PDA

View Full Version : Wheel breaks at tulla


mickjoebill
20th Oct 2009, 05:37
Plane wheel disintegrates on landing - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/20/2719173.htm)

A Virgin flight suffered a wheel disintegration during landing at Melbourne airport today.

Mickjoebill

Gobetter
20th Oct 2009, 05:55
There is now a strong link between Virgin and tyre failures. Remember the other month a VIRGIN 737 departed with a shreaded tyre?

"The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association says the incident occurred at Melbourne airport.
The association is calling for urgent inspections on all Virgin planes"

LCC vs LCM.. I see the connection now!

(Low Cost Carriers vs Low Cost Maintenance).

Channel 7, do a story on this! Splash it all over the TV. Nearly Australia's second worst aviation disaster...

How are Virgin Share Prices today? :mad:

Bootstrap1
20th Oct 2009, 06:20
When something goes wrong on a QF aircraft you normally get some inept manager with no technical aircraft knowledge play down the whole incident. Meanwhile over at leisurejet (aka Virgin Blue) they just continue as if nothing has happened and say nothing to no-one. Maybe if they don't mention it,then it never really happened.

7378FE
20th Oct 2009, 06:29
Must be a slow news day, or is Steveo still trying to justify his job.:rolleyes:

7378FE

Darwinism
20th Oct 2009, 07:25
Virgin Blue wheel 'disintegrated' on landing (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/virgin-blue-wheel-disintegrated-on-landing-20091020-h6ib.html)

The Original Jetpipe
20th Oct 2009, 07:46
A main wheel fell of a REX Saab about 12 months go. (ZLC) These things happen, in that incident the engineers got the blame even before the incident was investigated! (Was found to be bearing failer in the end) Just hope VB do not do the same!

7378FE
20th Oct 2009, 08:01
So Stevo has evolved into an ATSB investigator, judge, jury & executioner all within a couple of hours of the incident. :hmm: :rolleyes:

Stevo stop peddeling crap to the media, wait until the ATSB investigation has been completed. :cool:

7378FE

VBPCGUY
20th Oct 2009, 08:23
I believe DJ208 is operated by E190 not a B738, the only B738 I seen having a tyre change was VUI belive it operated in from SYD though arrivng at 0825 the due to depart to OOL at 1000

greenslopes
20th Oct 2009, 09:41
All news sources are quoting it as a 737-8 with the Age even managing a rego VH-VUI.

peter mcgrath
20th Oct 2009, 09:57
the Age even managing a rego VH-VUI.

thanks greenslopes, I was looking for that :)

7378FE - are you related to this plane??

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/5272/20091020205415.jpg

HotDog
20th Oct 2009, 10:58
These things happen, as Forrest Gump once said.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m246/adamtakach/Image0001-3-1.jpg.

There is no point in making a fleet inspection. I discovered this cracked wheel hub on a 747 at a preflight walkaround inspection after after being signed out by the departure LAME.

greenslopes
20th Oct 2009, 11:06
What everyone and I mean everyone is missing, is both of these incidents relating to failed wheels on Virgin aircraft occurred at Melbourne airport.

Clearly Melbourne airport is extremely unsafe.

Don't believe me?? Well how about the Emirates overrun incident....guess where that occurred......yep you guessed it...............Melbourne airport.

I say close Melbourne Airport before we have another incident or dare I say it accident.

Well thats all for now..........I'm off to join the 'Flat earth Society'.

Ooroo

j3pipercub
20th Oct 2009, 11:57
love ya work greenslopes

Leatherdog
20th Oct 2009, 21:57
Virgin Blue hits back at ALAEA after wheel issue
Item by AA Newsroom on October 20, 2009 8:31 pm
Virgin Blue has hit back at claims by the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA) that the airline is being lax with its maintenance practices following an incident on a Boeing 737-800 which was taxiing at Melbourne Airport on October 20.

According to newspaper reports, ALAEA federal secretary Steve Purvinas claimed that one of the wheels on a 737-800s disintegrated upon landing at Melbourne. Purvinas also said that the airline was cutting back on its maintenance programs. “When the wheels are regularly falling off your aircraft, the last thing you want to do is program less maintenance,” Purvinas told The Age.

Virgin Blue hit back at Purvinas’s claim about the nosewheel, saying that the pilot landed safely, and while taxiing the aircraft the pilot noted extra drag, which was presumed to be a brake related issue. On inspection, it was found that a component within the wheel hub had failed. “The safety of crew and guests onboard was never in question,” said the airline’s manager of aircraft airworthiness and maintenance control Darren Dunbier in a statement. “This aircraft including aircraft landing gear are expertly designed with many back-up safety features including the ability to land safely if any wheel is rendered unserviceable which was the case this morning.”

Dunbier also clarified changes that the airline is making to its maintenance programs. “To be very clear and at our own initiative, we are making a CASA-approved change to our aircraft line check procedures which will deliver more frequent maintenance inspections of aircraft across our fleet,” he said.
“Mr Purvinas should be well aware that Virgin Blue is increasing our maintenance schedule to a level which exceeds the manufacturer’s recommendations as well as meeting and in many cases exceeding all regulatory requirements and therefore we find his statements bewildering and misleading.”
Virgin Blue said in the statement “it is seeking legal advice regarding the seriously inaccurate statements” made by Purvinas.

As usual, people with no idea shooting their mouth off about things they know F*@k all about. Creates a lot of doubt over the ALAEA's professionalism.

ALAEA Fed Sec
21st Oct 2009, 02:25
As usual, people with no idea shooting their mouth off about things they know F*@k all about. Creates a lot of doubt over the ALAEA's professionalism.


The ALAEA never shoots without doing our homework.

Before any release yesterday we had read log entries and obtained photos of the wheel that had fallen apart on landing. Changes to Virgin procedures are extending the length between checks as supported by General Engineering Memo No 219.

Our research is thorough and nothing said is incorrect. We look forward to a legal challenge from the airline, it will give us the opportunity to present Virgin's own internal documents in a court room to support anything we have said.

Feel free to post any matter you wish that may indicate that something we have said is wrong and a response will be posted promptly. Or forever hold your peace.

VBPCGUY
21st Oct 2009, 03:16
ALAEA FED SEC tell MR 'smallpenis' he blows goats for me :ok:

MR WOBBLES
21st Oct 2009, 03:33
vbpcguy you have told me yourself well done brother,
sorry If I upset you maybe my comment was too close to the truth for you, as it was a general comment directed at a couple of posts & not at you why would you take such offence (maybe you are a troll not that I would like to imply this )

ps yes i do like blowing goats & :mad:wads

zube
21st Oct 2009, 05:26
It's a relief knowing the regulator, CASA, will be monitoring all this to the best of their ability. No doubt they will sort out any misunderstandings.

Long Bay Mauler
21st Oct 2009, 06:09
Good interview this morning ALAEA FED SEC :D:D:D

What is going on with Virgins aircraft? Those who work in the industry do realise that events such as this can happen,but are we expected to really swallow that turning WEEKLY(7day) checks into SERVICE checks every 15 days is really the way to go?

Is Virgin doing this because their 300 odd engineers cannot cope with the workload of properly maintaining 50+ aircraft?

And if something catastrophic happens one day,you can just see the bag chucker who did the walkaround being held accountable for the accident.....me thinks not.....but the LAME will be.

Now it makes sense why so many Virgin LAMEs have their applications in with QANTAS.

VBPCGUY
21st Oct 2009, 06:10
MR wobbles strange you only appear when VB incidents occur did you not rear your head after the nose wheel incident with VBA?? Im surprised 'legal action' was not proceeded with after those comments.

Hardly 'distentigrated' on this occassion the wheel hub didnt come apart until after it was removed , the aircraft taxied to the bay with a 'drag' noticed by the pilots, lets stick to the facts rather than your smear campaign, even VB engineers laughed at your claims today (hence where I got 'smallpenis' from:ok:)

MR WOBBLES
21st Oct 2009, 08:15
vbpcguy
got ya

distentigrated' what a champion:D

Heavy Cargo
21st Oct 2009, 08:59
How about the LAMEs back the nut off after initial torque up and check there is enough grease ? Back to basics.

Gobetter
21st Oct 2009, 12:05
I hear a handful of VIRGIN LAME's are applying for jobs with the white Kangaroo....

And surely it has to be "LAME's", not "LAME". Why would you remove the 's if there are more than one?

.... :mad: me

Black Hands
21st Oct 2009, 14:46
Pre flight checks... Performed by a qualified Licenced engineer, trained specifically on the aircraft type he/she is dispatching. Generally with 10 to 35 years of industry experience carrying out various levels of visual inspections, component installation and damage assessment... Removed.

Flight readiness check... Performed by an individual with 6 months Line maintenance experience... Introduced.

I was pleased to see Mr Purvinas touch on changes to Virgin's maintenance schedule during his interview this morning in a public medium, and I applaud your honesty Mr Hammer for presenting the facts to pprune readers.

While Virgin's new and obviously cost effective maintenance program is within CASA guidelines, I fail to comprehend how the "race to the bottom" attitude towards aircraft preventative maintenance is in the best interests of the Australian aviation industry and the general flying public.

My two cents..

Beeroclock
21st Oct 2009, 19:13
Black hands..Obviously a mechanical trade!! So after your last post you wouldnt be one of those Airframe Engine guys that think they should be able to sign off Avionic work since you have had years of experience on type and know what your looking at?? (10 to 35 years) where did that come from?? And be paid the same?? gee i wonder how half the Eba s get up.. Oh thats right the majority vote is greasers..
I dont agree with most things that happen these days,one thing i personally think should never change is..

1 Your Avionics you are Avionics..
2 Your Mechanical you are Mechanical..
3 Your a Pilot you are a Pilot..
4 Your a Ground handler you are a ground handler..
5 Your a Flight Attendant you are a Flight Attendant..

Etc the list goes on..

As for Casa and the Airlines signing off on being qualified to do everything,what a load of shit!! It takes years of basic trade and on the the job experience before that tick in the box means anything..But due to public demand on airfares its all about money!! Qf JQ and VB are all the same..Im guessing your Qf and if you think VBs practices are bad just look in your own back yard after they come back from heavy maintenance!!

My 2 cents worth..

Sunfish
21st Oct 2009, 20:00
1. Wheel halves are aluminium forgings.

2. They have a working life limit, most probably in number of cycles.

3. They don't always make it to the life limit.

4. Increase the the time between inspections, get more failures.

Black Hands
22nd Oct 2009, 13:55
You know what they say about making assumptions...

Beeroclock, I am on the same page and echo your sentiments entirely. As a QF Lame I would be the last one to throw stones regarding the direction Australian maintenance is trending.

I am a firm believer that quality heavy maintenance is the key to dispatch reliability, and the most efficient way to carry out line maintenance, ensuring defects are diagnosed and rectified with minimal schedule interruption is to meet the aircraft with Lame's of both trades.

Whilst I understand an airline is a business, it also provides a public service and unfortunately, as long as the regulator allows aircraft operators to risk manage dispatch reliability and safety vs wage restraint, we will continue to see avoidable incidents.

You also questioned how I arrived at the experience level of the engineers that generally work in a line maintenance environment... In my experience, especially at QF in recent times,very few, if any, engineers are licenced within 6 years of completing their apprenticeship.

Beeroclock, I hope this eases your mind that not all blackhanders are out to try and steal your livelihood.

You couldn't be further from the truth...

ALAEA Fed Sec
22nd Oct 2009, 23:03
We've heard all the excuses before about putting LAMEs where they are needed most - fixing defects - but that won't occur if the defects aren't found which we suspect is the plan by Virgin. Why would we have such thoughts? Firstly because all airlines are about making money and despite what they say about safety before schedule, money always comes first.

Our suspicions are confirmed in the training document course ref VB 214-009/09 recently handed to the Engineers. Page two explains why the Engineering pre-flight is being removed and it is because it is "happening too late in the morning to enable time to rectify any work arising".

So now the check is renamed, it happens at the same time in the morning, but rather than have a highly qualified and experienced LAME carry out the check, an unlicenced approved person will do it after they have completed a 4 hour course.

Our union is not in the business of assisting Virgin to pull the wool over the publics eyes. We will make this a public issue and rightfully so.

To have a LAME carry out an Engineering pre-flight before every single flight would cost less then $1 per ticket. Now, to take him off the first flight of the day, Virgin are saving about 5 cents per ticket.

Sked
22nd Oct 2009, 23:32
Conveniently leaving out that the more thorough check will be carried out when the aircraft arrives last flight of day thus giving more time to fix any defects prior to first flight next morning.

Going Boeing
22nd Oct 2009, 23:57
Sked, as a pilot (or passenger), I'd prefer that the defects are found prior to the first flight of the day - not after the last flight.

VBPCGUY
23rd Oct 2009, 00:33
All aircraft are insepected (dailys) after they terminate, so once again the ALAEA are spreading more rubbish:eek: so going Boeing during a daily anything is found before your first flight the next day, lets be honest this incident and the nose wheel incident are both something that can pretty much only be detected during a major check, but ALAEA you contine beating your own 'merry drum'

Sure I may throw bags but I still talk to LAMES and AMES because Im interested in that side of the airline operation.

ALAEA Fed Sec
23rd Oct 2009, 00:49
Conveniently leaving out that the more thorough check will be carried out when the aircraft arrives last flight of day thus giving more time to fix any defects prior to first flight next morning.

The more thorough check you refer to is called a daily inspection. Virgin recently extended that one to every 48 hours. They will now carry them out in capital cities on a daily basis (as a daily check should be) but are leaving the procedure at 48 hours so they can forgo the overnight check you refer to in other ports.

You could now see an aircraft terminate in CNS two nights in a row and not have a LAME walk around inspection for 48 hours.

Not to forget that the weekly inspection is now being moved to every 15 days.

However minor or major some of these changes are, as a stepped process of degradation, every change is reducing safety on these aircraft.


Hardly 'distentigrated' on this occassion the wheel hub didnt come apart until after it was removed , the aircraft taxied to the bay with a 'drag' noticed by the pilots, lets stick to the facts rather than your smear campaign

The official SDR report with CASA says -

BOEING 7378FE[3246] WHEEL/SKI/FLOAT - WHEEL FAILED510009365After landing, the aircraft was found difficult to taxi and steer. A visual inspection of the RH landing gear found number four wheel to be on an angle. Wheel was removed and the inner wheel hub and bearing mount were found to have broken away from the wheel assembly.P/NO: 277A6000204TSN: 9854 Hours5711 CyclesTSO: 1776 Hours701 Cycles

SDR Online - Reports (http://sdr.casa.gov.au/sdronline/Reports/RptAbove5700Monthly.aspx?ReportCD=ACAFSK)


If it didn't come apart until after it was removed, why was the aircraft difficult to steer and taxi. The wheel was found on an angle on the bay. Somehow I think we do know the facts.

VBPCGUY
23rd Oct 2009, 01:14
If it didn't come apart until after it was removed, why was the aircraft difficult to steer and taxi. The wheel was found on an angle on the bay. Somehow I think we do know the facts.

What is in the CASA report is pretty much the same as what I posted (worded differently)Please state to me which part of the wheel distintegrated? The wheel hub was damaged not the wheel.

The chance of an aircraft terminating in CNS or in another regional port two nights in a row is slim at best, but how is it an issue if it within CASA guidelines?

If you were any good as a union you make out to be you would not allow LAMES and AMES to be on two different rates at VB, but like all unions your a bunch of chest beaters.

tjc
23rd Oct 2009, 06:49
Sure I may throw bags but I still talk to LAMES and AMES

Interesting, talk is cheap, I wont comment.

As with the industry nowdays, costs are run down so low that someday something will give.

Be it a pilot on max hours, an engineer trying to do their job with two hands tied behind their back or an inexperienced, underpaid, under staffed cabin crew, or even a ramper being flogged all day and night, I hope I am not on board on such a day when all the moons align.

ampclamp
23rd Oct 2009, 07:47
yep and that is the point.
we are all responsible for our part in the industry for safety.In the loaders case it could be unreported damage to cargo liners, seafood spills tarmac driving around aircraft.
If virgin is increasing the maint level at some stage of the cycle thats a good thing for safety and jobs.Good on them.
If it is further increased as fed sec suggests someone please convince me its bad thing.

If the company were asking for it the trolls would not be here slagging those who are.

So pls the virgin management (read jq, qf, et al) apologists tell me exactly what constitutes too much maintenance and over-inspecting and how that decreases safety?

ampclamp
23rd Oct 2009, 07:51
If you were any good as a union you make out to be you would not allow LAMES and AMES to be on two different rates at VB, but like all unions your a bunch of chest beaters.

VB can pay anyone whatever VB wants.:rolleyes:

and as for chest beaters, hell yeah maybe, but they were qf management beaters 1st.:{

patkinson
23rd Oct 2009, 09:39
There is a fundamental fact concerning 90% of a/c incidents involving landing gear. If a brake is worn there is an indicator that can be clearly seen.A fully worn brake unit will usually do one or two trips to a nightstop base or where the downtime will be available if it's a worn tyre, thats obvious and should be changed asap . Cracks in trunnion links immediately, hydraulic leaks asap depending on the LAEs experience knowing when there is going to be adequate downtime with spares available. There is a 100 and 1 items that can be looked at an assessed as ...it will do a trip...that is experience!
I'm speaking with over 40 years exp and a LAE for 2/3rds of that time and I have to say it worries me what I am reading and seeing these days where a 4 hour course on wheels and brakes allows a signatory with 6 months experience to sign off a preflight!!tell me I am wrong!
Boeing and Airbus plus all manufacturers produce a MPD which airline operators tailor their maintenance iaw CASA or whatever national authority standards require in law. AS modern a/c are so reliable all operators will seek to escalate their checks and at the same time load OOP and other required items to the longest downtime checks whether its an A or b or c check . So it is down to consciencious engineers to be vigilant when they get a periodic inspection that work is carried out iaw mm requirements and all DD's cleared as required.
CASA requirements that pertain to current a/c types I have no idea, what I do know is that any a/c that has been on an overnight should have no landing gear problems.ie worn tyres or brakes! No excuse if at a manned engineering base . A PDI well before STD time would mean an ontime ATD.
Any engineering personnel who have signed out an a/c with an obvious problem have no excuse! An engineering failure for a corroded mainwheel what I heard on the news is a load of B........cks... !!! There is a story somewhere down the line on this mainwheel and a good development or QA eng will have the answer!
I was an original member of the UK ALAE retired a few years ago and have to say some of what I read these days do worry me...especially when I fly!!
But I know ramp engineers can have a rough time if they are trying to make the right decision with anything upwards of 100+ plus pax wondering what is going on when confronted with a problem !

NWT
23rd Oct 2009, 10:05
Whatever VB and other airlines say, whether it is within the manufacturers guidelines etc etc, the less input a fully qualified (ie LAME) has then the less likely things are to be found. As CASA is now starting to go down the route of EASA style LAME licenses, you will see a huge erosion of the input from LAME's. More and more work will be given to the 'A' licenced mechanic. Obviously some of these are excellent, but at the end of the day the levels of experience for the majority of them is no where near the same as for a LAME. Removing the preflight by a LAME will be detrimentall to safety. As we all know it is all down to money...a LAME costs more.....if it wasn't about money then the airlines wouldnt do it. Simple.

airtags
23rd Oct 2009, 10:22
NWT - 100% correct - the LAME preflight is not a luxury.

This is just another example of the regulatory regime being eroded in order to pander to airlines crying poor.

It will, like other safety processes that have been cut, ultimately end up in a coroner's report.

The SMS however will evade the Directors and CEO liability.

It is way past the time for the Minister to wake up and tug on the delegations lead.


Re: the wheel.
Heard a comment the a/c previously took a bit of a serious shunt from the aerobridge at pier F (like the 737 earlier this year) ? Any confirmation of the incident? - then of course the question is was it reported?

anawanahuanana
23rd Oct 2009, 11:37
"the LAME preflight is not a luxury."

To be honest, it actually is just that. I have worked as a LAME at several different airlines in Europe, and there was no LAME Pre-flight required. The pilot could carry out and sign for the check. This is a fairly common practice, and has been for some time, and there are not aircraft falling out of the sky all over Europe on a regular basis.
And how about the E-Jets at VB? They have never needed a LAME pre-flight. Are they so much more unsafe because of it? (No, they are more unreliable because they are made by Embraer, but that is another discussion! ;))

The fact is, VB were getting a lot of delays to the first flight of the day because guys were finding wheel and brake changes on the pre-flight. This was NOT, I can assure you, only on aircraft that had not had a Daily that night. So who is to blame? VB management, or the slack **** who couldn't be bothered to change that worn brake unit because he wanted to get off home early on his last night shift? Let's not kid ourselves that it doesn't go on either......

I am no fan of cutting maintenance, but if I'm really honest, I do not think that the changes to the SOM are really detrimental to the safety of the fleet. So the 737s will now have a 15 day service check? Big deal. The E-jet already has one. CASA have approved these changes and so legally VB are doing nothing wrong except perhaps trying to save a bit more cash without compromising safety. There is no way that that mainwheel assy would have been flagged as a dud if a LAME had done a walk around before VUI's flight. If there were no crew reports on the taxi out, there may well have been no outward indication of a defect. In that case it really doesn't matter if anyone, let alone a LAME did a walkround.

As for the ports where no Daily will be called up, well I would like to think that if there is a LAME at the airport when the aircraft terminates, he would, out of professionalism if nothing else, carry out a walkround of the aircraft. It should be a given in my opinion. If he choses not to, he falls into the slack **** category mentioned above, and again this is a problem with the LAME concerned, not with the VB SOM.

I know how reluctant to change people are, but rarely does it become the monster a lot of people feared. I saw the U.K move from LWTR to the Part 66 licence, and it was full of doom and gloom for years. All about how the B2 would disappear and the B1s would be signing off every defect willy nilly and planes would crashing all the time. It hasn't happened, and it won't happen here. As a friend said to me once: "sometimes you know the tide is changing and you can't stop it. All you can do is roll up your pants so they don't get wet".

I'm sure I'll get flamed now by the Fed Sec et al, but hopefully some of you will aknowledge (at least in your own head, if not aloud) that at the end of the day, we can moan about all the changes to save a few bucks here and there, but it's those few bucks that may keep the airline afloat and us all in a job. Who wants another Ansett? :ugh:

Wellhung Unit
23rd Oct 2009, 11:54
If you were any good as a union you make out to be you would not allow LAMES and AMES to be on two different rates at VB, but like all unions your a bunch of chest beaters.

I'm confused VBPCGUY....?

Why SHOULD AMES be on the same pay rate as LAMES..?.........one is "Licenced"...therefore responsible.

Should Capt's and F/O's be on the same rate also....???......CS same as CC...?

Black Hands
23rd Oct 2009, 12:23
Sure I may throw bags but I still talk to LAMES and AMES because Im interested in that side of the airline operation.


I'm interested in the Ultrastructural Study of Cathepsin B Immunoreactivity in Rat Brain Neurons: Lysosomal and Extralysosomal Localizations of the Antigen. But that hardly makes me an authority on the subject...

Sunfish
23rd Oct 2009, 20:44
Think back to the Challenger Disaster and Richard Feynemans appendix to the report.

Management makes the false assumption that just because a LAME has never "saved a VB aircraft from disaster" by finding a lethal defect on a morning walk around, that this is never going to happen.

Unfortunately statistics, as Feyneman famously pointed out, always win in the end.

99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time a LAME check is a needless luxury.

Just pray you are not on the aircraft on the one time that it isn't.

jabbajoccy
24th Oct 2009, 00:32
As for the Daily check, if an aircraft overnights in CNS two nights in a row then CNS will carry out the Daily.
Whilst the Daily is now mandated to be carried out in the main bases, BNE,OOL,SYD,CBR,MEL,ADL,PER whenever the aircraft terminates it can and does get carried out in the other manned ports as required.

Frank Burden
24th Oct 2009, 05:56
Thank you for your post anawanahuanana. Given that ground accidents have become a major fact in aviation, I wonder if anyone out there remembers when wing walkers were common in the industry?

anawanahuanana
24th Oct 2009, 08:14
"Thank you for your post anawanahuanana. Given that ground accidents have become a major fact in aviation, I wonder if anyone out there remembers when wing walkers were common in the industry?"

I don't remember the time. Too young I guess. However, these days people aren't willing to pay $500 for a one way ticket SYD-MEL (unless they aren't really paying), so airlines can no longer afford to employ so many people. I may not like the fact that airlines have to continually cut costs every way they can, but that doesn't mean I don't understand why they do.

rudderless1
24th Oct 2009, 09:58
The fact is, VB were getting a lot of delays to the first flight of the day because guys were finding wheel and brake changes on the pre-flight. This was NOT, I can assure you, only on aircraft that had not had a Daily that night. So who is to blame? VB management

Now that is a worry, rather than managing the problem by kicking the appropriate bum, the vb solution removes the check. wow! So now you still have a defect and a first flight delay OR a method of ignoring maintenance by ignorance, which is it?:ugh::yuk:

rudderless1
24th Oct 2009, 10:17
As for the ports where no Daily will be called up, well I would like to think that if there is a LAME at the airport when the aircraft terminates, he would, out of professionalism if nothing else, carry out a walkround of the aircraft. It should be a given in my opinion. If he choses not to, he falls into the slack **** category mentioned above, and again this is a problem with the LAME concerned, not with the VB SOM.


what else should he do that is not scheduled, the oxy, hyd, lights, cabin, water, aerobridge, pushout, oils, windscreens, fuel? common.
If the time is not allocated by mgt it might not be possible. Image saying that to your doctor, dentist a manager once you've booked in for the basics?:}

rudderless1
24th Oct 2009, 10:29
I saw the U.K move from LWTR to the Part 66 licence, and it was full of doom and gloom for years. All about how the B2 would disappear and the B1s would be signing off every defect willy nilly and planes would crashing all the time.
B2's got a lot of their privileges back cause it was not working.:confused:

rudderless1
24th Oct 2009, 10:34
when the ride in a dodgy cab to the airport costs more than a ticket syd to mel, when a trolley from the carosel to the cab costs $4, i think <$1/pax or guest for those at vb) for a preflight seems cheap and well worth it!:ok:

anawanahuanana
24th Oct 2009, 15:14
"Now that is a worry, rather than managing the problem by kicking the appropriate bum, the vb solution removes the check. wow! So now you still have a defect and a first flight delay OR a method of ignoring maintenance by ignorance, which is it?"

I do see your point. However, I believe that some (a small minority of LAMEs) may have been less thorough with their Daily inspections than they perhaps could have been because they knew there was another check taking place before flight. I would hope that now they may view things a little differently. Admittedly, the majority of FFOD delays were on a/c that had not had a Daily that night, which should now not happen.

"what else should he do that is not scheduled, the oxy, hyd, lights, cabin, water, aerobridge, pushout, oils, windscreens, fuel? common.
If the time is not allocated by mgt it might not be possible. Image saying that to your doctor, dentist a manager once you've booked in for the basics?"

So you are saying that some of the guys in the smaller ports should just collect their 150k a year to sit in the office and not even go out to meet the aircraft when it arrives? I couldn't do that through guilt if nothing else. Technically the guys in the small ports should be there for their full shift, but everybody knows that they get their work done and then get away. If they are not even performing the most basic form of maintenance, then some management would question why they are paying them at all. They should be doing a check of the aircraft to protect themselves. If they pick up a defect and save a delay or AOG, then they have again proven their worth. If they have taken the cash and the aircraft sits AOG in the morning because something obvious wasn't seen until the oncoming crew did a walkround, they should really see that that is an unfavourable position for them to be in, job securing wise. Another nail in the coffin of the minor ports if you like.

"B2's got a lot of their privileges back cause it was not working."

That's exactly right, because the nightmare scenario every LAME kept on crying about, of B1s signing everything off and the B2 becoming redundant didn't happen, just like it won't here.

"when the ride in a dodgy cab to the airport costs more than a ticket syd to mel, when a trolley from the carosel to the cab costs $4, i think <$1/pax or guest for those at vb) for a preflight seems cheap and well worth it!"

I totally agree with you. I'm more than happy to pay it, but then I'm not VB management, nor am I an online customer looking for the absolute lowest price. They have little to no idea about the maintenance schedule in each airline in Australia and will book the cheapest flight regardless. I'm not saying it's right, but that is how it is. Let's not forget that an airline is like any other business. It does not exist to transport you from A to B in the safest way possible. It does not exist to offer you a better service that anyone else. It's primary purpose for existence is as a vehicle to make money for those who have invested in it. Safety is of paramount importance, but it is not the reason for it's existance. It can be as safe as you like, but no profit will put an end to everyone's job quickly.:sad: