710 77345

Thanks all for your support.

DYKWIA

A bit like your post about the EK crash a few days ago eh?

Rather that criticising others, maybe you should start contributing to the forum? I can't remember a single post of yours that has been helpful or informative. Rather, you just pick up what other people have posted and try to pick faults (otherwise known as trolling).

Globaliser

The Aviation Herald does a good job of summarising the most salient parts of official reports that are published. So whether you are snidely denigrating the site itself or those who choose to read it to get a potted summary about accidents and incidents, you are wrong to do so.

One thing is quite striking in any discussion here about safety, which is that people repeatedly bring up this engine cowl incident as if BA was the only airline that this has ever happened to, or if BA should somehow have been immune to this particular gotcha.

DrBernardo

In fairness, and this isn't aimed at you Globaliser, the reason that this incident keeps being brought up is that some people post assertions that BA's engineering, pilots and safety are somehow in a galactic gold-standard league of their own perfection. Whereas the reality is that, occasionally, everyone makes mistakes and accidents happen. Some airlines make more, some fewer. But everyone makes them. And in the case of BA, this incident demonstrates that management actions/pressure can exacerbate the likelihood of them happening...

Tobias-UK

I don't have time to read the whole 149 page AAIB report, but what exactly did the AAIB find in this regard?

Globaliser

If that's what some people have posted here, then that's fair comment. What I suspect is ironic is that BA's flying and engineering departments and personnel probably don't regard themselves as being in a galactic gold-standard league of their own perfection. A good safety culture includes recognising that everyone makes mistakes and understanding the importance of operating all the procedural defences that are intended to trap them and prevent them from turning into something more serious. I doubt that BA's safety standards would be what they are if its own personnel think that they are infallible.

TPloser

Although I like this idea and will probably do the same next time I fly I had to laugh at the potential consequences. I hope I never read something that goes like:

Management have noticed the preferrence of travellers to bring their own cleaning materials on board and in the interests of choice BA are thinking of implementing BOC (Bring your Own Cleaning). A range of products will be available to buy on board. As with BOB cards or avios only...

Tobias-UK

Are you able to point me in the right direction to find this information? You imply above that you have read the AAIB report, are you able to direct me to the page numbers where the AAIB have found this to be the case?

DrBernardo

Agree 100% with this - and it's never the pilots and engineers who post on here who make those allegations...

DrBernardo

Print it out for your next flight - it makes quite interesting reading actually (for all sorts of reasons)... And I'm not usually the sort of aviation-nerd who reads these things religiously.

I read it a while ago, so can't remember all the detail. Post #42 up-thread contains some of the salient material, and there was also a section discussing engineers' working patterns across aircraft/terminals which was illuminating.

As with all good AAIB reports, it doesn't explicitly point the finger of blame. But it's possible to see that downward pressure on costs & staffing levels were contributory factors. And indeed I think it would surprising to anyone if an engineering/maintenance department were exempt from general strategies of cost efficiency. The trick, as always, is in trying to get the balance right...

HIDDY

These reports do tend to waffle on a bit. At the end of the day BA did not break any rules/laws and noone really knows for sure whether worker fatigue caused it or not.

nallison

Rather ironic your post, no? I'm touched you take such interest in my posts though.

Not sure why you've singled me out, I was merely defending someone who was accused, by a moderator no less, of making things up. I would have thought that's where your concern should be, moderators behaving in such a way rather than me going to the effort of re-reading and quoting the report to provide the information requested. Helpful no? But hey, you enjoy your ad-hominem attack, do you consider that a better contribution? I guess there's some untouchables on this forum.

As for the EK comment, again I merely defended someone who was being picked on by one of the regulars, and noted that firewalling is a feature of the Boeing, because misunderstanding may have arisen from the post saying it can't be done on some planes. And the issue of how TOGA was performed was absolutely related to this incident.

Clearly, and especially as several of the latest contributions show, this is not the place for any kind of sensible discussion about aviation incidents, as people are more interested in defending BA through pedantry and trying to catch people out than a serious discussion. I would encourage people to consider encouraging the airline to improve where its practices are shown to be flawed, rather than go after the people who only point out what it says in the report.

nallison

I'm sure you're capable of opening a report and searching for 'fatigue'. You don't have time to read it, I don't have time to do that for you. We can reconvene when you've read it. There was substantial discussion on more serious fora at the time and the inferences are quite clear, but I doubt you have any interest in the actual chain of causation.

Frankly, I live in Mexico city so my mood is not great and I have much better things to do today than play your silly games.

Tobias-UK

Thank you for your response. I am not playing any games, I prefer to rely on facts rather than accept what I am told on an internet message board. Of course I am capable of reading the Report, but it is 149 pages long and don't have the time to read through it at the moment, but I am not the one making the assertion that:

That is a very bold assertion. You joined the discussion with the following so I assumed you had read the report and that you would have been kind enough to lead me to the text that would confirm the above conclusion.

I have read the Findings detauled in the Report's Conclusions and cannot see that there was a finding of fact that the cause of the accident was as a result of fatigue or under-resourcing, as was the allegation.

The Report at page 107 states:



So after assimilating all the evidence, there was no finding of fact that fatigue did play a part in this accident, but that fatigue may have been a factor. There is no mention in the Report, that I could see, that attributed under-resourcing as a contributory factor in the accident. Now if I have somehow missed these findings of fact, please feel free to direct me to them.

Globaliser

I think that for the present discussion, the most relevant parts of the report, both in sections 1 (factual information) and 2 (analysis) are on pages 52, 84 and 85. The last paragraph before the safety recommendation (which was addressed to EASA and not to BA) seems to be worth reading.