View Full Version : Jetstar 330 grounded 3 days after returning from overseas maintenance in Manilla

The masked goatrider
3rd Aug 2007, 05:40
Jetsar A330 VH-EBC has been grounded today for at least 24 hours after a loud noise from door 2L forced passenger to be moved from the area when the aircraft reached altitude. The aircraft left Manilla 4 days ago after completion of another overseas heavy maintenance check. Qantas management were in flat spin mode again today attempting to find a spare Qantas aircraft to replace the scheduled service. The defect was first identified on the first flight out of Manilla. A temp repair carried out on an Engineering Authority failed to fix the problem on the following sector to Bkk and on return to Australia it was decided that the aircraft was no longer fit to fly. An incorrectly installed door sill appears to be the likely source but Qantas Engineering spokesperson CD says that Qantas's commitment to safety is higher than ever before.

Going Boeing
3rd Aug 2007, 05:50
More ammo for Today Tonight!

3rd Aug 2007, 05:59
Is this for real or just some sort of sick joke? If it's serious the joke is on the passengers who fly on aircraft and the fact that DCx is still in charge of Qf engineering. What a sad state of affairs:(

3rd Aug 2007, 09:53
The masked one is spot on the money.

Ill fitting door sill fitted during MNL heavy maint check due to poor workmanship is to blame.

No spares in AUS so A/C is AOG until part arrives ex MNL and re-fitted.

What is the excuse for this one DC????:ugh::ugh::ugh:

QF ACS Line Maintenance picking up the pieces as usual.:ok:

3rd Aug 2007, 13:08
JQ1 MEL-HNL was operated this evening by a QF767

International Trader
3rd Aug 2007, 13:25
(Message was too short to post) so...... shameful!

B A Lert
3rd Aug 2007, 13:40
What will it take for heads to roll at Qantas Engineering and even Jetstar? A smoking hole in the ground?:E:E

The masked goatrider
3rd Aug 2007, 14:15
When the Christ will they learn and how long will incompetent leaders be protected by the boy from Wagga? DC you are the one fool who destroyed the Qantas engineering reputation through your selfish actions for your own greedy purpose. Of particular note was the payrise. $600,000 pa to $1.3 M. The target? Heavy Maintenance in Australia and every engineer who finds defects on aircraft. Finding defects costs money because that requires repair work but at times the problems aren’t identified by engineers. It is the tech crew when things go wrong and the latest addition to your resume the poor Jetstar pax who couldn’t even sit within 6 rows of the door because the squeal was too loud. Don’t think you will be getting off lightly next week you turkey. While you terrorise every lame at Base Maint with threatening letters, interrogations and security guards watching every move it appears that you have let your own guard down. No such actions for the laid back Melbourne boys. Free to work, find the problems and yes report them to their union. I hear TT particularly found log seq’s 065 and 074 of concern and it should be an interesting week coming up. Call on your friends in Manilla this time to protect your a$$ buddy. The “loud whine noise” coming from 2L on the very first flt out of maint and yes I expect you to say it wasn’t them. We are investigating. It’s not a safety issue it is a quality problem. Casa are comfortable with our actions. We only use top tier suppliers. Come on down DC, your encore performance on television awaits and be prepared to be thrown some more photos at the last minute. We took them in the lift on the way up. :D

Peter Fanelli
3rd Aug 2007, 15:25
So what are you talking about here, a door sill, or a door seal?

The symptoms described sound more applicable to a door seal not a sill as mentioned in the opening post and since both items exist on aircraft an error such as this cannot be excused.

So what is it, are you armchair maintenance workers or just QANTAS haters? You'd have a lot more credibility if you get it right.

Let the stone throwing commence.

3rd Aug 2007, 22:00
If someone issued an EA for an incorrectly fitted rubber door seal rather than replacing or fitting it properly they would need to be shot as well.
If someone mispells sill for seal I would also be shocked.
I would suggest it is the very hard to remove and install piece of titanium protection door sill with seal mating face that is the problem. Hell if they didn't do a mating check on this after installation what else have they not done?:=
So yes I believe they "would have it right"



4th Aug 2007, 02:18
Where is Managers Perspective to give us the answers when we need him the most?. Oh yes, and that doyen of aviation knowledge, aircraft, to give his tuppence worth.

Enema Bandit's Dad
4th Aug 2007, 03:07
They've gone away together to spend the weekend at Sunfish's house. :8:8

4th Aug 2007, 06:13
hahahahaaaaaaaaaa EBD...... you just made this the funniest thread so far!! Hellooooooooo??? MP????? Aircraft? where are you????

4th Aug 2007, 07:25
Now will CASA serious say to Qantas management you better do your maintenance in house? JAL was told by JAA to suspend all overseas maintenance and take it back in house after repeated incidents of poor maintenance, carried out by what Mr Cox says are in the top 10 MRO's in the world for aviation maintenance....What was the name of that company...
JAA isnt a toothless tiger like CASA....

4th Aug 2007, 07:36
CASA get serious with Qantas, you are dreaming mate. The last time CASA had a serious discussion with Qantas was when Qantas was telling them what they might find if they looked closely at the Ansett 767's.

You would probably stand a better chance of getting John Laws to tell both sides of a story involving Qantas.


4th Aug 2007, 08:02
Hardworker, could you provide a link to that determination by the JAA, or anyone else for that matter. Seems that the Singapore CAA post on here too and claim that they are squeaky clean over the wiring issue. Just one thing that crossed my mind, if that door sill/seal assembly on the 'bus got to the stage of depuressurising the cabin. I would hope the emergency oxygen is lockwired to the open position.:=

4th Aug 2007, 08:45
Just one thing that crossed my mind, if that door sill/seal assembly on the 'bus got to the stage of depuressurising the cabin. I would hope the emergency oxygen is lockwired to the open position.
U.K.SUBS, I don't know what your occupation is but certainly can't be aviation. There is no way a leaking door seal could depressurise the cabin. All that would happen is that the outflow valves would close a tad more to maintain 8.2 diff.

4th Aug 2007, 08:48
This error occurred at SASCO, just a stones throw from SIAEC. (not the one your after UK Subs) but it did involve JAL. Unfortunately the original link is dead.
It happened in 2005.
Wednesday December 21, 3:53 PM
JAL B747 jumbo in sky for 7 months with engines on wrong side
(Kyodo) _ Japan Airlines had been flying a Boeing jumbo jet for seven months without realizing the plane's left and right outer engines had been placed on the wrong sides during maintenance in Singapore in February, airline officials admitted Wednesday.
Some components of the engines are required to be inspected once every 650 flights, but as a result of the mistake, one of the engines completed about 850 flights without being examined.
The officials said there were no safety problems but the Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ministry instructed the airline to take measures to prevent any recurrence.
In February, JAL commissioned ST Aviation Services Co. Pte Ltd. in Singapore to conduct maintenance work on the four-engine Boeing 747. The plane resumed service after the overhaul was completed in April.
It was not until a regular maintenance checkup in November that the engines were discovered to have been attached wrongly.
Reversing the engine locations results in air flow toward the fuselage instead of away from it during reverse thrust. However, it does not create any difference during normal thrust and thus poses no safety problems during flights, the officials said.
They said JAL will revise in-house procedures to ensure that inspections on the planes are conducted after outsourced maintenance work. The current policy only calls for checking documents after the completion of maintenance work.

Black Hands
4th Aug 2007, 09:02
Quote: "U.K SUBS, I don't know what your occupation is but it certainly can't be aviation."

Mr Hotdog, it appears that you have let the point of U.K SUBS' last post whistle through to the keeper... It wasn't so long ago that a very similar aircraft departed a very similar maintenance facility with the crew oxygen bottle lockwired in the closed position.. Swiss cheese effect? maybe..

4th Aug 2007, 09:26
Black Hands, the subject was a leaking door seal that could not have caused a depressurization; I hope you agree with that statement? Ergo, whether the red herring of crew oxygen supply valve lock wired closed, is not the open goal that you are eluding to. Not at all defending the lock wiring, if it happened, a check of crew oxygen masks during pre flight checks is SOP with most operators.

Black Hands
4th Aug 2007, 10:44
Mr Hotdog, point noted with regards to the fact that a leaking door pressurisation seal or incorrectly installed door sill scuff plate would not cause any significant a/c depressurisation. However, I am eluding to the the point that any a/c component incorrectly installed by an individual inadequately trained or supervised due to the "cost effective" supervisory structure and work practices of a particular maintenance organisation, in conjuction with an over sight in SOP, obviously has the potential for disasterous results...
If you could please refer to jet noseover's post of 22.03.07 titled "QANTAS FLIES WITHOUT EMERGENCY OXYGEN" you may well concur with my statement.

4th Aug 2007, 10:54
Hot dog you're spot on. Depressurising the cabin....no, as you correctly said the outflow valves will modulate to maintain cabin px. The whole intent was to as black hands correctly stated was the swiss cheese model and it does beg the question 'How close is QF to a hull loss'. Why I gave the oxy and door seal a go was about ten years ago a 74 made an atb. The upper deck door px seal gave way and fogged up the upper deck. The tech crew wore oxy masks for the return trip home.

4th Aug 2007, 10:57
Yes Black Hands, I do concur. Three areas to blame. The maintenace facility, the fully licensed Qantas maintenace quality inspectors and lastly, the operating crew. It does not matter where you go, human beings will continue to make mistakes.:{

4th Aug 2007, 11:02
i can just see it now, a tube of sellys all-clear and a caulking gun by each door

4th Aug 2007, 11:05
The upper deck door px seal gave way and fogged up the upper deck. The tech crew wore oxy masks for the return trip home.
I presume they also lifted the guard on the Passenger Oxygen control panel and switched from Normal to On, deploying the rubber jungle in the cabin and carrying out an emergency descent to 10,000'.:confused:

4th Aug 2007, 11:18
From memory, no. Evacuated the upper deck. That's all.

4th Aug 2007, 11:52
A letter to the editor published in this morning's Herald Sun under the heading "IN FLIGHT JET SCREAM"

.." I have just got off a Jetstar flight from Bangkok where problems with a cabin door seal 10 minutes after takeoff resulted in a siren-like scream for the next eight hours.
No explanation was given at the time , just some headphones supplied to drown it out (which it didn't , and the music volume hurt after that).
The Flight attendants wore heavy duty ear muffs in the galley.
This is the exact same service from Bangkok that was forced to land at Bali a week earlier because of engine failure.
I was told after I got off the flight that it was safe ; the door wasn't going to blow out , but my ears are still ringing."

Benjamin Doudney, Fitzroy.

4th Aug 2007, 11:54
Hotdog et all, here's something Australian engineers take more seriously than others.
"Upon My Honor, I swear that I shall hold in sacred trust the rights and privileges conferred upon me as a certified mechanic. Knowing full well that the safety and lives of others are dependent upon my skill and judgement, I shall never knowingly subject others to risks which I would not be willing to assume for myself, or those dear to me. In discharging this trust, I pledge myself never to undertake work or approve work which I feel to be beyond the limits of my knowledge, nor shall I allow any non-certified superior to pursuade me to approve aircraft or equipment as airworthy against my better judgement, nor shall I permit my judgement to be influenced by money or other personal gain, nor shall I pass as airworthy aircraft or equipment about which I am in doubt, either as a result of direct inspection or uncertainty regarding the ability of others who have worked on it to accomplish their work satisfactorily. I realise the grave responsibility which is mine as a certified airman, to exercise my judgement on the airworthiness of aircraft and equipment. I therefore, pledge unyielding adherence to these precepts for the advancement of aviation and for the dignity of my vocation.

developed by flight safety

4th Aug 2007, 13:37
It may be fortunate that the incorrectly installed door sill was easily identified by the horrified pax and cabin crew. What else did they install incorrectly? Apart from the oxy bottle wired closed, didn't they forget to connect one of the crapper pipes only a few months ago? Hope those flight controls were rigged up properly but no need to worry there is a good chance they will be ok.

4th Aug 2007, 17:58
And the person totally responsible for the outsourcing of all the C (A330) & D (744) Checks as a cost saving exercise and a bonus enhancement for himself is one person, Mr Cox....
Bonus before Schedule and Safety...
No doubt he will say the safe of the aircraft was never in question....it is ironic, so far only the most noticeable visual defects have been found, how long before a Swiss cheese hidden defect results in a more prominate emergency incident....Quality is something that Qantas management no longer seem to value at all.....bonus incentives seem to be the driving factor!

Black Hands
4th Aug 2007, 20:16
Perhaps the QANTAS catch cry of "safety is our priority", would be more accurate if it read "safety is risk assessed vs airline profitability and the annual bonus of E&M's executive manager"... a little longer, but still catchy.

Managers Perspective
5th Aug 2007, 05:10
Can anyone explain exactly what the defect was?
Was the sill bent or distorted?
Was there a sealant void under the sill?
Was there a missing fastener?
Was there a void in the door seal?
Has anyone here got the facts or are we all whipping it up into a safety case again?
Sounds like the aircraft "flew" fine.

5th Aug 2007, 06:19
are we all whipping it up into a safety case again?
If you're talking about the emergency lighting, no need to 'whip up' anything with that one. The photos speak for themselves. Would you repair your Datsun 180B or whatever it is you drive in such a manner?

Sounds like the aircraft "flew" fine.
Yep, I agree. Just like the aircraft fly fine without an IFE. But how many customers in either case will be back to fly Qantas/Jetstar again? Wouldn't the company be better off if they .. just taking a wild stab in the dark here .. carried out the correct maintenance on the aircraft? Then we won't end up with empty flights that "flew fine".

5th Aug 2007, 06:35
Facts, VH-EBC Jetstar

1. Aircraft Departed Manillia from quote "one of the top 10 MRO's after a C check

2. Ferry flight to SYD crew advised of excessive noise in cabin from door area.

3. Jetstar pressured to have serviceable due to no other aircraft replacement available.

4. EA covering air leak from door area so aircraft could meet operational requirements.

5. Aircraft flew Syd - Bkk noise was excessive and unbearable by pax and cabin crew

6. Aircraft declared unserviceable and flown to MEL for maintenance

7. Aircraft spent 3 days on ground and was test flown - door sill stainless steel panel incorrectly fitted on C check

8. BSS Bonus before safety and schedule

Managers Perspective
5th Aug 2007, 09:04
Plenty of operational fact there.

But in relation to:

door sill stainless steel panel incorrectly fitted on C check

Was the sill bent or distorted?
Was there a sealant void under the sill?
Was there a missing fastener?
Was there a void in the door seal?
Has anyone here got the facts or are we all whipping it up into a safety case again?


5th Aug 2007, 09:11
If its not fitted in accordance with approved data it is WRONG
it can fail to be fitted correctly for many reasons
It is a poor reflection on the people who let this go

5th Aug 2007, 10:35
Managers Perspective.... take your rod, reel and tackle box and place it in the boot of your car and drive away please. You are a TROLL.

5th Aug 2007, 11:07
M.P. Last week the exec. general manager J. Borghetti said on ABC, that SAFETY was 1st,2nd,3rd and 4th for the airline (and the group). You have to understand that QF places a premium on that and prices its tickets with that knowledge. With the events, maintenance related, from the beginning of this year the PERCEPTION of safety at the QF group has taken a hit, there is no doubt about that.
One saying from Stelios Hadjou (suspect spelling). Hear this David Cox


Managers Perspective
5th Aug 2007, 11:17
Surely someone must have some facts.

Or are we all just climbing on the wagon again?


5th Aug 2007, 12:00
Give yourself an uppercut M.P. :ugh:

The facts as reported in Hardworkers post are spot on.

Another thing bean-counters never understand: you only get what you pay for.:ok:

5th Aug 2007, 12:44
door sill stainless steel panel incorrectly fitted on C check

Please guys, I'm genuinely intrigued. How can anyone incorrectly fit a stainless steel, pre shaped door sill panel.? Hardworker, you are the first one to mention this fault, please enlighten me.

5th Aug 2007, 14:29
Please guys, I'm genuinely intrigued. How can anyone incorrectly fit a stainless steel, pre shaped door sill panel.? Hardworker, you are the first one to mention this fault, please enlighten me.

I assume the 330 sill is similar to the 320 sill. The 320 maintenance manual requires the door silll to be vaccum baged whilst the sealant that bonds the sill to the door cutout is drying. If this procedure is not carried out, the sill is likely to leak.

Black Hands
5th Aug 2007, 15:44
Even the simpliest of maintenance tasks have potential avenues for error when not carried out, or closely supervised by trained personnel iaw the approved maintenance publication. Unfortunately, its seems maintenance accomplished in this manner is currently referred to as "gold plating" and is simply not cost effective or financially competitive enough in today's environment. DC might have to buy the wife a BMW instead of a Benz with his bonus...

Managers Perspective
5th Aug 2007, 19:11
MELKBQF you are probably getting close.

Come on guys, someone must know someone that was involved with the rectification.

Or at least know who to ask.

I know we all have philosophies to project here, but until we hear what the actual defect was it seems to be a bit premature to be sprooking about safety again.

So far it sounds no more than a pressurisation whistle to me.


5th Aug 2007, 20:52
Managers Perspective....Just like politicians and current management you are trying to not answer the question and distort the facts to divert attention away from the real issue.

FACT:The aircraft was serviced offshore.

FACT:Something was not done correctly.

FACT:The aircraft was grounded

Quote from PM.. "So far it sounds no more than a pressurisation whistle to me"

FACT: The aircraft was grounded because of a problem that happened after it was serviced.This cost the airline and it's reputation a huge amount.Not only because the aircraft was not earning money and because people in AUSTRALIA had to fix the problem but because of the public found out about YET ANOTHER OVERSEAS SCREWUP.

If the problem was "just a pressurisation whistle" as you put it MP and was of no significance then WHY WAS THE AIRCRAFT GROUNDED?

The masked goatrider
5th Aug 2007, 21:35
MP i like the way you keep the threads alive and kicking.

The door sill was not sealed correctly that is a step in the maintenance manual which was not carried out (the vaccum process) that led to the aircraft being grounded. I'm sure that you won't accept that the aircraft was replaced whilst it sat on the deck for 2 days with tech log coupons backing what happened as evidence. I will post the coupons if you like when I get the chance. What would you like? a written signed confession from the Lufthansa Technik ame stating that he bothched up the job?

The concern here is that many other jobs have been done on the cheap with steps left out from the same facility. Good example was the crapper pipe that wasn't connected and dumped turds in the cargo area. Have they stuffed up other processes in more critical systems and more impotantly do you think DC would still be protected if this leads to a burning hole in the ground?

B A Lert
5th Aug 2007, 23:28
Have they stuffed up other processes in more critical systems

This is the question that should be exercising the best minds at Qantas and CASA. What is being done to ensure that what is certified to be done is done correctly as per the books so that the reported incidents do not recur? The travelling public and crew who operate these aircraft and, to a lesser extent, shareholders, deserve better.


6th Aug 2007, 01:08
Hardworker your "facts" earlier in this thread are a little off the mark.

The A/C ferried MNL-MEL with the air leak defect reported on this sector.

Cause of defect isolated to an ill fitting door SILL which was sitting proud.

A temporary repair via an Engineering Authority was carried out and leak checked up to the max allowable cabin diff on the ground with no leak evident.

The A/C operated MEL-BKK and with the higher in flt cabin diff leaked again.

The intent of the EA was carried out prior to departure and also leaked again on the BKK-MEL sector.

A/C taken to the hangar for further investigation along with other scheduled maintenance.

Door sill removed and found to have been drilled off incorrectly, hence the poor fit.

Nil stock door sill in AUS, part ordered from MNL.

After that not sure of the outcome, happily away from the place for a few days. :D

BTW. Mangers Perspective you are a TOOL!:mad:

6th Aug 2007, 04:55

I think there are none. The temporary caretakers in charge of the company are busy lining their pockets.

A bit like TCAS, QF is operating on a last line of defence bases.

Doesnt QF operate these days on a one hull loss philosophy?

6th Aug 2007, 07:22
Like all business, it's a balancing act ...

Weigh up the savings on out-sourcing against the risk

Obviously they believe the cost benefits outweigh the likelihood/consequences of a bad thing happening.

6th Aug 2007, 09:08
It sure sounds like a repeat of the Alaskan Air stuff up, only difference SO FAR is there has not been any loss of life. FAA were also in the hip pocket of the airline there ( sound Familiar)

Only 88 passengers and crew were killed on flight 261 and the FAA has issued an emergency AD calling for ALL A/C with stabilizers to be inspected concerning the jack screw assembly that operates the stabilizer. How about VALUJET 592 who lost a total of 110 passengers and crew with "aircraft wire" (PVC TYPE wire) that can not pass the minimum standards for FAR 25.

I believe Alaskan Air had a whistle blower, but no one would listen, short cuts taken with maintenance to save a quid, dejavu.

Managers Perspective
7th Aug 2007, 08:38
I'm not sure what's in your coffee Orville, but it seems you're flying............


7th Aug 2007, 09:26
I think MP will not be truly satisfied that there is really any problem unless the aircraft leaves a large crater after its impact.

MP, you stated:Sounds like the aircraft "flew" fine.

The aircraft would under most circumstances fly "fine" on one engine too.
That you somehow think that flying "fine" is reason to believe that a problem and/or cause are not significant is of great concern. I sincerely hope that you are not a manager who is involved with maintenance or operational flying decisions at QF, because as one of the bunnies who has to deal with the "fine" aircraft from takeoff to landing, that would seriously scare me.

There are significant problems with some areas of overseas maintenance which QF uses. Get over that fact. There are also significant problems with the pressures, both real and perceived, that our LAMEs are operating under here in Oz. I, for one, am getting a little weary of both flying your "fine" aircraft with repeatedly identical MELs which substantially increase our workload but can't be fixed for lack of spares or time (lack of hangar space last week!), and of having to ultimately say "no, we will not accept this 'fine' aircraft again unless that problem is fixed, and we don't give a flying f**k whether it has an MEL and you have to wait a week for the bit or not."

7th Aug 2007, 12:13
Dutchroll, you summed MP up beautifully - well said!:)

7th Aug 2007, 12:24