inceredible
 

It is unexplicably amazing to think anyone in their right senses would put an aircraft in the air without it being hundred percent fit to fly at varanda of cost saving! It is criminal and absolutely unacceptable.:=

Of course your right, but can you define 100%

Do you get out of bed every morning feeling 100%

Interesting thread..
 

Very relevant considering the congressional hearings on SouthWest's 'deferment of maintanance items'...Alaska's Jackscrew endemic 'overlooking and sign-off items'...ect ect. It's pretty clear when we should take off or not...it's kinda scary when we are told to take off when we know something has been deferered or not even inspected in the first place. Big difference between interpretation and outright fraud/negligence.

If you have genuine concerns about safety, this really should be MOR-ed.

There is no point just airing the problem here, without taking any action to stop it - you know it will have no effect.

I suggest you read the Statement by the Chairman of the CAA at page vii/viii of CAP 382 - then have the courage to report it.


JD
:)

Thank you for answers.
 

Thank you for your answers.
It's been exciting reading.

However, it is a little disturbing to hear that there are a few pilots who do not have a limit, to how many number of defects to be in an operational aircraft.
Even if MEL says OK for each defect.

(just to provoke a bit) :E
Do pilots and technicians nothing to stop this at some point, then you accept more and more defects, so in the end it is legal to fly IFR only on the fuel gauge.

No matter what you call it, I would call it a defect, for there is something that does not work 100%


Next time I will fly, I will enjoy the trip as always.
I love to fly. :ok:
So I let the professionals to do their work.
I trust in your decisions, from mechanic to pilot.

Safety Concerns, I'm sure I don't need to remind you that not MOR-ing a reportable Occurrence when it comes to your attention as a responsible professional isn't too clever either ... not only is it contrary to Article 142 of the ANO, but it could also be said to be potentially endangering lives in precisely the same way as the instances you are complaining about ...


JD
:hmm: