Another Fine Job By St Mae
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
Why wouldn't the doors be armed on NON revenue ferry.? I would think that would be a safety issue. I just recently ferried a flight from MCO to PIT, granted we had 3 F/A's on board, but we armed all the doors. If there was an emergency and needed to used the slide/slide rafts you would need the doors armed to eject them. Maybe, I am missing something???? :huh:oldiebutgoody said:
This argument gets played-out a lot in hospitals. The big teaching center says that only the best is good enough. The HMO says that they "rigorously credential and monitor" all of their docs and that one hospital is as good as the next. Podunk General Hospital says that they are as good as the medical school and can do it cheaper.
To a degree, all are right. For routine stuff most docs are great...but we all know someone who had something non-routine and had it screwed-up badly by the B-team.
A solution is to have the A-team monitor the B-team...but this is hard when the B-team is far away and sub-contracted out. U could put its own inspectors/supervisors in Alabama and solve part of the problem.
To a degree, all are right. For routine stuff most docs are great...but we all know someone who had something non-routine and had it screwed-up badly by the B-team.
A solution is to have the A-team monitor the B-team...but this is hard when the B-team is far away and sub-contracted out. U could put its own inspectors/supervisors in Alabama and solve part of the problem.
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
As mentioned earlier, usually on maintenance or positioning flights only the front end crew is aboard. Since it is NOT required to arm the doors, and to preclude them from being accidently deployed (I know that this is difficult to do on an airbus, but...), the front end crew USUALLY does not arm them. It only takes a FRACTION OF A SECOND to arm the door before opening, and this is included in the prefight briefing. TRUST ME, IT"S NOT REQUIRED TO ARM THE DOORS ON NONREVENUE FLIGHTS!ktflyhome said:
ITRADE
Veteran
I also remember a certain crash in Chicago involving a DC-10, a forklift, and in-house closed-shop maintenance. So, whats your point?
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
ITRADE,
This whole discussion has two points - the IAM contract and outsourcing in general.
The first will be settled by an arbitrator at some point.
The second, taken separately, is a lot more complex. Outsourcing as a concept is neither good or bad. But you can end up getting what you pay for. Those of us who fly the planes would prefer quality maintence. I personally am not sure that selecting a contractor by price or because a major investor wants to create jobs in a certain location is the best way to insure quality maintenance.
As for the DC-10, it just happens I'm somewhat familiar with that one. As usual, the crash wasn't due to a single factor but rather a chain of events including FAA approvals, crew training, and maintenance.
Jim
This whole discussion has two points - the IAM contract and outsourcing in general.
The first will be settled by an arbitrator at some point.
The second, taken separately, is a lot more complex. Outsourcing as a concept is neither good or bad. But you can end up getting what you pay for. Those of us who fly the planes would prefer quality maintence. I personally am not sure that selecting a contractor by price or because a major investor wants to create jobs in a certain location is the best way to insure quality maintenance.
As for the DC-10, it just happens I'm somewhat familiar with that one. As usual, the crash wasn't due to a single factor but rather a chain of events including FAA approvals, crew training, and maintenance.
Jim
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Mar 5, 2004
- 4,265
- 4
itrade, then you should also know that the manufacturer took the heat for this one because it was their engineer's who approved removal of a certain engine while it was still attached to the pylon, their were several other in house procedures of exact nature by different majors, but thank god after the tragedy in chicago the incident was'nt repeated due to some close inspection.ITRADE said:
ITRADE
Veteran
McD took partial heat. AA took heat for the maintenance procedure. And maintenance took a lot of heat for failing to nofity AA's engineering department that the engine reassembly could not be properly completed. Instead they simply improvised.local 12 proud said:
Similar threads
