U.S. orders airlines to replace cockpit displays on 1,300 Boeing airplanes
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@172 DRIVER I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion!
Like it or not, every commercial enterprise is about making money.
If you make a faulty product, wether it be a £5 electric kettle or a£600 phone or a£30,000 car, you issue a recall and replace the "unfit"part with a merchantable one, at your own expense I find it staggering that aviation folks are so willing to accept top-dollar fully-certified stuff that later turns out to be worse than a cheap Chinese knock-off.....then, they bend over and get reamed again ,for another "certified" item
Do you not see, that all this "rigorous safety control" is bought totally into disrepute?
Pay £3K for a watch, then find it's a "Bolex" you'd be upset.....OTOH, pay $15 for it, you'd be happy If you paid £3k for a genuine "ROLEX" You would expect a superbly engineered precisionChronometer that lived up to all the manufacturer's hype.
Being stung for a product that is NOT WHAT IT CLAIMS TO BE is downright dishonest. An honourable company would refund commensurate with unused "life" and an allowance for the work, disruption and time out of service that THEIR foul-up had cost the customer......as it stands, this debacle has to translate to higher ticket prices for the punter who actually uses the airline.
It really isn't a simple matter of "suck it up, tough luck, you bought a substandard product"
Like it or not, every commercial enterprise is about making money.
If you make a faulty product, wether it be a £5 electric kettle or a£600 phone or a£30,000 car, you issue a recall and replace the "unfit"part with a merchantable one, at your own expense I find it staggering that aviation folks are so willing to accept top-dollar fully-certified stuff that later turns out to be worse than a cheap Chinese knock-off.....then, they bend over and get reamed again ,for another "certified" item
Do you not see, that all this "rigorous safety control" is bought totally into disrepute?
Pay £3K for a watch, then find it's a "Bolex" you'd be upset.....OTOH, pay $15 for it, you'd be happy If you paid £3k for a genuine "ROLEX" You would expect a superbly engineered precisionChronometer that lived up to all the manufacturer's hype.
Being stung for a product that is NOT WHAT IT CLAIMS TO BE is downright dishonest. An honourable company would refund commensurate with unused "life" and an allowance for the work, disruption and time out of service that THEIR foul-up had cost the customer......as it stands, this debacle has to translate to higher ticket prices for the punter who actually uses the airline.
It really isn't a simple matter of "suck it up, tough luck, you bought a substandard product"
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, Ian W, you have missed the point. If an aircraft id fitted with Phase 3 screens in all positions, then if the problematic RF occurs, all DUs will be lost - they all have the same design and thus the same susceptibility. Probabilities of simultaneous failure under normal circumstances are remote in the extreme, but in this instance it's as if all were run from the same source or you just had one large DU taking up the whole panel - one goes and the lot will go as all are subject to the same RF.
It would not seem unreasonable to have an AD that directs airlines to ensure only one or two Phase 3 DUs are fitted per aircraft, allowingt hem to swap units between ac on their fleets to minimise the potential of the issue while having little cost implication, allowing the faulty units to contiue in use as long as they are outnumbered by other Phase units. I think we are all able to cope with that.
It is amazing that so many airline bosses publicly decry the need for the AD and its fix while being the first to shout at a press conference that safety is "their number one priority". But these bosses shouldn't need to get so wound up because the manufacturers should be footing the bills. Surely the sales of goods acts (UK term, but must be applicable equivalents globally) would require this? It would be repugnant if the customers (pax and airlines alike) have to pay for the faulty parts to be replaced.
These DUs are not a luxury, and while the loss or one or two of them is little more than inconvenient, the loss of all would be a major issue. Whoever said we could use automatics through the MCP to fly on sby instruments is incorrect - with no DUs, how do you know the ADIRU and DEU data is correct? That is what is going to the automatics. How do you know an AFDS mode has engaged rather than been armed with no FMA? Sby instrument flight is strictly hand flying.
Some corrective action is certainly required for some aircraft, and CEO reactions have been cavalier to say the least, but it does seem the AD is a little poorly thought out.
It would not seem unreasonable to have an AD that directs airlines to ensure only one or two Phase 3 DUs are fitted per aircraft, allowingt hem to swap units between ac on their fleets to minimise the potential of the issue while having little cost implication, allowing the faulty units to contiue in use as long as they are outnumbered by other Phase units. I think we are all able to cope with that.
It is amazing that so many airline bosses publicly decry the need for the AD and its fix while being the first to shout at a press conference that safety is "their number one priority". But these bosses shouldn't need to get so wound up because the manufacturers should be footing the bills. Surely the sales of goods acts (UK term, but must be applicable equivalents globally) would require this? It would be repugnant if the customers (pax and airlines alike) have to pay for the faulty parts to be replaced.
These DUs are not a luxury, and while the loss or one or two of them is little more than inconvenient, the loss of all would be a major issue. Whoever said we could use automatics through the MCP to fly on sby instruments is incorrect - with no DUs, how do you know the ADIRU and DEU data is correct? That is what is going to the automatics. How do you know an AFDS mode has engaged rather than been armed with no FMA? Sby instrument flight is strictly hand flying.
Some corrective action is certainly required for some aircraft, and CEO reactions have been cavalier to say the least, but it does seem the AD is a little poorly thought out.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cockney steve,
In the 172 I used to drive there were several AD's about leaky exhaust mufflers, chafing of fuel lines, flight control mis-riggings to give just a few examples. The DC10 cargo doors is a more extreme example of where poor, but certified, design led to disaster.
So I am led to believe we can agree that AD's is a good safety tool, n'est-ce pas?
What you seem to take issue with is who_pays_for_it. Despite everyone's best intention to build a safe product (minus corporate corruption - e.g. the B737/787 whistle blowing) things seem to be certified and later proved it wasn't working as it should. If the manufacturer promises to take care of all future AD's isn't it reasonable that this "unlimited premium warranty" will up the price of the product slightly? A bit like buying a car with 100 year warranty.
Or the airlines buy a plane at a cheaper price knowing there is a possibility that certain components will need to be checked/replaced - at their own cost. If I buy a car I expect to cough out for some unexpected maintenance whatever it could be. It's just in aviation this maintenance can sometimes be premeditated to avoid the dire consequences should something be left till it fails by itself.
I see your point of view. My message was simply that AD's are there for good reasons (..some better, some worse). Then how the peanuts are being passed around I couldn't really care that much about, it will settle itself when all profit maximization seeking organizations have had their say.
In the 172 I used to drive there were several AD's about leaky exhaust mufflers, chafing of fuel lines, flight control mis-riggings to give just a few examples. The DC10 cargo doors is a more extreme example of where poor, but certified, design led to disaster.
So I am led to believe we can agree that AD's is a good safety tool, n'est-ce pas?
What you seem to take issue with is who_pays_for_it. Despite everyone's best intention to build a safe product (minus corporate corruption - e.g. the B737/787 whistle blowing) things seem to be certified and later proved it wasn't working as it should. If the manufacturer promises to take care of all future AD's isn't it reasonable that this "unlimited premium warranty" will up the price of the product slightly? A bit like buying a car with 100 year warranty.
Or the airlines buy a plane at a cheaper price knowing there is a possibility that certain components will need to be checked/replaced - at their own cost. If I buy a car I expect to cough out for some unexpected maintenance whatever it could be. It's just in aviation this maintenance can sometimes be premeditated to avoid the dire consequences should something be left till it fails by itself.
I see your point of view. My message was simply that AD's are there for good reasons (..some better, some worse). Then how the peanuts are being passed around I couldn't really care that much about, it will settle itself when all profit maximization seeking organizations have had their say.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cockney steve, you are thinking about it from a consumer contract view point. That is that the consumer has little power in the creation of the contract, and as such implied terms are added to the contract by the state or common law in order to protect the weaker party. As such terms are added to the contract implicitly including fit for purpose, as displayed etc. However these terms are limit in extent, for example it must be in line with the quality of the product's value and life span. Additionally these terms are normally only included in contact to small value purchases or household goods.
For large commercial contracts it is very different. The parties are both considered able parties and as such have a duty to look after their own interests in the creation of the contract. For this reason terms pertaining to the performance, timing, quality, and warranties of the products should be included by the parties to protect their interests. This also gives the parties much greater freedom, as they can decide what they are willing to pay for or contract. For this reason different airlines could have different terms and extent of these terms. However other basic terms are normally included by default including dealing in good faith.
For large commercial contracts it is very different. The parties are both considered able parties and as such have a duty to look after their own interests in the creation of the contract. For this reason terms pertaining to the performance, timing, quality, and warranties of the products should be included by the parties to protect their interests. This also gives the parties much greater freedom, as they can decide what they are willing to pay for or contract. For this reason different airlines could have different terms and extent of these terms. However other basic terms are normally included by default including dealing in good faith.
