Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Pilot lets car mechanics `fix' copter, grounded
A pilot of private chopper owned by a Mumbai-based company has landed in trouble for allegedly allowing two car mechanics to fix some problem in the engine of the helicopter. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) grounded the pilot after getting information about the matter. “On October 12, 2016, the company's Agusta Westland AW 109 chopper (VT-VCA) was flying from Goa to Pune via Kolhapur.Our Mumbai office got information and pictures that at the Kolhapur stopover, car… (epaperbeta.timesofindia.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Since no facts are available, every one is entitled to speculation , or better fantasies !
So why I be left behind ?
What if a fuel pipe was blocked ? And the "unqualified" mechanic cleaned it ..... BINGO ...
So why I be left behind ?
What if a fuel pipe was blocked ? And the "unqualified" mechanic cleaned it ..... BINGO ...
A turbine engine IS completely different than a car engine, even though both are internal combustion engines. While we can't determine the intital problem, the fact that the helicopter landing safely at it's destination doesn't mean it's OK to have uncertified and untrained persons working on the engine. What if it didn't land safely? One bad outcome is too many and untrained personnel make bad things more likely to happen. What should have happened is the helicopter sits until a trained and certified mechanic can look at it. If it takes a day or two for that to happen, then it takes a day or two. Passengers helping the crew during an in-flight emergency is totally different. In that situation you have a limited number of people to chose from for assistance and a very limited amount of time to solve the problem.
As an auto mechanic I completely agree.
Being an engineer I’m confused.
Is aircraft engine “totally” different? Does is not belong to genre of “ENGINES”, or more precisely I.C. Engines?
There is no preliminary info available about nature of fault or the corrective measure that was necessary or the action taken!
The result, however, is mentioned – that helicopter landed safely at destination.
The AME was not available, so what should have been the option/s?
I wonder !
Aviation history is full of ‘stories’ about passengers helping the crew during flight for almost every possible problem that an aircraft or passenger/s can encounter during flight, fiction excluded.
So, was grounding the pilot a wise decision? How so ever short it may turn out in due course.
Is aircraft engine “totally” different? Does is not belong to genre of “ENGINES”, or more precisely I.C. Engines?
There is no preliminary info available about nature of fault or the corrective measure that was necessary or the action taken!
The result, however, is mentioned – that helicopter landed safely at destination.
The AME was not available, so what should have been the option/s?
I wonder !
Aviation history is full of ‘stories’ about passengers helping the crew during flight for almost every possible problem that an aircraft or passenger/s can encounter during flight, fiction excluded.
So, was grounding the pilot a wise decision? How so ever short it may turn out in due course.
[This poster has been suspended.]
ThanX dear friend Wilbur Sanchez .
I am however amazed no end about assumptions U all fellows are making.
What makes U assume that it was some thing as serious as an engine overhaul of kind that was the prognosis ? Or some thing similarly major ?
And presumably that was "done" in short time by a non aeronautical mechanic / engineer !
No offence meant !
I am however amazed no end about assumptions U all fellows are making.
What makes U assume that it was some thing as serious as an engine overhaul of kind that was the prognosis ? Or some thing similarly major ?
And presumably that was "done" in short time by a non aeronautical mechanic / engineer !
No offence meant !
Pilot in trouble either way he went.