[coop330]

DELTA is a Joke! After seeing bolts lose on a DELTA 767 engine and taking pictures of it I tried to call Delta. I wanted them to be aware of the potential deadly problem, but I was told they have no policy in place for a customer to make a safety complaint over the phone. I was told to e-mail the pictures to regular customer care and someone will get back to you with in 30 days! What a joke! Do not fly DELTA! They let that 767 take back off after I told them it was unsafe! If anyone wants the pictures send me a message. Also in the pictures the engine has corrosion.

[ADMIN EDIT: LINKS REMOVED]

[justme]

Since your message is full of spam, I'm not too convinced by this, but what the hey, send me the pics. Without even seeing them I am willing to bet I know what they are.

[coop330]

I'm not sure what you mean by spam? But I can't send you an attachment.
so I posted a profile picture..

[coop330]

[coop330]

[justme]

Normal wear and tear. Are you or have you ever been an A&P mechanic? I was at one time long ago, and that is completely normal. It's not corrosion at all, it's actually only flaking paint. Don't know about the other picture since it isn't showing up.

[justme]

And by spam I meant the 4 links to some crappy review site you had in your OP.

[jimworcs]

They let the 767 take off after I told them it was unsafe...

Now, I think it is established that I am a Delta hater... but really, if an airline shut down an aircraft any time a passenger says so, they would hardly fly at all. I think you may have to high a regard for your own "opinion".

[jimworcs]

They let that 767 take back off after I told them it was unsafe!

Now, I think it is established that I am a Delta hater... but really, if an airline shut down an aircraft any time a passenger says so, they would hardly fly at all. I think you may have to high a regard for your own "opinion".

On the other hand, I am beginning to wonder if Delta has some kind of dispute with it's maintenance engineers...

A Delta Airlines Boeing 767-400, registration N843MH performing flight DL-94 from New York JFK,NY (USA) to Barcelona,SP (Spain) with 210 passengers, was climbing out of JFK's runway 22R when the crew indicated they needed to return to the airport due to the engine (CF6) problems. The airplane levelled off at FL190 and returned to JFK for a safe landing on runway 22R about 100 minutes after takeoff. The crew stopped on an adjacent taxiway requesting emergency services to inspect the engines and brakes as well as look for any fluid or damage at the underside of the aircraft. On request by emergency services the crew started the APU and shut both engines down on the taxiway.

The same day two more Boeing 767-400s suffered technical problems before departure within 6 hours: DL-164 JFK to Dublin (Ireland) and DL-72 JFL to Istanbul (Turkey).

Delta Airlines confirmed, the returning aircraft experienced engine problems, another aircraft suffered a faulty indication and a "maintenance issue".

3 Flights in 1 day!! That is very unusual... and all on the same aircraft type and from the same airport. Something smells fishy, or the co-incidence fairy has been busy.

[justme]

Something smells fishy, or the co-incidence fairy has been busy.

Maybe the coincidence fairy smells fishy! I think in this case the most likely explanation is just plain bad luck. The MTC guys (and gals) in JFK are an exceptional bunch and very knowledgeable.

Now, I think it is established that I am a Delta hater... but really, if an airline shut down an aircraft any time a passenger says so, they would hardly fly at all. I think you may have to high a regard for your own "opinion".

This is what's fishy! You seem to be making logical sense here, weird.

[jimworcs]

This is what's fishy! You seem to be making logical sense here, weird

I have never taken my battle with the falling standards and abuse of passengers by airlines into the safety arena. I have a very high regard for the safety standards of US aviation and have never sought to imply or suggest any specific airline is unsafe.

I was joking about the dispute with the maintenance engineers..

Although, I do have one specific safety concern about US aviation, this is NOT specific to any one airline. That is that the drive to cut costs is now so severe that young pilots coming through are being paid such low wages, particularly on commuter routes, that they are having to work second jobs and live in "dormitary" type accommodation. In some cases, some pilots are so desperate to gain entry to the industry, they are paying to occupy the right hand seat to gain experience and build hours. In addition, they are having to commute VERY long distances to get to work, as they cannot afford to live in the large hub cities where much of their work is located. Over the long term, this is potentially a very dangerous development and I hope that the FAA will regulate this. There is no point in having pilot hours regulated for flying, but ignoring the fact that just prior to taking their seat, they have worked an 8 hour shift in a restaurant!

[justme]

While I definitely agree that it is dangerous to have tired pilots, I don't think they should be paid exorbitant salaries to ensure they don't go out and get other jobs. I know that there is a large percentage of firefighters in NYC that have second and sometimes third jobs, yet they are supposed to be the ones saving us in emergencies, should we triple their salaries as well? What about the stories you hear of ER doctors working 24 or more hours straight? Is that dangerous? Police often have second jobs, yet their alertness could be the difference between life and death for them. I myself am a licensed pilot in helicopters (as a hobby), and as a safety precaution before any flight, you are supposed to ask yourself if you fit the "IMSAFE" qualifications. It stands for Illness, Medication, Sleep, Alcohol, Fatigue, and Emotion. If you are sick, drugged, tired, drunk, fatigued, or emotionally not stable, no pilot, private or commercial should be flying. I think it is pretty easy for you to agree with me there. I think where we will disagree, however, is in the details of your statement. As far as pilots "paying," in some cases literally, to build time in the right seat, this is usually done in airplanes that only require one pilot to operate. An example would be several courier companies that operate small airplanes (Cesna or KingAir) that only require one pilot legally, but in order for a new pilot to build hours, the right seat is utilized. I don't find this unsafe at all. As far as commuting to get to work, the VAST majority of pilots I have known and talked to have made the CHOICE to commute. I am not necessarily disagreeing that it could be unsafe to commute for half the day before you even "start" your day, but that it is generally a choice that is made for personal reasons and not one forced by the airlines. I think the regulations currently in place do a pretty good job of keeping the flying public safe, but agree that they could use a once-over to tweak them for the current era of operations.

**Sidenote** I am pretty sure that it is illegal to "sell" the right seat of an airplane that requires 2 pilots to operate, I am doing some fact checking and will post when I figure it out.

[jimworcs]

Ok, I am willing to have a debate about this..but before we start, I was stating categorically, that the overall standards of US aviation are of the highest order.

However, some of the trends that are causing me concern are as follows:

1. Conflict of Interest when training provider is "selling" the right hand seat. The practices of the Gulfstream Flight School, in particular, guaranteeing some of their graduates hours in the right hand seat, flying commercial commuter flights on behalf of Delta and US Airways is potentially unsafe.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aaNPBjZ2kB54

The relevant passage I am concerned about is this:

Pilots say Gulfstream has an unhealthy relationship between its airline and its flight school. Gulfstream’s training program is different from others, because it guarantees students time as a first officer, the No. 2 position in the cockpit, flying passengers for its own airline, Gulfstream says on its Web site. “We offer the fastest possible transition to the ‘Right Seat’ of a commercial airliner,” Gulfstream says. For $32,699, students get 522 hours of training -- including 250 hours as a first officer for Gulfstream International Airlines. That means student pilots are paying Gulfstream for the privilege of flying as first officers. “Gulfstream is selling the job,” says Charlie Preusser, a regional airline pilot who flew for Manassas, Virginia-based Colgan Air. “When you’ve got a guy fronting the cash, there’s a lot of pressure on the company to keep him onboard no matter how bad he is.”

2. Fatigue. Where pilots are commuting very long distances before taking the controls and often sleeping in "crash pads" and crew rooms as they cannot afford a hotel room and cannot get home and back before their next shift.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/ny...ilot.html?_r=1

The relevant passage I am concerned about is

Peek inside a crew lounge at midnight in Chicago, and one could easily find every recliner occupied by an off-duty aviator trying to sleep despite the whine of a janitor’s vacuum cleaner. In any city with a sizable air hub, a search of Craigslist for the term “crash pad” will turn up listings for rooms for rent, often for $200 a month or less, a short drive from an airport, where a dozen or more pilots, unable to afford hotels, may come and go, barely letting the mattresses cool. But many regional pilots, paid entry-level wages that are sometimes no better than a job at McDonald’s, can not afford even a crash pad. “I know a guy who bought a car that barely ran and parked it in the employee lot at his base airport, and slept in his car six or seven times a month,” said Frank R. Graham Jr., a former regional pilot and airline safety director who runs a safety consulting firm in Charlotte, N.C. Pilots for some regional airlines have been known to sleep in the aisles of their planes.

This would be illegal for someone driving a truck for example, but appears to be perfectly legal for pilots.

There is nothing wrong with commuting cross-country to fly, said Roger Cohen, the president of the Regional Airline Association, a trade group

The fact that the regionals are well aware of the conditions of their pilots illustrates the potential safety implications.

3. Very Low Pay There are vast discrepancies between the pay of some carriers over others. This can lead to a culture of pilots seeking entry to the profession accepting pay and conditions which result in them flying fatigued and working two (or more jobs). This was referenced in the link above. Here is a listing of the differences in pay between US airlines. Look at the discrepancies between entry level, commuter airlines and the main lines. The pay rates can be so low, and yet the level of responsibility remains of the highest. Do the public really know about this? Over time, I do believe this will become a safety issue.

http://www.aviationinterviews.com/pi...epayrates.html


So, is there any evidence that this may have resulted in accidents. Firstly, the crash of the Colgan aircraft near Buffulo, flying on behalf of Continental, is a cause of concern. The first officer in that crash actually stated on the CVR that she was concerned about other first officers pushing for promotion too quickly (for financial reasons presumably) before they were sufficiently trained and experienced.

Both the pilot and co-pilot in this crash had also discussed being afraid to call in sick, as they would not be paid and feared for their job. So whilst I agree Justme that a pilot has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring they are "fit to fly"... human factors will play a role in this. Airlines cannot keep their pay so low, hours high and expect that the pilot will not take this into account when deciding if s/he is fit to fly.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/634135

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews


I have tried to provide sources for this information, but much of this debate has been triggered by the Colgan crash. For those who have the time, you can see the evidence provided to the NTSB here:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Dockets/Aviation...27/default.htm

[jimworcs]

Ok, I am willing to have a debate about this..but before we start, I was stating categorically, that the overall standards of US aviation are of the highest order.

However, some of the trends that are causing me concern are as follows:

1. Conflict of Interest when training provider is "selling" the right hand seat. The practices of the Gulfstream Flight School, in particular, guaranteeing some of their graduates hours in the right hand seat, flying commercial commuter flights on behalf of Delta and US Airways is potentially unsafe.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aaNPBjZ2kB54

The relevant passage I am concerned about is this:

Pilots say Gulfstream has an unhealthy relationship between its airline and its flight school. Gulfstream’s training program is different from others, because it guarantees students time as a first officer, the No. 2 position in the cockpit, flying passengers for its own airline, Gulfstream says on its Web site. “We offer the fastest possible transition to the ‘Right Seat’ of a commercial airliner,” Gulfstream says. For $32,699, students get 522 hours of training -- including 250 hours as a first officer for Gulfstream International Airlines. That means student pilots are paying Gulfstream for the privilege of flying as first officers. “Gulfstream is selling the job,” says Charlie Preusser, a regional airline pilot who flew for Manassas, Virginia-based Colgan Air. “When you’ve got a guy fronting the cash, there’s a lot of pressure on the company to keep him onboard no matter how bad he is.”

2. Fatigue. Where pilots are commuting very long distances before taking the controls and often sleeping in "crash pads" and crew rooms as they cannot afford a hotel room and cannot get home and back before their next shift.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/ny...ilot.html?_r=1

The relevant passage I am concerned about is

Peek inside a crew lounge at midnight in Chicago, and one could easily find every recliner occupied by an off-duty aviator trying to sleep despite the whine of a janitor’s vacuum cleaner. In any city with a sizable air hub, a search of Craigslist for the term “crash pad” will turn up listings for rooms for rent, often for $200 a month or less, a short drive from an airport, where a dozen or more pilots, unable to afford hotels, may come and go, barely letting the mattresses cool. But many regional pilots, paid entry-level wages that are sometimes no better than a job at McDonald’s, can not afford even a crash pad. “I know a guy who bought a car that barely ran and parked it in the employee lot at his base airport, and slept in his car six or seven times a month,” said Frank R. Graham Jr., a former regional pilot and airline safety director who runs a safety consulting firm in Charlotte, N.C. Pilots for some regional airlines have been known to sleep in the aisles of their planes.

This would be illegal for someone driving a truck for example, but appears to be perfectly legal for pilots.

There is nothing wrong with commuting cross-country to fly, said Roger Cohen, the president of the Regional Airline Association, a trade group

The fact that the regionals are well aware of the conditions of their pilots illustrates the potential safety implications.

3. Very Low Pay There are vast discrepancies between the pay of some carriers over others. This can lead to a culture of pilots seeking entry to the profession accepting pay and conditions which result in them flying fatigued and working two (or more jobs). This was referenced in the link above. Here is a listing of the differences in pay between US airlines. Look at the discrepancies between entry level, commuter airlines and the main lines. The pay rates can be so low, and yet the level of responsibility remains of the highest. Do the public really know about this? Over time, I do believe this will become a safety issue.

http://www.aviationinterviews.com/pi...epayrates.html


So, is there any evidence that this may have resulted in accidents. Firstly, the crash of the Colgan aircraft near Buffulo, flying on behalf of Continental, is a cause of concern. The first officer in that crash actually stated on the CVR that she was concerned about other first officers pushing for promotion too quickly (for financial reasons presumably) before they were sufficiently trained and experienced.

Both the pilot and co-pilot in this crash had also discussed being afraid to call in sick, as they would not be paid and feared for their job. So whilst I agree Justme that a pilot has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring they are "fit to fly"... human factors will play a role in this. Airlines cannot keep their pay so low, hours high and expect that the pilot will not take this into account when deciding if s/he is fit to fly.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/634135

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews


I have tried to provide sources for this information, but much of this debate has been triggered by the Colgan crash. For those who have the time, you can see the evidence provided to the NTSB here:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Dockets/Aviation...27/default.htm

[jimworcs]

I have no idea why that post published twice.. I am sure it was something I did!! Sorry.

[justme]

I have no problem agreeing with everything you said. I think it is indeed dangerous for pilots to be fatigued when they are flying. However, I stand by my argument that simply paying them more won't change anything. I was unaware that Gulfstream was "selling" the FO seat for Delta and US Air. That definitely concerns me and I will be looking into it more. The operations that I was speaking of and have knowledge of are all cargo/mail operations. As far as pilots not being able to afford a crash pad, I'm not sure I buy it. Especially since one was able to afford a car to park in the parking lot. If you can't afford a place to stay because of personal mismanagement of your money, that's not my fault. It is definitely a cause for concern if it causes you to be ill-prepared for your flights, but none-the-less, not my business. And simply paying you more won't change that. Instead of paying for hotel rooms or crash pads, they'd simply go buy corvettes or motorcycles to impress the FAs. I think the bottom line is this: There need to be more stringent guidelines in place to ensure our flight crews are not being unsafe and flying passengers while asleep. I just don't think the answer is as simple as paying them more.

[jimworcs]

However, I stand by my argument that simply paying them more won't change anything.

I don't argue that simply paying them more is the solution. I argue that the FAA should place rules regarding the total number of hours a pilot can work in a week, not just the hours that the pilot can fly. This will restrict the ability of new entrant pilots to work two or more jobs, and hence restrict the pool of young pilots who can apply for the posts. This will have the effect of pushing up wages to a more realistic level at the bottom end. I am not talking mainline carriers here, but the regionals and commuters. It is illogical to have rules which say that a pilot cannot work more than X number of hours per week to protect against fatigue, and then say.. but any work not for the airline doesn't count.

Rule #2.. restrict the length of the commute in, without a rest period. The co-pilot of the Colgan aircraft that crashed in Buffalo had commuted from SEATTLE! That is crazy... I would suggest a maximum of 3 hours travel before the shift, unless there is an 8 hour rest period BEFORE starting work.

If you can't afford a place to stay because of personal mismanagement of your money, that's not my fault.

That is deliberately provocative I know, but many of these pilots are earning less than $20,000 per annum. There is no way that they can afford fancy cars on that salary, and neither is the issue "personal mismanagement" of their money.

In fact, as you seem to now acknowledge, there may have been some FO's who are flying for Delta and US Airways who are not getting paid at all, but rather paying Gulfstream for the priviledge. That has serious safety implications in my view and I know for a fact that the FAA is looking at this issue. If you can shed any further light on this from your own investigations, I hope you will post them on here. At the minimum, I would hope that Delta and US Airways will have given Gulfstream a shot across the bows as a result of the bad publicity and ended this iniquitous practice on the aircraft which bear their brand.

Instead of paying for hotel rooms or crash pads, they'd simply go buy corvettes or motorcycles to impress the FAs

Justme... are you still living in the 1970s?.... times they are achanging. I am surprised that you are spouting that kind of stereotyping as part of this debate. Many FO's, including the poor FO of the Colgan crash are women. Yes, I know.. it is unbelieveable, but some women no longer just work as cabin crew and can now actually fly the plane!!

[jimworcs]

Congress tightens requirements for airline pilots

Reacting to last year's Continental crash near Buffalo, N.Y., that killed 50 people, the legislation requires pilots to log more flight time before flying passengers and aims to reduce pilot fatigue.


Responding to the deaths of 50 people in the crash last year of a Continental Airlines flight near Buffalo, N.Y., Congress passed legislation Friday requiring increased training and experience for regional airline pilots.

The House passed the measure, which also extends Federal Aviation Administration funding, on a voice vote just before midnight Thursday, and the Senate approved identical legislation Friday morning. No member of either chamber objected.

The legislation requires all airline pilots to log at least 1,500 hours of flight time before flying passengers, up from the current 250-hour minimum for newly hired copilots. The bill also boosts training, mandates the creation of a national database of pilot records and aims to reduce pilot fatigue by directing the FAA to update rules on pilot duty hours.

In addition, passengers who shop for airline tickets on the Internet must be notified which carrier will operate each segment of the itinerary.

The bill, which Rep. Jerry F. Costello (D-Ill.) lauded as the strongest airline safety legislation in decades, was drafted in response to the Continental Airlines flight operated by regional carrier Colgan Air that crashed in February 2009, killing all 49 people on board and one person on the ground. Regional airlines were involved in the last seven fatal U.S. airline accidents, and pilot performance was a factor in four cases, said Costello, who chairs the House aviation subcommittee.

Applause rang out in the gallery when the House passed the bill. Families of the victims of the Continental crash traveled to Washington more than 30 times over the last year to push for reform.

Karen Eckert of Williamsville, N.Y., said the legislation would have pleased her sister, Beverly Eckert, a Sept. 11 widow who served on the 9/11 Family Steering Committee before her death in the crash.

"We are delighted" with the legislation, Eckert said. "It actually encompasses almost every single item that we had asked for.…No other plane will crash because of inadequate training."

Regional and commuter airlines, which are most affected, voiced concernsthat the government was getting too involved in training issues.

The Aug. 1 expiration of FAA funding provided a vehicle for the safety upgrades, a House committee aide said. Congress has extended FAA funding 15 times since 2007, when the last comprehensive aviation law was due to expire.

Members of Congress aim to have a comprehensive airline bill ready by Sept. 30, when the latest extension of FAA funding expires. Divisive provisions over unions at FedEx Corp. and long-distance flights from Reagan National Airport outside Washington have kept the broader bill tabled for months.

julia.love@latimes.com

Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times

This is very positive news. Looks like some Delta affiliates will no longer be able to sell the right hand seat to people looking to build up hours... Good news, and nice to see Congress beginning to recognise that the only thing that will make the airlines change is legislation.