PDA

View Full Version : Qantas faces special safety probe


beamender99
3rd Aug 2008, 09:26
BBC reporting

"Australian aviation authorities have announced a special review of airline Qantas, after three safety scares in little more than a week.
A Qantas 767 was forced to return to Sydney on Saturday after a fluid leak.
It followed another plane's emergency landing in Manila caused by a hole in its side, and a problem with a landing gear cover on a domestic flight.
Officials said they had no evidence of falling safety standards, but added it was "prudent" to take a closer look. "Clearly, there's been a number of incidents recently and it's important that we go in and double check and make sure that all the standards are being maintained," a spokesman for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (Casa) said."

glad rag
3rd Aug 2008, 09:51
How much of a mandate CASA have in reality?? Have they knowledge a specific series of quality failings that they are going after or is it a paperwork exercise?

aussiepax
3rd Aug 2008, 10:24
This is truly a knee jerk reaction to keep the mug punters out there happy. What a crock of S#1te. Quite embarassing.

ukdean
3rd Aug 2008, 11:06
Knee jerk I think, apart from the major problem we are all fully aware of I would say the other problems are, in my view "STD OPERATING INCIDENTS" that every airline goes through. I would say its more of a problem for the PR team to handle as the eyes are looking at Qantas hence, this knee jerk reaction and a "we must seem to be doing something" scenario occuring. Its clear from the amount of threads on pprune about S O P that involve Qantas, if it involved any other airline it would be in jet blast. Its sunday guys lets have a Qantas free thread day.......

Airbubba
3rd Aug 2008, 12:10
Flight attendants ask Qantas to explain incidents

Aug 2 11:42 PM US/Eastern

Qantas flight attendants want assurances from management that the Australian carrier's planes are safe after a third mid-air incident in two weeks, a union official said Sunday.

Attendants are concerned about media reports about maintenance practices at Qantas and do not have the specialised knowledge to assess the incidents, said Steven Reed, president of the Flight Attendants Association of Australia.

"We want some assurances from the company that these are isolated incidents," Reed said. "We need to meet with the company at a senior level to have these assurances."

Flight attendants ask Qantas to explain incidents (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080803034151.ll2gornc&show_article=1)

Big Tudor
3rd Aug 2008, 12:20
Flight attendants ask Qantas to explain incidents
Getting slightly less publicity is the fact that pilot unions have requested the same thing. Worthy of note is the fact that leaders of BOTH groups have said it is a routine enquiry and should not be seen as anything more than that.

Agree with previous comments. This is more an exercise to improve the slightly tarnished image of Qantas. The media will soon be looking elsewhere for their next bit of scintillating gossip. :hmm:

Ancient Observer
3rd Aug 2008, 12:41
I'd have thought that the Quantas "scrutiny" would also happen in the UK if BA/EZY had a string of issues. What happens is that folk who had not previously reported a concern decide to report their concerns, and a spike of reports hit whoever the regulator is...............who then has to investigate, and be seen to investigate.

sevenstrokeroll
3rd Aug 2008, 13:38
This investigation is a good one. I've seen problems at america's airlines and special probes initiated.

IF QANTAS doesn't have a problem, that will come out. IF THEY NEED TO SPEND A FEW MORE BUCKS; that will come out too..

torquewrench
3rd Aug 2008, 20:57
From American CNN coverage:

Australia's aviation agency launched a review of Qantas Airways' safety standards Sunday after a Manila-bound jetliner spraying hydraulic fuel made the airline's third high-profile emergency landing in eight days.

Spraying hydraulic fuel? Oh dear. Sounds terribly dangerous. Seconds from disaster!

I am ever so glad to have such capable journalistic professionals keeping me well informed about these weighty matters. I don't know how I would get along without them.

--

BYALPHAINDIA
3rd Aug 2008, 21:15
Sounds like QF is 'slipping' down the slope??

Or on it's way to the wall??

After 60 + years of non accidents.

overthewing
3rd Aug 2008, 21:28
Spraying hydraulic fuel? Oh dear. Sounds terribly dangerous. Seconds from disaster!

SLF here, and not an engineer.

Isn't loss of hydraulic fluid a serious issue? As in...loss of landing gear, flaps, control surfaces, essential flyability of the aircraft?

Or is it a common occurrence, and not considered dangerous?

four_two
3rd Aug 2008, 22:06
overthewing

I think the expression hydraulic fuel amused torquespanner.

Of course your term hydraulic fluid is the correct one.

Diver_Dave
3rd Aug 2008, 22:06
Again SLF here but.....

My work specialisation is in queueing theory and
'psudo-random / random' events.

With any business / service.

Patterns will occur and it CAN get to
a point you should worry if you don't get them.

A good example is the (UK) lottery.

If you DON'T get two consecutive numbers once in three draws
and three consecutive once every ten you could consider the draw's
impartiality.

The same applies here.

Incidents are not to a time-table and like
everything (including busses) bunch up.

I know it's not a clear explanation of what's happening, but...

I'm certain (and would put money on it) someone else can name
an airline that's had a similar presentation of.

a. Years clear..

b. 2-3 incidents in 2-3 weeks.

The math makes it inevitable.

DaveA

*Erlang B & C, Poisson / GAMMA A Process Distributions

overthewing
3rd Aug 2008, 22:18
Four two - thank you! I didn't spot that one at all.

Mind you, with Qantas' apparent maintenance issues...who knows? ;)

RYRnick
3rd Aug 2008, 22:24
Well, I think this is one for the passengers to decide. I can see the bankrupcty from here.

mybrico
3rd Aug 2008, 22:37
I travelled last week 6 times with QF and was booked on QF19 on Saturday to Manila but missed the flight because my connection from BNE was late due to other issues. Let me say clearly its an airline in Melt Down. Of my six flights all departed late between 1 and 3 hours. No IFE working on my two Intercontinental segments, not important in itself but indicative. The inspection is a good thing before they kill someone. Oh and they lost my bags too....

Capt Kremin
3rd Aug 2008, 23:33
So, by your criteria, any airline that has any sort of delay or IFE not working is about to kill someone?

theron
3rd Aug 2008, 23:49
i dont think that is what he is saying, "meltdown" not murder

NSEU
4th Aug 2008, 00:21
No IFE working on my two Intercontinental segments, not important in itself but indicative.

Not that IFE problems are uncommon on any aircraft, but bad choice of system and airlines wanting all the bells and whistles (intensive customisation) on their particular aircraft, makes things worse.

When you basically have a personal computer under each seat group (1~3 seats), something, statistically, has to break down (how many times has your home computer needed a reboot?). Also, IFE system manufacturers still haven't quite grasped the fact that vibration, huge variations in temperature and spilled coffee are normal on all aircraft.

I hear that one customer was so upset that the IFE box under the seat in front of him was reducing his legroom, he repeatedly kicked it.

vancouv
4th Aug 2008, 07:06
IFE systems are obviously not significant to the operation of the plane, but they are very customer facing. Sitting on a ten hour flight without one can be a bit of a bore, and it's easy for SLF to think if they can't get a DVD working, which they have sitting in their front room, what chance does the rest of the planes maintenance have?

I would think it could be significant when picking your next carrier.

maddes
4th Aug 2008, 07:21
probably a little crock .. but i'm still booking BA or SAA or Emirates or anyone else flying Joburg Sydney, Qantas is now second last on the list after Indonesian Airlines. As Stephen Wolfram eloquently shows, patterns cannot be denied. Sniffed any nitrogen in your oxygen lately ?

aerostatic
4th Aug 2008, 09:12
Isn't loss of hydraulic fluid a serious issue? As in...loss of landing gear, flaps, control surfaces, essential flyability of the aircraft?
These aircraft have redundant hydraulic systems so loss of hydraulic fluid from one system will not prevent safe operation of the aircraft. In fact you can lose all the fluid in one system and still not have to land at the nearest suitable airport, therefore this was a precautionary turn back only and not an emergency.

The media gets a bit excited after a serious incident like QF30 and start reporting everything as a major incident. Many precautionary air turn backs are never reported in the media at all. Whilst they might still be news, they don't deserve this level of sensationalism.

PC767
4th Aug 2008, 09:57
Qantas is a good airline and I hope that the issues which have been publicised are just a run of bad luck.

Don't dismiss comments from SLF about u/s IFE. To alot of people these small issues matter, not just for comfort, but also because they tend to lead to the question 'what else doesn't work'. Working in the industry I take the view point that they don't work because engineering is directing resources at keeping the important bits going. But talking to SLF I often find the counter view 'if the airline cannot keep the small things serviceable, how do they cope with the bigger issues.' My perspective is the minority view outside of this forum which is why it matters.

TMAK
4th Aug 2008, 10:00
maddes, enjoy flying BA via LHR from JNB to SYD...or EK via DXB...certainly hope your IFE works...as you are doubling the length of travel! If my memory is correct is only a couple of years since EK came very close to losing an A340 taking off from JNB...and its only a few months since BA wrote off a 777 at LHR...think I will keep taking my chances on QF...with some of the worlds best pilots...and they still havent lost a Jet!

TMAK
4th Aug 2008, 10:09
PC...you are right, they are important to pax and many relate these to other parts of the aircraft. But as NSEU pointed out it is fairly basic tech especially on these older planes. Which if Boeing and Airbus could deliver an aircraft to plan, may not be in service now...or for much longer at least. Im not sure...but I wouldnt think so much that engineers direct attention elsewhere, its just not that reliable tecnology...its old and basic (the early IFE) and there is little point replacing it at millions per aircraft, when new aircraft and IFE are just around the corner....somewhere!

sidtheesexist
4th Aug 2008, 10:56
I think some ought to re-read mybrico's post - he/she's not just referring to a failure of IFE for gawd's sake!!!!!!!!

Slickster
4th Aug 2008, 11:43
Qantas is a good airline and I hope that the issues which have been publicised are just a run of bad luck.


No they're not; they're awful, as anyone has flown with them can testify. I speak as someone who works for BA too. Arrogant, think they're the best, but about ten years behind the rest of the industry in terms of service. Comes about from having a virtual monopoly. As for their operating standards, I refer you to the previous; Aussies think they're great, and can't wait to tell everyone how great they are. Is that a good thing in the flight deck? Not as far as I could see, when I did my training in Oz (alongside QANTAS cadets, I might add).

think I will keep taking my chances on QF...with some of the worlds best pilots...and they still haven't lost a Jet!
TMAK is offline Report Post Reply

Now you're making me laugh. I trained with said "World's best pilots", remember? Never lost a jet? What, apart from from Bangkok, when they decided to land in a thunderstorm, then decided not to, at which point the captain unilaterally decided to land, but landed long and failed to deploy reverse thrust, ending up in a golf course. It cost QANTAS more to put that together again than it would have to buy a new one. But hey-ho, QANTAS never lost a jet..........

ronca
4th Aug 2008, 11:52
Sidtheesexist said :-I think some ought to re-read mybrico's post - he/she's not just referring to a failure of IFE for gawd's sake!!!!!!!!

I agree. I am very frequent international SLF out of Oz. I have no qualms at all in travelling Qantas for safety reasons as the current media crap is just mainly dressing up normal operational issues as near-disasters ! The thing that is pulling me away from QF and towards airlines such as SQ and EK is the sheer number of major delays and cancellations I have experienced with QF International flights for a long time now. On average SQ run 86% ontime for SYD-SIN (and that includes some teething probs with the A380) whereas QF only manages 44% ontime performance. (source www.flightstats.com (http://www.flightstats.com) select Flights then Flight Rating).

I had one situation two weeks ago when I was booked on QF5 SYD-SIN, it got cancelled and I was rebooked on QF31 SYD-SIN, that then got delayed by 6 hours so Qantas sent me to Melbourne ("the only way we can get you to Singapore today") to catch QF9 MEL-SIN which was then itself delayed by 6 hours. I was lucky enough to be able to switch to SQ out of MEL as the only way then left for me to get to Singapore that day. That is crap service and it is by no means the only time I have experienced these sort of delays that other airlines just don't seem to have. It seems to me that QF has spent the last several years pissing off their staff and they have now turned on their passengers !

Slickster
4th Aug 2008, 12:35
Well, if you're going to get that picky, at least use capital letters. Despite our collective deficiencies, it doesn't change the fact that QANTAS are pooh!

BrissySparkyCoit
4th Aug 2008, 12:37
Slickster dribbled.....
No they're not; they're awful, as anyone has flown with them can testify. I speak as someone who works for BA

I've traveled with BA three times over the last few years and whilst Qantas certainly don't have the best service, I must say your comment is very hypocritical.

Slickster
4th Aug 2008, 12:48
Irony obviously escapes you then. Perhaps I should have said "Even though I work for BA, and know how bad they can be, sometimes".

Finn47
4th Aug 2008, 13:09
The local media have found another newsworthy story today. They say another 767 was found leaking hydraulic fluid even before the flight took off :}

Qantas flight grounded by tech fault (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=608714)

Sunfish
4th Aug 2008, 20:51
Propjet, the CASA investigation is nothing to do with the media and everything to do with the disclosure of numerous breaches of QF's own maintenance procedures that were reported to CASA by QF's own engineers during an industrial dispute.

luckboy
4th Aug 2008, 23:13
:sad::sad::sad::sad:
Civil Aviation Safety Authority (Casa) is part of Qantas,
that's why Casa doesn't take any action to warning Qf.

QF engineering can issure EA to cover MEL when expaired.

Teal
5th Aug 2008, 01:13
Civil Aviation Safety Authority (Casa) is part of Qantas,
that's why Casa doesn't take any action to warning Qf.

QF engineering can issure EA to cover MEL when expaired.Can anybody translate that into proper English...? :ugh:

NSEU
5th Aug 2008, 01:35
I had one situation two weeks ago when I was booked on QF5 SYD-SIN, it got cancelled and I was rebooked on QF31 SYD-SIN, that then got delayed by 6 hours so Qantas sent me to Melbourne ("the only way we can get you to Singapore today") to catch QF9 MEL-SIN which was then itself delayed by 6 hours. I was lucky enough to be able to switch to SQ out of MEL as the only way then left for me to get to Singapore that day. That is crap service and it is by no means the only time I have experienced these sort of delays that other airlines just don't seem to have. It seems to me that QF has spent the last several years pissing off their staff and they have now turned on their passengers !

Two weeks ago, you were almost certainly flying in the middle of the QF engineer's industrial dispute (where none of them were doing any overtime, which meant there was a backlog in routine and non-routine maintenance). Everyone concerned is hopeful for a resolution in the next few days, but, no doubt it will take a few weeks for things to get back to "normal" at QF. To help the process, Qantas has suspended its maintenance contracts with almost all foreign operators (to concentrate on its own fleet). The foreign operaters are now either servicing their own aircraft .. or are using engineers-for-hire (or a combination of both)

indamiddle
5th Aug 2008, 02:00
"qantas has spent the last several years pissing off their staff....". qf has spent a lot more than 3 years pissing off their staff. 5 years ago, or more, an engagement survey result showed long haul cc were 27% engaged, pilots result was lower. consulting company reported that these were the worst results ever in a survey of any company. 18 months later another survey conducted, results never published. why? no company surved twice had ever shown a decline in 'engagement'. qantas created history once more

Sunfish
5th Aug 2008, 04:00
The phenomenon of CASA bending over to be nice to QF is an old one, studied in economics textbooks as "Regulatory Capture", where those regulated form a nice cosy mutual relationship with the Regulator.

This isn't corruption either, it happens through friendships, relationships, shared experiences and so on. Smart companies do their best to suck the regulators in and make them "Friends", and it's very very hard to resist because once it exists at senior levels, junior regulators know they can be punished or victimised in their own organisation for being "too strict" with companies who have links to their bosses.

Questions for example to CASA. Exactly who is paying for CASA's work in gaining Australian approvals for the QF A380 and B787? Exactly who is going on what courses with whom, and who else is going? I'm fairly sure I already know the answer. We are talking pilots and engineers here.

Again, it ain't corrupt, just very very unhealthy to let your regulator get "captured" by someone. Furthermore, smart players love it when regulators add a few more layers of regulation, because usually their compliance costs are less if the "own" the regulator, and the extra (suitably impenetrable) regulations then become a barrier to entry into the market to other players.

keel beam
5th Aug 2008, 04:38
I appreciate that an SLF may have concerns for the airworthiness of the aircraft if small things in the cabin do not work, but this is the real life operational service situation. If time is available, which it isn't always, then IFE etc gets sorted if possible. My priorities on a turn round are:

Get the routine done first
Sort out Aircraft tech problems
then have a go at cabin defects

If I do have the time to work in the cabin I try my damnest to get the IFE working.

At stations down the line where there are staff available, then I would expect the cabin to get worked.

porch monkey
5th Aug 2008, 05:24
Nobody's happy with the way QF is doing things at the moment, that includes the staff. But for christ sake, if you don't like the service, or you think somebody else is better or whatever, just F@ck off and fly with them. The Bankok accident was NOT a write off, and if you can replace a 747 400 for 90 million dollars, then I suggest you should be in the business of aircraft sales. Lots of airlines would love to talk to you. Media beatups for the great unwashed. Spare me........:mad:

NotPilotAtALL
5th Aug 2008, 05:39
Hi,

Of my six flights all departed late between 1 and 3 hours

If this is a criteria for qualify a airline of "Melt Down" ... I think all the airlines are "Melting Down" .. :)
I suppose you was kidding :rolleyes:

Cheers.

Barkly1992
5th Aug 2008, 09:37
Whilst 'on time departure' times could be an indication of issues (as we say) on the airworthiness issues being confronted by an operator and therefore a target for CASA.

They could also be an ATC issue - particularly at Sydney.

Slats One
5th Aug 2008, 10:02
Is First Great Western involved here in running QF at all by any chance?

(only UK based Pruners will understand this post...)

itwilldoatrip
5th Aug 2008, 14:48
Agree with your comments keel beam. Half the problems with QF lie in the cockpit and cabin.
As someone who has to deal with these hxxxf wxxs words cant explain. How many defects logged are already in the hold items. These people can't even be bothered to look.
Priority's as you have said. Perhaps QF need to look at their transit times and spares provisioning.

charliecossie
5th Aug 2008, 15:16
itwilldoatrip:
That's unfair, QF cabin crew are no more h**f w*tt*d than those of all the airlines I've ever dealt with (quite a long list).
Except one - U**t*d. They make all other h**f w**s look brilliant.

keel beam:
You can only work the cabin (no matter how many staff) when you've got the necessary spares......

Anyone hazard a guess why QF have two cargo fire bottles in stock at a large airport in Germany? But no seat spares. No bev makers. No lamps or tubes.
Madness.

keel beam
5th Aug 2008, 21:22
Most cabin defects can be fixed without spares, of course no spares then ADD raised.

itwilldoatrip
6th Aug 2008, 02:24
Charliecossie spot on, same here with spares regarding being hxxxf wxxs sorry they have the green slips in front of the cabin (and tech log) to look at. Keel beam you try to ADD a seat inop because the aircraft does'nt even carry spare seat cover or cushions. Most crews will let the seat be unoccupied rather than sacrifice the crew seats 'Rules are flights over 8 hrs we have to have rest'.

keel beam
6th Aug 2008, 03:32
Keel beam you try to ADD a seat inop because the aircraft does'nt even carry spare seat cover or cushions.

Been there and done that, it is not a pretty sight having blocked off seats without the appropriate "Do not use" seat cover.

The most "Do not use" seat covers I have seen in the spares bag is 2, not much use if you have to block off 6 seats!

And I am partial to swapping items from crew rest to u/s seat eg soiled cushions, u/s handsets etc. (I do let the in charge know, that's good of me :ok:)

Orangputi
6th Aug 2008, 04:16
Actually Porch Monkey you can replace a 747-400 of that vintage for less than that!

In July 7 08 Aircraft Value News it has the high value of of the 747-400 of early 90's vintage as less than 50K. Now I know there has been considerable depreciation since the Bangkok incident, but the assumptions that Qantas paid over the constructive total loss threshold (typically 75%) with respect to its insurance policy to not suffer a hull loss is fact! I am not saying that I dont understand the mentality to not to be seen to suffer a hull loss, but the fact remains that they did!