Incident at Heathrow
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK/Far East
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Refocus on 'walkaround'/preflight post AAIB intertim
PLS refocus here as this (after AAIB interim) is about the 'walkaround'.
As commander/PIC, I was trained aka my early trainee days by a very grey-haired chappie who took great 'glee' in 'sabotaging' certain pre-flight 'things' to see how vigilant I was.
I felt a bit like 'Inspector Clouseau' in a Peter Sellars movie sometimes....wondering what 'Cato' had been up to...
That eventually transposed in my long airline career into the following fundamentals as follows;
1) If I was taking out a directly inbound flight after turnaround with no defects, I always did the walkaround myself...irrespective of skills of my F/O man/woman...unless I could remember specifically doing a full walkaround with them (and with intensity/focus) before.
2) If I was taking out a flight that had some ground time before departure and I was in the remotest unsure about my co-pilot (as, in not having done a walkaround/preflight with me before)...I insisted that he/she do the preflight walkaround with me. I would then make my own decision and discuss after in the FD. This often was a sharing to the F/O....however...in all bias....it was feedback based and I claim a few minor but significant misses myself. Fuel leaks were missed, Hyd fluid 'misses', Landing light whole sides missing (aka bulbs smashed/inop...kinda easy to do with boarding steps sometimes hiding wing-root obscuring lights there. Any ambiguous answers to the walkaround meant me or ground engineer asked to inspect. Despite any delay incurred.
Any 'newbie' got a 'bond'...de facto walkaround.
3) Any aircraft having had maintenance overnight or longer had the engineers log/worksheets poured over by me. Perhaps sad to say but my career will show that I had various serious snags coming out of engineering /maintenance checks....that is the plain truth and in my long experience. Any a/c coming from the various degrees of maintenance for me to operate quite often did not leave on time as I would find significant 'snags' (or would be found by my known/trusted F/O).
No particular 'dissing' with engineering...rather, as I saw it engineers fix what they're told to. My job is to double-check that what it says has been done.
So Golden rule of a long no-incident/accident career was the paramount first check(s) as above.
Second backup after walkaround...I asked :[A]Is the aircraft 'flyable'Will any deferred defects stop/hinder me to where I'm flying via/to to get their safely?(WX/Airport/ATC issues etc and et al.,).
So, data calculations [B]beginfrom there with fuel and pax/cargo load.
Never ever will be any rush or time-slot factors. Company delivers us to aircraft to do our checks. Those checks save lives, full stop. They end when all has been done exactly to the book...no more...no less.
No lazy practices...no reliance on somebody you do not trust in all the human chain. As Commander/PIC...that 'trust' was only ever delegated to someone I had personally shown how to do a 'proper' walkaround/preflight external checks. After pre-flight confirmation, I asked pertinent questions to those I trusted. To make extra-sure, I often was at the a/c while the F/O was checking wx and gathering the paperwork. So, I used to do a good pre-flight before they got there and noted any discrepancies. (A bit like my early training-as above). If the F/O's walkabout (used to be F/E) didn't match mine...then we'd have a CRM chat and then go look at the issue.
example:
9 times out of 10 any discrepancy was possibly minor like 2 landing light bulbs out on one wing....however....on a NBO-LHR sector, for example, the best lighting focussed 'ON' the runway was IMPO the safest....as various 'beasts' are well known to sit (to get warmth) on the tarmac. For those that knew me on the 747-1 and 2 hundreds takeoff full loads were 'critical' on some days. Every beam of light was crucial....as any 'beasts' eyes shone back clearly. So, full takeoff lighting usually helped to see 'eye twinkles' and get the NBO runway team to go scare them off....as they were very likely to just run in any direction....incl. right 'at' an aircraft on takeoff.
I can only hope that the above is helpful to any current aviators. I haven't saved the world in my flying career....I just possibly may have added a few mins of delay (not a minute of which I regret) to make sure that the above had been completed properly....whatever it took....good weather or bad...made no difference.
The proper pre-flight cannot be circumvented and is always fun (come hail/snow/whatever) as it makes sure...as far as humanly possible...that all that is needed to get the aircraft safely airborne is in place! Get 'intimate' with your aircraft and know its faults and foibles. If in an iota of doubt....get it checked out...re-check in any hindrance of doubt.
That is what a 40-year+ flying career is all about and despite what anyone says...whatever their name badge says.....the PIC/Captain is responsible for the safe conduct of any flight. No go anywhere if you aren't satisfied. EVER!
The 'pre-flight' stage is right up until decision to take-off. Icing etc...long taxis can denigrate safe flight possibilities, too.
As commander/PIC, I was trained aka my early trainee days by a very grey-haired chappie who took great 'glee' in 'sabotaging' certain pre-flight 'things' to see how vigilant I was.
I felt a bit like 'Inspector Clouseau' in a Peter Sellars movie sometimes....wondering what 'Cato' had been up to...
That eventually transposed in my long airline career into the following fundamentals as follows;
1) If I was taking out a directly inbound flight after turnaround with no defects, I always did the walkaround myself...irrespective of skills of my F/O man/woman...unless I could remember specifically doing a full walkaround with them (and with intensity/focus) before.
2) If I was taking out a flight that had some ground time before departure and I was in the remotest unsure about my co-pilot (as, in not having done a walkaround/preflight with me before)...I insisted that he/she do the preflight walkaround with me. I would then make my own decision and discuss after in the FD. This often was a sharing to the F/O....however...in all bias....it was feedback based and I claim a few minor but significant misses myself. Fuel leaks were missed, Hyd fluid 'misses', Landing light whole sides missing (aka bulbs smashed/inop...kinda easy to do with boarding steps sometimes hiding wing-root obscuring lights there. Any ambiguous answers to the walkaround meant me or ground engineer asked to inspect. Despite any delay incurred.
Any 'newbie' got a 'bond'...de facto walkaround.
3) Any aircraft having had maintenance overnight or longer had the engineers log/worksheets poured over by me. Perhaps sad to say but my career will show that I had various serious snags coming out of engineering /maintenance checks....that is the plain truth and in my long experience. Any a/c coming from the various degrees of maintenance for me to operate quite often did not leave on time as I would find significant 'snags' (or would be found by my known/trusted F/O).
No particular 'dissing' with engineering...rather, as I saw it engineers fix what they're told to. My job is to double-check that what it says has been done.
So Golden rule of a long no-incident/accident career was the paramount first check(s) as above.
Second backup after walkaround...I asked :[A]Is the aircraft 'flyable'Will any deferred defects stop/hinder me to where I'm flying via/to to get their safely?(WX/Airport/ATC issues etc and et al.,).
So, data calculations [B]beginfrom there with fuel and pax/cargo load.
Never ever will be any rush or time-slot factors. Company delivers us to aircraft to do our checks. Those checks save lives, full stop. They end when all has been done exactly to the book...no more...no less.
No lazy practices...no reliance on somebody you do not trust in all the human chain. As Commander/PIC...that 'trust' was only ever delegated to someone I had personally shown how to do a 'proper' walkaround/preflight external checks. After pre-flight confirmation, I asked pertinent questions to those I trusted. To make extra-sure, I often was at the a/c while the F/O was checking wx and gathering the paperwork. So, I used to do a good pre-flight before they got there and noted any discrepancies. (A bit like my early training-as above). If the F/O's walkabout (used to be F/E) didn't match mine...then we'd have a CRM chat and then go look at the issue.
example:
9 times out of 10 any discrepancy was possibly minor like 2 landing light bulbs out on one wing....however....on a NBO-LHR sector, for example, the best lighting focussed 'ON' the runway was IMPO the safest....as various 'beasts' are well known to sit (to get warmth) on the tarmac. For those that knew me on the 747-1 and 2 hundreds takeoff full loads were 'critical' on some days. Every beam of light was crucial....as any 'beasts' eyes shone back clearly. So, full takeoff lighting usually helped to see 'eye twinkles' and get the NBO runway team to go scare them off....as they were very likely to just run in any direction....incl. right 'at' an aircraft on takeoff.
I can only hope that the above is helpful to any current aviators. I haven't saved the world in my flying career....I just possibly may have added a few mins of delay (not a minute of which I regret) to make sure that the above had been completed properly....whatever it took....good weather or bad...made no difference.
The proper pre-flight cannot be circumvented and is always fun (come hail/snow/whatever) as it makes sure...as far as humanly possible...that all that is needed to get the aircraft safely airborne is in place! Get 'intimate' with your aircraft and know its faults and foibles. If in an iota of doubt....get it checked out...re-check in any hindrance of doubt.
That is what a 40-year+ flying career is all about and despite what anyone says...whatever their name badge says.....the PIC/Captain is responsible for the safe conduct of any flight. No go anywhere if you aren't satisfied. EVER!
The 'pre-flight' stage is right up until decision to take-off. Icing etc...long taxis can denigrate safe flight possibilities, too.
A couple of years ago a company aircraft suffered substantial damage following a cowling being left open during a ground run. This resulted in the aircraft being off line for over a month.
The pilot who started the engine and the engineers present were held to blame. There were human factors issues involved in why the engineers did not close or notice the cowling open and it was a large cowling clearly visible as open. The pilot was sat in the cockpit and unable to see the cowling but as commander had a resposibility.
What was interesting was that the manufacturer had identified this potential hazard and a modification which involved a warning light in the cockpit had been developed.
This clearly would have indicated to the pilot that an unsafe condition existed.
I questioned why the mod had not been embodied. The answer was that the risk of spurious indications outweighed the benefit. One wonders if half a million pounds later that cost /risk analysis was still valid.
At least I was able to give copies of the modification to the staff involved which enabled them to demonstrate that the company also had to take a share of the blame.
In reality situations such as this where maintenance is ongoing are non standard and carry a higher risk than a normal operation. We all need to be vigilant and sometimes that second look around can be the saving.
I was employed on hangar maintenance with the aircraft leaving the hangar around 5 am. I made a habit of walking round the aircraft as I went out of the door on my way home after all maintenance was complete and certified. Panels found open, ground lock still fitted, empty hydraulic oil can in the wheel well, reel of locking wire in the wheel well. Worth that extra couple of minutes to save the embarrasment of the crew pointing out the above.
The pilot who started the engine and the engineers present were held to blame. There were human factors issues involved in why the engineers did not close or notice the cowling open and it was a large cowling clearly visible as open. The pilot was sat in the cockpit and unable to see the cowling but as commander had a resposibility.
What was interesting was that the manufacturer had identified this potential hazard and a modification which involved a warning light in the cockpit had been developed.
This clearly would have indicated to the pilot that an unsafe condition existed.
I questioned why the mod had not been embodied. The answer was that the risk of spurious indications outweighed the benefit. One wonders if half a million pounds later that cost /risk analysis was still valid.
At least I was able to give copies of the modification to the staff involved which enabled them to demonstrate that the company also had to take a share of the blame.
In reality situations such as this where maintenance is ongoing are non standard and carry a higher risk than a normal operation. We all need to be vigilant and sometimes that second look around can be the saving.
I was employed on hangar maintenance with the aircraft leaving the hangar around 5 am. I made a habit of walking round the aircraft as I went out of the door on my way home after all maintenance was complete and certified. Panels found open, ground lock still fitted, empty hydraulic oil can in the wheel well, reel of locking wire in the wheel well. Worth that extra couple of minutes to save the embarrasment of the crew pointing out the above.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ESSL
Age: 79
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Super VC-10 said
Why do accountants think it is their job to decide how money is spent.
The answer, in the case of BA, is when the lunatics started running the Asylum. The most important department became not Ops but the Treasury AKA finance or accounts. The bean counters nowadays think that if they say multitasking and cost cutting will not impinge on safety then the peasants flying and maintaining those long pointy things that the SLF pay the accountants loadsofmoney to sit in, will just abide by their rules.
When I started in the business, airlines were run by people who had been at the sharp end and could talk to crew and engineers in the same language. The guys who had cut their teeth flying by the seat of their pants in the Berlin airlift. The new breed of bean counters can just about find their assigned seats.
Why do accountants think it is their job to decide how money is spent.
The answer, in the case of BA, is when the lunatics started running the Asylum. The most important department became not Ops but the Treasury AKA finance or accounts. The bean counters nowadays think that if they say multitasking and cost cutting will not impinge on safety then the peasants flying and maintaining those long pointy things that the SLF pay the accountants loadsofmoney to sit in, will just abide by their rules.
When I started in the business, airlines were run by people who had been at the sharp end and could talk to crew and engineers in the same language. The guys who had cut their teeth flying by the seat of their pants in the Berlin airlift. The new breed of bean counters can just about find their assigned seats.
Last edited by FlightCosting; 1st Jun 2013 at 09:07.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TIME/MANAGEMENT PRESSURES-CHECKED SATIS?
Bond'll Do, I totally agree with such a meticulous attitude towards the inspection by flight crew.
However, I still think that in 2013 with the beancounters insisting on 25 minute T/Rs, this sort of careful preparation is being discouraged by THEM, the faceless ones who are stretching and sweating the assets so much.
Until they are hung out to dry for fostering an unsafe working environment, despite the "CHIRP" and others warnings, we are all at serious risk of similar accidents/incidents.
It might even be CHEAPER to change their operating philosophy than to expect Mr Toulouse Hi-Teq to redesign the cowlings and we all know that money talks.......................?
However, as all Corporations have been classified as psychotic in their behaviour if analysed as if they were human, I don't hold any hope that such a behaviour change will happen til more metal is bent and blood spilt.
However, I still think that in 2013 with the beancounters insisting on 25 minute T/Rs, this sort of careful preparation is being discouraged by THEM, the faceless ones who are stretching and sweating the assets so much.
Until they are hung out to dry for fostering an unsafe working environment, despite the "CHIRP" and others warnings, we are all at serious risk of similar accidents/incidents.
It might even be CHEAPER to change their operating philosophy than to expect Mr Toulouse Hi-Teq to redesign the cowlings and we all know that money talks.......................?
However, as all Corporations have been classified as psychotic in their behaviour if analysed as if they were human, I don't hold any hope that such a behaviour change will happen til more metal is bent and blood spilt.
Last edited by BARKINGMAD; 1st Jun 2013 at 09:11.
Heathrow Harry: that is not so. The risk is small (actually vanishingly small) but it is there. There have been ignitions on retail forecourts. Commercially available Mobile phones are not intrinsically safe and non "Ex" devices are banned in refineries and terminal process areas.
Last edited by 212man; 1st Jun 2013 at 09:18. Reason: Noticed Pinkman's credentials...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dan Winterland
Quote PAXboy ''This is a dumb question from a PAX.
Attach one of those long orange "Remove before flight"tags to the latch itself? It would trail on the ground and, if the a/c got to the stand, blow clearly in the wind.''
Like this?
Not such a dumb idea. This is the Airbus modification for IAE engines introduced last year. It's fitted to the lated A320 series and it holds the doors open slightly to make it obvious they aren't latched and the red flag dangles out of the cowling as well. Of course, it requires the engineer to engage and stow the pin the flag is attached to, but it's a major improvement
Attach one of those long orange "Remove before flight"tags to the latch itself? It would trail on the ground and, if the a/c got to the stand, blow clearly in the wind.''
Like this?
Not such a dumb idea. This is the Airbus modification for IAE engines introduced last year. It's fitted to the lated A320 series and it holds the doors open slightly to make it obvious they aren't latched and the red flag dangles out of the cowling as well. Of course, it requires the engineer to engage and stow the pin the flag is attached to, but it's a major improvement
Regardless of this , it doesn't stop the cowls being left unlatched. The mechanic can still remove the pin and close the cowls without latching them.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brighton
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ 1979Engineer
You know who you are...
I wrote this back in 2006 about a certain director leaving.
Not much has changed has it?
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/2...ml#post2758321
Engineering has become a byword for expense and poor performance since he became Director. Too much control has been given to the accountants that have cut the wrong costs, management whose sole intention is to bully and intimidate the workforce and a total disregard for the professional recognition of Licensed Engineers within the organisation.
The recent proposal for the "Aircraft Maintenance Supervisor" is a prime example of management who either do not care and think they are beyond the realms of the usual processes of negotiating - probably both.
As many people here will probably be familiar with the AAIB reports regarding missing bits of airplanes and the recommendations there in, one of the main shortfalls highlighted was the lack of supervision about the aircraft under maintenance. Combined with the recent events at Glasgow, where a manager "lent" his approval stamp to an unqualified Technician, there is now a sudden urgency to introduce this supervisory grade, especially since BA had told the AAIB last autumn that it had acted on these recommendations.
Firstly, BA just tells its existing LAEs (Licensed Aircraft Engineers) of which there is around 500, "we want you to all be Supervisors, and here is your new powers". Rightly so, the question was asked "where's the money?" for the new responsibilities. There is none - so the proposal stalls in a tirade of negative feedback.
It goes quiet for a few weeks when management comes up with the next proposal. This time the Supervisor grade is now deemed to be management itself. All LAEs can apply for it and anyone else who meets the criteria. Very good, BUT there is a huge sting in the tail and issues which compromise the integrity and independence of the Certifying Engineer.
The LAEs which neither wish to become management or fail in their application will have an immediate pay cut of £3000. That’s going to do wonders for morale and productivity then - especially over the summer schedule.
Most worrying of all however is the conditions of TMG (Management Grade) in relation to Certifying Engineers and the pressures which surely will be put upon them, since a proportion of their salary(bonuses and pay rises) will be performance related. Forgive me, BUT can you see a conflict of interests here? I’m sure the AAIB will be impressed by this after the next incident report.
I've seen many young, good licensed engineers, leave BA as a direct result of the companies disdain for this group of individuals. These are exactly the people BA should be retaining for the future. I fear however it isn't going to get much better, but Big Mac leaving can only be good news.
You know who you are...
I wrote this back in 2006 about a certain director leaving.
Not much has changed has it?
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/2...ml#post2758321
Engineering has become a byword for expense and poor performance since he became Director. Too much control has been given to the accountants that have cut the wrong costs, management whose sole intention is to bully and intimidate the workforce and a total disregard for the professional recognition of Licensed Engineers within the organisation.
The recent proposal for the "Aircraft Maintenance Supervisor" is a prime example of management who either do not care and think they are beyond the realms of the usual processes of negotiating - probably both.
As many people here will probably be familiar with the AAIB reports regarding missing bits of airplanes and the recommendations there in, one of the main shortfalls highlighted was the lack of supervision about the aircraft under maintenance. Combined with the recent events at Glasgow, where a manager "lent" his approval stamp to an unqualified Technician, there is now a sudden urgency to introduce this supervisory grade, especially since BA had told the AAIB last autumn that it had acted on these recommendations.
Firstly, BA just tells its existing LAEs (Licensed Aircraft Engineers) of which there is around 500, "we want you to all be Supervisors, and here is your new powers". Rightly so, the question was asked "where's the money?" for the new responsibilities. There is none - so the proposal stalls in a tirade of negative feedback.
It goes quiet for a few weeks when management comes up with the next proposal. This time the Supervisor grade is now deemed to be management itself. All LAEs can apply for it and anyone else who meets the criteria. Very good, BUT there is a huge sting in the tail and issues which compromise the integrity and independence of the Certifying Engineer.
The LAEs which neither wish to become management or fail in their application will have an immediate pay cut of £3000. That’s going to do wonders for morale and productivity then - especially over the summer schedule.
Most worrying of all however is the conditions of TMG (Management Grade) in relation to Certifying Engineers and the pressures which surely will be put upon them, since a proportion of their salary(bonuses and pay rises) will be performance related. Forgive me, BUT can you see a conflict of interests here? I’m sure the AAIB will be impressed by this after the next incident report.
I've seen many young, good licensed engineers, leave BA as a direct result of the companies disdain for this group of individuals. These are exactly the people BA should be retaining for the future. I fear however it isn't going to get much better, but Big Mac leaving can only be good news.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Multi Eng Maint, worth a read me thinks.
AERO : Controlling Nuisance Moisture
Just click on second line down when on the link, Multi Eng Maint.
AERO : Controlling Nuisance Moisture
Just click on second line down when on the link, Multi Eng Maint.
Last edited by Joetom; 1st Jun 2013 at 09:58. Reason: More info...
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: pluto
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No lazy practices...no reliance on somebody you do not trust in all the human chain. As Commander/PIC...that 'trust' was only ever delegated to someone I had personally shown how to do a 'proper' walkaround/preflight external checks. After pre-flight confirmation, I asked pertinent questions to those I trusted. To make extra-sure, I often was at the a/c while the F/O was checking wx and gathering the paperwork. So, I used to do a good pre-flight before they got there and noted any discrepancies. (A bit like my early training-as above). If the F/O's walkabout (used to be F/E) didn't match mine...then we'd have a CRM chat and then go look at the issue.
Last edited by blimey; 1st Jun 2013 at 10:52.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as an observation this was the first flight of the day. Normally I have found that this would mean the Captain flying as he would like to be the first to control the aircraft on the first flight of the day. This would mean the First Officer would do the walkaround check. The Captain signs for the aircraft on the say so of the Engineer and the exterior check done by the First Officer. These are highly reliable aircraft and the F/O may well not be as vigilant as he might be first thing in the morning. Just a thought.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Normally I have found that this would mean the Captain flying as he would like to be the first to control the aircraft on the first flight of the day. This would mean the First Officer would do the walkaround check.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<F/O may well not be as vigilant as he might be first thing in the morning>>
Let's hope you never get taken to hospital in the early hours where you might need life-saving treatment from a doctor who has been working for 24 hours.
As someone who has worked in aviation all my life I find some points on here beyond belief. If the latches cannot be checked standing up why not provide overalls for the pilot so he could lay down?
Let's hope you never get taken to hospital in the early hours where you might need life-saving treatment from a doctor who has been working for 24 hours.
As someone who has worked in aviation all my life I find some points on here beyond belief. If the latches cannot be checked standing up why not provide overalls for the pilot so he could lay down?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To use your analogy: A few years ago I had a hospital operation which required me to stay in hospital for nearly three weeks. It was obvious that medical cover was poorer at weekends with more junior staff than weekdays when more senior staff were on duty. In fact this problem is all over the news now.
The same applies to operating aircraft.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In that case I think you are implying that the Captain could do both the walk around and fly the first sector? The aircraft is not sitting on the tarmac just outside of flight planning. All the crew go together though security and passport control. The pilot flying has to do the cockpit checks and set up the FMGC for the sector. There really isn't time for him to the walk around as well while the F/O twiddles his thumbs.
Last edited by Flap 5; 1st Jun 2013 at 12:42.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilot flying has to do the cockpit checks and set up the FMGC for the sector. There really isn't time for him to the walk around as well while the F/O twiddles his thumbs.
. Are you really an ATPL/737? Edit: Do you mean FMCG?
Last edited by BOAC; 1st Jun 2013 at 12:52.