Originally Posted by
TANSTAAFL
The liability thing is another Red Herring. Almost every other airline had their own FAA approved manuals that were far better than the factory, which is more a minimum standard.
There is no excuse in our world for lack of standardization - I don't buy the liability, we might be checked on it nonsense - now we are checked to two standards - the schoolhouse and the way we "really" do it.
I hear the liability excuse all the time - I think it's just a weak excuse for sloppy airmanship
Tell that to the lawyers who advise this airline. I believe they would disagree whole heartedly with you.
The issue was not that we could not or did not build upon the baseline guidance from said manufacturer, it was that our procedures and policies varied greatly, and for that reason they were standardized.
As for you last comment, I also disagree. It is not a excuse, weak or otherwise for sloppy airmanship. It has nothing to do with it. Swissair 111 was the catalyst for this.
One thing that all must realize is that part of the DAL culture and business is that it is very legal. The use of directives or suggestives in our book is really the baseline on our end. Look at the release you sign. Again legal. We are a legally minded corporation that has the goal to mitigate exposure and liability as much as possible. It may not make you happy that it is this way, but it is the reason why it is this way.
I could go on, but suffice to say, the general counsel of DAL is consulted continually.