QF B744s VH-OEC, VH-OED Grounded

[airtalk9]

Two Qantas B747-400s VH-OEC and VH-OED the ex Malaysian
aircraft have been grounded due to major cracks in the fuselage.
It was believed they were found in the last 24 hours.

[Buster Hyman]

It was apparently located near where the FD crew sit in the cockpit....a new directive prohibits the use of wallets onboard effective immediately!!!:p ;) :p ;)

[Anti Skid On]

Anyone able to offer any info like the hours and cycles on the airframe (serial numbers, etc.)

Would trawl through Airliners.net, but the rugby is on TV!

[pullock]

I heard of the first one four days ago..............

Wonder if it will fly again???????????????????

:=

[Anti Skid On]

So found this (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=398102&WxsIERv=Qm9laW5nIDc0Ny00SDY%3D&WdsYXMg=UWFudGFz&QtODMg=U3lkbmV5IC0gS2luZ3Nmb3JkIFNtaXRoIEludGVybmF0aW9uYWwgK E1hc2NvdCkgKFNZRCAvIFlTU1kp&ERDLTkt=QXVzdHJhbGlhIC0gTmV3IFNvdXRoIFdhbGVz&ktODMp=QXVndXN0IDIsIDIwMDM%3D&BP=1&WNEb25u=R3JhaGFtZSBIdXRjaGlzb24%3D&xsIERvdWdsY=VkgtT0VD&MgTUQtODMgKE=Q2xpbWJpbmcgb3V0IGZyb20gUnVud2F5IDM0IGxlZnQuIFR oZSBhaXJjcmFmdCBoYXMgQ0Y2LTgwQzJCMUYgcG93ZXJwbGFudHMgYW5kIHd hcyBkZWxpdmVyZWQgb24gMjctMDktMTk5MCAoRXguIE42MDA5RiwgOU0tTUh OKS4%3D&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=MTQ0&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwMy0wOC0wOA%3D%3D&static=yes)

If you can't be bothered with the link -

(from the site) The aircraft has CF6-80C2B1F powerplants and was delivered on 27-09-1990 (Ex. N6009F, 9M-MHN).

Was it new in 1990, or added to QF in 1990 - and who ran it as N6009F (or was that a delivery rego.)

Also, MAS had an A330 that had to be scrapped after a chemical spill caused major corrosion - unrelated??

[Globaliser]

These are the "ugly sisters":-25778 983 B747-48E CF6-80C2B1F 1993-06-24 QANTAS VH-OEB LS-DJ HL7416
24836 808 B747-4H6 CF6-80C2B1F 1990-09-27 QANTAS VH-OEC MR-DE N6009F, 9M-MHN
25126 858 B747-4H6 CF6-80C2B1F 1991-06-10 QANTAS VH-OED MS-AJ 9M-MHOComparing the serial and line numbers, it looks like 1990 must be the original delivery date. QF only acquired these aircraft relatively recently.who ran it as N6009F (or was that a delivery rego.)A Google search throws up so many different aircraft that it must be a delivery rego.

[blueloo]

Ah Cheap Second Hand Aircraft.....you get what you pay for after all. Hope the guy who got the bonus from the cost cutting has spent the money and run!

[Wirraway]

Sat "Weekend Australian"

Cracking grounds Qantas jets
By Steve Creedy, aviation writer
September 27, 2003

Qantas has grounded two jumbo jets and called in manufacturer Boeing after maintenance engineers found a 75cm crack in a crucial part that joins sections of the fuselage near the rear of the plane.

The crack is thought to have spread from damage caused when a metal tool was used to scrape off paint.

The damaged strap, called body station 2181, is used to knit together sections of the aircraft during manufacturing.

The damage is believed to have been done before Qantas acquired the leased aircraft in 1998 and could potentially have led to a structural failure if left unrepaired.

Qantas sources said the airline also had found problems with other production joints in the aircraft.

"(Qantas is) now looking at all the fuselage joints right around the aircraft, and they've actually found other damage in those joints," a source said.

Asked how dangerous the crack was, the source said: "I'd be very concerned myself. I wouldn't have been pleased if I thought my family had travelled on it."

A 1.76m crack in the skin of a China Airlines 747-200 was blamed for the aircraft breaking up in mid-air in 2002. All 209 passengers and 16 crew were killed shortly after take-off from Taipei.

Boeing spokesman Ken Morton said last night the manufacturer was taking the crack "very seriously".

"We would want to be the catalysts to making sure that any other airline that had an aircraft that had been subjected to the same procedure was alerted," Mr Morton said.

It is understood the crack was found last week as the damaged aircraft, VH-OED, was undergoing a maintenance procedure known as a D-check.

D-checks are the most intensive of maintenance and involve detailed examination of the stripped-down aircraft using a variety of hi-tech devices.

Qantas acquired the two jumbos from Malaysia Airlines in 1998, and had them repainted before they came back to Australia. "As part of a regular heavy maintenance check we discovered some low-level damage to the fuselage of a 747-400," a Qantas spokeswoman said.

"We're investigating the cause of the damage and we are in close consultation with Boeing. We've notified the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and we will advise them of the outcome of our investigations."

The spokeswoman said a second 747-400 repainted at the same place and time as the damaged plane was being inspected as a precaution.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority confirmed last night that Qantas had notified it of the crack. It said that it was monitoring the situation.

Spokesman Peter Gibson said CASA had also informed the US Federal Aviation Administration.

"We can't really do anything while Boeing is considering engineering solutions to the problem," he said.

"And obviously we and Qantas will be guided by that, whenever they come."

The crack could be detected only from the inside of the aircraft.

"The good thing is that it was found during the maintenance check, which is, after all, what the maintenance checks are there for," Mr Gibson said.

Meanwhile, airlines lashed out yesterday at the handling of the Sydney jet fuel shortage as international passengers faced delays of up to 10 hours and oil companies warned that supplies would remain tight for two more weeks.

Shell Australia believes it has fixed a problem at its Clyde refinery in western Sydney and is optimistic this, and fuel from a recently arrived tanker, will allow its supplies to return to previous levels later today.

The new fuel allowed the group of oil companies supplying Sydney airport to boost supplies from 35 per cent of normal to 50 per cent.

But Shell Australia chairman Tim Warren said Sydney's jet fuel supplies would remain tight until a Caltex refinery undergoing maintenance returned to full production on about October 8.

Thousands of international passengers were inconvenienced by the rationing, some waiting 10 hours for delayed flights and others missing connecting flights.

Federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane demanded an explanation as to why the oil industry's contingency plans failed to cope with the unexpected combination of events that led to jet fuel rationing.

============================================

[redsnail]

On an aside. Ryanair are retiring some 737-200's early because of cracks. The cracks started from scratches made during repainting.

[willbav8r]

Innocent question, so please be gentle:

Are these the first "d" checks of the 744's in question???

I believe it is a significant, and expensive check, and that it is due after so many cycles/hours???

To end, I suppose this is the very reason to have a "d" check. Glad it wasn't found under different circumstances...

[pullock]

This incident is a perfect example of why maintenance should not be carried out in developing countries at cheaper rates.

You get what you pay for with aircraft maintenance, and it is important that CASA realises this now, and puts a halt to the practise of allowing airlines to carry out maintenance off shore.

If the aircraft had been painted in AUS this wouldn't have happened.

[I'm gone!]

Gday all,

Pullock, bit harsh to say that if they were painted in Oz it would not have happened. There are slack b@stards everywhere you go around the globe. I am not disagreeing re the third world country cheapo work though, it is a great concern.

Anyone who knows anything about sheet metal work, and in particular Alclad, knows that if you, god forbid, scribe Alclad or scratch it, it will eventually work harden and crack.

The average 3 peso/day paint stripper probably would not be aware of the dangers nor perhaps give two hoots jsut as long as he gets his 3 peso's!!


Cheers,
I'm gone!

[Nudlaug]

And the best thing is that VH-OEC had a D-Check done only a few months ago. Now that they found cracks on OED they checked and have to repair OEC too. On OED it is bad enough but at least the cracks were discovered during a D-Check and the aircraft is on the ground anyway. But OEC needs to be repaired although it does not require a major check. By the way, Boeing reckons that the repair on OED will take 3 months. Not sure if it is really going to take that long, but the D-Check was supposed to be finished in a few weeks.

The damage is by the way in the butt joints where the sections are joined during manufacture. The straps behind got gouged and one finally cracked over 75cm. Since those joints are usually sealed it is not possible to see any damage from outside, only during the D-Check crowninspections from the inside became the massive crack apparent.

******

[anti-skid]

I travelled on VH-OED and sat near the back!

I knew I shouldnt have eaten that second cheeseburger:oh:

[Nav Light]

oh yeh Qantas has a cracked tail and it's 'isn't our matinence programe good', and ansett have a ? suspision and it's 10 aircraft grounded , it makes me sick to look at the favouritism of what is going on the moment, Ansett was just the same as QF.....but god forbid the national carrier gets a bad name........they grounded10 767's for less then QF's problems now......what does that tell you.............and they say there is no corruption in aviation.....b..ll..s..hit..!

[Globaliser]

It may be my faulty memory, but wasn't it Ansett had overrun the inspection intervals and hadn't done the checks they should have done and so the aircraft were grounded?

[BIK_116.80]

VH-OEB is a B747-48E. 8E is the Boeing customer code for Asiana Airlines.

VH-OEC and VH-OED are B747-4H6s. H6 is the Boeing customer code for Malaysian Airlines.

If the aircraft had been painted in AUS this wouldn't have happened.

Oh really?

That statement has about as much basis in fact as the popular myth that Qantas has never had a hull loss accident. (it has had several)

The only thing that we can be confident of is that if an Australian engineer had used an inappropriate tool or technique the ALAEA (the Australian aircraft engineers trade union) would have been out in force to distract and delay until any incriminating evidence had been inexplicably misplaced.

You get what you pay for with aircraft maintenance, and it is important that CASA realises this now, and puts a halt to the practise of allowing airlines to carry out maintenance off shore.

Here we go again – engineers trying to pretend that an industrial relations issue is a flight safety issue.

Ho hum.... :rolleyes:

[vortsa]

Here we go again – engineers trying to pretend that an industrial relations issue is a flight safety issue.


O.k you have dangled the red rag, are you sure you want to take this thread in this direction.

Maybe you would like to start a new thread, and wait for the on slaught. I dare you

[AN LAME]

Sorry vortsa, but I have to bite.

BIK

Once a d!ckhead always a d!ckhead.

If an Australian engineer stuffed up then the only thing the ALAEA would provide him with is appropriate representation - full stop. The Association provide legal support if and when engineers are called to task by CASA. What else would you have them do?.:confused:

I continually read on this forum about the dissatisfaction many pilots have with their representative body. But you continually, and may I say in this case quite tangentially, choose to slag off a professional body which does work on behalf of it's consitituents in all sectors of aviation - ranging from, yes , representing members who have had show cause notices form CASA, to fighting court battles on behalf of ex AN members who are owed their legal entitlement from M & M.

You seem to equate any safety related engineering issue with industrial issues. I, for the life of me, cannot see any comment in this thread which consititutes an industrial position. The closest is "pullock''s contribution - but that argument holds true for any and all maintenance organisations. As ''I'm gone'' suggested, their are slack people everywhere. To suggest that the ALAEA would protect the likes of these is to slur the ALAEA and all it's members. But that appears to be your sole aim when it comes to engineering.

I'm curious, did a LAME run your dog over at some time in the past:hmm:

[pullock]

BIK_116.80,

I can say for certainty that this would have not happened in Australia. Having worked in Australia and throughout Asia and had the advantage of seeing first hand the differences between maintenance practises between here and there, I feel confident to make the statement that the same error would not have happened here. The systems in place and training and qualification in Australian aircraft maintenance are there to ensure the quality of work performed is of the highest standard. These systems, and training, and safety culture just aren't in place to the same degree in other countries.

When is a maintenance error not a safety issue?

Everyone who has experience in the area has been aware of the difficulty of maintaining quality in offshore maintenance, and this is a perfect example of this fact. You clearly have no idea of how engineering works, the role that the ALAEA plays when a maintenance error does occur in Australia, or the Australian regulations surounding maintenance recording, documentation or procedures. www.casa.gov.au might be a good place for you to start your learning experience.

Airlines carrying maintenance out in developing countries to take advantage of the low wages and poor exchange rates can only resuly in safety compromises, it just stands to reason. It is a safety concern that I hold, along with a great number of engineers, and I hold firm to my conviction that it needs to be looked in to by the regulator.

[Anti Skid On]

I've been on one of these 744's (OED I think) and also at least six different MH 744's - to quote Kylie-

I should be so lucky,
lucky lucky lucky!

On a side note, I think this is the sort of thread that should be on the main Rumours and News and not just D & G - especially when the issue concerns a range of aircaft from similar sources.

[EPIRB]

Globaliser, what in fact happened was that the check was due on a certain date but they had a 10% time frame on top of the original time in which to do it. The aircraft was actually scheduled to have its check done within that allowable 10% period. So in fact it was still legal. CASA never apologised for this misinformation that was fed to the public. I also believe that five of the 767's that were grounded had no maintenance issues tagged to them at all but CASA still grounded them. Of the aircraft that were inspected, CASA found the following: one had a paint chip that wasn't written up, another had two too many bundles of inflight magazines aboard and a third one had one too many BCF extinguishers on board. In fact CASA didn't even inspect all of the aircraft that were grounded because they were happy with the ones they inspected. Talking of CASA, have a read of November's Australian Aviation when it comes out. Nice people......

[VTM]

BIK,
Not every tradesperson in Australian aviation belongs to the ALAEA, many structures trades belong to other unions, we are all trained from the day we start as are apprentices cautions when working with aluminum alloys.
This is not the first time this type of defect has occured overseas, Boeing have many reports on record.
Thankfully a trained eye picked this defect up, it my have been a AME, who carried out the inspection and not a LAME, I would choose your words carefully regarding unions and safety.
In any case I will pass your post on to the ALAEA.
VTM

[Snowballs]

Conspiracy theories ……….. the idiots, or people who cannot face reality are at it again, AN fell on it’s own sword, sharpened over many years for all sorts of reasons. The current problem, that has surfaced with the QF 744’s (and Ryanair 737-200s) are of an entirely different cause.

I have had my differences with the industrial tactics of Oz aircraft engineers, but in this case give them credit for picking up the problem, professionally, with scheduled maintenance, carried out on time, unlike the terrible problems that occurred in AN.

[pullock]

VTM,

I too have passed the BIK post on to the ALAEA. The word lible springs to mind here.

[Zeke]

I thought the main reason why most of the larger aircraft were painted overseas was due to the number of carcinogens involved it could not be done legally here (workplace H&S) reasons and we don’t have the correct facilities

I understand these laws are somewhat different in NZ, Ireland, Germany, and the USA, allowing the work to be done in those locations.

Pullock, VTM et al,

Don’t think BIK was into union busting, there is a public relations problem engineers have with pilots, the present problem is that a number of times in the recent past the public have been told that pilots are not “safe” doing some things….eg what was the reason why pilots could not do a walk around on red jets ? why is it at some ports pilots can do a walk around and fuel and at others they do not ?

Just wondering like many others if “safety” is being applied consistently or conveniently by some representative bodies ?

It’s the old pilot vs engineer argument, it will never go away.....please pass this post along to the ALAEA, and hopefully next time pilots will not be branded "unsafe"

:ok:

[gaunty]

I guess this goes to reinforce the fact that painting an aircraft has always been and is actually a construction and maintenance issue not just a cosmetic operation and therefore needs to be done or carefully supervised by suitably qualified people.

Particularly the stripping and prep, the most difficult and labour intensive part, there are approved methods and materials and the others you use at someones elses peril.

[Winstun]

Is this the same ALAEA that thought you needed a a F/E station on a B767?? :ooh: My friggin gawd!! Looks like Oz mechanics are tryin to steal poll position from their Aussie pilot counterparts in the self dillusional, best in the world, believe their own bullsh*t competition...:zzz:

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

In chat rooms there is usually a way to gag someone. Can any computer boffins reading this please develop that killer app for these sorts of forums....."WinstunGag 1.0"??

You'll make a MILLION!!!:E

[Globaliser]

Thank you. I will read November's AA with some interest.

[AN LAME]

Winstun, in a word...no. I believe the F/E's were a sub branch of the pilots union. But I stand to be corrected on that detail.


Cutest of Borg...I'll second that.

Snowballs. The AN LAMEs were not at fault, it was a section of Tech Services which didn't call up the inspections.Get your facts straight before you hand out backhanded compliments.

[Feather #3]

AN LAME , boy will they get upset!! At that stage the F/E's were fiercely independant of almost anything to do with pilots!!:uhoh:

Likewise, scuttlebutt has it that cost cutting left only one guy and a secretary looking after AN 'Tech Services'. Paperwork on the inspections went astray/overlooked, etc while he was away on hols and not found till MUCH later!! Human error with no backup?

G'day ;)

[Buster Hyman]

For the travelling publics own security, lets ground all of the 744's until we know for sure that this isn't an inherant problem within QF's second hand purchasing department!!!

:rolleyes: God bless CASA!:mad:

[Snowballs]

Snowballs. The AN LAMEs were not at fault, it was a section of Tech Services which
didn't call up the inspections.Get your facts straight before you hand out backhanded compliments

............................................................ .......................................
AN Lazy, I nor anyone else as far as I know, have ever said said LAMEs were the cause of the collapse of AN ………. You cannot read anything without taking personal offence. Maybe a touch of hyper tension. Take a Panadol and relax

[AN LAME]

Feather#3 - Thanks for the correction. Your scuttlebutt is fairly accurate as well.
I have had my differences with the industrial tactics of Oz aircraft engineers, but in this case give them credit for picking up the problem, professionally, with scheduled maintenance, carried out on time, unlike the terrible problems that occurred in AN.
Snowballs - no personal offence taken. I didn't take your comment as reason for the collapse, but the inference, with regard the groundings, appeared fairly obvious.

Curious about the''lazy'though :ok:

[Orville]

Zeke

you would be referring to this type of article.

"Pilots accused of fudging safety checks
David Potter, industrial reporter
08mar03
VIRGIN Blue pilots have been observed completing pre-flight inspections in less than 60 seconds – a procedure the airline admitted yesterday took at least five to 10 minutes to fully complete.

Allegations also surfaced yesterday that a number of Virgin pilots had signed off on the pre-flight section of the flight log before carrying out the inspections.

Virgin Blue commercial operations manager David Huttner said both claims were "baseless", but a Civil Aviation Safety Authority source has confirmed that during a surveillance operation last month a number of pilots rushed through their inspections in less than a minute.

Mr Huttner said yesterday he had been informed by pilots the inspection took five to 10 minutes. The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association estimates it takes 10 to 20 minutes.


However, Mr Huttner confirmed one pilot had been stood down "without prejudice" as a result of the CASA investigation into the airline's safety practices, but had later been reinstated.

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson had previously confirmed that after two days of secretly observing Virgin safety practices last month, a number of inspections had not been done properly.

Mr Gibson said pilots on some flights had been rushing checks and cutting corners.

The hasty inspection process was part of the reason why Virgin Blue was issued with a formal safety alert last week.

The issue has been raised again after a dispute between the engineers' association and Virgin Blue over the airline's safety practices.

Under new procedures at Virgin Blue, engineers are required to examine aircraft only at the beginning of the day. Pilots make visual checks between flights.

During a hearing in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission on the threat of strike action over the dispute, the engineers' association raised six "incidents" – the most serious of which was an allegation that a pilot missed evidence of a possible bird strike, which was later picked up by a maintenance engineer.

An engine on the plane was found to be damaged and subsequently replaced.

As a result of the commission hearing engineers will now continue to check every domestic flight before take-off, while discussions between the two parties take place.

Allegations also were made by the engineers' association to CASA in a letter from president Michael O'Rance late last month that a number of pilots had pre-signed their pre-flight check forms.

Mr Gibson said the allegations referred to in the letter had not been investigated by CASA. He said since the formal notice to Virgin Blue the airline was "living up to its safety responsibilities".

He said the airline would continue to be monitored."


Unfortunately this like many other incidents across all working groups reflects poorly on those that are trying to do the right thing, it's always a few lazy sods that tarnish the silver ware.

I appologise to those who are doing it right.

[30/30 Green Light]

The union for the F/E's was the Australian Airline Flight Engineers Association,totally independent of the AFAP.
Shouldn't we all be happy that the vigilance of an individual or group of individuals has resulted in heading off what could have been a major disaster?The assertion that the use of incorrect procedures or equipment, which may have instigated the problem, would not happen in Australia is naive to say the least.Any number of accident/incident reports can attest to the fact that we are far from perfect,although I will agree better than a lot of others.As with the Ryanair problem, we may see more of this yet.

[bush mechanics]

Hey wasnt this thread about 2 QF 74s.Not about AN.

[mainwheel]

Ironic that these 2 aircraft came from an overseas carrier that constantly has QF engineers, on holidays-long sevice etc etc, maintaining the same types in their fleet.
Who "missed" this at the last layup? Yaaawwwwnnnn!!
"plaps clear" should have been a timely reminder!

[BIK_116.80]

AN LAME,

Once a d!ckhead always a d!ckhead.

Well I wasn’t going to be quite that harsh, but yeah – I fully agree.

The statement :

If the aircraft had been painted in AUS this wouldn't have happened.

was always a very silly thing to say.

But the author of that statement seems to want to emphasise his state of delusion by further ridiculous and outrageous claims along the same lines :

I can say for certainty that this would have not happened in Australia.

and

Airlines carrying maintenance out in developing countries to take advantage of the low wages and poor exchange rates can only result in safety compromises, it just stands to reason.

In my view such statements reflect a dangerously arrogant and xenophobic attitude that could only be held by someone who is drunk on their own misplaced sense of superiority and infallibility. There is nothing wrong with striving to be the best in the world – but it’s an extremely dangerous state of affairs when you start to believe your own publicity.

Aviation history is littered with dozens (if not hundreds) of catastrophes that resulted from events that “could never happen”. There are numerous texts on the subject – The Tombstone Imperative by Andrew Weir is a particularly good one.

In my mind the most dangerous person in aviation (whether they be a pilot, a grease monkey or whatever) is the person who believes “that could never happen here”. History shows that such beliefs tend to be self-defeating prophecies.

In regard to aviation, I’ve learned to never say “never”.

30/30 Green Light,

The assertion that the use of incorrect procedures or equipment, which may have instigated the problem, would not happen in Australia is naive to say the least.

I fully concur.

AN LAME,

If an Australian engineer stuffed up then the only thing the ALAEA would provide him with is appropriate representation

What you might euphemistically characterise as “appropriate representation” I would describe as “distract and delay until any incriminating evidence had been inexplicably misplaced”. This is an issue of paradigm – we have different perspectives.

The Association provide legal support if and when engineers are called to task by CASA. What else would you have them do?

I agree that the union’s role is to stick up for its members. I would expect the union to try to cover it up.

You seem to equate any safety related engineering issue with industrial issues.

No – exactly the opposite, in fact.

It is the ALAEA that has, in its very public scare campaigns of the recent past, shown its willingness to pretend that what is actually an industrial relations issue is some kind of safety issue.

Having observed the ALAEA’s behaviour, I now believe, after very careful consideration, that many of the issues that the ALAEA says are safety issues are in fact nothing more than industrial relations issues that the union has dressed up to appear as if they are safety issues.

In my view the ALAEA (and some other unions) have inappropriately waved the safety flag far too often for their own good.

The ALAEA has become the little boy who cried “wolf”.

Unions exist to further the interests of their members – and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

But unions who try to dress up what are essentially industrial relations issues as if they were safety issues are being disingenuous in the extreme.

The recent non-sense where the ALAEA tried to claim that pilots are incapable of conducting walk-around inspections on Boeing 737s is an example of this kind of disingenuous behaviour.

pullock’s suggestion that :

You get what you pay for with aircraft maintenance, and it is important that CASA realises this now, and puts a halt to the practise of allowing airlines to carry out maintenance off shore.

is nothing more than someone trying to dress up an industrial relations issue as if it were a safety issue.

It is clear to me that the real issue that concerns pullock is that Australian engineers are fearful that more efficient maintenance organisations outside Australia will win an increasing proportion of maintenance work on Australian registered aircraft to the long term detriment of the relatively generous terms and conditions of employment enjoyed by the Australian engineers. This is an industrial relations issue pure and simple.

pullock has made a thinly veiled attempt to dress up this industrial relations issue as if it were a safety issue. But his line of reasoning and his choice of language are far from convincing.

If pullock was genuinely concerned about a safety issue then he might have said something like :

It is important that CASA enforces regulated maintenance standards irrespective of where in the world Australian registered aircraft are maintained.

But he didn’t. Instead, he comes out with :

… it is important that CASA....puts a halt to the practise of allowing airlines to carry out maintenance off shore

That seems to be inferring that the only place in the world where an aircraft can be maintained to a suitable standard is in Australia. Such a notion is demonstrably absurd. As I suggested earlier - such statements reflect a dangerously arrogant and xenophobic attitude that could only be held by someone who is drunk on their own misplaced sense of superiority and infallibility.

CASA has no role to play in regard to industrial relations issues – like where in the world Australian registered aircraft are maintained.

CASA has a very important role to pay in regard to the standard of maintenance that Australian registered aircraft receive.

If an Australian registered aircraft receives sub-standard maintenance work in Australia then CASA needs to take action to enforce the regulated standards.

Similarly, if an Australian registered aircraft receives sub-standard maintenance work outside Australia then CASA needs to take action to enforce the regulated standards.

G’day Zeke, :ok:

....why is it at some ports pilots can do a walk around and fuel and at others they do not ?

Just wondering like many others if “safety” is being applied consistently or conveniently by some representative bodies?

Yeah – I’ve always been curious as to why certain types of aircraft must (on “safety grounds”) have an inspection by an engineer when the aircraft is at places like Coolangatta, but not when it is at places like Mount Isa.

I guess I’d rather live in Coolangatta than Mount Isa too. :rolleyes:

[pullock]

BIK,

Typical, if you have no valid argument, go the old "oh god he must be xenophobic".

Your reply is showing that you are a complete tool, because you have resorted to insulting and making aspersions about posters. That's just immature.

I am concerned about a safety issue, as has been the media regarding this incident. I and the vast majority of engineers who I know feel the same way.

BIK, have you ever worked overseas, and if so how many workshops have you supervised? You sound like the voice of inexperience, had you worked overseas, you would be well aware that maintenance standards in other countries vary to ours for a number of reasons, which range from culture to education.

Your pathalogical hatred of engineers is duly noted, and I am pleased to say that I do not share the same feelings toward pilots, in fact I share a great deal of respect for some of the professionals who I work with, and I am also proud to say that I would prefer to have an Australian pilot up front over many others, for exactly the same reason that I would prefer to have an Australian engineer doing the maintenance.

Your lack of professional courtasy toward those whom you trust with your life every time you fly is nothing short of astounding to me.

Your suggestion of impropriety on the part of the engineering unions is completely rediculous, and an insult to the entire engineering community, but that is what you wanted to do isn't it?

[VTM]

BIK,

Two points;

1.If an overseas maintenance organisation is approved by their local authority FAA, UK CAA or whatever CASA has no say in how they conduct their work, years ago CASA had to approve these organisations not any more.The operater may choose to send a representative to conduct QA.

2. If an aircraft overnights at a port it may require a LAME to release it for the first flight of the day, hence LAMEs at some ports and not others, however it depends on the operater and how the maintenance manuals are written.

VTM

[Angle of Attack]

Sorry to interrupt but whats happening about the two 400's? Has anyone heard anything regarding how long they will be out of action since the originally quoted 3 months in the news articles? Will the loss of two aircraft cause problems with schedules or capacity do you think?

[Going Boeing]

Mainwheel

The time interval between "D" checks was increased by Boeing from 5 years to 6 years. As the aircraft was purchased from Malaysian Airlines in 1998, this would indicate that the last "D" check was performed by Malaysian Airlines (probably about the same time that it was repainted). This appears to be the first time that QF engineers have pulled it apart sufficiently to inspect the area where the crack was found. GB

[jakethemuss]

If this has happened with both 400's purchased from Malaysian then what is the possibility of all 400's owned by Malaysian having this problem?

[AN LAME]

Apparently you can see daylight through the crack now the sealant is removed...:(

[mainwheel]

GB.
It may have been a Qantas engineer who did the inspection for MAS while moonlighting. It will be recorded in the check cards.

[AN LAME]

You're beginning to sound like a broken record mainwheel ;)

[Nose Wheel]

"QF B744s VH-OEC, VH-OED Grounded
Two Qantas B747-400s VH-OEC and VH-OED the ex Malaysian
aircraft have been grounded due to major cracks in the fuselage.
It was believed they were found in the last 24 hours."

CASA - here is a good idea - lets wait until x-mas this year or easter next year and ground the whole fleet because a crack has shown up in 2 AC in the QF fleet!!!
As a precaution, even if they are a completely different model, best we ground the Classics as well!! :yuk:

Qantas Finds Crack in Boeing Fuselage
Sat September 27, 2003 03:18 AM ET
MELBOURNE (Reuters) - Qantas Airlines Ltd QAN.AX said on Saturday it found a crack in the fuselage of one of its Boeing 747-400s BA.N during a major maintenance check and was working with the manufacturer to investigate it.
As a precaution Qantas grounded a second 747-400 that had been bought around the same time as the damaged plane, but it found no evidence of cracking, a Qantas spokeswoman said, confirming a report in The Australian newspaper.

"We've notified Boeing and are working very closely with them," the spokeswoman said, adding that the airline had also notified Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

She said the cause of the crack inside the fuselage near the vertical fin at the tail end of the damaged plane was still being investigated.

The aircraft is due to be repaired and back in the air within about four weeks. The second plane is expected to be back in the air within the next week. Both planes are about 10 years old.

"They're designed so they can withstand this kind of damage in between major maintenance checks," the spokeswoman said, adding that heavy maintenance was done about once in five years.

[GA Driver]

Are these two the ones that are currently sitting at Avalon outside the Hangar?

[the road atlas]

I presume all new Malaysian Airlines machines are painted by Boeing before delivery. As far as I can see, does this mean that all machines that have been repainted by whoever Malaysian Airlines gets to paint there planes are subject to possible serious saftey concerns like that on the QF machines? Also, do many airlines get their planes painted there, as I presume it would be cheaper with low wages? Should all aircraft that have been painted at that place be inspected at what ever cost ?

[middleman]

GA Driver .....

Those are not the ones parked at Avalon.They are just there for temporary storage.

Both are in Sydney .
OEC is currently sitting in H271 doing very little. I think they are waiting on an official word from boeing on how detailed an inspection is required. No cracks have been found in the same place OED had it's crack.
OED is in H245 having it's D Check finished and being repaired.
The D Check is due to finish at the end of October but the repairs are expected to take about 3 months.

[lambeth1]

ROAD ATLAS the outfit involved has done many a/c for many airlines,there last stuff up (carried out the same method of sealent removal) was 3 x 777's for an American carrier.which have been subsequently written off.The outfit question is no longer around.