PDA

View Full Version : I presume, no apologies hey? Qantas engineers/pilots throwing stones .....


Choi oi
31st Jul 2007, 11:00
It had to happen sooner or later, throwing stones from glass houses boys?

Any Qantas engineers or pilots wish to now apologise to the Asian heavy maintenance engineering contractors, Lufthansa and Jetstar?

"Of course NOT ! This is different!":}



http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22166345-661,00.html

blow.n.gasket
1st Aug 2007, 08:45
Yeah, and include Qantas Management with their new corporate policy of
"Profitability, before Safety, before Schedule":eek:

rudderless1
1st Aug 2007, 09:35
Choi oi, the point is regulation enforcement and the sad fact it is not any longer.
Qf due to the reality of CASA and other regulatory authorities, their programs of cost recovery and its pursuit of self regulation doing no more than paperwork auditing has encouraged a fine MRO's that made all attempts via training, license ratios and ground time to maintain aircraft as required by the regulations to now pursue the spiral to the bottom to reach the notorious "world best practice" (replace practice with cheapest)inflicted upon them, to be able to compete.
Tell me, is the ratio of one trained person sitting in an airconditioned office certifying for 10 non trained individuals satisfactory without even viewing the task.
We must remove this crap situation from the system for everyone's sake. These clowns must be held accountable what ever country it happens including Australia.
The Regulator has set the new standard via incompetance and and lack of enforcement .
The rag is an early direct result of the current QF management philosophy which includes destruction of its mature and talented workforce.
QF did not have the ability to turn its fleet over before major check had learnt to maintain them for the long term.
This is changing, and unless we stop it to the detriment to all in aviation. :sad:

The Mr Fixit
1st Aug 2007, 09:41
someone pass Choi a tissue to dry his eyes

The story is a bullshit beat up by QF PR to deflect criticism of it's handling of the findings

Before anyone joins in further get your hands on the surveillance reports they show the real story of OS maintenance

RENURPP
1st Aug 2007, 09:53
I am not a QF pilot nor engineer, so this is completely an outside opinion.
Surely there is a difference between (I assume) accidentally leaving a rag on an APU and then making an assumption that it was a faulty alarm and actually purposely stapling a wiring loom together, or the latest as on channel 7 tonight modifying a loom with a bare piece of wire.
Both may have the same effect but one is obviously premeditated the other is at worst laziness.
Despising the company you work for does nothing for good work ethics.

blueloo
1st Aug 2007, 10:38
Was that Channel 7 news or today tonight? Was there any further info on the whole debacle ?

RENURPP
1st Aug 2007, 11:25
Briefly on the news, we get Melbourne Ch 7 up here oin Darwin, go figure?? and TT had a 5 min story. Not much new except another problem with emergency lighting. A pin was replaced by a piece of bare wire???

mahatmacoat
1st Aug 2007, 13:23
third had information

But they had the written reports in their hands. Hardly third hand information.

Angle of Attack
1st Aug 2007, 15:21
Well Choi Oi its not as if they took off with a fire alarm and ignored it. The APU was checked Inoped and dispatched. But I can tell you this is a far cry from the crap that went on in the Overseas Heavy Maintenance that YOU yes YOU I know who you are were looking after! Nice try but you've just exposed how desperate you are! The maintenance is crap and until people actually fess up about it nothing will happen! Stick your head in choi!

No Idea Either
2nd Aug 2007, 01:28
AoA

"The APU was checked Inoped and dispatched."

Can't let that slide AoA. Are you a pilot? You get a Fire warning THEN it goes out WHEN you run the NNC. Would you as a reasonable person have wanted it inspected? I read in the ATSB report that the crew advised ARFF that they would be towed back onto the bay, but this never happened, the MEL was applied and off they went. The report doesn't really elaborate on the logic of this scenario, but I know what I would have done. What would you have done?

QFinsider
2nd Aug 2007, 01:45
Since when did we finish an english sentence with hey?

SawThe Light
2nd Aug 2007, 02:33
QFinsider

"Since when did we finish an english sentence with hey?"

Apparently today at 21:45 according to your post.


STL

max autobrakes
2nd Aug 2007, 08:45
Bloody Quenslanders, hey!

No SAR No Details
2nd Aug 2007, 12:47
The difference is that when Captain Leo ****** of BNE H/M fks up and doesnt check the APU compartment properly and misses the rag left out of sight and on top of the APU combustion section because he delegates the job to an ame there is an investigation by QF Quality and Risk and they sort it out quick smart and put steps in to prevent it happening again.
When a second rate facility get caught doing dodgy sign offs on everything from stapled EEL feeders to flight control cables with no defects(not) to structural inspections(50 hrs in 8) to using knifes on the structure to overspraying the adjacent aircraft to taking 3 deflector boxes out of an rb211 at a time(2 max or the engine can sustain damage) to not inspecting the engine core panels properly or deactivating systems before working on them(thrust reversers and l/e flaps) or inspecting 1000ft of seat tracks(no defects,I'd like to see that), not to mention storing carbon fibre engine panels in a cardboard box with steel panels etc etc etc
they deny it ever happened and then say that the Australian regulator agrees with them.
And the Australian regulator CASA makes no statements to the contrary.
Is money exchanging hands here or is it a culture of denial by both the dodgy maintenance facility and CASA?Hey!

NAS1801
2nd Aug 2007, 13:17
Delegating the job to an AME rather than doing it himself? So if he had complted the job himself, the rag would not have been left there? Are you suggesting that an AME is incompetent to check the APU compartment? I think quite a few AMEs are far more competent than our LAME friend in question. Yes, the rag was missed. Proper inspection prior to closing up would have prevented the fire. I think the incompetence kicks in around the point of applying an MEL and sending the aircraft on it's way WITHOUT checking the area in which the fire supposedly occured. From the ATSB report.... in regard to the checks and inspections required in response to a special or unusual situation, the aircraft manufacturer’s Aircraft Maintenance Manual Chapter 05-51 ‘Conditional Inspections’ did not contain any checks or inspections to be carried out in response to the activation of a fire warning, or if a fire bottle was discharged Now then. Despite what the maintenance manual does or does not say, what would be the most obvious thing to do if a fire warning was reported and the bottle discharged??? What would any engineer with half a brain do?

No SAR No Details
2nd Aug 2007, 13:34
The Qantas Engineering Procedures Manual Inspection Procedures require that any "Close up" (that's close as in shut) inspections must be carried out by the LAME certifying for the job. This means that any panels (or components being installed) that cant be seen behind that could have FOD in there must be inspected by the certifying LAME. The LAME takes full responsibility no matter who did the job.
And I agree there are much better ame's out there than some LAMEs. Especially Leo Wonker.
You havent taken in to account the extra pressure the LAME and the Flight Crew in the NT were in to get the aircraft away from the slot because of commercial pressures placed upon them from management. People react differently under pressure. When we are required to make decisions under pressure with conflicting information (from flight crew and fire fighters) we sometimes make mistakes that seem obvious in the cool light of morning.
Stapling an EEL feeder in cold blood doesn't compare.
Bogging up floorboards instead of Fibreglass lay ups is premeditated and negligent.

NAS1801
2nd Aug 2007, 13:49
hmmmmm I believe the LAME that certified for the panel closure was also the traveling engineer that failed to inspect the compartment after the fire indication/bottle discharge. Also, the PPM in relation to LAMEs certifying for "panel closure" was changed as a result of the incident in question? I still feel that any engineer with half a brain would actually check to see if a fire had occured!!

mahatmacoat
2nd Aug 2007, 19:50
Correct. The engineer who certified for the panel closure was also the travelling engineer who didn't inspect the compartment in Darwin. The same engineer has also been involved in several other fk ups that someone else may be able to elaborate on.

This tosser is typical of the engineer that Qantas looks up to. He gets the job done fast so what do they do. They promote him and yes he was prematurely promoted after he had been involved in incidents due to rushing his work. One would think this tool would be stood down during this investigation process with a nice letter saying his employment may be terminated subject to the outcome of the investigation. Wrong. Not Qantas. That action with a three week stand down and said letter was reserved for another engineer. The one in Cairns who had not taken a sickie in 20 years and placed 2 safety cones beside ea engine instead of at the wingtips.

This all may seem a little far fetched but unfortunately is all true. So we get QA in to do some audits. They search high and low for a team of tossers who cut corners all the time because that fits the new Qantas model. QA identify them and recommend in an internal report not to send any more work to them because they are substandard. Management read this a different way and interpret the word substandard as top tier. Singapore, your future as the main Heavy Maint base for 747s is now secure.

rudderless1
2nd Aug 2007, 21:52
Choi,
It seems there is no problem; the current standard can remain and you are obviously happy with that.
I wonder who signed the inspection off of the bridge that collapsed in the US?
Do you think he may have just penned the inspection, cause there ain't many problems with bridges and his company had to be competitive?
I see lead paint is ok for kids in the 3rd world, oops because they know no better the kids in the west may as well have some too!
I thought it was about raising the bar not lowering it?
Maintain regulation, training and standards where ever work is done. The point is some facilities would not be as cheap as they are if they did, and other facilities would not need to drop their standards to compete due poor regulators eg those in Singapore and Australia NOT ENFORCING STANDARDS!:rolleyes::suspect::=:(

DutchRoll
2nd Aug 2007, 23:18
Apologise for what, Choi Oi?

Oh, I get it! Because there has been a screwup here in Australia, that "cancels out" the systemic screwups in overseas heavy maintenance, etc, does it?

I think you'll find a substantial number of QF pilots and engineers are extremely disappointed in this incident, and would have very limited sympathy for taking such shortcuts. Many of the LAMEs I've met and ALL of the pilots I fly with simply couldn't care less what the scheduled departure time is and will happily delay (even if it means cancelling the flight) if they have concerns about MEL applications, transit rectifications, etc.

So no, you can take your bloody apology and stick it.

B A Lert
3rd Aug 2007, 05:01
DutchRoll and captaindejavu,

Well said gentlemen and may your attitudes and philosophy long apply by your example to those who follow you. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

company_spy
3rd Aug 2007, 07:41
Choi Oi, all we want is for the pretenders at SIAEC to

A: carry out legal repairs as per approved data
B: cease and desist from certifying for maintenance that knowingly and quite obviously has not yet been carried out.

"Oh My God" that would mean they would actually have to carry out maintenance! Not just a polish and a paint job!!! Choi Oi!!!

the dog74
30th May 2008, 00:15
Company Sin I cannot agree more. In syd h/m we would usually have upwards of 200 aw's just for the floor structure ie corrosion, fasteners and yes things we may have damaged in the removal of the cabin,doors,galleys and cockpit area's.How many defects were raised o/s for such things? and were any snags raised due to "caused damage"? if not ,why not? can we expect then that SIA or any o/s mro never damage things upon removal or is this another case of undocumented maintenance?

ROO-C26B
30th May 2008, 01:53
DutchRoll and captaindejavu,

Gentlmen, I applaud :D with your attitude and your hard stand on safety. The company I fly for also worried about meeting schedule. Putting schedule ahead of safety. This may be the mentality of a contract AMC every delay will cost the company a penality in the tune of a few K's per minute delay. I have came across many instances that captain will accept a defected A/C. As FO I have refued to fly but have been invited for a chat at HQ. If I wanted to die I wil die at my own hands not the hands of a fk idiot! :ok: