Sign in to follow this  
Tom Allensworth

Urgent ! Real 747 engineer required !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Recommended Posts

I have n't posted for a while but I am in desperate need of advice!I am taking an airline to court tomorrow, but they have only got me their evidence today. I am trying to find out some info, but most of the engineering companies are unwilling to help.Can the number 1 engine be run while numer 3 & 4 engines are removed ?(ground maintenance conditions...not flight!)

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I'm not an engineer but if the number 1 engine can be run by itself on a stand in the maintanence shop why couldn't it be run by itself on the wing? You'd want to make sure that the fuel was not flowing to engines that weren't there but in principle the same logic would apply. I think.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for your reply, but I need an engineer who can verify this by email as My court action is tomorrow afternoon. I am sure that it can be done but with 2 engines missing from the other wing there could be structural damage? caused by the weight on the spar? I just want to have good proof.

Share this post


Link to post

New question, Can a faulty non-operational thrust reverser be tested/fault diagnosed without engine power? ( I am assuming that the apu is supplying electricity and hydralics) It was a detached cable (wire not electrical) from the cockpit controls to the thrust flaps. Could this be diagnosed without the engine running?

Share this post


Link to post

"I have n't posted for a while but I am in desperate need of advice!I am taking an airline to court tomorrow, but they have only got me their evidence today. I am trying to find out some info, but most of the engineering companies are unwilling to help."I know zilch about Boeing engineering, but have sat on a few juries and know courtroom procedure fairly well. The first thing your lawyer should do is ask for a continuance. If the airline has only disclosed their evidence the day before trial, how can you be possibly prepared to take them to court? You will end up rushing through a process and probably having the case kicked out. Since you haven't shared many details of your case, you also place possible responders here in an awkward position. Not that you are doing so, but the post takes the "appearance" of a "fishing expedition" and people may perceive your motives as cloudy or insincere.Anyway, that's my advice. Get a continuance, and be prepared. And be prepared to cut your losses and drop the suit if no one cooperates. We live in a litigious society--not everyone wins, even those who deserve to.-John

Share this post


Link to post

I take on board your comments and I would like to say more, but that is not prudent before the court date. As for litigation, I have never done this before, but after what myself and other passengers went through, this particular company needs an attitude adjustment. I am not doing it for the money, but at the same time, I do not want to lose on a technicallity.Cheers Martin

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Martin. Understood. Here's hoping your attorney can get you a continuance to better prepare. All parties are required to disclose data pertinent to the case, and if the airline stalled until the last moment to disclose data in your case, your team has a right to adjust to that. Good luck,John

Share this post


Link to post

>I have n't posted for a while but I am in desperate need of>advice!>I am taking an airline to court tomorrow, You have a court date tomorrow and you are collecting some data today on the internet forum - well, it doesn't speak very convincing about your case (or your lawyer).Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post

>You have a court date tomorrow and you are collecting some>data today on the internet forum - well, it doesn't speak very>convincing about your case (or your lawyer).>>Michael J.>Haha and on a flightsim forum nonetheless. For some reason I am thinking this is a BS case because you would know the right people to go to for answers.

Share this post


Link to post

Nice comments Guys, especially when I came here for advice, but just for you doubters, my case is in a UK small claims court where I can defend myself. If I did use a solicitor, under court rules, I cannot claim for their costs, even if I win. My case has been run past someone who is able to give me non-technically based legal info and they will be in attendance. I came here to finalise some very important details. 99.99% of my case is ready. I don't consider one detail a cause for failure. Thanks for the encouragement........Those have now been cleared up in my mind, so today is the day I go to court............wether you believe it or not! As for the right people to ask, have you ever tried to get specific technical data from any airline or maintenance company? I have and it is like some secret society. The people I am taking to court have taken over 1 year to supply me with a few papers. I spent the day yesterday on the phone taking to: Cargolux in luxembourg, Rolls Royce and the CAA in UK and Boeing in Seattle. They are all unwilling to commit themselves when it involves a case against a company that may or may not be one of their clients.By the way, thanks for the BS.......

Share this post


Link to post

>By the way, thanks for the BS.......It is indeed very easy to dismiss your case as BS - now we learn all of a sudden that this is a small claims court case and not some big class action lawsuit with skilled lawyers, subject matter experts and perhaps 12 jurors - so why all this conspiracy on your part?. There is absolutely no harm done discussing small claim court cases in advance - even in public. Tell us what the case is and we can all make up our mind whether it is a BS or not. Don't know what the standarts in UK are but you usually need an expert witness if the case hinges on very technical aspects and it sounds like you have none. Anyway, unless you are willing to share details of your case, sorry but it does sound like BS. Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post

The internet is read by many and I learned a lot about the particular by joining their forums. I do not want to risk the chance of someone reading it from the company, if I am too specific. Who knows, there is a good chance that some people in the industry like flight sims. I am not going into case specifics, but things went well.Thanks for the forum link, it looks very good.nitram

Share this post


Link to post

>By the way, thanks for the BS.......Anyday :) You say 99.99% of your case is ready but you still tried to contact every aspect of your case right before the court date? Seems like you still needed a lot of answers for your case. Of course no one talked, the aviation industry is a very tight group and when you try to go after one entity they will all try to protect eachother. After being in and around this industry my whole life it's easy to see you won't get the answers from the company or anyone that is within the company.

Share this post


Link to post

I only needed one question answered and I got it. The defendant's evidence was handed to me 5 days late. That was yesterday........the day before court. As I said my case went well today and the airline has been torn off a strip by the judge. The case was ajourned until a whole day could be set aside instead of the 2 hours. He said my case may become a test case for Eu261/2004 regulations and was too big to be settled in 2 hours.Thanks for all the input.

Share this post


Link to post

>I only needed one question answered and I got it.> The defendant's evidence was handed to me 5 days late. That>was yesterday........the day before court.> As I said my case went well today and the airline has been>torn off a strip by the judge.> The case was ajourned until a whole day could be set aside>instead of the 2 hours.> He said my case may become a test case for Eu261/2004>regulations and was too big to be settled in 2 hours.>>Thanks for all the input.>Ok I am kinda lost here. You post EU261/2004 and that is a regulation about denied boarding and passenger compensation for the refusal of boarding. But you say you are talking about Cargolux, what do they have to do with passengers when they carry cargo? What does the engine mx have to do with the regulation?

Share this post


Link to post

Because the airline is claiming "extraordinary circumstances" regarding the aircraft being stuck in maintenance

Share this post


Link to post

This whole law seems centered around forcing airlines to rush maintenance and take unnecessary risks, which will result in more passenger deaths. I suppose I'll never understand european mentality, but I'd much rather be late than dead, and nothing good ever came from a rushed project.

Share this post


Link to post

>Because the airline is claiming "extraordinary circumstances">regarding the aircraft being stuck in maintenanceThat only slightly answered my question. Let me pose the question again. What does Cargolux have to do with passenger carriage?

Share this post


Link to post

They were the ones doing the maintenance.And as for passenger safety.........rushing? The item was a faulty reverse thrust on one engine. Under the rules it is allowed to be locked off and the aircraft flown for 10 days, plus they are allowed to fly for another 10 days with permission from the CAA for an extension to fly. The airline flew it for 17 days and then it spent 10 days in maintenance for an A4 check. They had to remove two engines to repair the pylons due to cracks, but instead of running the faulty engine up first, they removed two engines which made testing the reverse thrust impossible. They fixed the actual safety issue, the pylons, but ran out of time to fix the reversers. The decision to fly for 17 days was a commercial one, irrespective of Eu261/2004. It was not one of safety issues, but a licence expiry of the thruster repair, that forced the aircraft to be grounded. The airline only supplied the last 3 days of daily logs. They ommitted the first 7 days. Methinks that in the 7 days logs and risk accessments is the real reason that the thruster got missed. Perhaps the aircraft stood for a couple of days? (where they had an opportunity to fix the thrusters?) or the thruster was forgotten about. The 3 logs that I do have show the plylon repairs on the 8th day and no mention of the outstanding thruster repair, but on the 9th and 10th it has been added. Surely if an aircraft had existing issues, then it should have been listed on the daily log on each day until it has been rectified?You see that someone is hiding something. I told the judge and he ordered that at the next hearing that they disclose all paperwork.I think the airline or maintenance are now in doo doo.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok thanks for all those answers now.Have you checked if they can fly with one (or two since assymetrical thrust is not fun) thrust reverser in the MEL?

Share this post


Link to post

>They were the ones doing the maintenance.>And as for passenger safety.........rushing?> The item was a faulty reverse thrust on one engine. Under the>rules it is allowed to be locked off and the aircraft flown>for 10 days, plus they are allowed to fly for another 10 days>with permission from the CAA for an extension to fly.> The airline flew it for 17 days and then it spent 10 days in>maintenance for an A4 check.> They had to remove two engines to repair the pylons due to>cracks, but instead of running the faulty engine up first,>they removed two engines which made testing the reverse thrust>impossible.> They fixed the actual safety issue, the pylons, but ran out>of time to fix the reversers.> The decision to fly for 17 days was a commercial one,>irrespective of Eu261/2004. It was not one of safety issues,>but a licence expiry of the thruster repair, that forced the>aircraft to be grounded.> The airline only supplied the last 3 days of daily logs. They>ommitted the first 7 days.> Methinks that in the 7 days logs and risk accessments is the>real reason that the thruster got missed. Perhaps the aircraft>stood for a couple of days? (where they had an opportunity to>fix the thrusters?) or the thruster was forgotten about.> The 3 logs that I do have show the plylon repairs on the 8th>day and no mention of the outstanding thruster repair, but on>the 9th and 10th it has been added.> Surely if an aircraft had existing issues, then it should>have been listed on the daily log on each day until it has>been rectified?>>You see that someone is hiding something. I told the judge and>he ordered that at the next hearing that they disclose all>paperwork.>I think the airline or maintenance are now in doo doo.nitram,I find your lack of knowledge of the aviation industry and aviation maintenance/regulations in general disturbing.Using your above description of the events in question, the aircraft could not be flown undel the MEL for a locked out reverser at the end of the A4 maintenance check regardless of what you believe. The MEL (78-1) is a category 'C' item which is 10 days. The extension can be as a long as required for troubleshooting as long as flight safety is not compromised and is dependent on regulatory approval. Any extension for the MEL would have lapsed during the A4 check requiring that the TR be repaired and serviceable before return to service. That is just a reality of the industry/regulation.You are accusing Cargolux on the delay for RTS(Return To Service) out of maintenance but have not disclosed the airline that you are accusing for not providing the log books to Cargolux. As a licensed Aircraft Maintanance Engineer, I will tell you that that happens quite often. You receive an aircraft for whatever check, A-B-C-D and that is all you are contractually obligated to perform unless there are specific clauses spelled out in the contract to clear all outstanding snags and MEL's. If clearing previous snags/MEL's is not spelled out in the contract, I feel that Cargolux have done all they legally can do to get the aircraft into service.If you can provide clarifying information, I would like to see it! I hope the judge has the foresight to do some research before awarding a judgement in your favour.Cheers,JohnBoeing 727/737 & Lockheed C-130/L-100 Mechanichttp://www.sstsim.com/images/team/JR.jpgwww.SSTSIM.com

Share this post


Link to post

Who said anything about blaming cargolux?I think that it is the airline witholding information.The first 7 days daily log are missing from 10 days maintenance in the evidence.For all I know is that the aircraft stood for 2-3 days before they even started work. That would negate their reason for late overunning maintenance. What about risk acessments? None of these were provided. Don't you set out the order in which work is carried out?They would tell the story. Maybe the airline forgot to tell cargolux about the thruster problem and it was realised last minute. The judge has said he wants to see all of the paperwork and not a one sided snapshot of evidence. He also wants the operations manager to attend and not a "rosey statement" that cannot be cross examined.Surely, it was more sensible to diagnose the thruster problem before the other engines were removed? In that way the repairs could be carried out on both items while the aircraft was disabled. The airline has witheld evidence for over a year and only produced the limited amount they did, the day before the trial (instead of the week before as ordered by the judge). It has been the airline that has been summonsed and ordered to produce evidence and the airline's operations manager. You see, as usual, you have assumed too much and think that this "no nothing" has anything better to do. But when people lie, then they should pay for those lies.The airline stated it was a "safety issue" that prevented the aircraft from flying. If so, they flew for nearly 20 days with a "safety issue".Seems to be double standards to me.As to my "disturbing" lack of knowledge, I think you can blame the airline/aviation industry for that. Not the CAA, Boeing, Cargolux, Rolls Royce or the airline, would tell me sweet FA.It is like one big "Masons Club"

Share this post


Link to post

nitram,just a small note... it's a "thrust reverser", not a "reverse thruster" or "thruster".Martin

Share this post


Link to post

Any information you get here is, with due respect to those who responded, is legally worthless.It's hearsay and won't carry any weight with a court. You need an expert opinion from someone who can demonstrate his qualifications to give it and who would be prepared to support his opinion in court by being cross-examined in the same way as you say the airline's operations manager will be. Such experts are available but would need paying.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this