Cathay - fear culture = safety culture? [Archive]

Freehills

23rd Dec 2004, 04:12

Maybe we are arguing semantics.

Whether it the the internal fear (conscience) that makes you meet your professional responsibilities for fear of what will happen if you screw up, or an external fear of what the regulators will do to you if you mess up...

I can't think of any profession that doesn't have tough sanctions to discipline screw ups if required - e.g. doctors/ LAMES/ lawyers/pilots can all have their licenses removed for screwing up

Then I guess there are the "true professionals" that always give their best, whether on the flight deck or playing with their children

don't wannabe

23rd Dec 2004, 09:21

I think I was a little misunderstood with this post judging by the responses. Fear culture within Cathay Pacific leads to people keeping there mouths shut when they should be speaking out about safety concerns. People who do speak out are dismissed, so the majority have learned not to rock the boat for fear of being next. This cannot be good. The reasoning behind this culture is quite simple - money. Cut back on training, keep defects out of the log to keep the aircraft flying, threaten staff and make them feel they are lucky to have a job - just some of the tactics apparently used by CX. I do not see how fear of speaking out is good!!

yotter

23rd Dec 2004, 09:27

Certainly don't agree with those sentiments, Freehills. There is no place for bombastic Captains on the flight deck or a fear culture from the management. The proven way to get the best from the crew is by keeping a friendly manner and even if someone makes a little error here and there - as long as it gets picked up by another crew member - just smile. I see no point in everyone sitting on the edge of their seats worrying about what's going to happen next. If you make a big thing about tiny errors, IMHO the really important events tend to get missed as, particularly on long sectors, it's so difficult to keep such a high level of concentration. We've all flown with overbearing pilots who are such perfectionists they reduce their crew to quivering wrecks, all fingers and thumbs. Flying big aeroplanes is a team game!
I've always liked a relaxed professional atmosphere in the flight deck and generally find that crew don't take advantage of this by getting into sloppy habits. Unfortunately there are a very few people who abuse this- lazy, incompetent, whatever - they get weeded out pretty quickly. It appears that the weeding ratio at Cathay is abnormally high!
Cheers, Y

don't wannabe

23rd Dec 2004, 09:37

Unfortunately the ones who get "weeded out" are the guys who raise safety concerns that have a cost implication.

Fr8t M8te

23rd Dec 2004, 10:28

don't wannabe

You have made 7 posts in 2 days. Not bad for a beginner. If you really have a problem I suggest you contact the following and make a written complaint. No use bleating on here.

Director-General of Civil Aviation, 46/F.,Queensway Government Offices, 66 Queensway, HONG KONG

Cathay Pacific is a multi cultural society. If you can't live with that concept it is best that you stay at home. I have had a great time with this airline and the deal just gets better and better. Great aircraft, great operational back up and a great bunch of crews to fly with. If you play with a straight bat you get bowled a decent ball.

Stacks of jobs coming up for those who will put in 110% on the course and not cry in their beer when the going gets a little tough.

Baywatcher

23rd Dec 2004, 11:54

Your name implies thay u don't wan't to join anyway or perhaps didn't come up with the goods.

Your statements are so incorrect. Cathay could hardly be accused of cutting back on training, but more for overtraining! As for the tech log entries. Any snags are written up and dealt with. Cathay is not a two bit airline but has impeccable standars of maintenance and operating standards. I have flown for several other airlines where one would be in fear of "snagging" but certainly not with CX.

I agree that the atmosphere can be rather taut at times but having working for several airlines before, Cathay is the best by far.

don't wannabe

23rd Dec 2004, 17:15

Fr8t, "crying off in your beer when things get a little tough" eh - no doubt you also use terms such bas "tough managemant" and "if you cannot stand the heat keep away from the fire". All these are terms used by bullying managers which have no place in aviation today. As I mentioned earlier, I had no intention of posting until reading some of the comments here which jogged me into action. After all I thought a forum was a place where people can put thier views across.

The Hong Kong CAD have already been informed of serious transgressions of safety within Cathay Pacific and they also covered the matter up. As mentioned the CAD is a Chinese government department, and the Chinese government own 25% of CX. Add that to the huge corruption problems within China and Hong Kong and you have a heady mix.

I can speak from personal experience of the standards of maintenance at CX. They are abismal. By far the worst of the major carriers I have worked for. Its not what you write up in the log, its the things that are hidden from the log altogether that should be your concern.

If you would like an example of CX maintenance take a recent example. The CX251 engine fire over Moscow. The part not reported was that after flying back to LHR on three engines the second engine on the same wing gave up. It had a surge followed by an egt of over 1000, 400 above the limit. So double engine change at LHR (1 and 2 ). Now every carrier I know of has strict policies when it comes to engine maintenance on the same wing - except CX. When they discover the high power run pen at BA is booked up do they wait? NO. "the crew can carry out the high power run at the start of the T/O roll !! Oh yeah, and I suppose there was a junior second out by the engines with the cowls open. "But wait there, a double engine change on the same wing, mandatory air test under CAA regs" No No not with the HKCAD, the crew can do the air test on its way to HKG with 400 punters on."

Of course no one said anything as the last guy to raise his head up was sacked - oh sorry "made redundant" last year.

I look forward to January when the truth will be out in court.

Oh and if you would like a bit more info try reading Chirp feedback issue 69 in the maintenance section "to check or not to check" and note the correct response from the CAA. More CX maintenance at its best !!

spud

23rd Dec 2004, 21:43

This is getting into a bit of a slanging match but I'm afraid that I'd rather have someone who has got through the CX mill sitting beside me than any other driver. Cx may not be soft, but it's fair and those that cut the mustard have achieved something that not everyone can.
don't wannabe - your grapes are going sour. Up with this rot we cannot put.

NoseGear

24th Dec 2004, 09:10

No intention of posting eh? Just decided to slag off CX 7 times in one day? I think your comments on the CAD inspectors are damn near liable. I have met several of them and they are competant and fair. If your flying skills are anything like your spelling skills, no wonder you failed. I note you have worked for "major carriers" (plural) who does that if they're any good? Must have failed at a few places then eh?:p You are so far off the mark with your comments on CX, its not even funny. As stated, it is no tinpot, second string airline, but one of the very best in the world.

By the way, Merry Xmas and Happy New Year;)

Nosey

don't wannabe

24th Dec 2004, 09:52

I think you would have a different view once you see the hard documented evidence. I do not wish to enter a personal slagging match but I can assure you that everything I have said is true and based on documented evidence which will be aired in a U.K court. I always found with CX that they did not wish to see the truth, no matter what evidence of it was put before them. If CX carry on claiming to be "the best" (completely self proclaimed I may add) then they should really start proving it. It is a little like the relegated football side still claiming to be the best in the league !!

I can also see that it is difficult for people who have been treatede O.K by CX to not see the points raised, however there is no smoke without fire. I have obviously upset a lot of people here, but I still do not see any claims put forward to counter the poor maintenance arguments I have put forward, speaks volumes.

As for myself - I have worked for three carriers two of which were long term and my ability has never been questioned.

All the best

DW

CruisingSpeed

24th Dec 2004, 10:47

Summing up *quote*:

- If you play with a straight bat you get bowled a decent ball.
- Your name implies that u don't wan't to join anyway or perhaps didn't come up with the goods.
- I'd rather have someone who has got through the CX mill sitting beside me than any other driver. Cx may not be soft, but it's fair and those that cut the mustard have achieved something that not everyone can.
- If your flying skills are anything like your spelling skills, no wonder you failed. I note you have worked for "major carriers" (plural) who does that if they're any good? ---Must have failed at a few places then eh? You are so far off the mark with your comments on CX, its not even funny.

Now, if it weren’t so adverse to your highly strung personal career hopes, I’d suggest you stop blowing the management trumpet in such a blunt way and condoning actions that are clearly questionable, at the end of the day it is YOU still in the boat. Perhaps becoming a little more critical and showing some support for your colleagues would help, an anonymous forum is a suitable platform. Seems no wannabe is someone with a little more insight than the average jock from flight ops. Either you lend an ear and comment apropriately and measured, or you stop reading what the man has got to say and consider attending another one of those CRM-refreshers.

:*

BusyB

24th Dec 2004, 13:32

DW,
I don't think the moscow incident ended up with 2 on the same wing. If the rest of your claims are as accurate as that I'm wasting my time reading this thread.

straightnotlevel

24th Dec 2004, 13:57

just got the application forms for cathay, should i bother???

don't wannabe

24th Dec 2004, 14:09

BusB - a single eng change takes 8 hours not two days. Do a little asking around or check the log, it was a double change.

yotter

24th Dec 2004, 17:41

Come off it Nose Gear! don't wannabe is making valid points and your spelling is no better than his ( competence + libelous? ). The management record of Cathay is appalling - have we forgotten the 49 ers already? Y

BusyB

24th Dec 2004, 18:44

Two engines changed, Yes. But not on one wing as you stated.

spannersatcx

24th Dec 2004, 19:33

A few corrections:
It was the 250 not the 251.
The engine did not catch fire, hi vibes, hi EGT (800)eng shut down.
On landing after selecting reverse thrust the no1 eng surged.
Only tests that are required after installing a pre tested engine are tests 1, (fuel and oil circulation) 3a (minimun idle check) and 14 (nose cowl anti-ice test) an additional test was caried out and that was test 4a although not reqd (VIGV airflow control). Which were all carried out.
CAD do not require an airtest.
Engs 1 & 2 were the replaced engines.
1000 is not 400 above the limit, 600 is the limit for starting, then again you should know that! 805 is allowed upto 20 secs.

Yes an engine change takes 8 hrs, if you have one to hand and it is fully made up, if you don't have one then it takes a little longer whilst you wait for it to be shipped over!

don't wannabe

24th Dec 2004, 21:32

SPANNERS@CX

Thanks for the confirmation that this was a double eng change on the same wing. CAD may not require it but other airlines demand it !! With regards to the comments about me being a disgruntled ex employee, very very nearly right. I am a disgruntled cathay engineer but not EX (not yet anyway). The man to whom you refer I suspect would consider your comments to be slanderous (why do you not throw caution to the wind and name the guy, probably because you would find yourself in court !!) As I said earlier these posts were to discuss safety not personal issues however it appears that some people feel the need to degenerate to the attack of individuals.

With regards to the gentleman you refer to, he has the support of several large U.K organisations and regulatory bodies. I very much doubt that this support would be forthcoming if he were looking for the "pot of gold"

spannersatcx

24th Dec 2004, 22:27

Well you deemed it fit to say that MY standards are abismal, which is personal and also which could be deemed to be slanderous, but I'm quite happy to take it on the chin, because I know it not to be true. I'm not going to get into a slanging match, you've obviously got an axed to grind which you felt should be aired in a public forum.

Have an nice Christmas!:bored:

geldap

26th Dec 2004, 11:55

Spanners@cx

I am the man to which you refer who is taking cx to court. In the U.K any individual can say anything he wants with one proviso : it is the truth. You have never met me let alone worked with me and I have an unblemished work record.

If you wish to make further comments about me then I hope that you can prove what you say. If you cast further doubt on my abilities as an engineer in a public place you will be hearing from me via a different route.

PG

DOVES

26th Dec 2004, 12:50

Why don't you ask MAFIA what the fear is for?

spannersatcx

26th Dec 2004, 16:13

It was don't wannabe who first questioned MY (and others) abilities by stating that WE were abismal. He also stated that we keep our mouths shut due to fear culture, I for one, and many others I might add, do not see it like that. I don't see that I've questioned your abilities, and as you say I don't know you, as don't wannabe or yourself don't know me either. It's kind of difficult when we are a few thousand miles apart I guess.

Perhaps you could be kind enough to explain why you are taking CX to court, I only hear through the grapevine. If not before (due to legal reasons) then perhaps after the event.

geldap

26th Dec 2004, 16:22

Afterwards will be fine.

autoflight

26th Dec 2004, 20:14

If you publish something on the Internet that can be accessed from Australia, it has been published in Australia. Some of our slander laws are very very severe. If you publish something designed to harm someone, that is enough. In Australia the truth or public importance of the material is irrelevant.

yotter

27th Dec 2004, 10:31

If 'www' still stands for World Wide Web, then everything on the internet is accessible in Australia, which leads me to think that their legal system could be very busy. However I suspect that the cost of litigation there together with commonsense will mean very few internet based claims will actually get to court. I wonder what the Flying Lawyer thinks?
Cheers,Y

aeo

27th Dec 2004, 19:47

DW,
You work at CX so there's no doubt you've heard of an MOR - If you've witnessed something illegal, it may be more pertinent filling one out before going to CAD, you may just one day save a life.. Why not be part of the solution instead of the problem..

To all who doubt CX's Maint Standard's, don't - They're up there with the best. It's quite simple, with around 4 million part's making up a 747, things, from time to time, are gonna break.. Trick is to ensure the levels of system redundancy are maintained.

These days, with aging fleets flying around the clock, passengers wanting to fly from A to B with full inflt svc for next to nothing, Pilots and Engineers not wanting to work for peanuts and Mums and Dad's wanting to invest in something that will still be around at retirement, that Balance between profit and safety isn't easy to maintain, however, I can assure you all that at Cathay, safety remains paramount.

Let's put this one to bed eh?

Baywatcher

28th Dec 2004, 05:05

Well said AEO, it's all becoming rather purile and childish!

Cathay is one of the best without doubt!

Hangin' on

28th Dec 2004, 07:28

I'm afaraid that MORs worldwide are no longer the defence that they used to be. In many airlines the what happens to an MOR, and whether it is acted upon, is entirely in the hands of management. Many never see the light of day again after being filed, and the regulaory authorities have no chance of a proper overview, as they never get to see the whole picture as reflected by all MORs filed. Woe and betide the pilot that goes straight to the CAD.............:uhoh:

....and furthermore, having worked for CX, and still using their engineering services from time to time, I can also confidently assert that the engineering support is second to none.

don't wannabe

31st Dec 2004, 20:49

As hangin on correctly puts it MORs raised may never see the light of day again. Thats what happened here. I am not surprised the CX managers out there would like "to put this to bed"- it is rather embarrassing isn't it? especially when the director of engineering has just released a press statement to (self) proclaim CX's high standards. Amazing that other operators do not seem to have the problems with 211's and trents that CX has. No comments on the double engine change on the same wing either. All CX said about it was that there was a single failure and the usual pants about "passengers not at risk blah, blah" a slight ommision I think?

And spanners@cx appears to be getting mixed up between CX standards and his own. I do not comment on individuals abilities here, merely the poor standards that I have witnessed in my few years at CX. I am sure you will read all about it in the papers spanners.

Happy new year to you all.

aeo

1st Jan 2005, 15:01

DW,
I really don't want to be involved in this topic anymore but unfortunately, due to the misguided and ill informed comments of your most recent post, I am compelled to set a few things straight - Then thats it..

:I'm not in management - (Wherever that one came from?). I'm just a pleb working within CX Eng supporting the Airline operation 24/7.

:Contrary to your beliefs, It's not uncommon to see 747/RB211 high bypass engines surge in Rev. It can be caused by anything from a sticky bleed valve to adverse crosswinds. To back this comment up, the BOE/RR AMM states that an engine can remain in service with Boro's deferred for main base so long as parameters during/after surge are normal - They deem no other maintenance necessary. In the instance you refer to some weeks ago, the engine o'temped so we changed it - Simple. Surely not the actions of a dodgy organisation - Had we simply penned it off then yes, your comments would be well founded.
I still find it hard to believe that no other RB211 operator has ever experienced a surge in reverse and would love to know where you get your info from.. And why mention the Trent? Do you know of a Trent that also surged?

:MOR's do get followed up, you just may not always get to see or hear what goes on behind the scenes. If you know of one that wasn't, then follow it up with QA. The "I'll be penalised for it" routine is just another excuse to sit on the fence and do nothing.

And yes, speaking as a non manager, I still believe this one has run it's course and should be put to bed. If CX's maint is as bad as you say then surely there must be something more recent we can talk about..

aeo.

don't wannabe

1st Jan 2005, 22:28

The engine in question was overtemped beyond mm limits so had to be changed. When I refer to trents I was talking about the delam issues that cause a lump to fall off. I have never heard of another operator suffer similar. I have never heard of another operator have a double failure on the same wing either. As I have mentioned the last person to stick his head up at cx was sacked (geldap). CX certainly do not help themselves when it comes to being honest about incidents. I have seen technical defects kept out of the log by MC/engineers as they know that if they were added to the log as entries there is no means to defer and any crew in thier right mind would not accept the a/c for flight. Only speaking of what I have seen, and yes it has been reported and burried by qa.

I also do not wish to suggest that cx are the only airline with some engine surges, shutdowns etc. However I think the amount of incidents is way too many for an airline of 70 or so a/c. I also think this is directly linked to the fear culture, many people within cx will not speak out for fear of being next so the problem continues. I have even put entries in the log and had someone "more senior" (so obviously knows more) pen it and then ring mc for them to raise an "MADD" ring any bells?

Well aeo, I have had my say also. I am sure more will be forthcoming on this subject in the near future.

Baywatcher

2nd Jan 2005, 05:54

Why don't you guys get a life instead of trying to run down one of the World's best airlines!

spannersatcx

2nd Jan 2005, 06:33

a solution has been devised by aircraft maker Boeing to prevent heat stress and the failure of engine ducts on its B777-300 aircraft. This modification and revised future inspection procedures are now in place across Cathay Pacific's B777-300 fleet.

Boeing Vice President and General Manager for the 747, 767 and 777 programmes, John Quinlivan, has also given his written affirmation that this modification and procedures for future inspection ensure that any similar event "will not occur again". Mr Quinlivan adds: "Boeing strongly believes ... Cathay Pacific's ability to safely operate and maintain its fleet to the highest standards of safety is well-founded."

At the same time, I would like to bring to your attention a letter received from Professor Riti Singh, a world expert on aircraft engines based at Cranfield University in the UK, in which he refers to the "unrealistic reporting on the integrity of Cathay Pacific".

Prof Singh states that press reports of engines "exploding" are "a gross distortion of the facts and unnecessarily alarm the flying public". And continues: "Even in the most severe circumstances, which I understand these events were not, any debris must be contained within the engine envelope to ensure that they do not hazard the aircraft ... I am totally confident in the integrity of both Cathay Pacific and the engines it uses."

I sincerely hope that they reinforce statements made by the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department that Cathay Pacific has been totally professional in maintaining the highest possible aircraft safety standards and forthright in its reporting and handling of incidents that have caused recent concern.

Cathay Pacific is proud of its reputation for maintaining the highest maintenance and engineering standards in the industry. The complete safety of our passengers and crew is, and remains, our overriding priority.

The D duct failure was due to design and operating environment.

By the way it's presently 87 a/c not 70 (not including LD), you really must learn more about the airline you work for!

It's not self proclaimed about our high standards, it's from people outside far more cleverer than me! Of course no other airline self proclaimed to be the worlds favourite did they!

Most airlines I know and have worked for have MADD so what's new there!

Baywatcher and Hangin' on thanking you for your kind words, nice to know somebody likes me!!:D

Hope you all have a good new year and a prosperous one. I guess this will drag on and on as it doesn't seem we'll ever be in agreement, excepting that we are the best:O

colts19

3rd Jan 2005, 16:18

To be honest here, I do not see it as a Cathay problem. More as a Rolls problem. Seems to me when they get some hours and cycles as opposed to GE or Pratts, these engines have a fairly high failure rate.

BusyB

3rd Jan 2005, 19:48

Colts, If you read the letter it appears to be a Boeing problem, the engine continued to operate OK!

spannersatcx

26th Jan 2005, 08:50

And the outcome of the court case was?

geldap

26th Jan 2005, 09:12

Unfair dismissal and breach of contract. Full written submissions in about six weeks, should be interesting reading for the CX loving fraternity.

spannersatcx

26th Jan 2005, 13:33

You'll have to forgive me but what does Full written submissions in about six weeks mean?

OneWorld22

26th Jan 2005, 14:24

Well speaking as an L1011 jockey for a number of years, I can recall frequent occassions of surges while reversing. No big deal, but a pain in the ass for maintennace who would have to do some checks, but always there was nothing to worry about. Just a quirk I guess. And flying the L1011 we also had a few Hot starts along the way!

I don't like seeing maintenance people being slagged off either way like this, you guys do a great job and with the crews are the most important cog in the wheel.

The Moscow incident sounds like a freak incident. They happen, name me one major airline who has never experienced "feak" engineering incidents before in their lifetime. Almost always they end safely and it was the case in this incident. The aircraft landed safely, no huge problem.

spannersatcx has been on this forum a long time and I always enjoy reading his posts. I have no doubt he is a quality engineer and if he is the typical spanner at CX then their maintenance must be pretty good indeed!

geldap

26th Jan 2005, 16:23

Full written submissions means that the employment tribunal will write a report as to why they found I was unfairly dismissed and why there was a breach of contract. They will then send it to me. By the way if you have not yet signed the new contract then don't as you will be signing away your right to a full leave entitlement as CX pro rated down which is not allowed under that contract of employment.

spannersatcx

27th Jan 2005, 07:31

geldap, check your pm's please.

Plastique

27th Jan 2005, 10:49

Geldap
I think your current employer may be wanting to talk to you about providing internal documents (from your current employer) to the press.

geldap

27th Jan 2005, 12:26

Plastique - to stop your rumours or scare mongering I will say that I discussed at length with my current employer my court case with CX and had their full support. I have not or do not intend to reveal any documents to the press on this matter. CX make a good job of inciting bad press without me . Any documents involving my current employer were innocuous and were in the bundle for an employment tribunal, no more than that. There was a press clamouring for details about this case, however this was due to the fact that CX has had a series of incidents of late and was not incited by me. I have been contacted by several members of the media over the last few weeks and always politely declined to comment as I do not want the intrusion into my and my families lives. I hope that you can respect this and stop the gossip which people like yourself perpetuate.

This has been a large part of my life for 3 years now. I intend to move on, if people like you will allow this, having had my day (or week as the case may be) in court, and having had many of the questions I had answered by the tribunal.