/C.
Maybe we all mechanics, should stop maintaining the A/C, get another job, and see how the pilots would do after just 3 or 4 days without maintenance.
If you know the dirty dozen, "complacence" is one of them. When it is said that "if it was safer earlier, it will be safer in the future" this is stupid, how do you know the malfunction won't get worst? When it is said that pilots ground A/C's released by maintenance staff, that means the A/C was released according to MEL, and the pilot just did not take it, it is in his right. One very different thing is taking an A/C not maintained/released properly, and that is violating the legal rules of airworthiness of the A/C.
Maybe we all mechanics, should stop maintaining the A/C, get another job, and see how the pilots would do after just 3 or 4 days without maintenance.