Passenger safety compromised at TAP
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Portugal
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...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 ... "
I' not going to say your lying, like someone said about me, but I do think you are mistaken. There was no strike scheduled for the 21st. There was rather a full-strike (they say more than 100%...) performed on the 19th.
I was able to download the documents at the AEI site, before they have deidentified the snags. I'm not aware of the usual procedures on TAP logbooks, but it looks familiar knowing they use a multiple release system.
Tomorrow hopefully I will be able to talk to a TAP lame to have him explain how those snags developped, and let you all know. I think they are not allowed by the union to comment on this, but I'm not in their union (surprise).
Unless I have missed some posts, you still didn't answer SC's questions? Yes or no? Nor for that matter, any of the doubts I've put on the forum. "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!"("how can you tell it wouldn't develop that way"), just to mention one, and suppose that was an outflow control valve going open in cruise on the next flight. It may well start like that and all of the sudden, or on the next flight, go fully open in cruise!!! I don't see from yours and others parts, any interest in evaluating what went wrong, if it did, you have just so far question the messenger's motivations more than trying to know the facts.
I can admit some personnal opinion on SC's comments after the news pasted, but that is hardly the issue.
I don't understand where is the doubt in SC's question "yes or no".
All other quotes refer to SC's belief in the PR, he is in his right, yes?
The same as you having your opinion, to which you are entitled.
Issue:
1 - Did it happen? For some time everyone was worried about political moves and questioned the proofs that weren't there yet.
2 - After the so called proofs were published, some started implying it was
photoshopped.
3 - Never have I seen in this forum a genuine will of trying to get to the bottom of the issue (engineers apart), and what could be done to prevent whatever went wrong FROM EITHER SIDE.
4 - No remarks saying otherwise were made concerning the cut and paste of the LAW, on post #127
5 - Have you ever wonder why didn't TAP denied the snags yet?
6 - Im not really interested on who did what, but rather what led the pilots to act the way they did, assuming the snags weren't photoshopped. Besides, all the proofs required by you pilots were in time supplied, but you haven't yet presented any proofs otherwise.
7 - From my understanding of the issue, if proven true by the following investigation, one can loose their permit to fly, don't know for how many years.
8 - For me, it's like an accident and should be looked from the safety side asking "what can be done so it won't happen again" rather than "who can we kill". This does not mean that responsabilities should not be taken.
9 - I speak with the captains almost every week or so, and they usually admite they can go wrong, but try not to, and always look for safety sides on every occasion. I don't understand why this is not happening here, maybe because they have an image to defend? Well, so do others.
10 - I have seen futile discussions (perhaps from me also) in this forum that only led us apart from the real issue here.
11 - I will restraint myself from writting anymore, unless I have new data.
Please do ALL accept my best regards and a happy new year to all
Regards
I' not going to say your lying, like someone said about me, but I do think you are mistaken. There was no strike scheduled for the 21st. There was rather a full-strike (they say more than 100%...) performed on the 19th.
I was able to download the documents at the AEI site, before they have deidentified the snags. I'm not aware of the usual procedures on TAP logbooks, but it looks familiar knowing they use a multiple release system.
Tomorrow hopefully I will be able to talk to a TAP lame to have him explain how those snags developped, and let you all know. I think they are not allowed by the union to comment on this, but I'm not in their union (surprise).
Unless I have missed some posts, you still didn't answer SC's questions? Yes or no? Nor for that matter, any of the doubts I've put on the forum. "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!"("how can you tell it wouldn't develop that way"), just to mention one, and suppose that was an outflow control valve going open in cruise on the next flight. It may well start like that and all of the sudden, or on the next flight, go fully open in cruise!!! I don't see from yours and others parts, any interest in evaluating what went wrong, if it did, you have just so far question the messenger's motivations more than trying to know the facts.
I can admit some personnal opinion on SC's comments after the news pasted, but that is hardly the issue.
I don't understand where is the doubt in SC's question "yes or no".
All other quotes refer to SC's belief in the PR, he is in his right, yes?
The same as you having your opinion, to which you are entitled.
Issue:
1 - Did it happen? For some time everyone was worried about political moves and questioned the proofs that weren't there yet.
2 - After the so called proofs were published, some started implying it was
photoshopped.
3 - Never have I seen in this forum a genuine will of trying to get to the bottom of the issue (engineers apart), and what could be done to prevent whatever went wrong FROM EITHER SIDE.
4 - No remarks saying otherwise were made concerning the cut and paste of the LAW, on post #127
5 - Have you ever wonder why didn't TAP denied the snags yet?
6 - Im not really interested on who did what, but rather what led the pilots to act the way they did, assuming the snags weren't photoshopped. Besides, all the proofs required by you pilots were in time supplied, but you haven't yet presented any proofs otherwise.
7 - From my understanding of the issue, if proven true by the following investigation, one can loose their permit to fly, don't know for how many years.
8 - For me, it's like an accident and should be looked from the safety side asking "what can be done so it won't happen again" rather than "who can we kill". This does not mean that responsabilities should not be taken.
9 - I speak with the captains almost every week or so, and they usually admite they can go wrong, but try not to, and always look for safety sides on every occasion. I don't understand why this is not happening here, maybe because they have an image to defend? Well, so do others.
10 - I have seen futile discussions (perhaps from me also) in this forum that only led us apart from the real issue here.
11 - I will restraint myself from writting anymore, unless I have new data.
Please do ALL accept my best regards and a happy new year to all
Regards
Last edited by jmig29; 9th Jan 2009 at 20:02. Reason: correction
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@locblew, yes I probably am responsible for the Helios slip. I allowed myself to be sidetracked and so grabbed the nearest comment I could find which happened to be the AEI press release prior to this one. It is interesting reading.
EU unfit to regulate
Well I think jmig gave a good example highlighting the difference between the theory and the practice. You may well operate these systems but you do not understand every fault consequence or worst case scenario of you taking technical decisions. Therefore you are in no position to comment. The law supports my view on this as mentioned in post 127.
Who has ownership of the term safety and what it means. Laws were broken thats clear but who can state categorically that safety wasn't at risk. I don't think anyone can because checks were performed by unqualified persons so the risk factor became uncontrolled rather than controlled. That alone means safety was at risk.
Again the facts do not support this comment. Jmig has hit the nail onthe head with his observation that nobody is interested in dealing with the real issue, why do pilots take such risks?
The AEI press release page shows quite clearly that this subject has been out there for some time and there have been previous threads on exactly this subject here on pprune.
As I mentioned very early on my dealings with them have been on this very subject but with a different airline. From my conversations I have obviously formed my own opinion of what was going to happen and that this practice is widespread and yes I would have preferred a different way of doing things.
However not having their experience in such matters and after witnessing events and comments here I am coming round to the idea that perhaps they were right and the only way to deal with this subject once and for all is to perform one's washing in public.
EU unfit to regulate
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 just have to say passenger safety was never at risk.
Again, the timing for this press release says it all. POLITICS!!!
The AEI press release page shows quite clearly that this subject has been out there for some time and there have been previous threads on exactly this subject here on pprune.
As I mentioned very early on my dealings with them have been on this very subject but with a different airline. From my conversations I have obviously formed my own opinion of what was going to happen and that this practice is widespread and yes I would have preferred a different way of doing things.
However not having their experience in such matters and after witnessing events and comments here I am coming round to the idea that perhaps they were right and the only way to deal with this subject once and for all is to perform one's washing in public.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's (nearly) Saturday night. Time methinks to leave the handbags on the dance floor and go off and order a drink (or a life ) 
Think this one is best left in the hands of a solicitor, then if someone actually wants to make accusations, they can be given to the appropriate authorities, and if required a case will be heard. In terms of mutual understanding it's just going round in circles. Perhaps the 3 or 4 who appear to want to have the last word could just settle it by PM.
Think this one is best left in the hands of a solicitor, then if someone actually wants to make accusations, they can be given to the appropriate authorities, and if required a case will be heard. In terms of mutual understanding it's just going round in circles. Perhaps the 3 or 4 who appear to want to have the last word could just settle it by PM.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gone Flying...
Age: 63
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Concerns and others...
Safety Concerns:
SC, it looks to me that you do not know what Safety is all about. You’re like those who think that aviation would be much safer if all aircraft were finally grounded!
Let’s see those “proofs” one by one:
First case: Slip Defect (assuming not photoshoped) This was an INFO to MAINTENANCE (as you may read at the very end of the slip) and was in reference to a HIL. Its intention was to keep maintenance informed for statistical and to keep track of aircraft behavior. Even if PIC decided to clear it from the TL, vibrations were under minimum ECAM advisory and were not a safety issue:
According to A320 FCOM 3.2.70 HIGH ENGINE VIBRATION: The VIB advisory on ECAM (N1 >= 6 units, N2 >= 4.3 units) is mainly a guideline to induce the crew to monitor engine parameters more closely.
VIB detection alone does not require engine shut down.
It is therefore Pilot’s decision to report it or not, and was certainly NOT a Safety or a NO-GO Issue as AEI and Safety Concerns wants us to believe.
Second case: Slip Defect (crossed and signed by the PIC) This Slip has only information for troubleshooting (PACK #1 ALWAYS IN HIGH) and was cancelled as per OM Part-A 8.1.11 aproved by the Portuguese Authotity - INAC. I personally see no Safety problems to have a Pack always in the high mode and there is no danger for the pax to have a much cleaner and recycled air in the cabin…
Third case: Slip no Sign Off – This aircraft just came from an A5.5 inspection (that includes a T1 inspection) The PIC wrote in the field T1, in step of field T by mistake, once inspection T1 was already done on A5.5. He didn’t sign it, but identified himself. It’s the same identification of the same person who signed Captain Acceptance. I really don’t think this is a dramatic mistake. It’s called non-conformity. These kind of mistakes happen by hundreds, daily, in the aviation industry. It’s not a crime and the aircraft was not in danger.
Fourth case: Slip no ETOPS – In this case the Flight Crew didn’t sign up the inspection (although they have done it). It is a non-conformity and doesn’t have the importance (safety concern) as some want to attribute it, once the inspection was done and the Captain signed the acceptance of the aircraft. The Flight Crew has the skill and the required instruction/formation to do ETOPS transit inspections.
I'm sure all aviators will understand that the real crime here is the intentional desire of AEI and its followers to bring prejudice to TAP and to our fellow pilots due to a political agenda. The real crime here is to put their names in the open without a single thought for their right for privacy and for the opportunity to defend their good name.
The real crime here is to use private information and attack without modesty and to think that "it doesn't matter the process, once you reach your objective".
To this I call: industrial terrorism!
Fly Safe!
“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.”
Let’s see those “proofs” one by one:
First case: Slip Defect (assuming not photoshoped) This was an INFO to MAINTENANCE (as you may read at the very end of the slip) and was in reference to a HIL. Its intention was to keep maintenance informed for statistical and to keep track of aircraft behavior. Even if PIC decided to clear it from the TL, vibrations were under minimum ECAM advisory and were not a safety issue:
According to A320 FCOM 3.2.70 HIGH ENGINE VIBRATION: The VIB advisory on ECAM (N1 >= 6 units, N2 >= 4.3 units) is mainly a guideline to induce the crew to monitor engine parameters more closely.
VIB detection alone does not require engine shut down.
It is therefore Pilot’s decision to report it or not, and was certainly NOT a Safety or a NO-GO Issue as AEI and Safety Concerns wants us to believe.
Second case: Slip Defect (crossed and signed by the PIC) This Slip has only information for troubleshooting (PACK #1 ALWAYS IN HIGH) and was cancelled as per OM Part-A 8.1.11 aproved by the Portuguese Authotity - INAC. I personally see no Safety problems to have a Pack always in the high mode and there is no danger for the pax to have a much cleaner and recycled air in the cabin…
Third case: Slip no Sign Off – This aircraft just came from an A5.5 inspection (that includes a T1 inspection) The PIC wrote in the field T1, in step of field T by mistake, once inspection T1 was already done on A5.5. He didn’t sign it, but identified himself. It’s the same identification of the same person who signed Captain Acceptance. I really don’t think this is a dramatic mistake. It’s called non-conformity. These kind of mistakes happen by hundreds, daily, in the aviation industry. It’s not a crime and the aircraft was not in danger.
Fourth case: Slip no ETOPS – In this case the Flight Crew didn’t sign up the inspection (although they have done it). It is a non-conformity and doesn’t have the importance (safety concern) as some want to attribute it, once the inspection was done and the Captain signed the acceptance of the aircraft. The Flight Crew has the skill and the required instruction/formation to do ETOPS transit inspections.
I'm sure all aviators will understand that the real crime here is the intentional desire of AEI and its followers to bring prejudice to TAP and to our fellow pilots due to a political agenda. The real crime here is to put their names in the open without a single thought for their right for privacy and for the opportunity to defend their good name.
The real crime here is to use private information and attack without modesty and to think that "it doesn't matter the process, once you reach your objective".
To this I call: industrial terrorism!
Fly Safe!
Last edited by aguadalte; 10th Jan 2009 at 17:26.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aguadalte if your information is correct I would agree completely with your post.
I only have one question on the first case. You comments come across as very persuasive (insider knowledge) yet you say if not photoshoped. If you are so sure about this evidence then "photoshoped" wouldn't matter at all from a technical perspective only a fraudulent one.
I only have one question on the first case. You comments come across as very persuasive (insider knowledge) yet you say if not photoshoped. If you are so sure about this evidence then "photoshoped" wouldn't matter at all from a technical perspective only a fraudulent one.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gone Flying...
Age: 63
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aguadalte if your information is correct I would agree completely with your post.
I only have one question on the first case. You comments come across as very persuasive (insider knowledge) yet you say if not photoshoped. If you are so sure about this evidence then "photoshoped" wouldn't matter at all from a technical perspective only a fraudulent one.
I only have one question on the first case. You comments come across as very persuasive (insider knowledge) yet you say if not photoshoped. If you are so sure about this evidence then "photoshoped" wouldn't matter at all from a technical perspective only a fraudulent one.
I believe our pilots didn't commit any misbehavior. And, as I said before, no accusation should be made without proof, therefore I'm not accusing anyone of photoshoping it also, (although AEI has used speculative and inconsistent "proof"). That's a rule of rightness social behavior, that should have worked for both sides, and I don't intend to brake it.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Innerspace
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a rule of rightness social behavior, that should have worked for both sides, and I don't intend to brake it.
May it rest in peace until a solid way of investigation took place.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: PORTUGAL
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear friends,
I have been away for some days, taking care of my life, enjoying myself and friends and just trying to get the most out of life. It has been some really good moments. Now coming back to the real world, one where hypocrisies are of current use… Some of you are so annoying… God…
Now referring to some things that I need to respond.
Did I ever make any analogy about the Commercial Transport and Military Flying? I am pretty aware (being a PIC and most of my times a commander of detachments) that there is no comparison. I know that me and the folks above me have to, some times, make decisions that are in fact risk management. That is what the militaries are supposed to do – take risks (life threatening some of them) to get the job done. No complaints from me, it was a choice I made and of what I am proud. Fare paying persons should have there risks taken to a minimum. No point on that.
How can you be so sure that anyone has not kept its part of the deal? That has been my point from the beginning. No one has yet made any proof about that. Even the slips that AEI has placed on the internet are far from being proof of anything…
Now about the things jmig29 says…
Again I shall say it. You were not talking truth. You said (explicitly) that the only thing pilots in a Portuguese forum where concerned about was about the legality of posting those slips on the net. No true, say I! There where, in fact, some posters talking about that, but none has identified himself as a pilot – and I know that none is. They where only conscientious Portuguese citizen.
The considerations about the company image were far from being philosophical as you say… But again that is only my point of view. Once again I say, my opinion is that this discussion should only take place if the facts are proven. Before that, if some courageous lame thinks that “Passenger safety is compromised at TAP Portugal” he should follow the correct paths. I will always stand for a world where this is the way to do things. And that was always my only point. I do not have the technical knowledge to evaluate to safety issues on those slips, even if they where true, and I don’t think that the slips them self were proof of any safety rule being broken.
Jmig29, as a pilot and instructor and examiner (both theory and practice, both in the military and the civil) I believe I have some lights about how human factors play their part in aviation. Thank you for the reminder anyway.
No one tried to kill the messenger. What I have seen here is that everyone is trying to say that no proofs have been made whatsoever.
Can you spot the hypocrisy of your last two phrases? You say one thing and exact opposite on two consequent sentences.
Oh you did. In fact that was one of your best sentences on the entire thread
Couldn’t agree more!
Now here is some piece of advise! 
Happy New Year to you all!
Cheers.
C212-100
I have been away for some days, taking care of my life, enjoying myself and friends and just trying to get the most out of life. It has been some really good moments. Now coming back to the real world, one where hypocrisies are of current use… Some of you are so annoying… God…
Now referring to some things that I need to respond.
Originally Posted by Safety Concerns
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.
Originally Posted by Safety Concerns
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.
Now about the things jmig29 says…
Originally Posted by jmig29
Mr. C212-100, let me explain again, maybe I did not make myself clear:
The portuguese forum - Linha da Frente , 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 portuguese forum - Linha da Frente , 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.
Originally Posted by jmig29
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.
Originally Posted by jmig29
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.
No one tried to kill the messenger. What I have seen here is that everyone is trying to say that no proofs have been made whatsoever.
Originally Posted by jmig29
"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.
Originally Posted by jmig29
I don't work (unfortunatly) at TAP, neither am I going to tell you which airline do I work for, for obvious reasons.
[…]
I hope I made myself clear this time.
[…]
I hope I made myself clear this time.
Originally Posted by "FourGreenNoRed”
May it rest in peace until a solid way of investigation took place.
Originally Posted by "captplaystation”
It's (nearly) Saturday night. Time methinks to leave the handbags on the dance floor and go off and order a drink (or a life )
Happy New Year to you all!
Cheers.
C212-100
Ok, so who is the safest to fly to/from Portugal with?
Looking to book boss on a flight to LPPT/LPMT from North of UK if possible.....you've all confused me now.....is there a relevant Passenger Safety record somewhere?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Portugal
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello AGUADALTE, you have a private message:
I was talking to my colleagues at TAP and they want to send you the message you will be receiving by PM. Their coments are on italic.
Fly safe!
I was talking to my colleagues at TAP and they want to send you the message you will be receiving by PM. Their coments are on italic.
Fly safe!
Last edited by jmig29; 16th Feb 2009 at 23:26. Reason: correction
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been informed by pm that this story isn't yet finished.
Perhaps some of those strongly defending the non reporting of defects may wish to comment. I suspect however that silence will be the order of the day.
Perhaps some of those strongly defending the non reporting of defects may wish to comment. I suspect however that silence will be the order of the day.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think this one is best left in the hands of a solicitor, then if someone actually wants to make accusations, they can be given to the appropriate authorities, and if required a case will be heard.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed I did ,& IF it happened ,& IF it goes to court, & IF it's proven to be well founded ,fair nuff . . . . . . however IF none of the above applies &/or is not proven I think the phrase here is "done to death". . . . . . let the truth be out. 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Portugal
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My friend at TAP tells me the portuguese NAA (INAC) has issued a communication stating as "tottaly unacceptable" 
the events occured regarding the subject of this forum news (e.g. crossed snags, tippex corrected snags, inspections performed by non authoryzed persons and so on). I will try to retrieve the doc's number (can be a bit difficult).
Another internal communication was issued last October (dunno its number) within that Part-145 stating that that the omission of maint records or the non recording of those snags in the LB, are unacceptable behaviours. Looks like this one was due to not recording malfunctions after the A/C performed "ramp returns" twice due to flaps problems, at SSA.
Will give more info when available
the events occured regarding the subject of this forum news (e.g. crossed snags, tippex corrected snags, inspections performed by non authoryzed persons and so on). I will try to retrieve the doc's number (can be a bit difficult).Another internal communication was issued last October (dunno its number) within that Part-145 stating that that the omission of maint records or the non recording of those snags in the LB, are unacceptable behaviours. Looks like this one was due to not recording malfunctions after the A/C performed "ramp returns" twice due to flaps problems, at SSA.
Will give more info when available
Last edited by jmig29; 16th Apr 2009 at 11:00. Reason: correction
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anybody prepared to post the Portuguese NAA letter condemning the confirmed events which started this thread but which most of you also tried to deny?
But looking on the AEI website it seems that the usual retribution machine is running up to speed.
It is very disappointing to witness how TAP pilots hung their maintenance colleagues out to dry and lowered standards whilst doing it. One TAP Pilot actually convinced me that AEI had got it all wrong and I apologised to him for starting this thread. As he must have known for sometime that AEI were 100% correct I think the lack of a reply speaks volumes about the current situation within TAP.
But looking on the AEI website it seems that the usual retribution machine is running up to speed.
However we have now received further worrying information which appears to suggest that TAP management is actively pursuing a policy of retribution against individuals believed to have been involved in the reporting of the acknowledged safety lapses
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 63
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here are the sourse i think
www.airengineers.org/docs/internal/pr006_2008_passenger_safety_compromised.pdf -
www.airengineers.org/docs/internal/pr006_2008_passenger_safety_compromised.pdf -