Beijing PanAm - disrespect and humiliation of instructors
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Go straight, then right...
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baffled...
I don't know who Hudson Hawk is, but I don't think you've realized yet about where you are and the whole story of the place...
1.- As I may have said before, I left 2 months ago, while my validation was still good for "flying". The exams are not the main issue now at all as they were not 2 months ago.
2.- That policy was enforced, but gently. They offered a pay cut or a friendly leave.
3.- You got a decent hotel... congratulations!!! That is going to improve flight instruction in such a manner...
. The Ya Thai was great to my taste, and the Golden Top had some minor issues... HOTELS WERE NEVER A PROBLEM.
4.- This has to be divided into 2 sections:
- Again, you prove you know nothing about Pan Am's history. Binzhou base and Baotou Base were the same when they begun...
- Demands were made way before I left. The only thing we got out of all that meeting was... AIR CONDITIONING IN THE INSTRUCTORS ROOM AT BAOTOU BASE
... soooooo productive when the things that were really requested were SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUES THAT WERE SAID TO BE CONSIDERED BY VICE-PRESIDENT TU AND NEVER EVER WERE.
5.- The salary was never competitive at all, and has only been raised for the second contract. Where I'm now I just instruct PPL and I get more than the guys on their second contract who are instructing CPL, ME and IFR.
6.- YOU DON'T LIVE LIKE A KING IN CHINA AT ALL. You do save a decent amount of money, but live like a rat...
I hope you like my addition
.
Now tell me something I've said is not true. This is an open debate.
I admit there are some guys who didn't say the whole truth on some posts by the beginning of this thread, but twisting that into Pan Am being a great place for world aviation is really wicked...
1.- As I may have said before, I left 2 months ago, while my validation was still good for "flying". The exams are not the main issue now at all as they were not 2 months ago.
2.- That policy was enforced, but gently. They offered a pay cut or a friendly leave.
3.- You got a decent hotel... congratulations!!! That is going to improve flight instruction in such a manner...
. The Ya Thai was great to my taste, and the Golden Top had some minor issues... HOTELS WERE NEVER A PROBLEM.4.- This has to be divided into 2 sections:
- Again, you prove you know nothing about Pan Am's history. Binzhou base and Baotou Base were the same when they begun...
- Demands were made way before I left. The only thing we got out of all that meeting was... AIR CONDITIONING IN THE INSTRUCTORS ROOM AT BAOTOU BASE
... soooooo productive when the things that were really requested were SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUES THAT WERE SAID TO BE CONSIDERED BY VICE-PRESIDENT TU AND NEVER EVER WERE.5.- The salary was never competitive at all, and has only been raised for the second contract. Where I'm now I just instruct PPL and I get more than the guys on their second contract who are instructing CPL, ME and IFR.
6.- YOU DON'T LIVE LIKE A KING IN CHINA AT ALL. You do save a decent amount of money, but live like a rat...
I hope you like my addition
.Now tell me something I've said is not true. This is an open debate.
I admit there are some guys who didn't say the whole truth on some posts by the beginning of this thread, but twisting that into Pan Am being a great place for world aviation is really wicked...
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Kampala, Uganda
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some Questions and Comments
I will have to say that I admire Hudson Hawk and the other instructors for their perserverance. It is an admirable quality, and I truly hope things turn around for everyone's sake. But, history has a tendency to repeat itself.
Now that this thread has calmed down from personal attacks (hope I didn't speak too soon), I have a few valid questions and comments. These are not meant to be sarcastic in any way, and I ask that you look at them with an open mind. As Harry said, this is for debate.
Hudson Hawk wrote:
A lot of changes already occurred and some must be emphasized:
1. The biggest concern for many new instructors, the CAAC tests preceeding our flying permission have been made almost obsolete (for the purpose of this employment) - we can fly now on CAAC validations
My question:
I am curious about these so called "validations." Hudson, can you point out in Part 61 of the CCAR's where it states a foreign pilot may act as pilot in command of a Chinese Registered Civil Aircraft without a valid Chinese Pilot Certificate? Additionaly, have you personally seen, or know a person who has personally seen, an exemption to the Part 61 rule issued by CAAC Headquarters (who are the only tier allowed to issue an exemption) allowing you to fly on a validation?
Hudson Hawk wrote:
Pan Am has never enforced "3 try" policy in relations to the CAAC exams and perhaps never will
My response:
I can personally assure you that this policy was enforced per the order of Jack Li. Ask anyone who was here during Pat's tour of duty, and you will know. It wasn't until Jack was "removed", if you want to call it that, and Tu took over the helm that we were able to change this policy because of the invalid knowledge tests. And, even then, the company required a salary cut. I personally had to discuss this with a group of instructors after the final decision was handed down by the Operational Affairs Department. Some stayed, and some took their leave. A lot of good people left. The "fly in the buttermilk is", the CAAC needs to correct those tests.
Hudson Hawk wrote:
Some negotiations and request have been satisfied. (a good example is the recent hotel switch from a 3-star to a 4 star one in Wuhai base)
My question:
I'm glad to see that the living conditions have improved. Appears to be a far cry from the mess that started in Handan. But, I'm concerned as to why negotiations and demands were made for these things, but nothing mentioned about maintenance? Do you know the requirements for inspecting an engine after a prop strike? Do you know what the tolerance is? Do you know that I requested 2 engine teardowns while I was at PanAm, and not one was done? Do you know that one prop strike took over 3 inches off of both blades? Was the engine tore down?..No. Now I ask "why?" Simple....no money.
Anyway, I'm not going to get into the rest of it. Looks like the salarys are a step in the right direction, and I'm glad it's progressing.
Those are my comments and questions in this "reasonable" debate here. Glad all you guys are doing better.
Howard
Now that this thread has calmed down from personal attacks (hope I didn't speak too soon), I have a few valid questions and comments. These are not meant to be sarcastic in any way, and I ask that you look at them with an open mind. As Harry said, this is for debate.
Hudson Hawk wrote:
A lot of changes already occurred and some must be emphasized:
1. The biggest concern for many new instructors, the CAAC tests preceeding our flying permission have been made almost obsolete (for the purpose of this employment) - we can fly now on CAAC validations
My question:
I am curious about these so called "validations." Hudson, can you point out in Part 61 of the CCAR's where it states a foreign pilot may act as pilot in command of a Chinese Registered Civil Aircraft without a valid Chinese Pilot Certificate? Additionaly, have you personally seen, or know a person who has personally seen, an exemption to the Part 61 rule issued by CAAC Headquarters (who are the only tier allowed to issue an exemption) allowing you to fly on a validation?
Hudson Hawk wrote:
Pan Am has never enforced "3 try" policy in relations to the CAAC exams and perhaps never will
My response:
I can personally assure you that this policy was enforced per the order of Jack Li. Ask anyone who was here during Pat's tour of duty, and you will know. It wasn't until Jack was "removed", if you want to call it that, and Tu took over the helm that we were able to change this policy because of the invalid knowledge tests. And, even then, the company required a salary cut. I personally had to discuss this with a group of instructors after the final decision was handed down by the Operational Affairs Department. Some stayed, and some took their leave. A lot of good people left. The "fly in the buttermilk is", the CAAC needs to correct those tests.
Hudson Hawk wrote:
Some negotiations and request have been satisfied. (a good example is the recent hotel switch from a 3-star to a 4 star one in Wuhai base)
My question:
I'm glad to see that the living conditions have improved. Appears to be a far cry from the mess that started in Handan. But, I'm concerned as to why negotiations and demands were made for these things, but nothing mentioned about maintenance? Do you know the requirements for inspecting an engine after a prop strike? Do you know what the tolerance is? Do you know that I requested 2 engine teardowns while I was at PanAm, and not one was done? Do you know that one prop strike took over 3 inches off of both blades? Was the engine tore down?..No. Now I ask "why?" Simple....no money.
Anyway, I'm not going to get into the rest of it. Looks like the salarys are a step in the right direction, and I'm glad it's progressing.
Those are my comments and questions in this "reasonable" debate here. Glad all you guys are doing better.
Howard
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Anywere
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 inch prop strike
Let's see a prop was "strike" more like "savage it" and...
I ask is there going to be a tear down?
no
Can the mechanics remove a jug? to see the inside
no
Can the mechanics at least remove a plug and use a bore scope?
no
Rest my case with maintenance.
The problem is not having the final authority over grounding a plane DUDE! is that you do not have all the facts! if you would, probably all planes should be grounded! or you might go with the if it looks goo it should be good. Big MISTAKE and BIGGER in China since everything "looks good"
I said it a year ago somebody will get kill and I was close to become a shaman!
I am still battling to understand the Chinese way (for sure not the middle way) I am veering to.. "there is nothing to understand" more and more.
On this one, the cowboy is right.
I ask is there going to be a tear down?
no
Can the mechanics remove a jug? to see the inside
no
Can the mechanics at least remove a plug and use a bore scope?
no
Rest my case with maintenance.
The problem is not having the final authority over grounding a plane DUDE! is that you do not have all the facts! if you would, probably all planes should be grounded! or you might go with the if it looks goo it should be good. Big MISTAKE and BIGGER in China since everything "looks good"
I said it a year ago somebody will get kill and I was close to become a shaman!
I am still battling to understand the Chinese way (for sure not the middle way) I am veering to.. "there is nothing to understand" more and more.
On this one, the cowboy is right.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Dreamland
Age: 17
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
prop strikes
Hello,
Could you tell us which airplanes got a prop strike?
It would be very nice to know because we might be flying these airplanes on a daily basis without knowing about this minor problem.
Thanks in advance!
Flytoo
Could you tell us which airplanes got a prop strike?
It would be very nice to know because we might be flying these airplanes on a daily basis without knowing about this minor problem.
Thanks in advance!
Flytoo
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Kampala, Uganda
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reply to Hudson Hawk
Hudson you wrote:
We get the license validation from the actual CAAC. You make it sound like they are hand-drawn with a bunch of crayons by Ted Wong in the local basement. I think the CAAC is within its rights to bend their OWN regulations and allow us to fly on the validations. After all, it was their idea to train all Chinese airline pilots in China as to feed that Chinese "pride factor" (that we all are fed-up with). I'm sure they realize that is the idiocracy with the CAAC exams continues there will be no one to teach the students and hence no one (Chinese-looking/speaking) to work for the Airlines. Needless to mention that most of airlines in China are government property and if they start hiring only ex-pats, the "pride factor" will get damaged so will the revenues if they don't hire anyone.
My comments:
Actually, I wasn't trying to make it sound like TW was writing the validations. But, you don't BEND rules and regulations; you re-write them, if necessary, to adapt to the circumstances. I'm talking FAA here, but any rule change had to go through a NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) that everyone would comment on, receive congressional approval, and then implemented into the FAR's. Now, we all know that is NOT the case in China, but there HAS to be some sort of authorization from Headquarters. I assume that there is, since you stated the validations come from CAAC. Your post brings out some very good points.
If you start "bending rules" to meet deadlines, save money, and "save face", you start jeopardizing safety. Do you concur with that statement?
Howard
P.S. What does a "glass half full" feel like? (smile) Thanks for a professional debate here.
We get the license validation from the actual CAAC. You make it sound like they are hand-drawn with a bunch of crayons by Ted Wong in the local basement. I think the CAAC is within its rights to bend their OWN regulations and allow us to fly on the validations. After all, it was their idea to train all Chinese airline pilots in China as to feed that Chinese "pride factor" (that we all are fed-up with). I'm sure they realize that is the idiocracy with the CAAC exams continues there will be no one to teach the students and hence no one (Chinese-looking/speaking) to work for the Airlines. Needless to mention that most of airlines in China are government property and if they start hiring only ex-pats, the "pride factor" will get damaged so will the revenues if they don't hire anyone.
My comments:
Actually, I wasn't trying to make it sound like TW was writing the validations. But, you don't BEND rules and regulations; you re-write them, if necessary, to adapt to the circumstances. I'm talking FAA here, but any rule change had to go through a NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) that everyone would comment on, receive congressional approval, and then implemented into the FAR's. Now, we all know that is NOT the case in China, but there HAS to be some sort of authorization from Headquarters. I assume that there is, since you stated the validations come from CAAC. Your post brings out some very good points.
If you start "bending rules" to meet deadlines, save money, and "save face", you start jeopardizing safety. Do you concur with that statement?
Howard
P.S. What does a "glass half full" feel like? (smile) Thanks for a professional debate here.
Last edited by EX-FED; 15th Oct 2007 at 09:18.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Anywere
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Validations
Can anyone tell how this validation business works?
As far as I know is all a bribe scheme as usual.
But if it is as you said a legal way I would REALLY like to know....
You have to have water in the glass to start seeing it half full.
As far as I know is all a bribe scheme as usual.
But if it is as you said a legal way I would REALLY like to know....
You have to have water in the glass to start seeing it half full.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: U.S.
Age: 41
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Validations
I left BPIAA before all these validations came into place, so this is all news to me.
I'm curious if the validations are issued based on a practical test with the CAAC Examiner, or if they just issue them outright?
I can possibly see the CAAC validating the knowledge portion due to the screwed up test, but I can't see them risking signing off someone to fly contrary to their own regulations without giving them a practical test.
I guess what I'm asking here, is if there is an incident with a validated pilot, who get's the guillotine?
Blue Skies
I'm curious if the validations are issued based on a practical test with the CAAC Examiner, or if they just issue them outright?
I can possibly see the CAAC validating the knowledge portion due to the screwed up test, but I can't see them risking signing off someone to fly contrary to their own regulations without giving them a practical test.
I guess what I'm asking here, is if there is an incident with a validated pilot, who get's the guillotine?
Blue Skies
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the fuselage of a DHC-7 in a junkyard
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hawk,
A validation is a document that recognize PIC authority for the only purpose of acting as PIC on a foreign registered aircraft in non-commercial operations. In fact, under ICAO there is no provision about granting a validation of a instructor rating. What you can validate, is an ATPL, a CPL or a PPL but in any case the validation will be done to a PPL level.
That means that even if I hold an ATPL, the validation will be done to a PPL level.
If you think about it, that's why they came out with the JAA system. No aviation authority can recognize a foreign license to act as PIC in commercial operations since every authority has different rules.
Now, an example for you: I have an ATPL issued from JAA and I need to ferry an US registered aircraft from USA to Europe for the UK company I am working with. FAA issues a validation to me, but I still can't do it, because that would be a commercial operation, since it is done for compensation. The only thing I could do in this case is to ferry my own aircraft.
One more thing, still under ICAO provisions, any certificate of validation is conditional to a local flight review and medical certificate.
A validation is a document that recognize PIC authority for the only purpose of acting as PIC on a foreign registered aircraft in non-commercial operations. In fact, under ICAO there is no provision about granting a validation of a instructor rating. What you can validate, is an ATPL, a CPL or a PPL but in any case the validation will be done to a PPL level.
That means that even if I hold an ATPL, the validation will be done to a PPL level.
If you think about it, that's why they came out with the JAA system. No aviation authority can recognize a foreign license to act as PIC in commercial operations since every authority has different rules.
Now, an example for you: I have an ATPL issued from JAA and I need to ferry an US registered aircraft from USA to Europe for the UK company I am working with. FAA issues a validation to me, but I still can't do it, because that would be a commercial operation, since it is done for compensation. The only thing I could do in this case is to ferry my own aircraft.
One more thing, still under ICAO provisions, any certificate of validation is conditional to a local flight review and medical certificate.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Kampala, Uganda
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Validations
Newark Newbie you wrote:
Which Practical Test are your referring to here? The;
(a) Engine Start, Contact Dispatch, Engine Shutdown Practical Test, or;
(b) the more complex Engine Start, Taxi, Normal Takeoff, Traffic Pattern, Normal Landing, Engine Shutdown Practical Test.
Now, I was an examiner for 14 years and with the FAA for 8 years. I've conducted 2884 practical tests during that time, according to my records. The most I was ever able to accomplish on any given day was 3, and 1 of those was an add-on for an additional category/class, or a re-test.
I have seen the CAAC Practical Test Standards, and it's exactly the same as the FAA Standards with a few additional maneuvers. Would someone explain to me how in the hell you can conduct 12 Practical Tests in one day in accordance with the Practical Test Standards? That is correct; 12 tests.
So, once again the "rules are bent" to accomodate a deadline, save money, and "save face." If you keep bending enough "rules", the twig will eventually snap and you have an accident.
I'm curious if the validations are issued based on a practical test with the CAAC Examiner, or if they just issue them outright?
I can possibly see the CAAC validating the knowledge portion due to the screwed up test, but I can't see them risking signing off someone to fly contrary to their own regulations without giving them a practical test.
I can possibly see the CAAC validating the knowledge portion due to the screwed up test, but I can't see them risking signing off someone to fly contrary to their own regulations without giving them a practical test.
(a) Engine Start, Contact Dispatch, Engine Shutdown Practical Test, or;
(b) the more complex Engine Start, Taxi, Normal Takeoff, Traffic Pattern, Normal Landing, Engine Shutdown Practical Test.
Now, I was an examiner for 14 years and with the FAA for 8 years. I've conducted 2884 practical tests during that time, according to my records. The most I was ever able to accomplish on any given day was 3, and 1 of those was an add-on for an additional category/class, or a re-test.
I have seen the CAAC Practical Test Standards, and it's exactly the same as the FAA Standards with a few additional maneuvers. Would someone explain to me how in the hell you can conduct 12 Practical Tests in one day in accordance with the Practical Test Standards? That is correct; 12 tests.
So, once again the "rules are bent" to accomodate a deadline, save money, and "save face." If you keep bending enough "rules", the twig will eventually snap and you have an accident.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: U.S.
Age: 41
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More Validations
Ex-Fed, actually I was referring to the "This is an airplane" Practical Test.
Spacepod, you seem to be up on this validation issue. Do the foreigners who fly for the Chinese Airlines get validated, or do they have to go through the testing process for a Chinese Certificate? It appears that they would, since the aircraft is type certificated for two pilots.
If that is the case, how can the CAAC validate one and not the other. It seems like AM's theory may be correct, or they're "bending" a little more.
Blue Skies
Spacepod, you seem to be up on this validation issue. Do the foreigners who fly for the Chinese Airlines get validated, or do they have to go through the testing process for a Chinese Certificate? It appears that they would, since the aircraft is type certificated for two pilots.
If that is the case, how can the CAAC validate one and not the other. It seems like AM's theory may be correct, or they're "bending" a little more.
Blue Skies
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: somewhere east of nowhere
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good ole china!!
you know what else i miss about china?!?
copyright infringement!!
everything from software to DVDs to aviation liscences!!
hell one time i even saw a street vendor with a towel laid out on the sidewalk selling chinese passports and foreign expert certificates (BB can attest to this also). so if panam ends up refusing to give you your expert certificates back, go see this guy, he may be able to help you. he was right outside the dairy queen by dong fang in the shiz!
copyright infringement!!
everything from software to DVDs to aviation liscences!!
hell one time i even saw a street vendor with a towel laid out on the sidewalk selling chinese passports and foreign expert certificates (BB can attest to this also). so if panam ends up refusing to give you your expert certificates back, go see this guy, he may be able to help you. he was right outside the dairy queen by dong fang in the shiz!
Last edited by spacemanspiff8; 16th Oct 2007 at 18:51.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the fuselage of a DHC-7 in a junkyard
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Newark Newbie,
The foreign Captains hired by Chinese airlines have to pass the CAAC ATPL written test and a sim ride. Their license is then fully converted to CAAC license and type rating. The so called "training" they undergo is actually a CAAC written test indoctrination plus line training.
I know of a few Canadian Captains hired by China Southern Airlines in 2005 that were unable to pass the written and they had to go back to Canada. Since then the CAAC questions database seems to be available to some airlines though...
By the way, how's the Hudson river view from where you are?
The foreign Captains hired by Chinese airlines have to pass the CAAC ATPL written test and a sim ride. Their license is then fully converted to CAAC license and type rating. The so called "training" they undergo is actually a CAAC written test indoctrination plus line training.
I know of a few Canadian Captains hired by China Southern Airlines in 2005 that were unable to pass the written and they had to go back to Canada. Since then the CAAC questions database seems to be available to some airlines though...
By the way, how's the Hudson river view from where you are?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Dreamland
Age: 17
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
written test question
Hi!
here is a question for the CAAC written test:
lacks or losses the self-awareness in the ( ) influence servant, as cannot correct cognition and the situation usually displays for overestimates oneself, risk tendentionsness advances
A. Alcohol
B. Sedative
C. Hypotensor
it comes directly from the databank, an easy one.
Have fun
here is a question for the CAAC written test:
lacks or losses the self-awareness in the ( ) influence servant, as cannot correct cognition and the situation usually displays for overestimates oneself, risk tendentionsness advances
A. Alcohol
B. Sedative
C. Hypotensor
it comes directly from the databank, an easy one.
Have fun
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi!
here is a question for the CAAC written test:
lacks or losses the self-awareness in the ( ) influence servant, as cannot correct cognition and the situation usually displays for overestimates oneself, risk tendentionsness advances
A. Alcohol
B. Sedative
C. Hypotensor
it comes directly from the databank, an easy one.
Have fun
here is a question for the CAAC written test:
lacks or losses the self-awareness in the ( ) influence servant, as cannot correct cognition and the situation usually displays for overestimates oneself, risk tendentionsness advances
A. Alcohol
B. Sedative
C. Hypotensor
it comes directly from the databank, an easy one.
Have fun
Just filter out the grammar when reading Chinese translations
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: U.S.
Age: 41
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prop Strike Research
Spacepod - I'm in Irvington (west of Liberty Airport), so I don't have a good view of the Hudson from here.
Flytoo - That's classic!
I pulled up the following bulletin regarding prop strikes (all of this type of information is available via the internet).
The bulletin reads as follows:
"On numerous occasions, Textron Lycoming has been consulted about recommendations on whether to continue using an aircraft engine that has been involved in the separation of the propeller/rotor blade from the hub, the loss of a propeller/rotor blade tip or sudden stoppage following accidental propeller/rotor damage (such as propeller/rotor strike).
Conditions which surround accidents are many and varied; therefore the circumstances of the accident can not, in our opinion, be used to predict the extent of the damage to the engine or assure its future reliability.
Textron Lycoming must take the position that in the case of a sudden stoppage, propeller/rotor strike or loss of propeller/ rotor blade or tip, the safest procedure is to remove and disassemble the engine and completely inspect the reciprocating and rotating parts including crankshaft gear and dowel parts.
Any decision to operate an engine which was involved in a sudden stoppage, propeller/rotor strike or loss of propeller/rotor blade or tip without such an inspection must be the responsibility of the agency returning the aircraft to service.
Even tip damage is considered cause for teardown
Lycoming's Service Bulletin 475B requires that in the event that the engine has experienced a propeller strike, inspection and possible rework of the accessory gear train as well as the rear of the engine's crankshaft is required. Compliance with this service bulletin is mandatory per AD 91-14-22.
The AD specifies the inspection at each engine overhaul, after a propeller strike, sudden stoppage, or whenever gear train repair is required. Lycoming's new SB seems to generalize the term propeller strike and sudden stoppage to be quite inclusive."
Be careful out there, and check those maintenance records!
Blue Skies
Flytoo - That's classic!
I pulled up the following bulletin regarding prop strikes (all of this type of information is available via the internet).
The bulletin reads as follows:
"On numerous occasions, Textron Lycoming has been consulted about recommendations on whether to continue using an aircraft engine that has been involved in the separation of the propeller/rotor blade from the hub, the loss of a propeller/rotor blade tip or sudden stoppage following accidental propeller/rotor damage (such as propeller/rotor strike).
Conditions which surround accidents are many and varied; therefore the circumstances of the accident can not, in our opinion, be used to predict the extent of the damage to the engine or assure its future reliability.
Textron Lycoming must take the position that in the case of a sudden stoppage, propeller/rotor strike or loss of propeller/ rotor blade or tip, the safest procedure is to remove and disassemble the engine and completely inspect the reciprocating and rotating parts including crankshaft gear and dowel parts.
Any decision to operate an engine which was involved in a sudden stoppage, propeller/rotor strike or loss of propeller/rotor blade or tip without such an inspection must be the responsibility of the agency returning the aircraft to service.
Even tip damage is considered cause for teardown
Lycoming's Service Bulletin 475B requires that in the event that the engine has experienced a propeller strike, inspection and possible rework of the accessory gear train as well as the rear of the engine's crankshaft is required. Compliance with this service bulletin is mandatory per AD 91-14-22.
The AD specifies the inspection at each engine overhaul, after a propeller strike, sudden stoppage, or whenever gear train repair is required. Lycoming's new SB seems to generalize the term propeller strike and sudden stoppage to be quite inclusive."
Be careful out there, and check those maintenance records!
Blue Skies
Last edited by Newark Newbie; 19th Oct 2007 at 13:06.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 3rd Planet
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be careful out there, and check those maintenance records!
1) BPIAA maintenance records are in SJZ for some unknown reason.. instead of at the base where the aircraft is based out of.
2) BPIAA forbids foreign people and most Chinese people (non-mechanics) from looking at the maintenance records.
3) BPIAA also forbids foreign people and most Chinese people (non-mechanics) from looking at the aircraft maintenance log (the one filled out and signed "Preflight Inspection" before every flight by a mechanic who may or may not have actually done a preflight inspection).
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Dreamland
Age: 17
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
prop strikes
Hello!
What about telling us airplane tail numbers for the prop strikes?
Some airplanes are shaking a lot when at cruise, could they be good candidates? and RPM fluctuations too.
Any tail number to share
happy flying and good bla bla
Flytoo
very nice to get information, just need to filter a little
What about telling us airplane tail numbers for the prop strikes?
Some airplanes are shaking a lot when at cruise, could they be good candidates? and RPM fluctuations too.
Any tail number to share
happy flying and good bla bla
Flytoo
very nice to get information, just need to filter a little
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Dreamland
Age: 17
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accident-Prones Pilots
Hello,
According to James reason, PhD, formely affiliated with the department of Psychology at the University of Manchester and recognized as one of the world's leading authorities on human error, organizations with a "manifest lack of organizational safety culture" are much more likely to have higher accident rates. Closely related to this is a group norm that accepts violations as normal conduct, and a perception that bending rules will be tolerated and even celebrated. Dr Reason's extensive research in human error has also found that organizations with poor supervision and checking, as well as a perceived lack of management care and concern also contribute to a propensity for accidents.
Do you see something familiar?
It seems that we are in such a group and our organization doesn't seems too concerned with flight safety.
Just think about it! Each time we are flying we might be in the next incident or accident.
Happy flying!
According to James reason, PhD, formely affiliated with the department of Psychology at the University of Manchester and recognized as one of the world's leading authorities on human error, organizations with a "manifest lack of organizational safety culture" are much more likely to have higher accident rates. Closely related to this is a group norm that accepts violations as normal conduct, and a perception that bending rules will be tolerated and even celebrated. Dr Reason's extensive research in human error has also found that organizations with poor supervision and checking, as well as a perceived lack of management care and concern also contribute to a propensity for accidents.
Do you see something familiar?
It seems that we are in such a group and our organization doesn't seems too concerned with flight safety.
Just think about it! Each time we are flying we might be in the next incident or accident.
Happy flying!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 3rd Planet
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell us more about the crash that happened in your "charter airline".
How many times do you have to ask that question?
The crash happened August 11th, 2006. I started September 2007. 1 year AFTER that crash. From what I read in the archives is the pilot took off with the fuel selector on a wingtip tank that was empty. Even to this day Taga Air still doesn't use wingtip tanks, we only use the 25 gallon main tanks.
Since you still want my opinion on something that happened way before I even joined the company, I'll give you a few more links to read... your 39 years old (so you say) you should be able to use your brain and draw your own conclusion...
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...17X01207&key=1
http://www.saipantribune.com/newssto...1&newsID=60154
http://www.saipantribune.com/newssto...ID=55287&cat=1
Would you like me to post you more articles or are you capable of going to google.com yourself?