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

[Cessnaflyer 56]

>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?

[Guest nitram]

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

[dseagrav 0]

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.

[Cessnaflyer 56]

>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?

[Guest nitram]

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.

[Cessnaflyer 56]

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?

[CF104 0]

>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

[Guest nitram]

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"

[martinboehme 491]

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

[mgh 89]

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.

[Guest nitram]

>nitram,>>just a small note... it's a "thrust reverser", not a "reverse>thruster" or "thruster".>>MartinAccording to the airline it is an "airflow reverser"

[Guest nitram]

>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.The airline has been ordered to bring their "expert witness" along at the next hearing. He will have to give answers to myself and the judge.Things like timeline and the actual date of commencement of maintenance are not technical. If the maintenance didn't start straight away, then the the overun could have been caused by this and not the problem. If the problem was forgotten at the beginning of maintenance (or they were not instructed by the airline until the last minute), then not enough time might have been given to it's repair. Maybe the technicians were only told to tackle the engine removal?We will not know until all 10 days logs are provided and any risk accessments, which will show procedures and order of the planned work. I don't think to know how the airflow reverser works will be an issue. The only statement made by the "expert" was the reverser could not be tested while other engines were missing. That is a question I wanted answering.It has now been answered by Rolls Royce themselves and they say that it could not be run unless all engines present or the missing engine locked off.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

"It has now been answered by Rolls Royce themselves and they say that it could not be run unless all engines present or the missing engine locked off."Okay, I will take that as the conclusion to this, and lock this thread. It is not a thread that probably should have been here in the first place, but it seems to now have run its course.