EU Standards Versus F.A.A & Far East

Amaad Lone · Post by **Amaad Lone** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:21 am

Is PIA facing similar problems with authorities of Japan, China, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Middle East, and North America?

Is PIA doing something wrong according to European standards???

Basically PIA fleet of A310-300s and 747-300s is facing restrictions in Europe, then why not in Saudi Arabia or Japan, both of which get the 747 or the A310.

An airline that has been operating flights to Europe since 50 years should not be facing such crisis.

PIA is not the airline of Rwanda, or Congo or Sierra Leone, its the airline of a country that is producing thousands of engineers a year, so why such crisis???

Who is responsible, and how can the situation be rectified????

Adnan Anwar · Post by **Adnan Anwar** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 2:24 pm

I was wondering exact same thing.

Why American FAA, Middle East Aviation Authorities, Japanese Aviation Authorities or CAA of the far eastern countries does not have any complaints of PIA that I have come across. So I have not seen/heard red flags from them.

What is in European Standard that PIA keeps failing?

I am curious why this just blewup now this must be expected by PIA management thats why they are so quite.

FULLTHRUST · Post by **FULLTHRUST** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:36 pm

Amaad, sorry in advance;

of a country that is producing thousands of engineers

1. What personality traits do they have, do they posses the quality of transforming into a grease monkey?

2. A graduate engineer is a misfit in an airline's maintenance department. The true fact of an airline's engineer is that they are *licensed technicians*, nothing more than that.

3. The challenge now is, the training centre does not have the top instructors who can produce *technicians* from the apprenticeship program. It takes about 3 years to produce starter technicians, who have no clue *bair ki G*** kahan hay*, on top of it PIA inducts on a regular basis the PIA Cadets, when returned to PIA (from CAE PAF) they think they are *AIR MARSHALS*, cannot become grease monkeys, they simply refuse to work with their hands on the aircraft. They feel insulted holding a spanner in their hands.

Now tell me who is going to work on the aircraft. PIA spend millions to train the 777 engineers, Emirates got them all for *FREE*, is PIA smart or Emirates?

EASA 145 was given to PIA in AVM Niaz's regime, and the homework which PIA did was an eyewash as far as EU was concerned. He was a great negotiator, on the other hand when he is no longer in PIA, and SAFA people become familiar with the *insights * of PIA maint. it was inevitable to happen.

Responsible........ the people who run the show, and have got no clue, what they're doing!!

Everyone knows who they are.

I would like to add a few words here:

Fundamentally the EASA approval was sought to have 3rd party (outside maint. work) to be done in PIA hangars, but once again an *AIR MARSHAL* who (very sorry to say) wanted just promotions (out of turn, and he managed to have) became the so called *Chief Engineer Business Development* did nothing to avail the opportunity to have business into PIA. Once again *NEPOTISM* prevailed.

The said Chief Engineer Business Development is a PIA cadet. (trained at CAE PAF)

FMC · Post by **FMC** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:44 pm

PIA wide body(ispahani) hangar which includes base maintenance and overhaul facilities is being parted out to a 3rd party for a future Joint Venture. SATS, SWISSPORT are it's proto types.

DEZI · Post by **DEZI** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:03 am

FMC wrote:PIA wide body(ispahani) hangar which includes base maintenance and overhaul facilities is being parted out to a 3rd party for a future Joint Venture. SATS, SWISSPORT are it's proto types.

EC has raised objections on the routine(line) maintenance practises of PIA. What has base maintenance got to do with it? TK's origin is an indicator of his shrewdness that no one will ever be able to match.