The technician of Spanair denounces a persecution to try to blame him for the accident

The technician of Spanair denounces a persecution to try to blame him for the accident



The aircraft maintenance technician Felipe García has assured that after the accident of the Spanair plane in Madrid, in which 154 people died, he was condemned by the public, "insulted, reviled and persecuted" and that in his performance there was no Professional negligence or error.

During his speech in the parliamentary commission of investigation of the accident, which occurred on August 20, 2008 shortly after taking off the aircraft, has denounced a "fierce" campaign against him that even became afraid and that "transformed his day to day "in a situation of" permanent alarm ".

In this sense, he assured that he tried to go for the weakest and with the least resources, which was the maintenance worker.

"The focus was on me and it was intended in any way to try to take responsibility," Garcia insisted, recalling that a court finally handed down his acquittal on the grounds that the maintenance action was not the cause of the accident or contributed to it.

He also defended that in his performance "there was not the slightest hint of professional negligence or error" and stressed that he acted according to how he had been trained and with the demands that the aeronautical industry had at that time.

"There was no improvisation and the decisions that were made were known and agreed upon by my shift boss and by the deceased commander, as could be seen in the Boeing Recorder," he said.

In addition, has indicated that after not receiving any additional requirement by the flight crew and "there is no reference to other breakdowns in the documentation", continued to perform other functions and was not responsible for outputting the aircraft.

"I think it was a usual maintenance action, the treatment that was given was in accordance with the usual practice," he added, while stressing that the plane "was dispatchable" and the maintenance action "was safe for the purposes of the airworthiness of the plane. "

During his presentation, he stressed that at the time of the accident he had accumulated twenty years of experience as an aircraft maintenance technician "without having had the slightest incident" in his professional career.

He also indicated that he was shocked after the accident and that a plane can have a thousand faults, and has nothing to do with each other.

.



Source link