Virgin Blue over maintenance records disarray

[Buster Hyman]

idm.net.au (http://www.idm.net.au/storypages/story-mark.asp?id=5124)

Virgin Blue has forced itself into flying its planes within one hour of an airport during every journey in Australia because it has been unable to keep its aircraft maintenance records up-to-date.

The records management fiasco means the company cannot buy any new planes until it has incorporated a brand new records keeping system which can adequately test and guarantee the standards of every part of each plane.

This could prevent the company from being able to register five new 737s which are due for delivery from the U.S. in May.

Virgin Blue voluntarily approached The Civil Aviation Safety Authority in December and reported faults in its maintenance records of its 40 strong fleet.

CASA has been monitoring Virgin Blue safety checks ever since and has agreed with Virgin Blue that it needs to introduce a new system of collecting up-to-date and accurate records of each part of its Boeing 737 aircrafts, from the rotor blades on the engine to the bolts on the landing gear. Each plane has 367, 000 parts, and these all need to be accounted for.

CASA spokesman, Peter Gibson, explained the huge records management task faced by Virgin Blue. "Virgin Blue is in the process of making a major change to its maintenance control systems, which has put a hold on it expanding its fleet. We have done a risk audit on the existing planes and we are satisfied that they meet safety regulations, providing they fly within one hour of an airport everywhere in Australia. This only causes a maximum of 5 minutes extra travel to each flight.

"The problem is that Virgin has grown at a much faster rate than they expected. It thought it would expand by 20 planes in 10 years, instead of 40 in just four years. This has caused it problems with expanding its maintenance records keeping systems in tandem with the growth of the company, but now they are making huge efforts to tackle this problem and guarantee 100 percent safety for the future. The company is in the process of developing new software and systems with a greater capacity to collect and analyse data about all aircraft parts more efficiently. We have a good relationship with Virgin Blue and we are confident it can meet its goals in this area."

Virgin Blue insists that it has taken these precautionary actions to prevent it facing safety difficulties in the future, and not because there are any risks faced by passengers at the moment.


Couldn't find if this has been covered before. Gee I wish Ansett had a similar level of support from CASA! :(

[Z Force]

Five minutes extra? More like twenty five minutes.

[Prop's ????]

Do we have to read this again; this has been covered in great length over the past few months.


Z Force

Five minutes extra? More like twenty five minutes.

You say 25 minutes extra flight time, VB have not changed their flight paths. Forrest has always been listed as an adequate airport. When ETOPS procedures commenced the flight paths were the same just no longer holding Forrest as an adequate airport, only because is was not required.

Give me a break, how many flights in Australia require ETOPS, not many at all. Eg: MEL – BNE, MEL – SYD, MEL – CNS, and MEL – ADL. Have all these flights been impacted by this one-hour rule?

[Buster Hyman]

Sorry Props???, I did qualify it with the fact that I didn't know if it'd been covered. I provided the link to show that it was an article publised today, hence my posting...the thread will fade away if it's been covered well enough.:ok:

[OverRun]

Prop's ??? has triggered in me a genuine question - what are the ETOPS air routes in mainland Australia? I have heard of MEL-PER, but are there any others?

Gary Gnu had said in an earlier post http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=121437&perpage=15&highlight=etops%20forrest&pagenumber=4
For example at QF we use 400 knots on the 738. PH and AD are the nominated adequate airports. However, KG is there if needed. There is a small portion of Y19 that is outside 60 mins (400 nm) of a useable adequate airport hence we are planned ETOPS.Apologies for such a basic question, but is Y19 the MEL-PER direct airways route?

[TIMMEEEE]

The one and only reason Virgin Blue 'voluntarily' approached CASA was because it was only a matter of time before CASA found out anyway.

Sounds like a system desperately in need of overpaid consultants to get their teeth into.
Shame Godfrey couldnt appoint someone with the requisite skills to run their engineering department in the first place.

[Prop's ????]

OverRun

is Y19 the MEL-PER direct airways route?

The Y19 route will get you from PER – ADL via HALIT and HYDRA.


what are the ETOPS air routes in mainland Australia?

As far as ETOPS routes in Australia, they don’t really need them. If you take every adequate airport on the VB network, they always fly within a 428nm (-800W) radius of these airports.

[Z Force]

Depending on the jetstreams, if you take the more southerly routes out of the wind, it is at least twenty five minutes or more quicker. Sounds like Virgin never ventured that far south.

[Capt Claret]

The following definition of extended range operation comes from CAO 82.0

extended range operation in relation to an aeroplane with two engines, means an operation to a distance in excess of 60 minutes flight time from an adequate aerodrome calculated at single engine cruise speed.

CAO 82.0 goes on to say that all twin engined aircraft operated under an Air Operators’ Certificates authorising aerial work operations, charter operations and regular public transport operations are limited to 60 minutes flight time from an adequate aerodrome calculated at SE cruise speed, UNLESS granted a written exemption by CASA, i.e. ETOPS approval.

To say that Virgin Blue has forced itself into flying its planes within one hour of an airport …. is tautology as effectively they have never had ETOPS approval and are not exempt from the provisions of CAO 82.0 and thus are simply complying with the same regulations that all other twin operators must conform to.


p.s. Buster, this isn't directed at you, rather, the reporters who
write this story as if VB have been punished, they haven't really, they just haven't been rewarded with ETOPS. :}

[ReadMyACARS]

extended range operation in relation to an aeroplane with two engines, means an operation to a distance in excess of 60 minutes flight time from an adequate aerodrome calculated at single engine cruise speed.

For example at QF we use 400 knots on the 738. PH and AD are the nominated adequate airports. However, KG is there if needed. There is a small portion of Y19 that is outside 60 mins (400 nm) of a useable adequate airport hence we are planned ETOPS.

Is 400 kts (I presume TAS) correct for single engine ops? I'm not a 737 driver but I would guess 260-300 TAS, if that, would be more in the ball park with one donk dragging in the wind.

Tried to use some 737 performance data on the web to back this up, but can't find anything.

Should CAO 82.0 be calculated with respect to a wind component?

RMA

[Okie]

Since this is a statutory requirement with no specified cruise speed, you will probably find that max IAS with nil wind is used to calculate the distance. Whether this is prudent or even possible is up for debate.

[Dehavillanddriver]

G'day Clarrie,

They had 120 minute ETOPS for a while.

It really makes little difference on transcontinental routes though is handy when the Forrest NDB goes tits up.

Okie and ACARS, VB use different range rings depending upon the airframe, engine thrust and winglet configuration.

It is quite a complicated calculation if you do it properly. QF use 400nm, Virgin for the same aeroplanes use 428nm. It is possible though as it is a planning calculation the Captain is underno obligation to use those figures on the day if it actuallyhappens.

and yes ACARS the 737 goes quite well on one engine - 400 TAS is not a problem.

[Capt Claret]

Surely 60 minutes calculated at single engine cruise speed is SE TAS + Wind component, so that if forecast 100 kt TWC you can be TAS + 100 nm from adequate aerodrome, or, if 100 kt HWC, TAS - 100 nm from adequate aerodrome.

[phat boy]

Nope........................................................ ..................

[Capt Claret]

Phat care to elaborate a little? I missed some thing in the translation ....... :\

[Chimbu chuckles]

Clarrie the time is not limiting only the distance. We have 180 minutes on the 767, which equates to 1200nm.

Chuck.

[Dehavillanddriver]

Clarrie,

The ETOPS range rings are a planning issue calculated using a quite complicated process.

The upshot of the calculation is that the speed is really irrelevant as Chuckles says.

Wind is not considered and the range rings remain the same regardless of the weather conditions (ie enroute winds etc) on the day.

As it is purely a planning exercise if you end up on one donk you do whatever you need to do to achieve the desired result - you are not committed to operating at the speeds indicated.

[phat boy]

well, okay. But with my 40 posts and your 100s I'd have thought I'm the neophyte here and hardly presume I could teach you anything but here goes. Bear in mind I'm not a guru because I'm too lazy to keep head in books.

To my knowledge (or lack of) The ETOPS threshold is calculated at a point 60 minutes flying time from an adequate airport at the selected one-engine out diversion speed schedule in still air and ISA conditions. The reference for this particular definition is found, I think, in FAA AC 120-42A but is good enough for the local case.

Note the still air reference and also selected speed. I guess if winds were taken into account for these calculations on a case by case basis it would confuse us (the drivers/pilots/cockpit crew... anything but b***y "tech" crew).

Also it is a sensitive issue, this flying around on one engine and obviously forecast winds would have to be used at the planning stage which is not good enough.

And now back to moaning about puerile issues.........


:E



.

[Icarus2001]

Okie do you have a pilots licence?
that max IAS with nil wind is used to calculate the distance

Maximum indicated airspeed?

Gosh how do I explain how many ways that is wrong.
Well there are these molecules of air you see and as you get further away from this big round thing we call earth there are less of these....god, get me a drink

[Okie]

14000 hours in command of multi-engine jets, check captain, trainining capt. etc. Enough experience? If you work out the distance a B737/A320 flies at 350 kts. IAS (max IAS) at single engine optimum altitude, ISA conditions, and nil wind; it will be just about 428 nms.

[OverRun]

Thanks for that Prop's ????, and thanks to Okie for your calculation. All most informative.

[4dogs]

Folks,

EROPS route designation is a desktop planning exercise conducted at nil wind ISA and a distance determined by how far a particular aeroplane will go when descending at MCT/P from maximum CRZ altitude at a particular reference weight to its OEI CRZ altitude. That distance will normally be further than that achieved at steady state OEI CRZ, simply because the descent strategy may involve MMO/VMO speeds.

Once the required "adequate aerodromes" are identified within the EROPS Operating Area, the prevailing enroute winds on the day of operations are irrelevant for other than fuel planning. However, for the flight to proceed, the terminal conditions at each adequate aerodrome must be such that those aerodromes are "suitable aerodromes" (in ICAO/FAA/JAA speak, not the Oz mish-mash definitions of CAO 20.7.1B/Part 82) during the relevant EROPS diversion windows.

Sensibly, non-EROPS flight planning should be conducted the same way. However, in Oz the various regulators have never understood the issue or provided relevant direction to their inspectors or the industry. I do not hold much hope that you will be able to convince your local FOI about what is either sensible or practical.

Stay Alive,

[1013]

Wasn't this thread about Virgin Blue's shoddy engineering and maintenance records issue?

Perhaps this thread should be continued in the Tech Log where the finer points of ETOPS can be discussed and explained.

[jindivik]

could not be any worse than Qantas at Avalon