[TiredOldHack2]

[quote quote=945296]Supply chain managers ignore the warnings even after showing them open cost Boms. Well the sample passed, and the paperwork passed so someone else’s problem, boxes ticked, and low price achieved.[/quote]

This happens all the time in the food industry too. As long as the paperwork is OK, the supermarkets don’t care and, more importantly, don’t want to be told. And if they are made aware of an issue, well, hey, we’ll pass all the costs onto the supplier…

There’s going to be another big food safety scare sooner rather than later….

[canucklad]

[quote quote=945323]hope you write the book. I will buy a copy.[/quote]

Here’s your title , that sums up why we get into these situations…..

” Why healthy profits just aren’t good enough ”

1 user thanked author for this post.

GivingupBA

[speedbird1969]

@canuckland there is no differentiation between these pitot tubes. There aren’t Dragonair pitot “high quality” or AF “cheap inferior tubes” The difference, as I understand was to do with a fault that the manufacturer identified that could lead to ice build up causing a faulty reading. Once identified a program would be initiated to replace all of the affected parts. But if you can imagine with 2 of these tubes fitted per aircraft and hundreds, possibly thousands of aircraft flying with them the company that made them could not manufacture that many new components, the airlines even if they had the stock could not replace all of the aircraft simultaneously so a program has to be drawn up from the manufacturer of the component in conjunction with the aircraft manufacturer to replace them in a similar order to that of the build and delivery schedule of the aircraft. Had the AF aircraft been modified sooner it is possible that accident may not have happened. Airlines don’t have the option of buying manufacturers spares or patent parts like you can get from Halfords or German & Swedish for a car, they are stuck with getting parts from the approved manufacturer which is why things are so expensive.

1 user thanked author for this post.

openfly

[cwoodward]

Speedbird1969 wrote @canuckland there is no differentiation between these pitot tubes. There aren’t Dragonair pitot “high quality” or AF “cheap inferior tubes”
I disagree. There many makers,differing qualities and huge cost differences of pitot tubes.

[speedbird1969]

@cwoodward can you show any examples?

[canucklad]

[quote quote=945516]@canuckland there is no differentiation between these pitot tubes.[/quote]

Hey Speedbird1969, I’m happy to stand corrected, and happy to concede that most of the conversation I was privy to went right above my head.
Yet I do recall being surprised at their conjecture about the crash (bearing in mind they hadn’t even found the wreckage yet) and even more surprised at the comment about feeling sorry for their fellow AF aviators and more importantly why.

Too long along to recall verbatim, the phrase used but it definitely had this sentiment …..and imagine it being said in an Aussie accent for authenticity….. : )

All in the context of surmising what had happened to AF440 and the pitot tubes

“ Really feel for the Frogs (pilots) , thank **** our lot (Dragonair) are prepared to spend the money and get decent stuff”

I’d assume the fault you’re talking about was known and this is what they might have been referring too, but they definitely expressed displeasure with AF as a company. A Company they wouldn’t be prepared to work for. It was also clear they formed these opinions from having conversations with their fellow pilots from AF !!

Something I’d never thought of before, as I’d happily flown with them many times, without considering the safety implications.

1 user thanked author for this post.

speedbird1969

[capetonianm]

This is somewhat off topic but the AF447 situation was, as ever, down to a series of events causing a catastrophic failure.

Lack of adherence to on board procedures, lack of proper procedures, arrogance, poor training, and failure to comply with manufacturers’ update. The pitot tubes were just one of many factors, but were not inferior from the outset.

Would I fly with AF if I had a choice? In the past I have had some excellent flights with them but after 447, non merci.

[NNoah16]

When assessing risk, likelihood always plays a role in the decision making process to ground aircraft. If the likelihood is low then the risk is accepted and you’re good to go…

787 interior is determined by the carrier but I still prefer the 350 as a direct comparison. I do miss the 737 Max though, it is my favorite single aisle aircraft.

[Author]

Posts