View Full Version : Qantas Maintenance Story On Ch.7

13th Jul 2007, 09:10
Looks like today tonight (CH.7) are winding up to take a swing at Qantas on Monday night over the maintenance that they are having performed at facilities off-shore.

Whilst I applaud somebody sinking the boot into Qantas (especially D.Cox) over this issue, I just wish that it were a program like Four Corners getting stuck in.

I fear that today tonight may lack the credibility to do the issue justice. Could be worth a look though. 6:30 Monday night apparently.:ok:

13th Jul 2007, 13:58
Well, from previous episodes it appears as though Today Tonight hate QF and J*'s guts. I would say that the ol teeth will be sunk in.:cool:

13th Jul 2007, 14:44
I fear that today tonight may lack the credibility to do the issue justice

I think its a long time since TT had any credibility. TT only aims to be entertain, shock and amuse.

I thought the 7.30 Report story on Strategic Aviation very revealing, when TT can produce stories like that then TT might have some credibility.


13th Jul 2007, 18:58
Today tonight is quite possibly the worst show to ever be conceived... lol :)

14th Jul 2007, 00:07
Today tonight is quite possibly the worst show to ever be conceived... lol

I think rather then being conceived, it evolved. Original the concept was a copy of the ABC's 'This Day Tonight'.

Commercial Television Stations found trying to market a serious current affairs program in prime time was a ratings loser, no one really wants to watch an interview with the Prime Minister.

So we now have this highly rating garbage, fortunately most people don't take it seriously.

Fris B. Fairing
14th Jul 2007, 00:25
I much prefer A Current Affair on Nine.
One can never get enough weight loss stories.

Buster Hyman
14th Jul 2007, 00:53
If the story is between out of control neighbors & sneaky council parking officers...I might give it a miss!:hmm:

Transition Layer
14th Jul 2007, 01:39
Speaking of neighbours, if you're going to watch anything at 6.30pm it's gotta be Neighbours itself.

An abundance of young hot blonde girls wearing very little clothing - turning the volume up on the TV is purely optional.

Save your news for 7pm on the ABC and follow it up with the 7.30 Report if you're really keen.

Buster Hyman
14th Jul 2007, 03:40
There are depths of depravity I never imagined could be penetrated...until now.

14th Jul 2007, 06:39
Today Tonight wont do the issue any REAL justice as far as we are concerned. GOD knows they'll call a 737 a jumbo!
But for the "un-washed" that watch and belive it. Who do fly DeathSTAR. and inturn maybe Qantas.. will belive the hype.
Maybe they'll start flying Tiger or Vigrin.... I think a little loss of the market could do the rat some good! Make them realise they have to earn their spot at the top with excellent customer service and Australian maintained aircarft.

14th Jul 2007, 08:20
Just what kind of info is "Today Tonight" going to present. Hasn't anybody wondered where they are getting their story? Is the ALAEA providing some insight, or are they getting some "inside oil" ?

chemical alli
14th Jul 2007, 10:36
saw good old sp head on the shorts should be an interesting 10 mins of today tonight diatribe.if this is current affairs with credibility wake me when its over.hope the alaea paint us in a proffesionally light and give it royally to cox

14th Jul 2007, 11:46
David Cox responding you've got to be kidding.

Channel 2 and 200,000 viewers


Channel 7 and 2,000,000 viewers

Hear it's a story that originated from Bexley after Qantas announced last week that 2 more aircraft would be sent overseas. Management told the more you outsource the worse the press. Better than the union sitting on its hands.

stevie g
15th Jul 2007, 08:02
And Bexley don't have an advertising account with Channel 7 .... so it will be interesting to see how far they take the story!!

16th Jul 2007, 08:40
This story is going to air as I type..... yet I am not in a position to see it :-( Hope someone records it and posts a link for the rest of us to see ;-)

Over and gout
16th Jul 2007, 09:36
An abundance of young hot blonde girls wearing very little clothing - turning the volume up on the TV is purely optional

I like your style my friend:ok:

16th Jul 2007, 10:22
Saw the story and the Asn seemed to get its point across without looking like fools. It will be interesting how the general public will view the story.

I am however convinced that people will fly in a rusty 44 gallon drum if it is the cheapest fare.

You could say that Tonight Yesterday made DC look like a idiot, however he did a good job of doing it to himself!


16th Jul 2007, 10:50
SP, you are worth your weight in gold.:D:D
A win at the AIRC and now DC looking like the goose he is.
QF even safer with offshore heavy maintenance :ugh::ugh:

stubby jumbo
16th Jul 2007, 11:15
'Saw the program.

Once you cut thru the hype and jingoistic journalistic slant...........DC came out of it looking like even a BIGGER Goose than he started( if thats possible)

He obviously thought that this would be some lame jounro asking a few tame questions.

He mumbled,bumbled and fumbled his way thru the questions and even said " I need to back track for a minute" after he put his size 10 right into it!

He is NOT a star media performa a la Dixon.

Anyway, one thing for sure ....the punters got a good look at the smarmy contempt Qantas EXCO members have for them.:mad::mad::mad:

Remains to be seen if there will be a follow up.

One thing for sure................... after this performance.....Dixon will NOT allow him to go on air again for a long ,long time.:D

Led Zep
16th Jul 2007, 11:18
Wow...not bad for TT!!!! :}

16th Jul 2007, 11:32
SP you are the man
DC is a F##king liar.
The 747 fleet QF are flying are a disgrace
If you were ex heavy you would be pissed at DC's last comment
Way to go dave, Not only do you sack people, you bury the knife
after the fact.
Maybe people should go straight to the media with there airworthyness
concerns as engineering management dont care. Come to think
of it CASA dont seem to give two shits either.
Qf the new GARUDA
Well Done Guys , big up yourself Dave
How to undo 80 years of QF engineering pride

Capt Wally
16th Jul 2007, 11:50
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,one had to laugh (can only be funny if not deadly serious)..DC said in answer to the Q maker words to the effect 'that nobody is perfect' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (with regard to the dodgey elect repair)....................Jesus that might be ok where yr shirt might not fit exactly but an A/C carrying hundereds !!!!!!!!!!!!, they have to get it right, the first time & every time in order to have any semblence of credability never lone safety !!!!.......... GOD QF have hit an all time low....................sadly we Aussies will pay for it with dwindling respect from other countries!
It's academic if CH 7 don't have all the facts correct, it's obvious that this is old news to some. It could take just one bolt (albiet a crytical one) to bring down a plane, C150 or otherwise. With todays litigatious world I doubt CH 7 are far from the truth on this one !

Capt Wally, now greatful I won't be going down with the sinking QF ship !

16th Jul 2007, 11:57
the guy seemed more disappointed that the photos were poor quality perhaps he needs new glasses.

16th Jul 2007, 12:11
The full 13 minute program can be viewed online here-


Quote from DC, "Qantas's [engineering] standards are as high as they have ever been"

What a f#@king joke!!!!!

Captain Biggles84
16th Jul 2007, 12:15
Being more of an ABC- Four Corners Fan when it comes to Consumer Affair programs i thought that TT and Channel Seven did a good job. They had some good evidence to support their claims along with Qantas's own whistle blower. Having spent some time working on the ground at Sydney Airport, i have seen the great work that has been done by the QF engineers. Unfortunetly in this day and age with Big companies looking for a bees dick of a reason to cut costs it has resulted in the move OS at the expense of jobs and future jobs for many Australians. With some cloud around wether our trusty southern pacific freinds can do a job in as high regard as the well established Heavy Jet Maint in Syd highlighted in their report. I feel that the real issue is Aussie Jobs been moved overseas to cope with the so called "expanding airline" where they are cutting costs and canning hundreds of hard working aussies out of jobs that have been a lifestyle among some memebers of our community. What is this effect goin to have on any kids goin through school that wish to become LAME on big jets. Doesnt Dixon or who ever see that this is all goin to crumble before the concrete can set:D:ugh:. Its clear that Qantas dont give a flying hoot about Australians well being at all. Not suggesting that our good friends in the S.E asian cannot maintain them to the standard. But Qantas is destroying the one thing that holds its reputation (or held) up. The fact that is is an Australian Airline and run by the people of Australia. All this growth and BS is just resulting in less Aussies working for Qantas and no foundations for our younger generation to keep it that way.:=

16th Jul 2007, 12:16
Do we really believe DC when he says that he says he doesn't know anything about this stapling incident?

Surely he would have seen the report, form 500 or some other documentation at least so he was forewarned for the interview.

If he hasn't he is stupid, if he has he is a liar.

Why deny it? Why not state yes we found this and it is not very good and we are making amends to fix the problem.

I am embarrassed that he is the head of engineering. It would be nice if they put an engineer as the head of engineering. What is his background anyway.
I think Arthur Baird would be turning his grave:{

16th Jul 2007, 14:02
I have just viewed the report online, and would like to congratulate all invoved on a job well done. The travelling public and shareholders need to see it as it is.
I have worked in 747 HM, Base Maint, Line Maint, and things are the worst I have seen them in over 20 years.
I am currently working overseas, and everything you see on that report is true. MRO's in Asia use unskilled and illiterate technicians (nothing racist here, the poor buggers are just trying to survive like the rest of us) and LAE's sign off work that is sub standard or not done at all. The C or D check is acquitted and the aircraft is back in service making money.
Unlike Qantas, SIA get rid ot their aircraft before they get too old, and these practices start to present themselves as major incidents.
Those who fly, be scared, very scared, it is only a matter of time.
Finally to GD, DC, and MH you will all have blood on your hands, and I hope (although doubt ) that you will be brought to account for your actions, as some big chiefs in the USA have of late.
Qantas RIP ! ! !

16th Jul 2007, 14:14
Is it going to take a 747 falling out of the sky before GD and his board of penny pinching stooges realise that Qantas is turing into S**T!


some people just cant see the wood from the trees! :ugh:

16th Jul 2007, 15:10
No need for panic. In 50hrs of TV no 6:30pm commercial network current affairs progam has yet to broadcast anything remotely credible. 50yrs of history can back this up.

16th Jul 2007, 20:17
go hard Steve.

Crushed Passenger I',m not sure how much of QF maintenance operations you have experienced from Grafton but after 20 yrs at the Jet base, the story was credible.

To say Qantas is an unsafe airline is stretching the point but it is definately less safe than it was 5-10 yrs ago and it is all due to management cost cutting and outsourcing many maintenance activities that they used to do in house.

However, you can bet your life that if a serious accident does occur, it will be a pilot or an engineer left holding the can, not MJ,GD or DC.

16th Jul 2007, 22:18
The question that should have been asked of Coxey is:

" The audit report clearly shows that some inspections could not have been carried out correctly if at all due to the timeframes evidenced in the report. Have these checks now been carried out correctly or does QF have aircraft flying around that have not had essential heavy maintenance inspections completed on them” :eek:

I would like to know what CASA think about that. I pity the poor bastard in the OF quality department who wrote the report, is career is F*&^%d.

Some one asked about Coxeys past, he has been with QF for years and was a Professional Engineer actual working for a living before he got sucked into the corporate QF bullshit machine and spat at the other end another Darth remote drone.

wirgin blew
17th Jul 2007, 00:12
I loved the way he tried to brush all this off as xenophobia. Its time the watchdogs stepped in and tidied up this before its too late.

chemical alli
17th Jul 2007, 00:34
well what a surprise tt and sp actually pulled of a masterpiece against dc and qf.thought how great it was to see the smug dc get smacked well and truly in the chops.lets hope there is a follow up story in 55 days time when the next heavy rolls out of singapore.

take the cameras boys and keep the copies of all maintenance issues.

to the asn well done very proffesional

17th Jul 2007, 01:03
No, let the man speak.

Rather than some smooth talking shyster being wheeled out to "spin" the company line DC decided to handle it all by himself. And I think his conscience got the better of him for all to see.:E


Lets hope that DS (QS&RM) sees to it that the report writer is lauded and not lambasted for his honesty, if I am able to judge character I'm confident this will happen although DS himself may cop some heat.:sad:

17th Jul 2007, 01:40
If sending maintenance OS is such an issue for all the LAME's then why is there a string of LAME's crawling over each other to jump on the gravy train and support these checks in the Philippines,Switzerland,England,USA,Ireland,Singapore and no doubt more to come.
Tidying up after these facilities isn't going to stop them being sent there,it only fuels the situation......and it goes back to the adage "you make your bed you lie in it"

17th Jul 2007, 02:53
I loved the way the report quoted "unnamed consultants" and "unnamed sources". Anyhow, if this were completely true, why are SQ planes not falling off the air? And what about the tens of airlines that send their planes to SIAEC for maintenance? Are they stupid? Plus, QF is sending yet another 744 to SIAEC in 2 weeks. Why are they doing so if SIAEC is running (apparently!) such a dangerous operation?

That aside, it is widely known that SIAEC can compete on price because it allocates fixed overhead costs to SIA, and only charges out the variable costs to its clients. From what I understand, SIAEC regularly bids for projects at a cost 25% lower than the other major MRO operator in SIN, Singapore Technologies Aerospace. This, even though SIAEC's cost base is higher (most of it due to the baggage that comes with legacy carriers.)

Plus, SIAEC workers do not earn crap wages. I know of technicians who walk out with S$8000 (which is about A$6500, but remember that a dollar in Singapore buys you what a dollar in Australia buys you and in the not too distant past our currencies were on par) a month including overtime and weekend shifts.

There are also massive tax breaks for MRO companies in SIN, and with a dollar that is now 25% weaker than the AUD, coupled with a company tax rate of 18% (compared to 30% in Australia) and very low personal income tax rates, all things being equal, of course it is cheaper to run an MRO business in Singapore.

SIAEC may not be the most efficient MRO company around, and I can understand how they manage to achieve a relatively low cost base (world wide) but if they really are indulging in unsafe maintenance practices, I would have expected SQ planes to be falling off the sky.

Annulus Filler
17th Jul 2007, 02:54
Same reason Qantas send their maintenance OS, MONEY.

17th Jul 2007, 02:55
As an ex Qantas LAME before I took up flying in the sixties, I understand your ire. You are trying hard to protect your livelyhood and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that desire. However I do feel that your predictions of imminent doom of Qantas aircraft falling from the sky due to outsourced maintenance, is sadly misplaced. Thousands of aircraft that are not maintained by god's own, are happily traversing the skies every day of the year without major mishap. Mistakes are made, accidents do happen but very few of them due to maintenance mismanagement. Running scare campaigns in the media will result in two things; people will stop flying Qantas but will happily board Asian or Middle Eastern carriers. Where does that leave you? It will be the end to a lot more Qantas employees than the 450 from heavy maintenance.:ugh:

17th Jul 2007, 04:56
I agree with you Hot Dog.

Its wrong to run a scare campaign against Qantas because it just is. When things aren't done properly the right thing to do would be to turn a bind eye and ignore the problem. Thats what made Qantas a great airline the absolute ignorance of the engineers over many years. :ugh:

The good news is this readears - D COCKS IS OFF ON STRESS LEAVE.

lets just hope its permanent.

17th Jul 2007, 06:05
Didn't CASA ground Ansetts entire 767 fleet because of maintenance issues? Perhaps they are waiting for a more auspicious time to do the same to QF, like Christmas. Or maybe not, it's QF after all.

17th Jul 2007, 06:50
" When things aren't done properly the right thing to do would be to turn a blind eye and ignore the problem. Thats what made Qantas a great airline the absolute ignorance of the engineers over many years."
Gee Mahatmacoat you sound just like DC. I can't believe anyone would actually make a statement like that.:=

17th Jul 2007, 07:33
i wonder what TT would do if they see a copy of the crash comic, and the slowly growing list of *38 series Boeing aircraft appearing with relatively major faults, this most recent edition has quite a few alarming report, eg Fuselage panels missing?

17th Jul 2007, 07:52
The holes in the cheese are getting larger.
QF pilots be on your toes.
Hope its not a mission impossible.
Thanks Darth.:ugh:

17th Jul 2007, 10:46
Gee Mahatmacoat you sound just like DC. I can't believe anyone would actually make a statement like that.

It's called sarcasm mate, a lot of expressions on this forum are entirely predictable. Very little chance of intelligent exchange of conversation.:sad:

17th Jul 2007, 11:03
Well done SP and the rest of Bexley on another fantastic story. We can only hope that the skies will become safe once again soon. :D:D

17th Jul 2007, 11:54
SP... you legend. Members are finally getting their moneys worth! Not a bad effort for a sparky too ;-)

17th Jul 2007, 12:18
Well there might be a few problems with maintenance. But that's black art stuff and difficult for the average accountant-trained director to come to grips with.

But the important thing is that Geoff is going to sort out the problems with amenities kits for the first class and business class passengers!

17th Jul 2007, 14:07
A year ago a QF LAME SIT Line maintenance told me that management had provided for ( that's an accounting term that means........they are expecting and had planned for) the loss of an aircraft in the next 10 years.

I just wonder how all the maintenence tasks are going after all the highly experianced production planners on M189/1 were CR'd in 98 i think it was. Thats when I left QF.

Engineers I talk to still bemoan the loss of the PACER and SUPERQIK sytems, replaced by the illigitimate lovechild called CAMSYS.

How long will it be till the primary requirment for pilots is an accounting degree.

17th Jul 2007, 14:22
It would be nice if they put an engineer as the head of engineering. What is his background anyway.

David Cox
David spent his early career in research and teaching. He is an aeronautical engineer and has a Master of Science and Society degree (University of NSW). He joined Qantas in 1986 and has worked through a range of engineering, commercial, planning and operational roles including responsibility for regional airlines. David is currently Group General Manager Engineering Technical Operations and brings comprehensive technical expertise to his new role.


17th Jul 2007, 21:44
Yes he is a professional engineer who learnt his craft sitting in a lecture hall. Never got his hands dirty and most likely does not know which way to turn a spanner to undo a nut. He designed an awsume strategy map though and through that process taught us all how to build the bridge of trust and make the most of intelligent space. David I think its time for you to cross the final threshold.

18th Jul 2007, 01:15
I think BD might have handled the questions a little better.

chemical alli
18th Jul 2007, 03:33
some pose the question if singapore maint so bad why arent they falling from the sky ?

answer = because they dont keep their aircraft up until the phase 5 d chk also i would have thought a wake up call was due after the 32 inch crack was found that nearly lost the whole rear end of 744.who knows how many flights were left before the qf11 became a reef at the bottom of the pacific

18th Jul 2007, 04:08
Some of these postings from people who I assume may be engineers leave one in no doubt as to one reason why aircraft may have been sent elsewhere. A couple of these characters cannot put one sentence together properly or run a simple spell check on their outbursts. (eg. chemical alli & apophis)
If their spelling and grammar are any indication of their workmanship then it makes one wonder what their standard of maintenance would be like.
I agree with much that has been said here but you will do yourselves and your peers a favour if you at least appear a little more professional.
Here is a tip – write your burst in a word document, run a spell check, ensure capitals and full stops are in place then copy and paste it onto the web site.

18th Jul 2007, 05:13

I don't give a rats if the engineers can spell, when I strap the jet to my butt the last thing I care about is their spelling on PPRuNe.

These guys have demonstrated over many, many years an engineering standard that is second to none, it is a huge contributor towards the reputation that Qantas still has, but for how long?

Dixon and his cronies are willing to risk a hard won reputation chasing a short term buck without clearly understanding the long term implications. The engineering is not the only area where short term thinking pervails, it is everywhere.

Simple solution:


chemical alli
18th Jul 2007, 07:08
I have neither the time,nor the patience for individuals , who,s only point scoring ability is to attack spelling and gramma on an open forum.if all you have to contribute to an issue that you probably have nothing to do with is the size of your scotts college degree,why dont you go and get well and truly

18th Jul 2007, 09:22
aipa newsletter thingy said there was to be more on todays, today tonight about maintenance - did anyone see anything?

18th Jul 2007, 11:32
Our enginerring WAS second to none.
our company was second to none.

Our vision was second to none.

This little uneducated git has spread his lecherous chip on the shoulder through every bit of the company...

As someone else remarked his face is that of an elephant's scrotum....


18th Jul 2007, 12:29
Which one had a 32" crack?:eek:

Was that the ex Maylaysian one with a dodgy lap joint repair, or another??:uhoh:


18th Jul 2007, 12:39
I will tell you how Fu*king important doing your checks properly is.
While doing crown inspections on one of the ugly sisters (OEB?)one of the
engineers in syd heavy Tim peeled back an insulation blanket to discover
he was seeing light shine thru from outside. What he had found was an 18" crack thru a butt spice joint that was caused by an engineer in Malaysian
airlines using a metal scraper to remove sealent.
For the uneducated what had happened is that it had scratched the splice strap underneath and caused a stress razor. With the fuse flexing under pressurisation and flight loads it developed into a full blown crack.
Now this was at aprox BS2000 right a the top of the fuse so it would never have been seen on the ground. This crack if not detected when it was, would have in the very near future have caused total hull failure and you
don't need to be a genius to figure out that it would have happened when
the aircraft was pressurized ie in flight.
One of the tasks that amazingly get done in record time in these MRO's are the crown inspections. Its an easy one to just sign off, you never find anything and its just one of those dusty, dirty jobs that never reveal anything anyhow. WELL NOT THIS TIME !!!!!!
This is the exact reason why we must do inspections to the letter.
If this particular check was done in singapore there would without a doubt
have a been horrific result. Look what happened to JAL when the rear
pressure bulkhead blew their hori stab off.
This defect resulted in Mas getting into sooooo much trouble. It caused all
the QF aircraft that had been thru mas to get inspected
So what did qf management learn from this?
F**king nothing.
So, Where are you CASA? You really are a toothless tiger aren't you
Only interested in collecting fees it would seem
GO SP and TT

18th Jul 2007, 12:57
Just to add weight to your post, I think a China Airlines B747 had the similar problem turn ugly between Taiwan and Hong Kong.

Tail strike in 1980, not repaired properly and 22 years later it let go!

225 people died......Anyone remember?:uhoh:

Anybody at the big Q remember? And thinking to themselves, gee much less chance of that here, we maintain to a higher standard than that?:cool:

An intelligent person learns not just from their own mistakes but those of others as well.:ugh:


18th Jul 2007, 13:01
Mate, talk to the ex heavy guys or the base maint boys who
have to deal with the crap that comes back from overseas, but most
of all talk to the techies 'cause they are the ones who see
how the reliability of the aircraft they fly every day has dropped.
You can deal with an IFSD but structual failure is another thing all together.
But its all good isn't it , its now all about putting bonus money in
Geoff , Dave and Murray's pockets !
I just hope that Tulla heavy stays 'cause they do a fantastic job on those

18th Jul 2007, 16:32
While doing crown inspections on one of the ugly sisters (OEB?)one of the engineers in syd heavy Tim peeled back an insulation blanket to discover he was seeing light shine thru from outside. and where is poor old Tim nowadays???? The bloke who pretty much well saved 400 odd lives and a 747 and Qantas's High reputation for safety??? Not at Qantas anymore. He got made redundant. Well done Cox you arrogant slimy utter C#%T

18th Jul 2007, 20:03
I liked Tim he is a top bloke,very dedicated operator, who ever has him now has a good bloke, Qantas loss

19th Jul 2007, 01:24
It is a common statement made by the layperson that if these MROs' are so dodgy, then why aren't aeroplanes falling out of the sky?

Well the simple answer is that any short cut taken, or deviation from accepted industry practice, or task simply not carried out, or defect missed etc... is like a time bomb buried deep. When and how it goes off, anyones guess. These checks are years appart.

This is not a problem for Singapore Airlines, in particular, because they get rid of their aircraft after about 5 years (D checks 5-6 years apart). Couple this with a world wide shortage of capacity for wide body 3rd party work (yes David Cox and John Vincent closed down the premier heavy line and workshop support, in an environment where no 3rd party MRO had space) so "rushing them through" is paramount. Qantas were lucky they jagged a few slots in Singapore. MAS has 10 lines full, "come back in about 10 years" if you need a check done.

But at the end of the day, the law was broken. Someone is surely culpable. These were not maintenance errors, mistakes, these people deliberately acted in the way they did. They knew what they were doing was wrong. If Cox cannot see this, he must go.

19th Jul 2007, 02:18
I'm not an engineer, but I have several questions in relation to organisational oversight:
1. How much sway does CASA have over foreign maintenance organisations and their standards?
2. Obviously if required, CASA can tell QF that their maintenance standards are not up to scratch and they need to improve, but at what hyperthetical point do CASA get the balls to do this and risk the political fallout? Is there such a thing as three strikes...you're out?
3. It used to be a case where the DCA relied heavily on "an ear to the ground" for regulation enforcement. These days, it seems all they want to see is that the correct procedures are written in an Ops Manual. What evidence do they require to indicate that procedures are not being followed?
4. Finally, which individual has the courage to be the "whistle-blower" in Qantas when the unions are torn to shreds?
Someone mentioned in an earlier post, "However, you can bet your life that if a serious accident does occur, it will be a pilot or an engineer left holding the can, not MJ,GD or DC." Sounds like my experiences in GA!

No Idea Either
19th Jul 2007, 02:55
I dont understand how any company, especially QF, can allow the deskilling of its workforce. Aircraft heavy maintenance is a particular learned skill through training and experience. In 10 years time there will be no one left in QF who possess these skills and all the tooling etc, will be gone. I bet my left you-know-what that the 'low prices' wont be around then and you have no option but to accept what the offshore MRO decides that you have to pay, and it wont be cheap. But current management dont care about that, they have boosted their bonuses through cost cutting and are living the good life. Its the next CEO or whoever that will have to justify it all. Perhaps CEO/Managers should be held accountable down the track for something that they did 10 years ago if something happens.

Slightly off track, but who does the maintenance on the RAAF VIP fleet?

19th Jul 2007, 03:49
Slightly off track, but who does the maintenance on the RAAF VIP fleet?

Qantas B737 Heavy Maintenance

19th Jul 2007, 03:52
No Idea,

I suspect you may already know the answer to you question. The BBJ's are maintained by Qantas, with the heavy maintenance performed at the Tulla 737 base.

Apparently, substandard maintenance is O.K. for the general public but, only the highest standards will do for Johnny.

19th Jul 2007, 04:10
To get back to the thread guys, just wondered who will take the rap when there is a crash. The most immediate thing that sprung to mind was the Lockhart River fatality and that facility was audited by CASA prior to that dreadful event. Seems the lunches were nice and long at Changai Airport. When is the body responsible for the safety of the travelling public wake up and start acting like one. If it was good enough for Ansett then it's good enough for the white rat.:confused:

19th Jul 2007, 04:48
The facts as such are that the Singapore maintenance facility used staples in a procedure that QF admitted was incorrect.

This leads to 2 questions.

1...Did the facility know that they were not supposed to use this technique?
2...Did the facility know that this method was incorrect but used it anyway?

Either way would anyone after seeing this have them service your car let alone a commercial aircraft.

You would have to assume that if there was one instance then there will be others.

If you found a car dealership had used a dodgy repair method would you go back to them?

19th Jul 2007, 05:20
1...Did the facility know that they were not supposed to use this technique? YES.

2...Did the facility know that this method was incorrect but used it anyway? YES.

Bolty McBolt
19th Jul 2007, 05:32
Pure genius

If only I had known I could fix emergency track lighting with a stapler !! pure genius. :ok:

If that defect occurs it quite often means emptying the adjacent zone of pax.
That means off loading 50 plus people

Perhaps tech services can get this repair put in the manual as a temp wiring repair for future drama as it looks like the staples were fitted for almost 12 months.

SIAEC is ahead of its time and we should not be criticizing but embracing them or I should be writing PR for D Cox


19th Jul 2007, 05:48
Techincal error can anyone paste that letter from Cox to all staff in here?

19th Jul 2007, 05:53
Bolty, can you confirm that the emergency track lighting system on Qantas airplanes is photoluminiscent and does not require electrical power for it's function or charging; in which case the staples were not inserted as an electrical means of circuit continuity but rather to secure the luminiscent strips, which alters the equation somewhat.:confused:

19th Jul 2007, 06:00
Message to Staff
David Cox, Executive General Manager Qantas Engineering

Recently there have been some media reports concerning Qantas Engineering’s heavy maintenance activities.

These stories focus on a small number of audit reports, and a small number of issues, relating to work carried out for Qantas by Singapore Airlines Engineering Company (SIAEC) in Singapore and Lufthansa Technik in the Philippines. The key issues were identified some time ago and were thoroughly investigated at that time.

However, to anyone not experienced in the field of aircraft maintenance, the story may have caused needless concern regarding safety at Qantas

First and foremost, I can assure you that Qantas remains 100 per cent committed to the highest safety standards.For Qantas Engineering, safety always has been, and always will be, at the core of everything we do.

These are the facts

the vast majority – about 90 per cent - of our aircraft heavy maintenance is undertaken in Australia

the remainder which is generally overflow work, work on aircraft types where the volume is low, including new aircraft types such as the A330, is done overseas. This is nothing new and has been the case for decades;

our overseas providers are in the top tier of the industry and are certified by Qantas and CASA;

their employees are specially trained to meet Qantas’ own requirements;

Qantas Engineering always has a team of its own people on site to oversee and ensure work undertaken offshore is of an acceptable quality; and

Qantas Engineering undertakes nearly 200 audits each year. Any issue identified – be it with a Qantas Australian facility or an offshore provider – is dealt with immediately and rigorously.

The providers used by Qantas maintain aircraft for some of the most respected airlines in the world, including Singapore Airlines, Lufthansa, Cathay Pacific and Japan Airlines. No rational person who understands the aircraft industry could seriously suggest that they too are not committed to safety.Qantas Engineering applies identical stringent standards to all of its suppliers in Australia and overseas. If we identify a quality issue at any supplier, we address it immediately. For this process to work, every staff member should report issues as soon as they arise. To withhold information and then release it to the media is a totally unacceptable breach of our safety system.

Our people here in Australia undertake the vast majority of our maintenance work and they do a fantastic job day in and day out, particularly in the context of the necessary changes we are making to the Qantas Engineering business to make it sustainable. It is deeply regrettable that such good work is undermined by industrially motivated media activity.

We are trying to build an efficient and competitive business in Australia that will ensure work stays in this country. To do this, we need the flexibility to be able to occasionally send work overseas to reputable providers. To run stories of this nature quite simply works against this goal and prejudices our commitment to safety.

David Cox
Executive General Manager
Qantas Engineering

:D:D:D Thank you for saving the airline David. No wonder we pay you 1.3 M per year.:D:D:D


19th Jul 2007, 06:02
Just a thought. Why doesnt the alaea write to SIAEC themselves as a please explain.

oh......and FOG and FOC

19th Jul 2007, 06:03
Hot Dog

The Emergency Lighting system under scrutiny is NOT photoluminescent. The Emergency Egress Lighting (EEL) system is Electro luminscent and powered by 115VAC from inverters which are themselves powered by the Emeregency battery packs.

19th Jul 2007, 06:04

no the lighting isn't photoluminiscent. The staples were definitely used to join the broken strip AND complete an electrical circuit.

19th Jul 2007, 06:07
Hotdog. Those staples were going straight through the conductors of the 115V feeder cables for the floor path lighting. They run from the sidewall to the E.E.L track and sometimes accross the isles and get severed by catering trollies and those sort of things. Normally the only way to repair it is to rip the carpet up and replace the whole feeder (anywhere from 3ft to 9ft).

Sorry if you were being sarcastic, but the answer to your question is that no, those staples are there for electrical continuity, not fastening it to the track.

Bolty McBolt
19th Jul 2007, 06:13
From memory. The "eel" emergency light (electro luminescence) on a 744 is powered by trickle charged DC battery pack which is inverted up to 115V 400 htz AC. This power is supplied to the track which is made of some special fart gas mixed with plastic in ribbon form that when hit with AC it glows. In each strip 4 or 5 very thin copper conductors run to power the strip which when cut prevents the "eel" light from working. Cutting quite often happens when carpet guys hit the thin wires with their carpet knives. These wire are so thin I would never have thought a staple would work unless it was touching a copper wire to make the circuit. But as we have found out the luminescence material is conductive enough to make the system work when a split/cut is jumpered with a staple. Genius misguided but genius
The photo photoluminiscent system you mention similar to the tritium painted green dots on your watch face is not fitted to any QF long haul aircraft.

To alcohol, the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems

sydney s/h
19th Jul 2007, 06:25

how do we know it ever worked. In fact, the reason the QF engineers probably found the staples was because the lights were probably u/s!

The other thing, i dont get Cox. He says that times are difficult due to trying to remain competitive. Who cares if QF Engineering is or isnt competitive if they send it all overseas!!

All he is worried about is his performance bonus.

DIXON AND COX = GREED :yuk: :mad:

Bolty McBolt
19th Jul 2007, 06:39
sydney s/h
how do we know it ever worked. In fact, the reason the QF engineers probably found the staples was because the lights were probably u/s!
Believe it or not maintenance checks are carried out regularly, just because you are not there or don't see it does not mean it doesn't happen.
The emergency evac lighting system is checked on any transit longer than 6/12 hours. (depending on Aircraft type)
The EEL system on the 744 is a biatch to fix and has severe ramifications if parts of it don’t work. e.g. Whole zones which must be left un-occupied.
Therefore it is checked regularly and this checking is what uncovered the staple repair method probably due to the failure of the repair and eel system plus it must have worked sometime as all these were checked prior to departure SIN heavy maint..

To alcohol, the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems

19th Jul 2007, 06:41
Syd s/h. Right on the mark there. And it begs the question, how many aircraft that have gone through that facility are flying around the globe and have that same non-conformance?...... i'm sure the FAA, EASA would be interested.

19th Jul 2007, 07:02
Thanks Bolty.:ok:

stubby jumbo
19th Jul 2007, 08:56
Rumour doing the rounds on QCA/9 is that DC has definetley fallen out of favour with his fellow EXCO" team". To put in laymans terms:

"HE'S YESTERDAY'S MAN"................"dead cat syndrome"

Apparently, MH is the MAN .

19th Jul 2007, 09:38
mh has not covered himself in glory yet

19th Jul 2007, 23:57
And now Qantas returns fire via steve creedy in Singapore..............

Singapore rejects Qantas claims

Don't drag us into a domestic union squabble, says SIAEC writes aviation writer Steve Creedy | July 20, 2007

UNION claims of problems with the overseas maintenance of Qantas aircraft has outraged Singaporean officials, who say they have been caught in the crossfire of a Qantas union campaign.

Union officials and executives from the island state joined forces yesterday to condemn and reject claims by Qantas engineers that work done at the Singapore Airlines Engineering Company (SIAEC) was substandard.

The latest allegation concerned emergency lighting wiring crudely stapled together on a plane that had undergone a heavy maintenance check at SIAEC in August-October last year.

But SIAEC said yesterday a thorough review of its maintenance records showed it had carried out no such repairs in the aircraft locations identified by Qantas.

It said stapling electrical wiring was not an approved practice at its facility.

"Really, I want to express the feeling of outrage," SIAEC chief executive William Tan told The Australian yesterday.

"These allegations are not new. We've gone through them before, except for the staples, and every single allegation has been proven false not by us but by (the Civil Aviation Safety Authority).

"And really bringing us down, dragging us into the fight between the Qantas unions and Qantas is really despicable. I am really very upset with the developments."

Mr Tan said he was speaking out in the hope he could get some sense "into the whole ridiculous episode".

He said an original Qantas internal audit report on SIAEC's practices was proven incorrect byCASA.

He said recent publicity about the report had smeared the company's reputation.

It was a global maintenance and repair organisation with more than 40 airlines from throughout the world bringing aircraft to its facility.

It was audited by 27 aviation authorities, including Europe's EASA and the US Federal Aviation Administration, and underwent 107 audits a year.

"What really makes me feel unhappy and sad about the entire situation is that this false accusations really affected the public's confidence in aircraft safety and it is totally irresponsible," he said.

Mr Tan said he was confident SIAEC's standards were so high as to be able to withstand any scrutiny, and it would survive being caught in the crossfire of the Qantas disagreement on outsourcing.

He was critical of Qantas's handling of the staples issue and the fact that management appeared to confirm that SIAEC was to blame.

"The staples were found 10 months after the aircraft left the facility," he said.

"We can go through the records again with CASA, which I think is a very professional body ... and the records will again confirm that no work was undertaken in the areas that were highlighted by that report."

Mr Tan was also unhappy with inferences that there was a cultural difference involved in maintenance issues.

He said recent TV reports highlighted that impression.

"Some of the allegations talk about our engineers and technicians not being able to speak and write English properly," he said. "I think that is outrageous." Mr Tan's criticism was echoed in a letter to Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association federal secretary Steve Purvinas from the SIAEC Engineers and Executives Union.

In the letter, general secretary Chua Swee Lee said the union was outraged "by the frivolous and false false allegations" against its members.

The union said allegations that work in Singapore was inferior was totally baseless and offensive. "These allegations have seriously harmed our reputation and questioned our integrity and professionalism," the letter said.

Mr Purvinas said last night that the union was not saying that Singaporean licensed engineers were inferior to their Australian counterparts but was questioning whether some companies operating outside of Australia had the correct ratio of licensed to unlicensed technicians.

"The Singapore engineers are trained to pretty much the exact same level as the Australian guys and they are just as good as we are," he said.

"What we are questioning here is not the quality of the licensed engineers in Singapore ... (but) the Qantas maintenance system that has allowed this to happen."

20th Jul 2007, 01:02
I'd put Steve Creedy in the same catagory as John Laws, cash for comment!

The Mr Fixit
20th Jul 2007, 01:11

Captain Biggles84
20th Jul 2007, 01:32
I think this about sums it all up!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUXxbI1ZVB4 :D:ok:

20th Jul 2007, 01:58
From the way SP has handled this matter in quite a professional manner, I can only assume (that is a big assumption I know) that the union has some form of proof that the staples were actually installed at SIAEC.
SIAEC's response was that their records show no work done at that location.
Please tell me, who the hell would document maintenance of that sort to be actually carried out and certified for.:=

20th Jul 2007, 02:08
He was critical of Qantas's handling of the staples issue and the fact that management appeared to confirm that SIAEC was to blame.

Qantas have openly admitted it had happened in Singapore this come from the master of PR for Qantas DC and was in The Australian on Wed.

Qantas head of engineering David Cox said the use of staples was unnacceptable. Qantas staff had picked up on the practice as it was happening in October and had told Singapore to eliminate it.

20th Jul 2007, 02:20
Qantas Head of engineering David Cox said the use of staples was unnacceptable. Qantas staff had picked up on the practice as it was happening in October and had told Singapore to eliminate it.

My understanding is that there was no 'D' Check done in Singapore during the period ..October 2006 . VH-OJQ was done in August and I believe this is the aircraft that the staples were found on.

I think Cox is making reference to ANOTHER occassion "C" check 767", which was done in Singapore in October 2006 ...... but aren't they done by SASCO ?????

20th Jul 2007, 02:29
I have to laugh at the phrase 'union' as far as Singapore is concerned.

Bolty McBolt
20th Jul 2007, 03:28
"Really, I want to express the feeling of outrage," SIAEC chief executive William Tan told The Australian yesterday.

Boo Hoo

If SIAEC are of such high calibre maintenance facility someone should ask them if they had any problems with the quality of their own work on the worlds longest 744 freighter conversion, some 9 months,,,,,,

Because if you asked whether the engine squib harnesses were connected up and the aircraft was flown without fire protection for quite some time without detection of the defect, I am sure you would find lots of loss of face on William Tan and many other SIA engineers and cargo pilots alike and that is a major defect. Yet alone the myriad of other failings found post heavy maintenance mods :ugh:

Bolty McBolt
20th Jul 2007, 03:37
I think Cox is making reference to ANOTHER occasion "C" check 767", which was done in Singapore in October 2006 ...... but aren't they done by SASCO ?????
I don't think any QF 767 were done in Singapore in 2006....2 744 D checks and a couple of C checks. One of the C checks arrived back in Sydney to do a service only to be canx due to Major faults and many other defects due to metal swarf found in the WIU. IT was limped home by tech crew for QF engineering to put right. If memory serves the Rego was OJG or OJK in November last year. :ouch:
All the info is in records as dozens of form 500s were filled out after being bitten by the first 2 SIAEC D checks to record the failings of SIAEC :yuk:

DC should know all about it but his strategy is CHEAP not quality !

20th Jul 2007, 05:09
Are the Licensed Engineers in Singapore part of the management team and don't actually do the work?

Long Bay Mauler
20th Jul 2007, 07:44
From what I can see of the document that Ch.7. handed to DC and the quick fly over the said document,the rego was VH-OJG.

One question that I think would be interesting is,how many Qantas engineers left today are actually ex-QF apprentices,and more to the point,how many are from overseas originally?I would suspect that there are lots.

Xenophobia my ar$e.:ok:

20th Jul 2007, 08:09
Any country that has to instigate a "courtesy week" to it's populace so that they can be friendly to others has some serious issues.

It is then with no surprise that they are indignant and upset that someone else is criticising them.They have never taken kindly to anyone else telling them that they are wrong.

20th Jul 2007, 08:18
I doubt QF would be very happy if SQ sent planes to them for maintenance, following which SQ staff went to the media to say that QF Maintenance was horrendous.

The masked goatrider
20th Jul 2007, 08:46
I doubt SIA would shut down their maint facility and send their work to QF paying top dollar in the process, then see reports come in that an aircraft was stapled together in emergency lighting cables and say nothing. Further I don't think SIA would sit there and support QF after these events by saying they are in the top tier of facilities in the world and send more aircraft there.

I don't thnk the Sin regulators would do nothing.

On another note, aircraft in Lon overnight were checked for any further problems and more staples were found in lighting system. OJG was one of the aircraft, the third one which received HM in Sin last year. The one on tele was OJQ. How many more do we need to find before it is deemed a problem? When will CASA step in? What other poor practices have taken place up there?

chemical alli
20th Jul 2007, 09:03
head of singapore maintenance refutes claim that any work was done in this area. question how exactly did they remove the floor boards for inspections,without removing the emergency lighting ? so now we have undocumented maintenance as well

20th Jul 2007, 09:11
Chemical Ali,
You are wrong mate, The floorboards probably never came up
because that takes time and involves actually doing the
inspection, therefore it isn't undocumented maintenance
because there was no maintenance!

chemical alli
20th Jul 2007, 10:28
another question begs to be asked,what exactly were the qf lames doing whilst in singapore ? were they not there to oversee the check ?

20th Jul 2007, 11:13
Apparently they were on the job 30hrs a day according to the task cards.

No SAR No Details
20th Jul 2007, 12:34
QF engineers in SIAEC are there to vet the cards as they are returned and try and suss out if anything is amiss.
Qantas do not want their LAMES supervising work because that is what they are paying SIAEC to do.
As for SIAEC's bloody crocodile tears in the Australian today, I have never seen such a load of shite in my life. They contradict themselves.
They have basically accused the Qantas Quality and Risk Auditors of making up the whole story.
These allegations are not new. We've gone through them before, except for the staples, and every single allegation has been proven false not by us but by (the Civil Aviation Safety Authority)If CASA doesn't come out now and make a correction it means they concur with SIAEC and support the facility.
Perhaps CASA are covering their asses because they carried out an inspection of the facility in august 2006 at the same time VH OJQ was getting a dodgy D check and saw nothing but at the same time Qantas QA guys saw all that you are hearing about in the media.
To top it off they then call D.Cox a liar by saying that the staple inciddent didn't happen there and that CASA agrees with them, this is despite Coxs statements in the media that they identified the practice in October and asked SIAEC to stop doing it.
If Cox is correct where was the Quality alert bulletin and the inspections of other aircraft that had been through that facility. Or did he make it up in the face of media pressure. Someone is not telling the truth. It seems that the union is only putting forward the facts and the guilty parties are falling over themselves to refute them.
The bottom line is the DOLLAR. On the part of all three parties, CASA , SIAEC and QANTAS. They all want to make some or save some.
Another quote from SIAEC
"It was audited by 27 aviation authorities, including Europe's EASA and the US Federal Aviation Administration, and underwent 107 audits a year."
Maybe if they sent some higher calibre Quality Auditors such as the guys that did the job for QF then the quality of the place would be better. Obviously the 107 audits that were carried out were similar to the CASA audit in august sept. Does SIAEC really have 2 audits carried out every week, why? QF have had to audit them everytime they send an a/c there because of all the quality issues.
Another quote "But SIAEC said yesterday a thorough review of its maintenance records showed it had carried out no such repairs in the aircraft locations identified by Qantas"
Thats because they were oo busy skimming over the inspections to actually snag anything that needed fixing. i can't believe that they are saying that the EEL never came up during the structural inspections of the sub floor area.
No wonder they could carry out 50 odd hrs of inspections per shift and find no defects.
Ever seen a floor track with no defects? 5 thou is a defect. I bet you'll find them every 32" where a seat has been sitting for years. And where the corrosive galley fluids have been eating away at the forward r/h C zone area.
SIAEC Engineers found no defects on any floor track.
I guess it depends on how close you look, doesn't it?

Managers Perspective
20th Jul 2007, 19:13
I think the Singaporeans saw it for exactly what it was.

Another short sighted industrial campaign to force QANTAS into keeping its maintenance at poor performing Australian bases.

Why not become efficient rather than so protective? Much more secure in the longer term.

All this tripe about the long standing safety record of QANTAS, for gods sake some of you lot have only been there 10 minutes, the rest should be put out to rest....


Syd eng
20th Jul 2007, 19:43
If us engineers have been here 10 minutes, all the managers must have been here 30 seconds. Wonder if any of the managers know what an engineer is/does?

20th Jul 2007, 21:52
Managers Perspective....

A simple question.....Did the Singapore facility use staples or not?

21st Jul 2007, 04:14
does anyone have a link to the TT slot,it's not on their website

21st Jul 2007, 05:08
If your after the video's there here
Got this from the ALAEA yesterday as well
Media Watch is hoping to speak to Qantas Engineering and Maintenance staff (past or present) who tried to contact 2UE's John Laws after David Cox interview on Wednesday, 18th July.
Media Watch was tipped off that several callers were not put through to John Laws.
If you were one of these callers, or know somebody who is, please call Antoinette Chiha on ########## (PM for the number) This mobile can be reached anytime, so feel free to call over the weekend.
We are happy for you to go on the record without broadcasting your name.
Thank you.
Antoinette Chiha
p:+612 8333 4371 f: +612 8333 4962 w: abc.net.au/mediawatch

21st Jul 2007, 06:49
does anyone have a link to the TT slot,it's not on their website

First Episode (http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?sid=39485215&t=wmv&br=700&s=2022294607&start=0&end=&afr=3&nodeid=3362172&d=786&tz=&pg=ODQxMzE2OTU5NDZhMWEzM2&authid=&sl=786&so=%252Fyaustralia%252Fnews%252Ftt%252Ftt%252F2066140Qantas-aircraft&sdm=&pt=&tcode=)

Follow-up Episode (http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?sid=39547284&t=wmv&br=700&s=2022317594&start=0&end=&afr=3&nodeid=3383352&d=359&tz=&pg=ODQxMzE2OTU5NDZhMWEzM2&authid=&sl=359&so=%252Fyaustralia%252Fnews%252Ftt%252Ftt%252F2066659Qantas-moves-mode&sdm=&pt=&tcode=)

22nd Jul 2007, 01:47
As the head of the company should not Darth be explaining about this.....

From Managers Perspective...."I think the Singaporeans saw it for exactly what it was"....

Just as we see your post for what it was....

22nd Jul 2007, 01:55
managers perspective pull your head out of your arse and your perspective may improve

Bolty McBolt
22nd Jul 2007, 09:04
But wait there is more.
Some more regarding the lack maintenance done at SIAEC.
Many of the checks inspections require consumables, filters, parts etc
On completion of the D/C checks the preloaded consumables, kits supplied to SIAEC were left unused especially the parts that were unique to QF aircraft e.g. RR filters.
After the first check, not using the parts supplied could be excused due to lack of knowledge of the existence consumables and using local stock then billing QF for the SIA parts.
Did this practice continue for all the checks done by SIAEC?
Were the inspections done , filters replaced ? A proper look at the job cards may reveal some interesting reading regarding release No of parts used.
Managers perspective..
Another short sighted industrial campaign to force QANTAS into keeping its maintenance at poor performing Australian bases.
Why not become efficient rather than so protective? Much more secure in the longer term.
The work is already gone the hangar is shut many people are out of job. The failings of the out sourced heavy maintenance work is being picked up by ACS and that is why it is being brought out in open as non of the current managers have the intestinal fortitude to tell the emperor he is naked.
The timing of the bad press is probably political but you have to use the tools at hand and it does not diminish the facts or the evidence.
I very much enjoyed watching DC sweat in front of the camera. :ok: and judging by the witch hunt following the TV interview to persecute the whistle blowers he wasn't amused either....

Is it just me whom has noticed DC has an appropriate second name.

22nd Jul 2007, 10:28
Bolty, I understand your sentiments entirely. However, if you care to reflect on some of the replies of LAMEs on this thread, you must admit that there is a large gap between wielding a spanner and using the brains in the communications sector of this fraternity, which is not doing you guys any favours.:(

The Mr Fixit
22nd Jul 2007, 11:27
Looks like MP has an alias - Hot Dog :}

22nd Jul 2007, 13:36
....ahhhhh us fish have something good to feed on.....and as always, the usual trolls come to drop the baited hook in. Guys, don't let trolls like Managers Perspective and Hot Dog get to you. Ignore them. I remember as far back as 15 years ago, an aircraft that had an IFE system installed overseas, (I believe it was in Singapore), had to have a lot of the wiring re-done because it had been zip tied to existing looms over clamps! One could say "but were the employees at that facility aware that it was an incorrect procedure"? (This same question was asked of the staples). I guess it is a little hard to understand when your only tool is a biro and your workplace is a cubicle, but there are standard procedures that apply to all aircraft. If you are properly trained, you would understand the very basics of these procedures. To staple wires.... to run wires over clamps... this is not ignorance, it is blatant negligence. Engineers in Sydney had been picking up the pieces for many years on aircraft that had been maintained in certain overseas MRO's. What an insult it is to them now, after losing their jobs, that these aircraft are being maintained at those same facilities.

22nd Jul 2007, 13:54
Have the two aircraft vh-ojj and vh-oei being inspected yet for more undocumented maintenance/non conformant repairs on the emergency lighting system?. They were in SIAEC earlier this year for c checks.....oh sorry..... Mr Tan says it wasn't his company......the ALAEA are using this as a wedge in an industrial dispute. Steve Creedy go and get fcuked for writing such a crap piece of literary drivel. How much did they pay you for that?....probably more than John Laws......cash for no questions

22nd Jul 2007, 13:56
I'm sorry but does this mean that SIA aircraft, some of which are 14 years old (delivered in 1993) are poorly maintained and are in danger of falling off the sky very soon? Are Oasis Hong Kong 744s also in danger of falling apart? Should Australia then ban all SQ aircraft from flying into Australia seeing as they are (apparently!) so poorly maintained?

What about VS who sent an A340 to SIN 2 years ago, and Air Canada who sent 2 744s around the same time? Are those planes also in trouble? SIA has close to 100 planes now flying around everyday. Are we thus concluding that they are all poorly maintained with faulty wiring? Is SQ's entire fleet held together by staples? Perhaps the A380 due to arrive next month is held together by household staples too!

22nd Jul 2007, 14:15
DrPepz....I am reasonably confident that VH-OJQ and VH-OJG have never had a heavy check offshore ........then Mr Tan wants to infer that he has no problems with his organisations quality and the problems are all at your end guys....it was Australian engineers that carried out the staples not us in other words. Pepz, are you aware of the damage that was inflicted on that aircraft while it was having its d check in Aug last year?.

22nd Jul 2007, 14:36
If SIAEC is indulging in such dodgy maintenance practices, I believe it amounts to criminal negligence. If such criminal negligence is indeed taking place, this is no longer a commercial issue between Qantas and SIAEC, and neither is it just simple industrial relations dispute. It should involve the arm of the law. The following should be done then:

1) Qantas and CASA should notify the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore and ICAO

2) The Commercial Affairs Division of the Singapore Police and other relevant police agencies in Singapore and Australia should also be notified

3) Both civil and criminal charges (professional negligence) should be pressed against SIAEC by Qantas in both Singapore and Australia.

4) All the 107 (or whatever the number was) organisations who audited SIAEC should strike them off as an acceptable MRO organisation

5) SIA aircraft, together with the QF aircraft damaged by SIAEC should all be grounded and banned from flying(as the EU banned Indonesian aircraft) until it can be shown that reasonable standards of maintenance have been met

6) If what SIAEC did was indeed true, QF should not send yet another 744 to SIAEC in 2 weeks. They should ground the aircraft till there is a slot internally or in another MRO company that has an acceptable level of maintenance standards. Qantas, by sending yet another aircraft to SIAEC, is breaching the duty of care it has to its passengers and crew in the law of tort and can be found guilty in a court of law if anything goes wrong, bearing in mind that SIAEC has (apparently) been proven on multiple counts to have indulged in unsafe maintenance practices

So my question is, why is none of the above being done? The least I would expect is for the police to be notified.

22nd Jul 2007, 14:45
I am thinking of cock's response in that he was aware of the staples issue and told siaec to stop it........just like the prisoners issue as well ....oh sorry.......there are no prisoners working on aircraft there.:(

22nd Jul 2007, 15:06
I work at SIN (one of the organisations stated above, but not SIAEC) and I can assure you with 99.9% certainty that prisoners are not given work at Changi Airport. It's a bitch for people like myself who don't (yet) have a criminal record to get the airport pass approved. The Internal Security Department (our equivalent of the Gestapo or the CIA, however you want to look at it) goes through every application and does background checks on all applicants for the airport pass. When I was in desperate need of more staff and offered one candidate a position after the interview, he could only take up the job one month after the offer since all the police checks had to be done. And he isn't even getting anywhere close to aircraft.

Just to get back on track, if Cox thought that SIAEC was indulging in unsafe maintenance practices, he should not just have told them to stop it. He should have informed the police and the relevant regulatory authorities.

And Cox said he picked up on it, William Tan says it never happened, so who is telling the truth? Surely we should find out in a court of law?

Managers Perspective
22nd Jul 2007, 17:42
Oh please..........

Police agencies in Singapore and Australia should be notified......

And what would the charge be?

Under whose law would that be prosecuted under, and which provision?

If it wasn't so funny it would be sad.

- M.P.

Going Boeing
22nd Jul 2007, 23:54
Another reason QF won't take this to the police is that another B744 is about to arrive at SIAEC for a "D" check. There are no vacancies anywhere else so QF management won't upset the apple cart.

No SAR No Details
23rd Jul 2007, 11:45
Refer ABCs media watch for the dissection of John Laws interview with cocks.
I have to clean up the vomit now!

The Mr Fixit
24th Jul 2007, 12:05
Word on the Tarmac is that Mr Borgetti is none to happy with cox-up and has told him if another aircraft fk-up is found out by the ALAEA his ass is grass :eek:

Oh my I feel so ............. here's my phone click click hasta la vista davo

1st Aug 2007, 08:23
Part 3 tonight Today Tonight 6.30:ouch:

1st Aug 2007, 11:04
Ah , Today tonight tells it again!
I wonder if Dave will reply this time?
But sadly the question in my mind is
Seems all they care about is collecting my
license renewal money and stuff all else.
Funny how they come down on Ansett like
a ton of bricks but QF can do no wrong.
Lucky I am not a conspiricy theorist because
I would be starting to smell a rat.
I loved John Laws last comment saying that
its a pity these incidents were brought to the
unions attention instead of the companys.
More to the point , its a bloody disgrace
that the company and casa have done nothing
for years and years and now the only
forum available is the media.

max autobrakes
1st Aug 2007, 12:29
Isn't there an old Chinese saying about excrement and wind making devices and what happens when the two meet?
Hope Cox has a sh!t proof jacket, he's gonna need it!

1st Aug 2007, 21:36
Well Vh-OJE is off to SIA Siaec for a D check, as with the past 3 or 4 aircraft that have returned after having their checks in Singapore, spent 3 to 4 days on the ground while QF engineers fix problems that have happened as a result of the D Check - maybe we should all just say, its had its check it must be 100% serviceable. After all the Siaec management say their maintenance records are excellent. Then the aircraft should go straight back into service on its return on its immediate return!

The Mr Fixit
2nd Aug 2007, 00:18
QF was dutifully informed by it's engineers and it's surveillance staff, BOTH WERE IGNORED, because we can't put SIAEC offside after all they have the only spare slots for B747 maint. in the southern hemisphere.

You pay peanuts you get monkeys

Ignorance is no excuse but it is still a step well behind Negligence deliberately doing something wrong is disgraceful.

No Idea Either
2nd Aug 2007, 01:05
"The only spare D check slots in the southern hemisphere." QF will do what they're told by SIAEC because they have NO OPTIONS. The current management have single handedly de-skilled their engineering section. We will soon see SIAEC placing demands on QF and I just cant wait until they up the costs. I hope QF have "hedged" their contractual arrangements with SIAEC for the next 100 years..

No SAR No Details
2nd Aug 2007, 13:12
Every other facility wanted a 60 aircraft contract. SIAEC is happy to squeeze a QF machine into their white space along side a repaint or an A check.
Qantas dont want to get them offside or they'll say "find another hole to stick your aircraft in" and QF know they are fked because there aint no more available holes.

3rd Aug 2007, 09:21
Here is the footage from the 1st of August on Today Tonight




3rd Aug 2007, 11:00
there comes a time in a heavy check where management decide weather to send the parts offshore / avv or the aircraft to the parts. Dmm's / check coordinators call.
In a perfect world it would make perfect sense because its all about getting QF's 250mil aircraft back into service. Gd"s new world with segmentation and the like makes MRO look cheap and ACS / qantas heavy (I can not bring myself to put qantas in upper case any more) look expensive.
QF heavy mnt gave the network a 100% serviceable aircraft . Jokes from
line guys aside ,go look at the first 10 sector defects an do a comparo. with
an aircraft done offshore .
Its a bloody disgrace. Come first A check all that deferred stuff comes back and we are made to look even worse.
I say any aircraft that goes OS for a check goes black and we will see where the real costs lie.
The latest copy of leading edge had this lean sigma speel about going to the work place ,well lets see if they have the guts.
Remember QF management are no more than a pack of fast talking liars.
Below the line M ?
Well Fu*k off . you cant hide behind your new world talk forever.
A real accountant will expose you for the liars you are.

4th Aug 2007, 18:03
Totally agree there....the additional workload of deferred and OSIP work that was placed on QF heavy maintenance was to the point of ridicules...Now they
send the aircraft overseas and then do all the OSIP when it returns...
It must be almost about time a vote of no confidence be placed on Mr Cox and his management team...There seems to be no accountability by any of them at all...

5th Aug 2007, 09:05
I hear NWA use to get A330 checks at SIAEC and now they are done at SASCO..... I am told tha the change was not because of the per hour rate

max autobrakes
5th Aug 2007, 11:00
Is it just me, or does Dixon look more and more like becoming another Christopher Skase every day?
God help Qantas if he is!

5th Aug 2007, 12:54
No way! Christopher Skase was far too smart to get involved with airlines.:ok:

The masked goatrider
9th Aug 2007, 06:10
Hearing that tonights 4th edition has been held off awaiting the full detail of the new oxy problems found on OJQ. Apart from the photos that are floating around does anyone have the full details?

9th Aug 2007, 07:23
When I sawthe ad here in Adl I was looking forward to the show but now I will have to watch ACA instead.

The Mr Fixit
9th Aug 2007, 11:39
No word from hereabouts apart from rumors (passed on by a supervisor) that upon inspection unserviceable parts were found. The previous time they were supposedly inspected and should have been replaced was after the expiry date of those said parts.
As I said only rumors so far, can anyone assist with info ? :confused:

31st Aug 2007, 02:08
Union moves to ground Qantas jets on safety fears

THOUSANDS of passengers could be left stranded or face major delays after a move by aircraft engineers to ground two Qantas 747s because of safety fears.

The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association will today launch legal action allowing the union to ban the aircraft from flying for up to four weeks.

The association confirmed yesterday that services were expected to be disrupted but said bans were necessary because of the airline's use of cheap overseas maintenance.

More from News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,23483,22326689-27977,00.html)

Related news from ABC News (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/30/2019084.htm)

31st Aug 2007, 19:40
SIA Engineering Company has rejected claims by the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association that faulty maintenance on two Qantas 747s was conducted by the Singapore-based engineering company.

In statement issued yesterday, SIAEC said that it "categorically refutes and rejects the unfounded allegations about work at our facilities".

More details here.. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22335074-23349,00.html)

28th Sep 2007, 04:05
Hi Drpez

The standard of SIAEC engineering is a discrace and I know first hand. QF should be ashamed it is as simple as that. As an ex Qantas apprentice it worries me sick that Qantas's only competitive advantage is its impressive safety record with no hull losses (if we discount the 747-400 in BKK which was somewhat of a sham!).

Interesting times ahead boys, whatever happened to old Bobby Cox from Major Maint ?

employes perspective
28th Sep 2007, 21:15
can see H245 opening before the end of next year to do overflow D checks on the 744,all they will need then is Engineers,but hey it's Qantas they should have no problems getting THEM back,that great buy should do the trick:}