BA762 report released (cowl doors openning)
Flew in so it will fly out...
I have often sat in terminal buildings watching pilots do the walk round inspection and often thought it a complete waste of time. Heads down, avoiding the rain or looking at other things. Seemed it was just a case of being able to tick the box rather than a proper inspection. Once timed a skipper inspecting a 737, 45 seconds from start to finish. Seemed far too quick to detect problems.
Familiarity and contempt come to mind. I am not intending to be particularly critical; I have seen the same attitude to the inspection regime in many areas of aviation. Very easy to see what we expect to see rather than what is actually in front of us. I suggest that thorough inspections in most areas of life demand more attention than we give them.
Familiarity and contempt come to mind. I am not intending to be particularly critical; I have seen the same attitude to the inspection regime in many areas of aviation. Very easy to see what we expect to see rather than what is actually in front of us. I suggest that thorough inspections in most areas of life demand more attention than we give them.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,371
Received 116 Likes
on
83 Posts
" The elephant in the room is that ‘effectively’ maintenance engineer’s hours are uncontrolled. The reason is cost, EASA don’t have the balls to grasp the nettle of regulating engineer duty hours/fatigue " .
The issue of engineers working hours / fatigue is not entirely due to the points you raise, albeit I totally agree they have a distinct relevance.
Ground engineers are their own worst enemy, and always have been, in respect of working hours given the lure of, and for some, essential, overtime payments. I met many who would do as much as they could irrespective of the hours involved.
This also suits management as it's clearly considerably more cost effective to pay for overtime when required, rather than employ more engineers on a full time basis.
The issue of the walk round however is one that should be of greater concern.
We have all seen, and please, don't say it never happened, the fabled "aircrew walk round" as in " x wings / x wheels / x engines....all there, done" at some point. That's not a criticism by the way.
Ground engineers can be just as fallible at times.
Interesting though the read the comments on here as to whom the task is delegated to and, from a different era, the role of the F/E.
Certainly, from personal experience, with Qantas / SAA it was invariably the F/E who would also insist on seeing the evidence of a water drain check for example, and certainly, on one "well known Middle East airline", the F/E always did the walk round along with a G/E, such as myself.
That's not a wallow in nostalgia, but frankly, the more trained eyes that do an external inspection, the better.
The issue of engineers working hours / fatigue is not entirely due to the points you raise, albeit I totally agree they have a distinct relevance.
Ground engineers are their own worst enemy, and always have been, in respect of working hours given the lure of, and for some, essential, overtime payments. I met many who would do as much as they could irrespective of the hours involved.
This also suits management as it's clearly considerably more cost effective to pay for overtime when required, rather than employ more engineers on a full time basis.
The issue of the walk round however is one that should be of greater concern.
We have all seen, and please, don't say it never happened, the fabled "aircrew walk round" as in " x wings / x wheels / x engines....all there, done" at some point. That's not a criticism by the way.
Ground engineers can be just as fallible at times.
Interesting though the read the comments on here as to whom the task is delegated to and, from a different era, the role of the F/E.
Certainly, from personal experience, with Qantas / SAA it was invariably the F/E who would also insist on seeing the evidence of a water drain check for example, and certainly, on one "well known Middle East airline", the F/E always did the walk round along with a G/E, such as myself.
That's not a wallow in nostalgia, but frankly, the more trained eyes that do an external inspection, the better.
Agree with much of what you have to say,but essentially the lack of an effective walkround was a contributing factor rather than root cause.
Improvements in barrier defences help,but unless the roots of the issue are 'fixed' it will reoccurr and another aircraft will get airborne with an insecure fan cowl. Relying on human behaviour,in the case of the engineers & flight crew,is weak,the problem needs to be 'engineered out',as has already been aluded to.
The issue of engineers fatigue is a long standing one and i agree ,engineers can make a rod for their own back,by being OT grabbers! Unless their hours are regulated, in many companies they will continue to work excessive hours.
SMS for 145 maintenenace organisations may have an impact (if it is ever implemented) on FRM,but unless implicitly regulated fatigue will continue to have a major impact.
Improvements in barrier defences help,but unless the roots of the issue are 'fixed' it will reoccurr and another aircraft will get airborne with an insecure fan cowl. Relying on human behaviour,in the case of the engineers & flight crew,is weak,the problem needs to be 'engineered out',as has already been aluded to.
The issue of engineers fatigue is a long standing one and i agree ,engineers can make a rod for their own back,by being OT grabbers! Unless their hours are regulated, in many companies they will continue to work excessive hours.
SMS for 145 maintenenace organisations may have an impact (if it is ever implemented) on FRM,but unless implicitly regulated fatigue will continue to have a major impact.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disagree I'm afraid.
When I heard about this issue several years ago I ALWAYS got down one one knee to check on both engines on every walk round whatever the weather. I also asked my colleagues if they had checked when they got back in, and sometimes they would go back out to confirm. This is an avoidable mistake. Don't assume, don't rely on anyone else etc. etc.
When I heard about this issue several years ago I ALWAYS got down one one knee to check on both engines on every walk round whatever the weather. I also asked my colleagues if they had checked when they got back in, and sometimes they would go back out to confirm. This is an avoidable mistake. Don't assume, don't rely on anyone else etc. etc.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
walk - the purpose
I understand Heln49's perspective on the walkround but she might not be grasping the many functions being attempted
On a walkround we are checking the aircraft of course but also what progress is being made with baggage loading. where are empty carts being left. has the fuel truck gone or is it waiting for another job. is catering complete and is surplus engineering equipment from another aircraft being left behind mine. Is the area I am about to push back into safe for the aircraft and the tires. is there a big queue at the marshalling point is the normal route for take off available or is there a mix up with other aircraft or a a stuck one. on pushback can I safely start engines.how far is it to the grass behind me.
So if the pilot looks to be gazing about there is good reason
On a walkround we are checking the aircraft of course but also what progress is being made with baggage loading. where are empty carts being left. has the fuel truck gone or is it waiting for another job. is catering complete and is surplus engineering equipment from another aircraft being left behind mine. Is the area I am about to push back into safe for the aircraft and the tires. is there a big queue at the marshalling point is the normal route for take off available or is there a mix up with other aircraft or a a stuck one. on pushback can I safely start engines.how far is it to the grass behind me.
So if the pilot looks to be gazing about there is good reason
Plastic PPRuNer
If I were to design a new big widebody I'd bring back the F/E.
Screw the bean-counters and screw my extra $20 or $50.
I'd feel a lot easier and so would everybody (including maybe the insurance companies).
And I bet it would cost less than a Robot for a Pilot.
Mac
Screw the bean-counters and screw my extra $20 or $50.
I'd feel a lot easier and so would everybody (including maybe the insurance companies).
And I bet it would cost less than a Robot for a Pilot.
Mac
Engineers have always been their own worst enemy's when it comes to working hours and O/T...
Most have opted out of the European working time directive to allow virtually unlimited O/T in some cases. As previously mentioned, this totally suits employers who can run operations with a reduced number of engineers. This often puts pressure on engineers working normal rosters when for whatever reason there are not sufficient volunteers for O/T. The token measures that are currently in place regarding fatigue are really only aimed at working long continuous periods in the case of AOG's etc (and even these are based on self-assessments!)
Although this incident should be a big wake up call, nothing will seriously change! HF courses will naturally pay lip service to this report (just like the 1-11 windscreen incident before) However, I don't expect to see any serious attempt to regulate the hours of certifying engineers before I retire!
Most have opted out of the European working time directive to allow virtually unlimited O/T in some cases. As previously mentioned, this totally suits employers who can run operations with a reduced number of engineers. This often puts pressure on engineers working normal rosters when for whatever reason there are not sufficient volunteers for O/T. The token measures that are currently in place regarding fatigue are really only aimed at working long continuous periods in the case of AOG's etc (and even these are based on self-assessments!)
Although this incident should be a big wake up call, nothing will seriously change! HF courses will naturally pay lip service to this report (just like the 1-11 windscreen incident before) However, I don't expect to see any serious attempt to regulate the hours of certifying engineers before I retire!
Controversial, moi?
If I were to design a new big widebody I'd bring back the F/E.
The aircraft had been modified to accomodate him with part of the overhead panel relocated to an engineer's panel on the right of the flight deck and also a small screen of some kind (I forget what it was precisely). I stayed for landing and apart from reading the checklists he did little else.
To design an aeroplane for a flight engineer and make it meaningful would be to reduce automatic monitoring and switching, effectively creating work where previously there was none.
I have little doubt in the cowling incident a flight engineer would probably have picked up the omission but I do not think this (preventable) incident warrants bringing back the flight engineer.
Last edited by M.Mouse; 23rd Jul 2015 at 17:57. Reason: Spelling
The first batch of Ansett 767-200's were operated for a period after delivery with an F/E (more like an observer!) due to Union pressure but eventually reverted to two crew . I also agree an F/E is not something relevant to preventing this accident....
Paxing All Over The World
So, let me get this right, a Citroen or Renault hatch back has a catch on the bonnet lid so that - if it is not correctly locked closed - it will be obvious to even a layman passing by that the bonnet is open. But the Airbus does not have this?
Controversial, moi?
So, let me get this right, a Citroen or Renault hatch back has a catch on the bonnet lid so that - if it is not correctly locked closed - it will be obvious to even a layman passing by that the bonnet is open. But the Airbus does not have this?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The blasted heath
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@PAXboy
Not always:
Clio bonnet catch failure again - PistonHeads
Latches/doors and any flappy bits are a perennial problem on any sort of transport.
Not always:
Clio bonnet catch failure again - PistonHeads
Latches/doors and any flappy bits are a perennial problem on any sort of transport.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TINRIBS - sorry, but I think Helen49, and everyone else here has a good grasp of what is required. And, while interesting, most of what you are looking at when you are walking round will have changed by the time the doors are closed - so not very useful, IMHO. Information for the management of time but not for safety. The airport authorities have spent a great deal of time and money making sure your stand is suitable for your aircraft and the operations that go on around it. But, no harm in being aware as longs as it does not detract from the purpose of the walkround - making sure the aircraft is fit to go flying.
It would seem there is a consensus that the walkround is very important and that the most responsible manager around, the Captain, who signs a document to say that all is ship-shape can delegate happily as the other crew member is fully qualified and that we trust each other. We do, but the responsible manager is most aware of where the holes are (and one of these is as a result of overstretched engineering), or should always try to be, and must not forget that fact, particularly when there is a risk of holes lining up.
So, regardless of who the SOP says should do the walkround it might be prudent that the Captain do the walkround on the first flight of the day, of the duty, after any engineering work or even just when s/he feels like it. Not double-checking but exercising the right to deviate from SOP when needed. Feelings in bones are important too, which is one way humans score over robots.
And also, complacency needs to be confronted continuously. The 'office' is not an office - but can get so familiar and so warm, with superb views, that after many years it is understandable that this term is used.
The AAIB did not confront this but has, in its omission, left it to those who can and are best placed to do it, to do so. I think this is possibly another one of the holes in the cheese - and this discussion could help by encouraging analysis of other reports rather than complete acceptance.
It would seem there is a consensus that the walkround is very important and that the most responsible manager around, the Captain, who signs a document to say that all is ship-shape can delegate happily as the other crew member is fully qualified and that we trust each other. We do, but the responsible manager is most aware of where the holes are (and one of these is as a result of overstretched engineering), or should always try to be, and must not forget that fact, particularly when there is a risk of holes lining up.
So, regardless of who the SOP says should do the walkround it might be prudent that the Captain do the walkround on the first flight of the day, of the duty, after any engineering work or even just when s/he feels like it. Not double-checking but exercising the right to deviate from SOP when needed. Feelings in bones are important too, which is one way humans score over robots.
And also, complacency needs to be confronted continuously. The 'office' is not an office - but can get so familiar and so warm, with superb views, that after many years it is understandable that this term is used.
The AAIB did not confront this but has, in its omission, left it to those who can and are best placed to do it, to do so. I think this is possibly another one of the holes in the cheese - and this discussion could help by encouraging analysis of other reports rather than complete acceptance.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 71
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]Would rather, as in any day of the week and twice on Sundays, fly with a crew who are free to exercise judgement, and use automatics as and when it's the best option. Flying a short sector on a clear skies day, off a fairly quiet airport and into one that's even quieter, encountering almost no other traffic either enroute or in the terminal areas, is obviously a perfect opportunity to take the bull by the horns and do a spot of driving yourself. Any operation which has SOPs written specifically to prevent that, is run by a bunch of idiots. Probably the un-holy and culture destroying trinity of Lawyers, Accountants and Consultants.[QUOTE]
As a three crew operator of the BA TriStar it was routine to be able to manually handle the aircraft as required. The additional pair of eyes monitoring the flight progress made it a safe procedure. However, most crew would only hand fly the aeroplane if the circumstances were suitable to do so, i.e. not a busy ATC environment or bad weather. Given that there are now only two crew on the flight deck it wouldn't be prudent to have to expect the other pilot to have to closely monitor the handling pilots performance whilst also carrying out his other normal duties. However, if company rules allow hand flying to take place I wouldn't expect a professional crew to do so during anything but good flying conditions and quiet airspace. Just my two-penneth.
TCF
As a three crew operator of the BA TriStar it was routine to be able to manually handle the aircraft as required. The additional pair of eyes monitoring the flight progress made it a safe procedure. However, most crew would only hand fly the aeroplane if the circumstances were suitable to do so, i.e. not a busy ATC environment or bad weather. Given that there are now only two crew on the flight deck it wouldn't be prudent to have to expect the other pilot to have to closely monitor the handling pilots performance whilst also carrying out his other normal duties. However, if company rules allow hand flying to take place I wouldn't expect a professional crew to do so during anything but good flying conditions and quiet airspace. Just my two-penneth.
TCF
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The role of the F/E
Hi TCF, hope all is well with you. As a fellow former three man crew member, often the oldest as the F/E, I would be very pleased to see the re-introduction of the F/E. Most of the modern-day pilots would not have any understanding of what professional flight engineers contributed to the operation. We certainly, in most cases, added to the environment within the cockpit. The MEL was much thicker, not because we were smarter than the computers which monitor and/or control the various systems, but because we had more options open to us. As well, we were a third set of eyes able to contribute in the busy ATC environments. No realistic person could claim to be able to monitor systems more ably than computers do, because computers don't suffer fatigue as humans do. For many reasons I can think of I wish F/E's were still part of the crew, as I do believe we were a worthwhile element in the overall operation. Obviously the airline I worked for did, they paid us the same pay scale as the F/O.
Thechitternflyer
Would disagree ...in my last company we flew manually in bad weather where there wasn't the risk of meeting VFR traffic and because it needed higher skill levels hence better training.
It was also the captain who did the outside check unless we carried a FE...and nothing stopped the FO from doing his own walk around.
We spent an evening in the hangar with the engineers going around the airframe during transition course and we were checked on our annual route check.
Sadly BA has continued some of the practices from the 70s and downgraded others.
One of those is the non flying pilot operating the throttles...what the report says about heading loss poses the questions whether they would have passed an. IR renewal and whether the apparent yaw angles could have overstressed the fin?
As a crew they would have failed a sim check wrt the fuel leak and shutting the engine down.
Sadly it isn't an isolated incident by far...their other latest misdemeanour at Joburg where the other two monitored Junior writing off a 747 is another example of a lack of training and following SOP.
Someone needs to look at their overall operation before their luck runs out.
Would disagree ...in my last company we flew manually in bad weather where there wasn't the risk of meeting VFR traffic and because it needed higher skill levels hence better training.
It was also the captain who did the outside check unless we carried a FE...and nothing stopped the FO from doing his own walk around.
We spent an evening in the hangar with the engineers going around the airframe during transition course and we were checked on our annual route check.
Sadly BA has continued some of the practices from the 70s and downgraded others.
One of those is the non flying pilot operating the throttles...what the report says about heading loss poses the questions whether they would have passed an. IR renewal and whether the apparent yaw angles could have overstressed the fin?
As a crew they would have failed a sim check wrt the fuel leak and shutting the engine down.
Sadly it isn't an isolated incident by far...their other latest misdemeanour at Joburg where the other two monitored Junior writing off a 747 is another example of a lack of training and following SOP.
Someone needs to look at their overall operation before their luck runs out.
That's part of the problem Chitterne...my first company had some absolutely stupid SOPs...the chief trainer on my first fleet did most of his conversion course on a wide body on autopilot....rumour has it 'twas that he couldn't fly instruments.
My last company was run by interceptor/ground attack militia pilots who could really fly....
Comes out to the lowest common denominator - whatever that means
My last company was run by interceptor/ground attack militia pilots who could really fly....
Comes out to the lowest common denominator - whatever that means
Controversial, moi?
The MEL was much thicker, not because we were smarter than the computers which monitor and/or control the various systems, but because we had more options open to us.
There were not 'more options' but there were far less sophisticated systems which needed more human input to deal with than current systems. Design and development has led us to a point where engineers are not needed to handle systems and system malfunctions and all the arguments being espoused here are actually for a third pair of trained eyes. That is neither practical nor affordable.