View Full Version : QF Lost FAA Maintenance Certification in 2000

25th Jul 2007, 12:11
Came across this. Does anyone have more info?

Irregularities found in Qantas' maintenance operations.

Publication: Airline Industry Information (http://www.allbusiness.com/airline-industry-information/20000515/3013116-1.html)
Date: Monday, May 15 2000
Subject: Aircraft maintenance (http://www.allbusiness.com/aircraft-maintenance/3073830-1.html), Airlines (Maintenance and repair) (http://www.allbusiness.com/airlines/3205066-1.html), Fixed base operators industry (Laws, regulations and rules) (http://www.allbusiness.com/fixed-base-operators-industry/3168008-1.html)
Company: Qantas Airways Ltd. (Maintenance and repair) (http://www.allbusiness.com/qantas-airways-ltd/3360316-1.html)
Product: Scheduled Airlines (http://www.allbusiness.com/scheduled-airlines/3070112-1.html), Aircraft Line & Scheduled Maintenance (http://www.allbusiness.com/aircraft-line-scheduled-maintenance/3061549-1.html)
Location: Australia (http://www.allbusiness.com/australia/3078578-1.html), United States (http://www.allbusiness.com/united-states/3079086-1.html)


Qantas Airways' authority to repair American aircraft has been withdrawn by US regulators who have said that there are irregularities in the airline's maintenance operations.


25th Jul 2007, 12:18
From the link you posted:
After an audit last month the US Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) suspended approval for Qantas Airways to carry out maintenance on any US aircraft in Australia.

Details of the problems were not specified although FAA spokesman Paul Takemoto said that the problems were connected to a bearings and seals plant which works on engine bearings, rotating parts and seals.

Qantas Airways is saying that the suspension is temporary and the situation will be reassessed while the issues raised by the FAA would not affect safe operations of the airline's aircraft.

25th Jul 2007, 12:20
From memory it was reported widely in the press.

25th Jul 2007, 15:01
Without knowing all the facts, the above post could be justified however, the "mistakes" reported in relation to Singapore are not "mistakes", rather they are clearly negligence. Using staples to repair wires is NOT a "mistake", it is negligence. I'm not sure what the problems were with respect to the original post, since you seem to know, JetA, how about you enlighten us?

Managers Perspective
25th Jul 2007, 17:47

Reminds of a story I once heard about people in glass houses......


25th Jul 2007, 19:00
Anyone? What were the specifics of the QF loss of FAA certification? Systematic errors or negligence? Maybe we can hear from some of the smart ar$es out there....

The Mr Fixit
25th Jul 2007, 19:45
mmm 2000 seven years ago let me look into the archives

flip flip flip arh yes FAA approval removed due to the non compliance of parts storage, items used on US engines had no long term records to follow if they were faulty an issue that QF and many other airlines battle constantly.

Syd eng
25th Jul 2007, 22:06
If I remember correctly the Seals & Bearings workshop lost it's FAA Cert, not the whole of QANTAS. It had to be rebuilt, the workshop that is. A fair bit of money was spent doing so too.

31st Jul 2007, 14:44
Staples in wires VS non compliance regarding storage of parts. So MP..... can you see the difference?

31st Jul 2007, 22:33
I don't think anyone would argue the FAA did the wrong thing in this instance, they found a problem and suspended the repair station certificate until such time as the problem was rectified. This is how it is supposed to work JetA_ok and Managers Perspective. It is disapointing that CASA have niether the interest or intestinal fortitude to actually apply it's regulatory authority equally to all. If SIAEC were actually doing the job no one would be complaining. The staple incident is just but one issue, the amount of form500s' and warranty claims raised by engineering highlighting sub standard work and work that has had to be carried out again is rather large. But it suits D.Cox not to act on it otherwise it would expose him to the badly thought out decisions he has taken to maintain his bonusses. He would have been gutted when the AIPA bid fell over.