Passenger safety compromised at TAP
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: PORTUGAL
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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!"
jmig29,
I am afraid that it isn't up to you to decide if you do take or not the abuse. You have lied. Please read my post once again. I said that you were lying when you stated that in a portuguese forum all the pilots were worried about was about the legality of the posting of the documents on the net. That isn't true, you and I both know which forum you are talking about.
For all the other so-called evidence I prevent myself from saying anything else and once again I urge you to read my post again.
Cheers.
jmig29,
I am afraid that it isn't up to you to decide if you do take or not the abuse. You have lied. Please read my post once again. I said that you were lying when you stated that in a portuguese forum all the pilots were worried about was about the legality of the posting of the documents on the net. That isn't true, you and I both know which forum you are talking about.
For all the other so-called evidence I prevent myself from saying anything else and once again I urge you to read my post again.
Cheers.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: PORTUGAL
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Concerns
No, my dear, I am not worried about future employment. I am worried about living in a country (and perhaps even a world) where everyone can do whatever crosses is mind and there is no punishment.
About the so-called evidences, for me it takes a bit more than some logs scanned and put on the net to become evidence. And even if those documents have not been altered there is still too much to talk about that. What really worries me is that no longer the courts are the place to judge, nowadays the streets and the net took their place... Sadly.
Cheers.
About the so-called evidences, for me it takes a bit more than some logs scanned and put on the net to become evidence. And even if those documents have not been altered there is still too much to talk about that. What really worries me is that no longer the courts are the place to judge, nowadays the streets and the net took their place... Sadly.
Cheers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
c212-100 this isn't the military. Passengers including family members pay fares and get on an aircraft expecting everything possible to be have been done to ensure risk is kept at a minimum.
Again, assuming no tampering, which I really do doubt as that could most definitely result in severe legal proceedings, TAP, their pilots or whoever have not kept their side of the bargain. The reasons are irrelevant.
This rule was broken.
This rule was broken
This rule was broken
This rule was broken
Do I need to go on.
Again, assuming no tampering, which I really do doubt as that could most definitely result in severe legal proceedings, TAP, their pilots or whoever have not kept their side of the bargain. The reasons are irrelevant.
M.A.201 Responsibilities
(a) The owner is responsible for the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft and shall ensure that no flight takes place
unless:
1. the aircraft is maintained in an airworthy condition, and;
2. any operational and emergency equipment fitted is correctly installed and serviceable or clearly identified as
unserviceable, and;
3. the airworthiness certificate remains valid, and;
4. the maintenance of the aircraft is performed in accordance with the approved maintenance programme as specified
in M.A.302.
(a) The owner is responsible for the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft and shall ensure that no flight takes place
unless:
1. the aircraft is maintained in an airworthy condition, and;
2. any operational and emergency equipment fitted is correctly installed and serviceable or clearly identified as
unserviceable, and;
3. the airworthiness certificate remains valid, and;
4. the maintenance of the aircraft is performed in accordance with the approved maintenance programme as specified
in M.A.302.
M.A.301 Continuing airworthiness tasks
The aircraft continuing airworthiness and the serviceability of both operational and emergency equipment shall be
ensured by:
1. the accomplishment of pre-flight inspections;
2. the rectification to an officially recognised standard of any defect and damage affecting safe operation taking into
account, for all large aircraft or aircraft used for commercial air transport, the minimum equipment list and configuration
deviation list if applicable to the aircraft type;
3. the accomplishment of all maintenance, in accordance with the M.A.302 approved aircraft maintenance programme;
4. for all large aircraft or aircraft used for commercial air transport the analysis of the effectiveness of the M.A.302
approved maintenance programme;
5. the accomplishment of any applicable:
(i) airworthiness directive,
(ii) operational directive with a continuing airworthiness impact,
(iii) continued airworthiness requirement established by the Agency,
(iv) measures mandated by the competent authority in immediate reaction to a safety problem;
6. the accomplishment of modifications and repairs in accordance with M.A.304;
7. for non-mandatory modifications and/or inspections, for all large aircraft or aircraft used for commercial air transport
the establishment of an embodiment policy;
8. maintenance check flights when necessary.
The aircraft continuing airworthiness and the serviceability of both operational and emergency equipment shall be
ensured by:
1. the accomplishment of pre-flight inspections;
2. the rectification to an officially recognised standard of any defect and damage affecting safe operation taking into
account, for all large aircraft or aircraft used for commercial air transport, the minimum equipment list and configuration
deviation list if applicable to the aircraft type;
3. the accomplishment of all maintenance, in accordance with the M.A.302 approved aircraft maintenance programme;
4. for all large aircraft or aircraft used for commercial air transport the analysis of the effectiveness of the M.A.302
approved maintenance programme;
5. the accomplishment of any applicable:
(i) airworthiness directive,
(ii) operational directive with a continuing airworthiness impact,
(iii) continued airworthiness requirement established by the Agency,
(iv) measures mandated by the competent authority in immediate reaction to a safety problem;
6. the accomplishment of modifications and repairs in accordance with M.A.304;
7. for non-mandatory modifications and/or inspections, for all large aircraft or aircraft used for commercial air transport
the establishment of an embodiment policy;
8. maintenance check flights when necessary.
M.A.306 Operator's technical log system
(a) In the case of commercial air transport, in addition to the requirements of M.A.305, an operator shall use an aircraft
technical log system containing the following information for each aircraft:
1. information about each flight, necessary to ensure continued flight safety, and;
2. the current aircraft certificate of release to service, and;
3. the current maintenance statement giving the aircraft maintenance status of what scheduled and out of phase
maintenance is next due except that the competent authority may agree to the maintenance statement being kept
elsewhere, and;
4. all outstanding deferred defects rectifications that affect the operation of the aircraft, and;
5. any necessary guidance instructions on maintenance support arrangements.
(b) The aircraft technical log system and any subsequent amendment shall be approved by the competent authority.
(c) An operator shall ensure that the aircraft technical log is retained for 36 months after the date of the last entry.
(a) In the case of commercial air transport, in addition to the requirements of M.A.305, an operator shall use an aircraft
technical log system containing the following information for each aircraft:
1. information about each flight, necessary to ensure continued flight safety, and;
2. the current aircraft certificate of release to service, and;
3. the current maintenance statement giving the aircraft maintenance status of what scheduled and out of phase
maintenance is next due except that the competent authority may agree to the maintenance statement being kept
elsewhere, and;
4. all outstanding deferred defects rectifications that affect the operation of the aircraft, and;
5. any necessary guidance instructions on maintenance support arrangements.
(b) The aircraft technical log system and any subsequent amendment shall be approved by the competent authority.
(c) An operator shall ensure that the aircraft technical log is retained for 36 months after the date of the last entry.
M.A.403 Aircraft defects
(a) Any aircraft defect that hazards seriously the flight safety shall be rectified before further flight.
(b) Only the authorised certifying staff, according to M.A.801(b)1, M.A.801(b)2 or Part-145 can decide, using M.A.401
maintenance data, whether an aircraft defect hazards seriously the flight safety and therefore decide when and which
rectification action shall be taken before further flight and which defect rectification can be deferred. However, this
does not apply when:
1. the approved minimum equipment list as mandated by the competent authority is used by the pilot; or,
2. aircraft defects are defined as being acceptable by the competent authority.
(c) Any aircraft defect that would not hazard seriously the flight safety shall be rectified as soon as practicable, after the
date the aircraft defect was first identified and within any limits specified in the maintenance data.
(d) Any defect not rectified before flight shall be recorded in the M.A.305 aircraft maintenance record system or
M.A.306 operator's technical log system as applicable.
(a) Any aircraft defect that hazards seriously the flight safety shall be rectified before further flight.
(b) Only the authorised certifying staff, according to M.A.801(b)1, M.A.801(b)2 or Part-145 can decide, using M.A.401
maintenance data, whether an aircraft defect hazards seriously the flight safety and therefore decide when and which
rectification action shall be taken before further flight and which defect rectification can be deferred. However, this
does not apply when:
1. the approved minimum equipment list as mandated by the competent authority is used by the pilot; or,
2. aircraft defects are defined as being acceptable by the competent authority.
(c) Any aircraft defect that would not hazard seriously the flight safety shall be rectified as soon as practicable, after the
date the aircraft defect was first identified and within any limits specified in the maintenance data.
(d) Any defect not rectified before flight shall be recorded in the M.A.305 aircraft maintenance record system or
M.A.306 operator's technical log system as applicable.
Do I need to go on.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Portugal
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My name is JORGE MIGUEL, but I did not understand who JFA was referring to "And who is Mr. Jorge anyway?"...
Mr. C212-100, let me explain again, maybe I did not make myself clear:
The portuguese forum www.linhadafrente.net , concerning this subject, has 2 parts, being the first, the part where people would comment without the so called evidences yet published, and the second, the part where people would comment AFTER the so called evidence are published. I think you agree with this. For considerations on what I have written, one must bear in mind only the second part, that is when the so called evidences were published.
The news about the publishing of the so called evidences were posted on the 6th of January, on page 6. As of now, AFTER this was posted, there were 22 posts, of which 6 were filosophical considerations on the company image, 7 were indirect considerations on publishing the so called evidences, and 9 (NINE!!!) were direct condemnations to the publishing of the so called evidences.
If you want, we can also talk about the first part: As I have seen it, the considerations were mainly about a so called political move against TAP, and some posts have wondered how such a news could have come to public without proofs (but after it came to public, all "hell broke loose").
Some considerations refer the need to contact the Portuguese authorities, but never say a word about international authorities. I remind you that National Authorities are no more than EASA delegations now, and EASA may suspend a NAA. Maybe some of the portuguese LAME have lost confidence in the national authorities, where pilots have a great deal of political power. I believe the union has forward the situation to an association above all suspicions, because they have voting powers within the EASA, as well as Manufaturers, Operators and Pilots Associations, so the situation would not get forgotten.
Hopefully, I did not forget to mention anything, but if I did, I'm sure I'll be reminded.
Regards,
Mr. C212-100, let me explain again, maybe I did not make myself clear:
The portuguese forum www.linhadafrente.net , concerning this subject, has 2 parts, being the first, the part where people would comment without the so called evidences yet published, and the second, the part where people would comment AFTER the so called evidence are published. I think you agree with this. For considerations on what I have written, one must bear in mind only the second part, that is when the so called evidences were published.
The news about the publishing of the so called evidences were posted on the 6th of January, on page 6. As of now, AFTER this was posted, there were 22 posts, of which 6 were filosophical considerations on the company image, 7 were indirect considerations on publishing the so called evidences, and 9 (NINE!!!) were direct condemnations to the publishing of the so called evidences.
If you want, we can also talk about the first part: As I have seen it, the considerations were mainly about a so called political move against TAP, and some posts have wondered how such a news could have come to public without proofs (but after it came to public, all "hell broke loose").
Some considerations refer the need to contact the Portuguese authorities, but never say a word about international authorities. I remind you that National Authorities are no more than EASA delegations now, and EASA may suspend a NAA. Maybe some of the portuguese LAME have lost confidence in the national authorities, where pilots have a great deal of political power. I believe the union has forward the situation to an association above all suspicions, because they have voting powers within the EASA, as well as Manufaturers, Operators and Pilots Associations, so the situation would not get forgotten.
Hopefully, I did not forget to mention anything, but if I did, I'm sure I'll be reminded.
Regards,
Last edited by jmig29; 9th Jan 2009 at 12:51. Reason: correction
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jmig29... do you really think you're contributing with anything worthy of the name to improve even slightly this airlines' safety culture? Think again (but only if it doesn't give you a funny feeling - you can get that with a never-used-mint-condition old brain).
ahh... it was posted on the wall of a maintenance hangar at a well known airbase these true words:
-Start Your Brain Before Engaging Mouth-
It seems that our Air Force engineers are far wiser than their civilian counterparts around here, don't you think?
This all matter doesn't worry me a bit, because I strongly feel that TAP isn't afraid to find the truth in all this.
What p1sses me off is the fact should TAP be forced to downsize its work force for economic reasons these left wing union thugs will keep on walking around, hands in pockets, from hangar to hangar whistling carelessly while their colleagues are left at the gate with no job.
Safety Concerns, you may fool some of them most of the time, but you can't fool all of them all the time. Let's see how long you will last after this matter is wrapped up.
GD&L
c212-100 this isn't the military
-Start Your Brain Before Engaging Mouth-
It seems that our Air Force engineers are far wiser than their civilian counterparts around here, don't you think?
This all matter doesn't worry me a bit, because I strongly feel that TAP isn't afraid to find the truth in all this.
What p1sses me off is the fact should TAP be forced to downsize its work force for economic reasons these left wing union thugs will keep on walking around, hands in pockets, from hangar to hangar whistling carelessly while their colleagues are left at the gate with no job.
Safety Concerns, you may fool some of them most of the time, but you can't fool all of them all the time. Let's see how long you will last after this matter is wrapped up.
GD&L
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gear down and locked, are you suggesting that unsafe airlines should be allowed to continue flying in order to protect jobs?
(For clarity, this is a general question and not TAP related)
I actually suspect you were one of the pilots involved in this.
Your logic is amazing, aircraft depart that shouldn't have done but those reporting the facts are industrial terrorists. You need to readjust your brain scanner, its out of phase with reality.
And threats, you are making a good impression.
(For clarity, this is a general question and not TAP related)
I actually suspect you were one of the pilots involved in this.
Your logic is amazing, aircraft depart that shouldn't have done but those reporting the facts are industrial terrorists. You need to readjust your brain scanner, its out of phase with reality.
Safety Concerns, you may fool some of them most of the time, but you can't fool all of them all the time. Let's see how long you will last after this matter is wrapped up.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, first of all, in decent, democratic and in a law enforced societies, one does not make any type of accusations, without proof. First you get proof, then you accuse.
And if by chance, those accusations turn to be true, then I think culprits must pay the price and face consequences.
Since my conscience is clean, and once my own experience in the company tells me that those accusations are completely non-sense I have the right to feel offended by them as a professional and as a proud TAP employee. I hope you understand that.
And if by chance, those accusations turn to be true, then I think culprits must pay the price and face consequences.
Since my conscience is clean, and once my own experience in the company tells me that those accusations are completely non-sense I have the right to feel offended by them as a professional and as a proud TAP employee. I hope you understand that.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gear down and locked, are you suggesting that unsafe airlines should be allowed to continue flying in order to protect jobs?
(For clarity, this is a general question and not TAP related)
(For clarity, this is a general question and not TAP related)
Noone is suggesting such an attitude in this industry, don't misunderstand my words. You still have a long path to walk until you can master the ways of monsieur de La Palisse.
And for clarity, let me remind you that YOU Sir were the one who started all this circus by stating unequivocally that :
Passenger safety compromised at TAP
No Sir, you can't change it back now. True or False, you have to face the consequences of your actions (like the grown ups do).
GD&L
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should the aircraft not have departed? Perhaps that's the crux of the issue. Some people think not. Most pilots on here seem to think it was ok. Certainly trying to compare the cabin pressure snag with the Helios accident is stretching it a bit and appears to be deliberately emotive and sensational.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carnage, it is disappointing to have to respond to your comments but unfortunately you are not alone and this is exactly why we are in this position/predicament.
The aircraft were not airworthy as per 2042/2003.
Thats the end of it. The aircraft did not have a valid release to service, end of discussion. Furthermore they were not airworthy due to the breaches of the regulations I quoted in a previous post.
What you pilots don't seem to appreciate is that you invalidate the c of a with such behaviour and all the consequences that brings should you end up in a tight corner. Of course if you land safety and get away with it you believe you have done nothing wrong.
The fact that they reached there destination is not here or there as they may not have done. At the time of departure the crew took a risk. Unacceptable, full stop.
If you are unhappy with that view don't argue with me go and lobby your union/government/Brussels whoever you want but the aircraft were not airworthy.
The aircraft were not airworthy as per 2042/2003.
Thats the end of it. The aircraft did not have a valid release to service, end of discussion. Furthermore they were not airworthy due to the breaches of the regulations I quoted in a previous post.
What you pilots don't seem to appreciate is that you invalidate the c of a with such behaviour and all the consequences that brings should you end up in a tight corner. Of course if you land safety and get away with it you believe you have done nothing wrong.
The fact that they reached there destination is not here or there as they may not have done. At the time of departure the crew took a risk. Unacceptable, full stop.
If you are unhappy with that view don't argue with me go and lobby your union/government/Brussels whoever you want but the aircraft were not airworthy.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your logic is amazing, aircraft depart that shouldn't have done but those reporting the facts are industrial terrorists. You need to readjust your brain scanner, its out of phase with reality.
Returning to subject: are you positively sure that represents the thruth about what really happened with those examples that you have convinced your portuguese friends to provide? can you trust these friends of yours? Are you sure those snags weren't "arranged" by any chance? Is your neck insured against fraud and deception?
I'll leave you with those cute lil' questions.
Have a nice weekend.
GD&L
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Portugal
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carnage, for once I agree with you. It is not the same as the Helios Accident. But, how can you tell it wouldn't develop that way, unless a properly certified person checks the system? That's why mechanics do their tests and verifications.
Let me continue to say that I firmly believe the TAP pilots (I know one or two) and in general portuguese pilots are amongst the very best of the world, as well as their maintenance, not diminishing all others, of course. But, that doesn't mean one can not go wrong! If you are looking at the situation from a safety wise perspective, you'de possibly (as I did in my mind) question the amount of training supplied by the airline. A few years ago I remember the pilots union and association saying the training they were getting could become insuficient, and that worried me, because they are up there with no parking lot, they will not stay there forever, one way or the other, they will have to come down.
I have reviewed all my posts, and never said the pilots are solely the ones to blame. What I said is they are responsable on their part, because they should know better. Now, how can you tell there isn't here a problem of proper training for those pilots? How can you tell those pilots didn't ask a second opinion to their bosses and were misinformed? Only the subsequent investigation will tell, and it is not our job as forum users to judge. And C212-100, I refuse to accept that media is the prime juri these days. What has happenned here is that some forum users started to try to kill the messenger. Bear in mind everyone is capable of failing that's why aviation has several safety network layers.
"Most pilots on here seem to think it was ok" Maybe this is the way to go wrong, because they don't see at the moment what lies ahead, and in fact, what appears on the instruments is only about 20% of the failures, the serious ones. Behind, you may a serious of unsignificant failures that combined, could be catastrophic, thus the lames checks. I think it was that kind of thinking that allowed many low cost airlines to keep going. Nothing particular against them or any other, as long as proper maintenance is applied. Maintenance is a preventive concept, not a corrective one, and the master MEL is not the top of safety, is rather the minimum, and (at least) some of us lames like to provide the captains, airlines and public with the best possible service, and continuously try to keep the standars ABOVE MEL.
What I which as a portuguese lame is that the company prevents these things from happenning again (assuming the docs were not photoshopped), and it will come as the first airline in Europe to recognyze and CORRECT the situation. I don't work (unfortunatly) at TAP, neither am I going to tell you which airline do I work for, for obvious reasons. Do you remember who invented the "downsyzing" concept? When all of the world was allready following the concept, those guys came to public saying it wasn't a correct concept, it didn't work and voilá, the americans were the first to abandon such a concept, and got financial results from it.
I would say if on those flights there was a lame onboard, the Captains could have judge the situation more supported on that professional opinion, because that's the lame's job.
I hope I made myself clear this time.
Regards,
Let me continue to say that I firmly believe the TAP pilots (I know one or two) and in general portuguese pilots are amongst the very best of the world, as well as their maintenance, not diminishing all others, of course. But, that doesn't mean one can not go wrong! If you are looking at the situation from a safety wise perspective, you'de possibly (as I did in my mind) question the amount of training supplied by the airline. A few years ago I remember the pilots union and association saying the training they were getting could become insuficient, and that worried me, because they are up there with no parking lot, they will not stay there forever, one way or the other, they will have to come down.
I have reviewed all my posts, and never said the pilots are solely the ones to blame. What I said is they are responsable on their part, because they should know better. Now, how can you tell there isn't here a problem of proper training for those pilots? How can you tell those pilots didn't ask a second opinion to their bosses and were misinformed? Only the subsequent investigation will tell, and it is not our job as forum users to judge. And C212-100, I refuse to accept that media is the prime juri these days. What has happenned here is that some forum users started to try to kill the messenger. Bear in mind everyone is capable of failing that's why aviation has several safety network layers.
"Most pilots on here seem to think it was ok" Maybe this is the way to go wrong, because they don't see at the moment what lies ahead, and in fact, what appears on the instruments is only about 20% of the failures, the serious ones. Behind, you may a serious of unsignificant failures that combined, could be catastrophic, thus the lames checks. I think it was that kind of thinking that allowed many low cost airlines to keep going. Nothing particular against them or any other, as long as proper maintenance is applied. Maintenance is a preventive concept, not a corrective one, and the master MEL is not the top of safety, is rather the minimum, and (at least) some of us lames like to provide the captains, airlines and public with the best possible service, and continuously try to keep the standars ABOVE MEL.
What I which as a portuguese lame is that the company prevents these things from happenning again (assuming the docs were not photoshopped), and it will come as the first airline in Europe to recognyze and CORRECT the situation. I don't work (unfortunatly) at TAP, neither am I going to tell you which airline do I work for, for obvious reasons. Do you remember who invented the "downsyzing" concept? When all of the world was allready following the concept, those guys came to public saying it wasn't a correct concept, it didn't work and voilá, the americans were the first to abandon such a concept, and got financial results from it.
I would say if on those flights there was a lame onboard, the Captains could have judge the situation more supported on that professional opinion, because that's the lame's job.
I hope I made myself clear this time.
Regards,
Last edited by jmig29; 9th Jan 2009 at 17:19. Reason: correction
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jmig29,
I'm not trying to kill the messenger - he's doing a terrific job to himself on his own.
What I cannot accept is a bunch of cheap (Helios like) tricks being played at the first opportunity just for the sake of trying to prove some inane and negative concept using the buzzword of quote "commercialism" unquote (which BTW means 1. The practices, methods, aims, and spirit of commerce or business. and 2. An attitude that emphasizes tangible profit or success.), all this at a solid airline reputations' expense.
I am bemused at the fact that none of the constant audits ever found a single shred of evidence that planes were taken into the skies without proper procedures being done in advance. Suddenly there are 3 or 4 snags saying otherwise, and funnily enough... every single one of them present dates that are situated right in the middle of an ongoing industrial dispute - snag dates between Dec 18th and 20th, strike was scheduled for Dec 21st. Coincidence ...
Please, don't insult my intelligence.
I rest my case...
GD&L
PS- @C212-100: check your personal messages.
I'm not trying to kill the messenger - he's doing a terrific job to himself on his own.
What I cannot accept is a bunch of cheap (Helios like) tricks being played at the first opportunity just for the sake of trying to prove some inane and negative concept using the buzzword of quote "commercialism" unquote (which BTW means 1. The practices, methods, aims, and spirit of commerce or business. and 2. An attitude that emphasizes tangible profit or success.), all this at a solid airline reputations' expense.
I am bemused at the fact that none of the constant audits ever found a single shred of evidence that planes were taken into the skies without proper procedures being done in advance. Suddenly there are 3 or 4 snags saying otherwise, and funnily enough... every single one of them present dates that are situated right in the middle of an ongoing industrial dispute - snag dates between Dec 18th and 20th, strike was scheduled for Dec 21st. Coincidence ...
Please, don't insult my intelligence.
I rest my case...
GD&L
PS- @C212-100: check your personal messages.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you have no case. You have blown a lot of hot air threatening the person who cut and pasted from a newswire story. You have constantly harped on about this and that but you haven't actually commented on the claims.
Should those aircraft have flown?
(assuming no tricks with the evidence)
It is easy, yes or no.
I have no friends in Portugal and I don't have to care if the documents are false or not and I most certainly don't have to worry about your threats. Its a democratic free europe these days and I am entitled to and will exercise my right to comment on any news story.
If you have a problem with what's being claimed or if you know that the documents are forged, you should take it up with those who presented the news story in the first place.
Safety records and statistics are irrelevant in this case.
It only takes seconds to lose your virginity. Strike or no strike is also irrelevant unless you are implying that such behaviour is ok during a strike.
Should those aircraft have flown?
(assuming no tricks with the evidence)
It is easy, yes or no.
I have no friends in Portugal and I don't have to care if the documents are false or not and I most certainly don't have to worry about your threats. Its a democratic free europe these days and I am entitled to and will exercise my right to comment on any news story.
If you have a problem with what's being claimed or if you know that the documents are forged, you should take it up with those who presented the news story in the first place.
Safety records and statistics are irrelevant in this case.
It only takes seconds to lose your virginity. Strike or no strike is also irrelevant unless you are implying that such behaviour is ok during a strike.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have blown a lot of hot air threatening the person who cut and pasted from a newswire story.
Despite the continuous denials new evidence emerges everyday. Professional pilots are not being very professional looking in the other direction on this one.
It is easy, yes or no.
Just to clarify. This wasn't intended as a yes he does or oh no they don't thread.
If you have a problem with what's being claimed or if you know that the documents are forged, you should take it up with those who presented the news story in the first place
I am sure you are all mature enough to understand that an organisation doesn't issue such press releases without being 100% sure of the facts.
GD&L
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about the bits you left out? You last post reminds me of Black Adder goes forth and the trial.
Gear, down and locked, from all the posters here you are almost the only one who continues attempting to push the thread away from its origin and you are the only one to have made threats.
you also still ignore the relevant questions.
Therefore applying your logic, you are one of the pilots involved.
So are the claims true?
And if yes, which one are you, the tippex king or the cabin pressure specialist?
Gear, down and locked, from all the posters here you are almost the only one who continues attempting to push the thread away from its origin and you are the only one to have made threats.
you also still ignore the relevant questions.
Therefore applying your logic, you are one of the pilots involved.
So are the claims true?
And if yes, which one are you, the tippex king or the cabin pressure specialist?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just wondering, what slip everyone is refering to when talking about Helios? 
If I understand it right, there were occasional fluctuations on one of the packs, up to a cabin press -350ft/min when changing to a lower power setting, after the HP valve opened. Mentioning the Helios crash and malfunctions when reading this slip is just ridiculous!
Safety_C., you either don't know what you're talking about or you're simply running out of arguments on the initial topic. The general public might be impressed when the Helios case is mentioned, but most people in this forum know better. I suggest you take your union propaganda elsewhere.
After going through the "highly anticipated evidence", I just have to say passenger safety was never at risk.
Again, the timing for this press release says it all. POLITICS!!!
If I understand it right, there were occasional fluctuations on one of the packs, up to a cabin press -350ft/min when changing to a lower power setting, after the HP valve opened. Mentioning the Helios crash and malfunctions when reading this slip is just ridiculous!
Safety_C., you either don't know what you're talking about or you're simply running out of arguments on the initial topic. The general public might be impressed when the Helios case is mentioned, but most people in this forum know better. I suggest you take your union propaganda elsewhere.
After going through the "highly anticipated evidence", I just have to say passenger safety was never at risk.
Again, the timing for this press release says it all. POLITICS!!!