Losing Both Engines on a 777

[Roger Mazengarb 0]

G'day John,I'm sorry mate you misunderstood. I was speaking first person.To me, my safety comes above.. ................profits.Sure the more cynical would take the view you express and I guess in the land of "big business" where money is "worshiped" such may well be the case. In Australia our aviation authority take their responsibility very seriously. We have an airline safety record that is second to none. A few years back CAA grounded an Airlines fleet of B767's because an AD inspection hadn't been done. I may be naive, but I don't think our aviation authority is a minion of private enterprise. I sure hope not :-) my wife and I are planning on many holidays in our retirement years.Cheers,Roger

[Geofa 108]

You may find that regulations don't automatically make safety.For instance-Ad's-my airplane has some pretty ridiculous ones....The latest and greatest is that everytime I update the gps database (monthly)-a logbook entry is required...not sure how that helps the safety as I can't fly legally ifr without a current update-but I'd hate to be grounded because I forgot to do that paperwork item..probably something like that grounded your fleet of 767's.We of course do them-but the safety comes not from the paperwork but from the judgement of the pilot assuring that an airplane is airworthy...Grounding an airline because some paper pusher found that some paper pushing wasn't done doesn't necessarily make safety...I'd trust the pilot and the mechanics!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest jboweruk]

I'm not saying for one moment safety among airlines isn't high on the agenda, Always though things are weighed against cost, it's a complex formula but something like this:#accidents attributed to cause X Cost to airline industry of cause over cost of rectifying problem = overall cost to airline industry. If the cost of rectifying the problem is higher than allowing it to happen then it's allowed to happen.A good example of this was the exploding fuel tanks in airliners.When a 747 blew up after takeoff from JFK, it was found on investigation that a spark from a shorted wire somehow travelled down the fuel probe into a less than full fuel tank. Because the plane had been sitting in the heat for ages before takeoff, naturally with it's aircon and APU running generating more heat, vapour had formed and mixed with air in the tank. This made for an explosive concoction that when the spark was added caused a catastrophic explosion.Now that was not enough in itself for them to rectify the design flaw on the 747's, a design flaw that actually has never been rectified. However, when it was subsequently discovered that a number of military aircraft had suffered the same failure, as well as a few airliners to which no explanation could at the time be given, it suddenly became more cost-effective to do something about it. Now airliners have a system of keeping that build up of air out of the fuel tanks as they empty, thus stopping the explosion when a spark does occur.Shame the answer should really be to re-route the HT cables that shorted in the first place.

[Roger Mazengarb 0]

>Grounding an airline because some>paper pusher found that some paper pushing wasn't done doesn't>necessarily make safety...No, the AD wasn't done!. From memory I think it was some form of structural inspection.No authority is going to ground an aircraft for some flippant reason. >I'd trust the pilot and the>mechanics!??????? The two weakest links in aviation safety! :-) A large American aircraft manufacturer counternanced the CEO of a large American operator on his views as to what could be done to improve the safety of their aircraft. His relpy :-"Get the pilots out of the cockpit !" :-lolCheers,Roger

[Geofa 108]

Of course the Ceo of operations would say "get the pilots out of the cockpit"-because they probably ground more flights that anyone else due to safety issues-and that costs airlines money.To say the pilots and mechanics are the 2 weakest links is ignoring the fact that one maintains and signs their name to the work-and the other certainly doesn't want to fly it when unsafe and put their necks at risk, let alone the passengers.As far as Ad's-when you become an aircraft owner you find that while many are important-many other things are more about paperwork. When you own a 30 year old aircraft the joke is that is probably not legal because somewhere in that 30 year books of records someone probably put an entry in that has a clerical mistake.We had an US airline that was grounded here several years ago-they had 100's of safety violations according to the news reports. When you got past the newstory and read what the actual violations were-they were things like using incorrect terminolgy on the logbook entries and had little to due with safety issues. Does make a good news story though....Maybe you ought to take a look at some of the "authorities" that you put so much trust in. I had a friend that built an experimental aircraft-it was inspected by one such authority. He had absolutely no knowledge of aircraft-barely knew what a wing was-he was good at filling out paperwork. He did approve the aircraft for flight-thank god the pilot who built it knew what he was doing and won't fly it in an unsafe condition...Of course there was the "grounding" of Bob Hoover too-but that is another side.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[KevinAu 441]

>>>I'd trust the pilot and the>>mechanics!>>??????? The two weakest links in aviation safety! :-) >>>Cheers,>Roger Actually, whether weak or strong, they are the *last* two links in aviation safety.

[Roger Mazengarb 0]

G'day Kevin,>Actually, whether weak or strong, they are the *last* two links in >aviation safety.You're absolutely right and thankfully the majority of them take the FAA/regulations/procedures seriously and realise they exist for the purpose of helping to ensure safe air travel. Cheers,Roger

[Roger Mazengarb 0]

G'day Geof,>Of course the Ceo of operations would say "get the pilots out>of the cockpit"-because they probably ground more flights that>anyone else due to safety issues In 46 years in the business I have yet to see a pilot ground a heavy!I've seen a few maintenance engineers ground them :-)>To say the pilots and mechanics are the 2 weakest links is>ignoring the fact that one maintains and signs their name to>the work-.No it's not! The mechanic has to sign his name and License number.FAA demand it.Pilots and mechanics are human (well most of them) and as such are prone to human error. >and the other certainly doesn't want to fly it when>unsafe and put their necks at risk, let alone the passengers.and yet the "crash comics" are full of incidents where pilots do just that. >As far as Ad's-when you become an aircraft owner you find that>while many are important-many other things are more about>paperwork.The mechanics creed " the jobs not finished until the paperwork is done." > When you own a 30 year old aircraft the joke is>that is probably not legal because somewhere in that 30 year>books of records someone probably put an entry in that has a>clerical mistake.If paperwork was taken a little more seriously then probably the record keeping would be accurate and this situation wouldn't arise.>We had an US airline that was grounded here several years>ago-they had 100's of safety violations according to the news>reports. When you got past the newstory and read what the>actual violations were-they were things like using incorrect>terminolgy on the logbook entries and had little to due with>safety issues. Does make a good news story though.... It's a newspaper article for heavens sake! - no comment >He had absolutely no knowledge of aircraft-barely knew what a>wing was-he was good at filling out paperwork. He did approve>the aircraft for flight- Common mate that's a low blow. The poor guy is probably a volunteer inspector for an ultralight or experimental aircraft association. He also probably knows just as much about aircraft as you; possibly more. Your friend should be thankful I wasn't doing the inspection. :-)You obviously have a very anti attitude to FAA and regulatory controls. I have been brought up to embrace and honour them. Cheers,Roger

[Geofa 108]

"In 46 years in the business I have yet to see a pilot ground a heavy!"Be sure to tell what part of the world you fly in- I've had many flights grounded by the pilots-I'd like to avoid your area of the world if what you report is truly is the case!! Last commercial flight for me was one where the pilot detected a smoke smell-turned out to be a burning coffee pot in the galley-but the flight was scrubbed-another aircraft was substituted. The time before that taking a 747 to Hong Kong -it was one of the aircrafts heaters that caused the pilots to ground that flight..By the way-at least in the United States-the pilot in command is responsible for the safe operation of the flight-/she grounds the plane and is the ultimate authority. 14 CFR 91.7-"The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur ". "The mechanic has to sign his name and License number". Wasn't that my point?-and the PIC by regulations is responsible for the safety of the flight-the 2 people in the chain that have the most at stake and most responsibility-I'll put my trust there as I do when I fly myself and have similar responsibility."If paperwork was taken a little more seriously then probably the record keeping would be accurate and this situation wouldn't arise."Sometimes the paperwork is not so easy as it is an interpretation-and very often the interpretation changes over time.In my case when I took my commercial multi engine instrument flight test-the FAA had just started interpreting that the requirement of a night flight requirement with an instructor when getting a commercial single engine certificate did not apply to a multiengine commercial certificate-although they had accepted this in the past. The language in the FAR's was ambigious and at the time could be interpreted either way. This required a phone call by a team of flight intructors, and my designated examiner, not only to the local FSDO but all the way to the national for an interpretation-they finally decided they were not sure themselves and would let it go but said in the future they'd like it interpreted that way.In the earlier example I mentioned- a good number of GA pilots in the US are not aware that updating the gps database requires a logbook entry aircraft's maintenance logbook for every update-including monthly ifr updates. Why is this? Because the FAA is interpreting a gps database update as a major alteration, major repair, and preventive maintenance-most pilot's simply do not interpret a software database update as that (and I could be wrong by I think this "interpretation" is fairly recent). A friend of mine who is an FAA inspector (yes friend) says the FAA is trying to get the word out because of the large number of pilots not realizing this is the case, and therefore are operating their aircraft technically "illegally.So if the 6 o'clock news put out a story that 40% of GA pilots are flying their aircraft in violation of FAR's and illegally-would this truly be a safety issue-or would people that do their own maintanence and have a friend that is a mechanic sign off the paperwork without supervising, thus having legal and correctly documented logbooks create safety? A logbook entry doesn't necessarily make safety.I don't think you can ever legislate complete safety-to place blind faith here I think is naive."The poor guy is probably a volunteer inspector for an ultralight or experimental aircraft association. He also probably knows just as much about aircraft as you; possibly more."No-he was an official Faa inspector . I have no anti Faa sentiment-just reporting the facts-and in this case knowing my friends abilities to fly and build the aircraft goes much further than the paper that makes it legal. If that plane crashed-it would be his hide-not the FAA inspector that signed the paperwork. I'll place my trust on the people that have the most to lose...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Roger Mazengarb 0]

G'day Geof,>Be sure to tell what part of the world you fly in- I've had>many flights grounded by the pilots-I'd like to avoid your>area of the world if what you report is truly is the case!!Australia! and you'd be just as safe flying RPT here as anywhere else in the world - statistically probably safer. :-lolUnfortunately when it comes to GA flying it's a totally different story. Too many "cowboys" who think that the rules don't apply to them. The time before that taking a 747 to Hong Kong>-it was one of the aircrafts heaters that caused the pilots to>ground that flight.. :-eek Oh no!, not the coffee heater ... again! :-) >By the way-at least in the United States-the pilot in command>is responsible for the safe operation of the flight-/she>grounds the plane and is the ultimate authority. 14 CFR>91.7-"The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible>for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe>flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when>unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions>occur ".Nowhere have I questioned the legal position of the pilot. Indeed the above is pretty much universal world wide.When I said I had never seen a Pilot ground an aircraft I was refering to his exercising this "supreme authority" and refusing to take an aircraft handed to him from engineering with a valid maintenance release. I have never seen a pilot overide a maintenance decision and ground an aircraft. As you would be well aware whenver the pilot enters a defect in the log the maintenance release is suspended (and therefore the aircraft is technically grounded) until such time as the defect is either fixed, or carried forward as a MEL, and certified by a LAME. >"The mechanic has to sign his name and License number". >Wasn't that my point? Yes! No argument but... :-)I countered with the proposition that this scenario was only due to the dreaded FAA and their annoying regulations.If aircraft maintenance wasn't regulated you would find aircraft maintenance being carried out by untrained, unqualified, illegal immigrants being paid $2 an hour. Where then aviation safety.? >Sometimes the paperwork is not so easy as it is an>interpretation-and very often the interpretation changes over>time. No one says its easy. But that doesn't diminish it's importance. It is very very important. If all legislation was black and white lawyers would be out of a job. :-) >In the earlier example I mentioned- a good number of GA pilots>in the US are not aware that updating the gps database>requires a logbook entry aircraft's maintenance logbook for>every update-including monthly ifr updates. Then more shame GA pilots Ignorance of the law is no excuse! The simple fact is that updating the GPS database is maintenance to the aircrafts navigation system and therefore requires certification.> Why is this?>Because the FAA is interpreting a gps database update as a>major alteration, major repair, and preventive>maintenance- Nope not a matter of interpretation. Maintenance is maintenance period, and therefore requires certification. Pilots know that (or should know) and trying to say it is an interpretation issue is just an excuse. Doesn't wash.>A logbook entry doesn't necessarily make safety.>I don't think you can ever legislate complete safety-to place I agree 100% . We are not poles apart - just 90 degrees. :-) No amount of regulation can guarentee absolute safety. But aviation has every right to be proud of it's overall safety record.I still adhere to the belief that regulation is the major factor for this.>blind faith here I think is naive. True , but it's not blind faith. Likewise thinking you could have a safe aviation environment if regulations are removed is just as naive. Without all the irritating paperwork and regulation I am certain that aviation would't enjoy the safety record it currently has.We've got way off topic and have dragged on far too long - bored the forum ad nauseam. :-)My apologies to all.Calling off the discussion, at least from my side. Reply if you have anything you consider is essential to your point of view. I've got nothing to add.It's been an education for me.Cheers,Rogeredit: spelling