Flying Blind story- CASA & Qantas maintenance investigation [Archive]

Oakape

12th Jul 2010, 13:23

Well, what a surprise - not!

I've often said that the travelling public is more that happy to travel on an aircraft for bus fare, because they believe that the regulator will ensure their safety.

And I have also said that thay have no idea that regulator will not ensure their safety. In fact, in the current climate they cannot ensure their safety. Continuous cost cutting by governments leading to increasing self regulation & the deterioration of experience & skill in the regulator's staff has seen to that.

And when they are dealing with maintenance organisations & airlines from overseas, it is really easy to say that they have already been approved by the regulator in their country & just give them a quick once over. Not only does it save money, it also is politically correct. You don't want to embarrass your counterpart. And you don't want them retaliating to save face either.

While there are other important areas that also need addressing for pilots, engineers & cabin crew, such as training, fatigue & even terms & conditions; adequate, competent oversight by the regulator leading to strict compliance is a major part of the very foundation of airline safety.

It appears that maybe - just maybe - the travelling public is starting to wake up from their 'low fare dreaming' & questions are starting to be asked.

It's true - you really do only get bus fare on busses. If you want to be safe on an aircraft, you need to pay airfare. And if the airlines are charging bus fare to travel with them, something is being cost-cut to the edge of safety or beyond.

Well done to those who continue to keep these issues alive in the public arena. It is only through your tenacity that the travelling public will begin to comprehend that the old adage 'you get what you pay for' also holds true for air travel.

Biggles78

12th Jul 2010, 15:38

3 days "checking" and overseas maintainence facility but TWO weeks doing over one in Brisbane. CASA. Cares About Stuff All (except themselves).

I remember the idiot's comment about the electrical cable being joined/held together by a staple when it first came to light in 2007. Was flabberghasted then with his answer and I haven't changed.

Fly By Wire and now we have Fly By Staples.

Zapatas Blood

12th Jul 2010, 16:17

What a load of tosh this report is.

In the name of balance, can we see a report on engineering oversights coming from Australian maintenance organizations? I would hate to think that the Australian public mistakenly believes that engineering in Australia is squeaky clean.

And can Steve really look at himself in the mirror after trying to draw a parallel between a flap failure in BNE and a Garuda 737 crash in Indo?

And why is it that heavy maintenance is so much cheaper overseas. What is the Australian engineering fraternity going to do to compete, apart from scaring the public.

This should be seen for what it is, industrial scare tactics.

ALAEA Fed Sec

12th Jul 2010, 19:11

And why is it that heavy maintenance is so much cheaper overseas. What is the Australian engineering fraternity going to do to compete, apart from scaring the public.

Some of your questions are not even worthy of a response but I think I should explain this one.

In Australia we have a target of releasing aircraft with no hold items or defects out of a heavy maintenance facility. A 737 recently undertook a c check in Sin, some Aussie LAMEs go up there, they do not partake in the work but randomly check some of the tasks after completion. During this process they found 450 defects and maintenance errors. When the 737's last went up there, upon arrival at home aircraft landed with over 90 defects. These were only the ones we know of.

Let's compare the facilities.

Australia. More expensive yes (about 15% more so) but there is no location in the world that can complete a c check in as fast a time and generally aircraft departs defect free. Facility runs with 2 crews. Total LAMEs are about 80 Mechanical and 15 Avionic.

Singapore. Cheaper and as far as I am aware, not one aircraft has come out on sched. The line doing the 737 check runs with 4 Mechanical LAMEs and 2 Avionics. One of the Avionic LAMEs resigned early on during the 450 defect aircraft leaving just one covering the 2 shifts. I don't know how many unlicenced guys there are. I suspect that the numbers are so low up there that some things are being missed and CASA have spent a fortune preventing us accessing their audit reports.

So that is what we are competing with. Scare campaign? Call it whatever you want bloke. The f****n big bolt that jammed the flaps on the first flight out of an overseas facilty may not have lead to a Garuda type accident but who knows what it will be next time. Let's hope it is not a loose set of wires that are arching and sparking inside your fuel tank.

oicur12

12th Jul 2010, 23:43

Interesting. Things must have changed. The airline I worked for in oz sent A320's to eastern Canada for C checks because it was quicker and cheaper than in oz.

No Idea Either

13th Jul 2010, 01:34

Well said Titan.

ALAEA Fed Sec,

I'm not having a dig here. I'm a skipper on 73's. Out of interest could you enlighten me (and the rest) on some of the 450 defects and maintenance errors you mention. I find it incredulous that an aircraft could be released, and that the company would actually pay the bill, if it came back with 450 problems. Obviously it wasn't put back into service. Do you know if any:mad: pudgy mid level managers lost their bonus over it?????? Not likely, eh? Once again this is genuine interest.

Nope, No Idea Either.............

Jethro Gibbs

13th Jul 2010, 01:34

Qantas always knows before CASA is going to do an inspection of Avalon so there is always a big clean up prior.

The Professor

13th Jul 2010, 01:48

"Qantas always knows before CASA is going to do an inspection of Avalon so there is always a big clean up prior"

Which is generally how it is done. Not many major flag carriers are subject to surprise inspection by the governing authority. Otherwise they would all be grounded.

Jethro Gibbs

13th Jul 2010, 02:00

So whats the point of an inspection I would say none except an excuse to have a catered lunch.:ok:

BrissySparkyCoit

13th Jul 2010, 06:01

And why is it that heavy maintenance is so much cheaper overseas. What is the Australian engineering fraternity going to do to compete, apart from scaring the public.

1) OH&S. We have it here in Ausralia, they generally don't overseas.
2) Full service in Australia. Many overseas facilities complete routine work only for the "fixed price" then charge like a wounded bull for non-routine work. Thus, on paper, they appear very cheap.
3) Using qualified personnel in Australia. As an Aircraft maintenance engineer in Australia, you are taught about the complete aircraft; not just one specific system / area as is the case in many countries.

In the name of balance, can we see a report on engineering oversights coming from Australian maintenance organizations?I'm sure there would be a similar report were it warranted.
What I find hard to understand is how people who seem to support cheap, dodgey maintenance when it comes to aircraft, would not consider taking their car to a cheap dodgey mechanic.

A big question for you to consider; Why did CASA spend so much time, effort and tax payers dollars to stop the report on the overseas facility being released?

Zoomy

13th Jul 2010, 10:13

A big question for you to consider; Why did CASA spend so much time, effort and tax payers dollars to stop the report on the overseas facility being released?

ANSWER: Because the NPRM hadn't become regulation yet, which was written in the ACT before being rectified in the CAO. All this could of been sorted in a CAAP but because of the new class D debate, CASA still didn't have the right to stop it, the NPRM is now being fast forwarded to save tax payers dollars, just as soon as the re writing of the 189th amendment is complete.:uhoh:

MaxHelixAngle

13th Jul 2010, 11:33

Whilst the show did compose of a heap of sensationalist, half truth comments that anyone in the industry could poke holes through in a second, it does present a very pertinent point: Is Qantas using it's good name and Australian staff to paint the appearance of an Australian airline with a first class safety record whilst doing the shifty and employing cheap overseas labour? and if it is what are we going to do about it?

Steve Purvinas,
Is comments such as "it's only a matter of time till an aeroplane hits the side of a hill" really necessary? Honest question, is it a calculated give to make your message 'media worthy'?, I highly doubt your professional opinion would associate a Flap Transit Failure to the Garuda Jogjakarta unstable approach runway overrun however I also have my doubts as to wether TT would have picked up the segment without these 'claims'.

Steve, have you considered talking to and joining fronts with AIPA? It would seem both AIPA and ALEA have a very similar agenda. With your media awareness and a united front, even without the legal ground to prevent jobs going overseas, together the unions could send a very clear message to the Qantas board about keeping the Australian Spirit, Australian. I feel media awareness has been very effective in keeping Qantas maintenance onshore (evidenced by the amount of media attention Qantas gave the Brissy 330 base) and only hope that it would be as effective in ensuring pilots jobs are kept onshore as well.

Cheers,
MHA

ALAEA Fed Sec

13th Jul 2010, 11:57

G'day all,

I have a few post to reply to and hope to one at a time. I hope it gives my fellow professionals some insight into why we do what we do as an aviation union.

Is comments such as "it's only a matter of time till an aeroplane hits the side of a hill" really necessary? Honest question, is it a calculated give to make your message 'media worthy'?,

In a nut shell, yes. When I have filmed with TT or any other outlet for that sake, all they want you to do is mention one word - crash. It gives them their sensationalism and a story. By talking about the side of a hill, it may be the difference between a story that lasts 3 minutes or one that runs for 10. The underlying story that those in the industry would understand needs to be told in as simple terms as possible. Talking about the migration of the fastenings for the flap torque tube that had been lockwired with the incorrect gauge lockwire doesn't really resonate with the public. I will do what it takes to get these extremely serious issues aired publically however I can.

Steve, have you considered talking to and joining fronts with AIPA? It would seem both AIPA and ALEA have a very similar agenda.

We work extremely close with Barry and his team, had dinner with him and Graeme a couple of weeks back and will be going out to dinner with Barry and Dave B Thu night. Our President Paul Cousins and I are already penned in to attend the next AIPA Comm meeting in a couple of weeks. Woodsie showed up in the Fed court a couple of weeks back over my election dramas and the Ex General Manager Peter Somerville is now our General Manager. We do work together very closely, have common foes and challenges and both groups have to deal with our biggest bugbear - CASA.

ALAEA Fed Sec

13th Jul 2010, 12:15

I'm not having a dig here. I'm a skipper on 73's. Out of interest could you enlighten me (and the rest) on some of the 450 defects and maintenance errors you mention. I find it incredulous that an aircraft could be released, and that the company would actually pay the bill, if it came back with 450 problems. Obviously it wasn't put back into service. Do you know if anyhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif pudgy mid level managers lost their bonus over it?????? Not likely, eh? Once again this is genuine interest.

This aircraft was in Sin earlier this year. The Qantas LAMEs who escort the check do so because of an agreement we reached with Qantas 2 years ago after the first TT episodes were aired. If it was not for those shows, it may be the case that no Qantas LAMEs could have been there and the events I will describe below could have went totally unnoticed.

I had a call from a LAME who told me the boys up there had picked up 450 faults or breaches in Qantas procedure. I thought this must be a mistake or perhaps 450 armrests had been installed on the wrong seats or a similar duplicated error. I was amazed when I saw the actual list, they were 450 odd individual errors, documented and reported to the airline. They were found by the Qf blokes up there after they had been certified by locals and before the aircraft release.

I would be happy to post the entire list here if that would be seen as worthy. Just a couple of things that come to mind -

-aircraft towed without any person in the flight deck.
-doors rigged without the calibrated counterweights that substitute for removed bussels, they used people as weights instead.
- corrosion missed in many locations.

I don't have list here but as i said, full list can be posted.

ALAEA Fed Sec

13th Jul 2010, 12:29

Interesting. Things must have changed. The airline I worked for in oz sent A320's to eastern Canada for C checks because it was quicker and cheaper than in oz.

The Canadians have always been good with the 320's. I think they do them in Halifax.

The latest dramas have been with 738's. The blokes in Melb HM are the experts in this field. They have been working on nothing except 73's since the first c check in 89. I reckon they could turn one out blindfolded. They know where the problems are and how to fix them. That's what you get when you have long term loyal employees who love their jobs (they aren't in love with their managers). If the love of their jobs is overriden by the mistreatment by management, the blokes will leave. I suspect that this is one of the goals of Australian managers, it makes it very easy for them to claim that they have no choice other than send the work overseas.

All this being said, Qantas aren't the worst employer here. There are good managers and there are absolute pr**ks. Four years ago 20% of Qantas maintenance was sent offshore. It is now down to around 5% so that is the good news story here. It will jump up when the 380's go to Lufty but long term, I am confident that we can maintain the industry here with a little argy bargy and an occasional run in the press.

ALAEA Fed Sec

13th Jul 2010, 12:46

The real story here guys is CASA. What they are letting all operators get away with and the disregard they show to any union or person who makes a complaint. The ALAEA commenced this case 2 1/2 years ago under the good hand of our Assistant Federal Secretary Wayne Vasta. The change in CASA leadership have made no difference, they could have knocked this on the head but chose not to. From the TT episode one can't really describe the events but I will sum them here for those who have an interest.

Wayne sought under FOI, copies of all CASA audits of overseas facilities. At the same time without our knowledge, channel 7 lodged for FOI seeking details of any aircraft defect reported to CASA over a similar period. The judge combined the cases after we decided to work with Ch7 and share costs.

CASA would not release the reports essentially claiming that they are commercially sensative and if the findings were released may damage the reputation of airlines and MRO's.

2 1/2 years later and lots of dollars, the judge has ordered them to release the majority of reports sought. He also ordered CASA to pay all our costs.

From what I have seen, the CASA audit reports aren't damaging at all to the MROs and airlines. They predominantly show that CASA found nothing wrong when they went up there for a day or two here or there. We have Qantas internal reports from the same periods that recommend Engineering seriously consider the ongoing use of a facility in Sin because of a large number of adverse findings.

What we have uncovered is a regulator that needs to pull their sox up, or you could use some more crude terms if you like. Full decision and reasons here -

Vasta and Anor and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2010] AATA 499 (6 July 2010) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2010/499.html)

oicur12

13th Jul 2010, 16:46

ALAEA,

“The Canadians have always been good with the 320's.”

Maybe, but this is not why they went there. At the time, AN had been operating 320’s for longer than AC.

"The f****n big bolt that jammed the flaps on the first flight out of an overseas facilty may not have lead to a Garuda type accident but who knows what it will be next time."

Then why did you make such an implication?

Also, for your info, this exact oversight has occurred before on Australian registered aircraft following maintenance work completed in Australia.

To clarify your position, are you against all foreigners conducting work on Australian registered aircraft? Would you be happier if 737’s were sent to Southwest for example?

When viewed within the wider context considering the choice of airlines available to the Australian travelling public, this is a non-story.

LAME2

13th Jul 2010, 22:44

I read this as being CASA being poor in its role for air safety, not the airlines. I believe this is supported by QANTAS documents showing their concerns with a facility, whilst CASA could not find anything. I believe some of us are misunderstanding the story. This misunderstanding appears to be causing some angst among us. An amount of overseas maintenance will always occur. That is the nature of the beast.

Without an independant and credible air safety regulator, companies will run to the cheapest facility and attempt to dilute regulations. Double standards will prevail between operators and it will have very bad effects on the industry. In a nut shell, CASA need to be more vigilent and get out of bed with the operators they like and treat all operators equally. Did not the FAA recently get a wake up call (within the last 2 years) when they were found in a cosy relationship with operators?

I hope this helps in my FAA comment;
Culture clash strains FAA/airline oversight (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/07/222759/culture-clash-strains-faaairline-oversight.html)

and another, I'm getting excited!
FAA's 'culture of coziness' targeted in airline safety hearing - Travel - LATimes.com (http://travel.latimes.com/articles/la-trw-airlines4apr04)

Sorry, I'll stop after this one, it's everywhere!
MRO USA: FAA dissolves carrier customer service mentality (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/19/340713/mro-usa-faa-dissolves-carrier-customer-service-mentality.html)

airtags

14th Jul 2010, 11:02

Steve
if nothing else this matter has highlighted the need for articulate FOI lodgement strategies - it's kind of the sidebar issue, but it is an important one that all aviation unions need to clearly understand.

It also underscores the need for ensuring Safety Management Systems are not as one Union eloquenty described as "being dumbed down" through poor/divertede/filtered/complacent inputs.

The Regulatory environment should not be the new frontier of cost cutting

AT :E

rmm

15th Jul 2010, 08:50

Steve,

What's the relationship like between VB and CASA since they send the bulk of their heavy checks overseas?

Regards,
John

Bootstrap1

15th Jul 2010, 09:28

rmm, I believe the bulk of the VB stuff is now being done by JHAS, with some work still going to ANZ.
I think for CASA to have a relationship with anyone they need to get out of their offices and actually do some inspections, rather than take money for jam.
It still can takes months to get a SOE and licence approved by this pack of imbeciles, but they like to charge your credit card and make you wait.

rmm

15th Jul 2010, 09:41

Bootstrap,

It's good to hear that they are onshoring some stuff. I had heard that the E-jets were at JHAS but I wasn't sure about the 737's.

As for the SOE/Licencing issues, been there many times over the years and nothing's changed since the 80's (except the price of course)

Gas Bags

15th Jul 2010, 10:59

This is not a loaded question....

Has there ever been an overseas MRO that QF have had major maintenance carried out at that did meet the expectations of the QF oversight team, QF, and the ALAEA?

It would be interesting to know if there has been, and if so, where was it/were they?

GB

Safety Concerns

15th Jul 2010, 12:16

I can't believe the short sightedness of many of the responses here. An MRO has been caught red handed employing standards that do not align with those required in order to protect the travelling public.

Yet people come on here and try to justify this behaviour and have a go at shooting the messenger.:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

On top of all that a government body set up with tax payers money to protect the tax payer by ensuring their safety is failing in its duty.

When things go wrong at 35,000 feet you can't just ring the bell to get off.
Well done ALAEA you have my vote. Safety should always be paramount.

Some of you dudes out there need to wake up

ALAEA Fed Sec

15th Jul 2010, 22:54

I am not so sure about the relationship between CASA and Virgin. Two events come to mind though. I understand Virgin were told a couple of years ago to ramp up employment of Lames as they didn't have enough of them. More recently CASA approved a varied system of maintenance that allows unlicensed staff to sign for certain aspects of maintenance that they loosely categorise as servicing functions.

Good overseas MROs used by Qf? Without the data before me, not in the last 3 or 4 years. They have however successfully engaged some in the past in NZ, Amsterdam, Ireland and from memory some 330 work in Switzerland.

Gas Bags

15th Jul 2010, 23:45

FedSec,

Thanks for the reply. Were the MRO's you mentioned in NZ, Amsterdam, Ireland and Switzerland used for scheduled heavy maintenance checks that QF decided to have carried out offshore instead of inhouse (such as the recent examples in the Phillipines, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Singapore), or were they facility's that predelivery checks were carried out at when QF were expanding there fleet?

GB

another superlame

16th Jul 2010, 00:49

Jabawocky

16th Jul 2010, 01:10

QF doesn't want any bad publicity by using them considering the previous bad press etc.

Yes and what happened to the wonderful asset they had in Sydney :ugh:

Gas Bags

16th Jul 2010, 01:55

Jetstar (Australia) are currently having some of their A320 heavy maintenance done in the same facility in Singapore as the QF jets. Does anybody know whether the same concerns have been raised by Jetstar regarding the quality of the maintenance done at this facility as those raised by QF, or are the maintenance concerns peculiar to QF aircraft?

another superlame

16th Jul 2010, 02:01

I agree with you Jabbawocky about Sydney Heavy being a great asset.

At least the Geoff Dixon puppet a.k.a David Cox and things are changing in QF engineering. Some good, some not so good.

But with those 2 gone and the Leprechaun running the show 330 maintenance and Dash8 -400 work is now being done in house.

The 5% being done out elsewhere is now down to 380 heavy work, and maybe when we have a fleet of 20 or more some management type with some foresight and testicles might even bring that in house. We can only wish.

Also good news that H191 is being given a tidy up so bring 767 half C checks back to Sydney, now all they need to do is tidy up 245 so that 744 Super A checks can also be done in Syd.

BrissySparkyCoit

16th Jul 2010, 06:32

But hang on.... Keith Clarke told everyone they had to move out of 271/245/191/96 because they would need to be demolished for expansion of the domestic terminal?

Or was it say what needs to be said to justify the cause at the moment in question?

Short_Circuit

16th Jul 2010, 07:31

H96 was about to go for domestic expansion, the rest were not on Sydney Airport Corp master plan. All hangars were to go... Thank goodness they are still here.

mainwheel

16th Jul 2010, 09:23

One of the significant reasons for lower cost these asian MRO's have is the relatively low wages/conditions for hangar ancillary staff. Cleaners, drivers, storemen, T/A's, office staff etc. The licenced wages are comparable to Aus in so far as Aussies work there as expatriates.
The quality, or lack of, is another scenario. Inexperience, the asian loss of face debarcle, financial deadlines overiding all others, rigid timetable agenda's with an inability to cope with changes, numerous public holidays when dealing with outside contractors, and others come into play.
QA departments are approximately 6 times larger than Aus, so are obviously ineffectual.
In the long term, heavy maintenance done in house in Aus is the best option by far.

SeldomFixit

16th Jul 2010, 10:51

Oh, McClown - whose stooge are you ? Are you perhaps all 3 of the stooges ?
Am I playing the man rather than the ball ? If so, you taught me how.
Begone McStooge, you add nothing to the debate:ugh:

Safety Concerns

16th Jul 2010, 11:28

hcmcmcclown you justify my post.

Why have you gone off at a complete tangent and changed the actual subject.
We are not talking about me, the situation seems quite clear, we are talking about protecting safety and LAME's.

What is so difficult to understand with that?

If you understand that yet still come and post unrelated nonsense, I have to question your underlying motives.

Perhaps you work for one of the establishments mentioned. If so, you seem to have missed the point completely and taken the report personally.

Bumpfoh

16th Jul 2010, 12:04

The QF A380s will start to have C checks in the coming months and they are being done in Germany by Lufthansa Technik.
I believe that although Singapore was considerably cheaper ,QF doesn't want any bad publicity by using them considering the previous bad press etc

Not sure that is entirely true Supes, more that SQ don't have the capacity for customers, the 380 HM capacity they have is taken up by their own fleet at this stage.

In saying that I agree with your sentiments.

DrPepz

16th Jul 2010, 13:54

If SIAEC is that bad why aren't SIA plans falling out of the sky and/or breaking down often due to shoddy mx? SIA's OTP is among the best in the industry.

Terminalfrost

16th Jul 2010, 14:20

Because SIA pass their aircraft on before they get too old, plus luck.

Qantas identified that SIAEC were not a high quality facility, but they had already tied their hands behing their backs by closing their most experienced and efficient 747 maintenance facility, and had nowher else to go. They F**ked themselves.

CASA looked at SIAEC but were more interested in the attractions of Singapore than the maintenance facilities and thus gave them the green light for a CAR 30 approval.

What will come out in the end is that no one in the world does the same quality aircraft maintenance as Australian engineers in an Australian facility when it is being run by competent people for tyhe same price. (Avalon is on the border, but the engineers are doing their best in the circumstances).

Safety Concerns

16th Jul 2010, 14:41

drpepz, it isn't about a race to see who can have the most accidents

Are you disputing the ALAEA findings or just wishing to deflect attention?

The Professor

16th Jul 2010, 14:49

"Some of you dudes out there need to wake up" . . . . and start seeing how much politics is involved in this. Some of you “dudes” need to stop being so naive and start competing on the world stage.

Safety Concerns

16th Jul 2010, 15:11

yes your right professor. We should lower Australian standards in order to compete on the world stage.

Correct me if I am wrong. Despite very high Australian standards, Qantas made record profits a few years ago as did SIA but have actually continued to make a profit in the more recent harder times whereas SIA didn't.

So what are you suggesting? We lower standards so we can make a loss as well.

Wake up man.

Competing globally is a myth designed to fool you into accepting less and it works. It is the business model and not maintenance standards that will keep you in a job. Maintain your high standards and the business model will adapt.

Lower your standards and you are on a slippery path to job centre. Its only a question of when.

Safety Concerns

16th Jul 2010, 15:39

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh: there is one born every minute

The point being if you would open yours eyes enough to view the end of your own nose is that cutting corners gets you nowhere. It won't make the difference between surviving, competing or not.

You actually place an operation at greater risk by trying to be clever and cutting corners because its only a matter of time before

a) something terrible happens or
b) somebody blows the whistle

The main reason operators get away with this nonsense is because NAIVE individuals thinking they are in some way assisting the company. Or maybe they are just egoists wanting promotion, I don't know and don't care.

Wake up for christs sake.

1746

17th Jul 2010, 00:36

The crux of this thread is the length CASA went to to stop an FOI application into their audit of overseas facilities.
Now as the airline's own QA audit found many issues why did CASA give a great big tick?
Secondly, why does CASA continue to spend untold taxpayers' money and not come clean?

BrissySparkyCoit

17th Jul 2010, 07:22

You seem to be singling out Asian MRO's in your post. Are you perhaps Xenophobic?Ahhh..... the old "you're a racist" ploy in an attempt to shut down any debate.

hcmcmcclown, rather than personal attacks rowards Mr Safety concerns, how about you provide some worthwhile ideas as to how we can "compete on the world stage" as The Professor put it.

Are you seriously suggesting that SIA lost money in recent financial times due to poor safety standards...
No, what he is suggesting is that Qantas has continued to be profitable without lowering standards.

BrissySparkyCoit

17th Jul 2010, 14:00

Without a doubt, a stooge.

This message is hidden because hcmcmcclown is on your ignore list. :ok:

I'm not even interested in his ideas on how we can "compete on the world stage".... if any ideas were to float above the rhetoric he posts.

Oh Me Oh My

18th Jul 2010, 09:35

All I can say is that both CASA and Qantas have a lot to answer for...........

LeadSled

18th Jul 2010, 15:03

---- lower Australian standards in order to compete on the world stage.Safety Concerns,

Sadly, it is rather a leap of faith to assume that Australian "standards" are higher than other aviation significant countries.

In my travels, I see far too many examples of just the opposite, particularly compared with general standards in NZ, Canada, US, and western Europe, with many CIS countries rapidly catching up.

In my considered opinion, training standards for LAMEs have reached lamentable levels, with "face to face" teaching time being about 30% below US levels for an A&P, and only about half the usual western European time --- and this is becoming obvious in a decreasing breadth of competencies in Australia.

We should be looking at upping our standards, so we don't get left behind.

Tootle pip!!

Managers Perspective

18th Jul 2010, 15:16

Agree fully with the last post.

If we don't invest in LAME skills we will all be left behind, not just the LAME's.

MP

ampclamp

18th Jul 2010, 22:44

leadsled.Could not agree more.
I do think there is a crisis coming with lack of expertise in LAME land.

The good ol days are gone.We did have exceptionally high standards and levels of training across the workforce.Fewer people are now trained in fewer courses.
Too much is now done by remote control where you sit comatose in front of a monitor ticking boxes.When boxes are ticked everyone is happy but you are none the wiser.
Having been in the game for 30+ years across a wide variety of employers and workplaces I do think standards have dropped.
Also, aviation is having trouble attracting the young people to maintenance it used to.If you want a hi tech job with a career path aviation aint the way to go.The opportunities for meaningful advancement are so limited and your qualifications mean jack in the world outside where employer choice has dropped markedly.

1746

19th Jul 2010, 00:44

You've got my vote!

Nutrageous

19th Jul 2010, 03:27

The notion that only Australian engineers can maintain an aircraft to a safe standard is completely unrealistic. Australian LAME's commit maintenance errors and take short cuts just like any other group of their peers. In Melbourne HM (to cite one example) the reality was that maintenance errors were simply being picked up and rectified without any investigation or notification - 2 MEDAs in a three year period bears witness to that. The ALAEA is simply beating the safety drum to wage an indutsrial campaign.

The real longer term issue is the declining and aging LAME workforce which is a demographic time bomb for the industry. Average age of a QF LAME is around the 50 mark. Systems of working, certification, licensing and training will all have to change in a world with less people and lower skill levels.

ampclamp

19th Jul 2010, 07:06

Who said ONLY Australian engineers can maintain aircraft?:)

The ALAEA represents the interests of those who pay their dues and Steve Purvinas is employed to beat that drum. Of course he wants more, better paid jobs in Australia and if that means pointing out stuff ups from overseas so be it.

Mind you there is a culture of arrogance with some people at QF [who are wankers] & think that everything QF is gold.It aint as you point out.

If it means pointing out that training [or lack there of] poor management etc is causing safety issues he will also jump on that issue.They will not publicly criticise their own members unless it is a really big one I'm sure.
Management never admit wrong doing but take all credit for the good times. No point in LAMEs shooting their own people.

The average age of LAMEs is getting ridiculously old.On that we agree 100%. The next gen down from the 50 yo is about 35 and stuff all behind them.Training needs to be done now and widespread.The young ones need to be in the hands of the experienced hands before they shoot through with the next VR or just retire.:(

1746

19th Jul 2010, 07:28

The real issue is the lack of any regulatory oversight from CASA - hence the story and FOI applications.

The facts of lack of training in all forms and LAME demographics are points that any realist in the industry will readily agree with.

I re-iterate this thread is about the accuracy of CASA audits and the lengths they are prepared to go to prevent public scrutiny - it appears to reveal the true effectiveness of our regulatory body. Now that is food for thought!

Clipped

19th Jul 2010, 07:30

The notion that only Australian engineers can maintain an aircraft to a safe standard is completely unrealistic

We are digressing here or purposefully being led there.

Without sounding aloof, but generally speaking, the standard of aircraft maintenance in AUS is way better than that of Asian MRO's. This is a fact, if you dispute this, you are either blind or ignorant or both.

Racism has nothing to do with any of this. Training, culture, facilities, tooling, resources, logistics, support etc etc and even regulation are the reasons for it.

gobbledock

19th Jul 2010, 07:59

AUDIT (in part)--The goal of an audit is to express an opinion on the person / organization / system (etc) in question, under evaluation based on work done on a test basis. Due to practical constraints, an audit seeks to provide only reasonable assurance that the statements are free from material error.
There is no gaurentee that an audit by CASA is going to unveil all of an operators deficiencies.The same applies to an operators internal audit process.

The reality is this : There are elements of all operators,CASA,the government and every other aviation alligned entity which are crap ! So stop finger pointing and how about everybody accept their own personal responsibility.

ampclamp

19th Jul 2010, 09:12

good point gobbledock.
The reality is this : There are elements of all operators,CASA,the government and every other aviation alligned entity which are crap ! So stop finger pointing and how about everybody accept their own personal responsibility.

qantas have accepted for their part and moved some maintenance home having found some issues.
Where is casa's mea culpa?

ABAT4t2

19th Jul 2010, 10:58

I have been coming here for sometime but after reading this thread I had to join in. As someone with 20 years experience in the industry I cannot believe how this subject, is subject to abuse from those who are directly affected by it.
The aviation industry is no longer what it was, I feel sure we all agree on that. So when someone and it doesn't matter who it is raises an issue, why do those in the industry (accepted its a forum and we have no idea who is posting) fail to pull in one direction. The opinions here are in all directions somewhat like a cluster bomb. It seems to me that if the general consensus is industry is going downhill, why don't you support those who are attempting to push it back up the hill? The subject matter is actually irrelevant in my opinion as long as the overall movement is back up the hill and not further down. Isn't it?

ALAEA Fed Sec

19th Jul 2010, 12:43

The ALAEA is simply beating the safety drum to wage an industrial campaign

What does this even mean? Can the bloke who posted it or somebody else please explain to me?

Jabawocky

19th Jul 2010, 12:52

Simply that you are using this as a hidden agenda to achieve some kind of gain in an industrial action you may be or about to launch.

As an outsider I can not see that happening, but this is a common old tactic in many industrial relations games from both sides.

It looks to me more like the ALAEA is taking a swipe at CASA who seem to have lost the plot on many fronts across the whole avaiation community.

ALAEA Fed Sec

19th Jul 2010, 12:59

It is all about CASA. We can't take pia against them. Qantas are implicated in the story but they are currently in an agreement period until next year. Even if we did want to take action against them we would be upfront about it like we were last time.

my oleo is extended

20th Jul 2010, 12:24

ALAEA Fed Sec,

In a nut shell, yes. When I have filmed with TT or any other outlet for that sake, all they want you to do is mention one word - crash. It gives them their sensationalism and a story. By talking about the side of a hill, it may be the difference between a story that lasts 3 minutes or one that runs for 10. The underlying story that those in the industry would understand needs to be told in as simple terms as possible. Talking about the migration of the fastenings for the flap torque tube that had been lockwired with the incorrect gauge lockwire doesn't really resonate with the public. I will do what it takes to get these extremely serious issues aired publically however I can.

Although I do often agree with your comments, some of your posts tend to become quite biased. You left your Engineers off the list of 'causal factors' in this thread. Not all of them are perfect and have been annointed with some kind of 'mistake free immortality'. They also make mistakes within Australia, along with other unions, regulators, engineers, maintenance facilities and the list goes on.

Sunfish

20th Jul 2010, 20:08

Dear oh dear! What a wonderfully confused thread. Let's get back to basics...

So we start with the maintenance philosophy of the airline, which is something that this MBA graduate actually knows a little about.

Your maintenance philosophy is actually a function of money. No, not maintenance cost, it's a function of your national taxation laws, depreciation provisions and finance and investment environment.

What that means is that if you decide that your best shareholder returns will come from turning your aircraft over every Five years, your maintenance philosophy will be very different from an airline that plans to keep its aircraft for Ten to Twenty years or more.

At one extreme you can simply follow Boeings minimum recommendations. That is called the "buy it and fly it" strategy.

At the other extreme, you can maintain the aircraft like a Rolls Royce, including applying all AD's and SB's and Mods, so that your Twenty year old aircraft is actually very close to factory new production standard. This is really nice when your tax authorities haven't the faintest idea of how to discriminate between a safety related expense - like applying an AD, and a capital expense like a Modification.

It's even nicer when you sell the fully depreciated and there fore almost valueless, but beautifully maintained aircraft with new engines, flaps and gear, to a related company for a song, and then that company sells it to Les Hong at Evergreen for a small fortune.

Qantas is somewhere in the middle of that continuum, and therefore it is therefore vital for them to pick an MRO with a similar philosophy, because if they don't, then the aircraft is going to be either under or over maintained. This is because the values of a maintenance organisation penetrate right to it's heart.

To put it another way; who the heck cares about a little corrosion when the aircraft will be sold to Africa in Four years time? On the other hand, if you contemplate that your unborn Grandchildren may fly on this thing, maybe you had better care...

And yes, you can do it by the manual and it will all be legal, because ultimately it comes down to millions of small and incremental value judgements by the guys doing the work.

..So maybe Singapore and other Asian MROs are not suitable for this reason. That's what I think I'm hearing.

As for CASA, does anyone understand what "regulatory capture" means?

...And on a final note, consider the fate of BP. Apparently they directed that the blowout preventer on the Macondo well was to be overhauled in China to save money. That decision may cost their shareholders their entire investment.

F.B.Eye

21st Jul 2010, 03:39

A few questions – Have the overseas maintenance organisations been granted certificates of approval by CASA or is the maintenance carried out under the Qantas certificate?
An audit by CASA would normally look at the facilities, systems and procedures of an organisation. Qantas, as the customer, and holder of a certificate of approval, is responsible for the control of the quality of the work performed on its aircraft. If an aircraft is returned to service with defects that are considered serious then CASA should be getting on to Qantas to establish the cause. Have a look at CAO104 appendix 2, 4 (g).
Is there any Qantas surveillance carried out or are there just a few LAMEs sent to assist with the paperwork? What are the qualifications and experience of the Qantas surveillance persons? Are there any investigative reports raised internally or is it only academic tokenism?

Nudlaug

21st Jul 2010, 03:52

YouTube - QANTAS, CASA and ALAEA on 12. July 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZv7qSVg9fE&feature=youtube_gdata)

Nudlaug

22nd Jul 2010, 01:01

Sunfish i just read your post and i wholeheartedly, absolutely wholeheartedly agree, finally someone who understands exactly what's going on. I always wanted to express the exact same thought, you nailed it on the head. Having grown up in Europe starting my career with a lean, mean, low cost operator and now working in Australia this is exactly what i experienced. Noone at my first employer gave a rats a** about exceptional maintenance. No aircraft made it past a few years before it was flogged off to Africa, minimum recommended standards were enough. As Sunfish said though, when you operate your fleet to 20 years and more you better make sure you apply a different system of maintenance. That doesn't mean that Australians are better, or the only ones able to do proper maintenance nor is it racist. I personally have the highest respect for anyone in the industry, and as everywhere you find good people and morons in any airline or MRO. And big changes are happening worldwide in our industry no doubt about that, and it's a good thing. I have seen slow as, hopeless Lame's in low cost airlines and MRO's, and i have seen crazy superhero's in big airlines signing just about anything illegal to get an aircraft off the ground. It doesn't matter where you go or look, it's all more or less the same.
But Sunfish's post just summed it up beautifully, well done!

Clipped

23rd Jul 2010, 05:40

But Sunfish's post just summed it up beautifully, well done!

I have always enjoyed Sunfish's views and it reflects a high level perspective on the 'little' things we do on the floor or tarmac.

However when I inspect corrosion and then assess it against the SRM, it is those limits, and not, if the aircraft is being flogged off to Africa, that determines my decision of serviceability.

That pretty much goes for the rest of the decisions I make on a day to day basis, that is, using approved data and materials and not bowing to commercial pressures. I don't have a real scope to be creative.

That philosophy may be a far cry from the 'she'll be right when not keepin' it for long' mentality of the modern operators but it is easier to live with as a 'professional'.

Nudlaug

23rd Jul 2010, 06:23

However when I inspect corrosion and then assess it against the SRM, it is those limits, and not, if the aircraft is being flogged off to Africa, that determines my decision of serviceability

We had the same limits, but we never had to apply any, because by the time corrosion could develop the aircraft was gone.
Sure it was not as easy to live with as a professional seeing an aircraft maintained to the mere minimum standards, but on the other hand it wasn't all that bad either. Brand new frame, not many SRM limits we had to apply unless someone ran a catering truck into it ;-)

LeadSled

23rd Jul 2010, 07:33

Folks,
One thing Sunfish might like to expand on is Australia's internationally uncompetitive aircraft depreciation schedules, compared to the competition. That most (all??) Qantas group aircraft are leased does not change the underlying problem.

Put another way, Qantas is taxed on "profits", that would not be profits elsewhere, and anybody who believes this has nothing to do with many Qantas decisions in recent years probably believes in the tooth fairey.

Year after year, the difference in SAL and QF results can almost entirely be sheeted home to the finance/tax policy differences of the two countries.

The recent (and still in place, in principle) mining super profits tax is another gross example of Canberra not living in the real world, where the "profit" to be taxed is struck before finance costs are deducted in the balance sheet. Almost , if not quite, being taxed on the EBIT profits.

It was completely uncompetitive taxation policies that destroyed the local maritime industry ---- despite militant maritime unions getting the blame for high wages and feather-bedded manning ----- but the fact was that, even if the crews had worked for nothing, the local shipping lines would still have gone offshore because of tax policies that were internationally uncompetitive --- under the then Australia tax law it was impossible to run Australian flag ships.

Qantas, including Jetstar, is in the same position, because of the now unrealistic write-off periods for aircraft ----- and quite a number of other imposts more or less unique to Australia.

None of this is new, the 1961 Menzies government budget disallowed interest on finance company debentures as a business expense, precipitating a string of major finance company bankruptcies (Reid-Murray, the original AGC for two examples) , and tens of thousands of "mums and dads" lost their life savings ---- again the unreal world of Canberra coming to the fore.

The "Frazer" years were a disaster, financially, for QF, in large measure it was only the Hawke/Keating government that "saved" QF, largely because the Menzies era "financial directive" that completely hobbled QF was withdrawn, and QF were allowed to competitively respond to an increasingly competitive international market.
As a result, the company about doubled in size in about four years --- nothing to do with taking over TAA.

Similar problems surround MRO facilities being competitive in Australia, it is the gross distortion in the tax framework that is the biggest killer.

Believe me, it is not cheap to hire people in Singapore, and maybe you should ask why QF maintenance is being done in Germany and US, not exactly "cheap labor" areas.

You only have to go the NZ to see how overall competitive Government policies determine aviation sector competitiveness.

Indeed, have a look at the NZ long term investment in aeroskills training, compared to Australia. NZ still believe basic training is an investment in the future, not a cost in the present. Indeed, NZ companies are more likely to regard employees as assets, not liabilities.

All good MBA stuff.

Tootle pip!!

ABAT4t2

23rd Jul 2010, 08:52

wow, what an eye opener this thread is turning out to be. I don't want to be critical of anybody but can we bring this thread back down to earth?

The issue as I see it is very simple and basic. There are laws,regulations and procedures to be followed. We are not talking about a washing machine factory here, its commercial aviation.

The issue isn't about whether Singapore or America or Germany are any better or any worse than Brisbane, Melbourne or Sydney. The issue is about why a government funded agency, in place to ensure adequate safety levels are maintained, has apparently failed miserably in its task.

Its not about smart alecs who think they know how to run companys or are experts at selling aircraft to Africa, it is about protecting the public. The public consider CASA to be good at their job and rely on them to be good at their job.

If they are not, then the public have a right to know, be the issue in Brisbane, Sydney, Frankfurt, Los Angeles or Singapore. The rest will sort itself out once we have got to the bottom of whether CASA have been doing their job or not.

DrPepz

23rd Jul 2010, 12:48

LeadSled

You make many good points. Singapore labour costs for MROs are probably slightly cheaper than Australia overall, due to the strong Australian Dollar these days. However, Singapore has the highest labour costs in Asia outside Japan, so if labour costs were everything, SIN won't have one of the largest MRO industries in Asia.

I did an internship a few years ago at an SIAEC facility. It seemed very unionised and there was a lot of abuse of overtime. I hear they've cut back massively on overtime abuse these days, but it seemed like lots of people (especially the office folks) were quite free. I wouldn't exactly say it was the most efficient organisation around - a legacy of the airline industry I guess.

Also, they did tell me that SIA's general philosophy is to replace, not repair. The slightest defect and SIA throws things away and replaces the part. In the past, when they started servicing other airlines, they had some sort of culture shock when those airlines with limited budgets wanted parts repaired, and not replaced.

The facility also employed many Australian LAMES. And they were on local Singaporean terms.

I wouldn't put down QF's profit differential with SIA purely down to tax treatment. SIA's pre-tax operating profit margins have generally been higher than QF, and contrary to popular belief, SIA did not make a full year loss last FY ending Mar 31. The group's profit was about S$250 million for the FY I think.

SIA, EK and CX can enjoy larger profit margins and cost efficiencies largely because they have single hub structures, allowing two banks of connecting flights in a day from East to West and vv (and North to South) thoroughout the day. Far more efficient than operating out of multiple hubs, through vast distances across domestic territory.

There is also a large emphasis in Singapore on training and skills development, and every year, polytechnics are given quotas on the number of technicians to train for the aerospace industry. Yes, it is easier to manage such stuff when you're a small island, compared to a vast country like Australia - but when your only resource is people, you tend to place huge emphasis on skills development and job creation. Because it's not like there are rocks in the ground for Singaporean companies to extract for export.

It is ironic that when QF and BOAC were shareholders of SIA way back in teh 1960s, QF trained the first batch of SIA engineers. in the late 1960s to early 1970s. Batch after batch of engineers were sent from SIN to SYD for training, and many of SIA's aircraft were maintained by QF in SYD.

LeadSled

23rd Jul 2010, 16:23

DrPepz,
Re. the differential in the QF and SQ results, the info. in my post comes from a long term study of both airlines accounts by a well known "think tank", having considered all the points you mention, and a few that you don't. It is not a matter of my opinion.

Given the professional reputation of the organization that carried out the study, I would put reliance on the findings.

Certainly, being an "end of the line" carrier makes sustaining a network much harder for QF, hence the QF scheduling patterns, and the QF pax. hubs in Singapore and Bangkok, (and KLAX with AA) not to disregard the increasing Jetstar network based in Singapore.

The part played by Qantas and BA in the setting up of the original MSA is often forgotten, the level of engagement ( later also Malaysian) was much greater than the few areas you mention.

Tootle pip!!

Sunfish

23rd Jul 2010, 21:28

ABAT:

The issue as I see it is very simple and basic. There are laws,regulations and procedures to be followed. We are not talking about a washing machine factory here, its commercial aviation.

The issue isn't about whether Singapore or America or Germany are any better or any worse than Brisbane, Melbourne or Sydney. The issue is about why a government funded agency, in place to ensure adequate safety levels are maintained, has apparently failed miserably in its task.

I'm sorry, but you don't have the experience to make those statements.

1. I assure you that todays "Washing Machine Factory" has infinitely higher quality standards than any airline or MRO. That process used to be called "Total quality management". Every procedure is documented in detail, every staff member is trained in minute detail.

2. Everything in that washing machine factory is subjected to statistical quality and process control which is almost totally foreign to aircraft manufacture and certainly to aircraft maintenance with the exception of high use components like fasteners, tyres, blades, etc. Aircraft manufacture is series production, not mass production, I can assure you that the sheet metal of a Holden Commodore is built to tighter tolerances than an F18

3. The washing machine factory discarded the "near enough is good enough" approach that allows value judgements to be made in about 1990 in Australia, or about 1955 in Japan. When I last looked, which was quite a few years ago, each disk and ring in an F404 engine was still slung on to the coordinate measuring machine (CMM) and measured up, and they were all slightly different, and an American inspector at GE's Lynn Massachusetts military engine division might accept one, or perhaps not.

We still live in a hand crafted regime when it comes to most areas of aviation manufacture and maintenance.....and a quill, ink, parchment and capital punishment era when it comes to CASA and regulation.

Clipped

24th Jul 2010, 02:47

I assure you that todays "Washing Machine Factory" has infinitely higher quality standards than any airline or MRO.

That may be very true. I would love to say that the current processes we have in aircraft maintenance whether here or elsewhere that I have seen in my many years, were as precise and detailed as the Washing Machine Factory.

Unfortunately, in our uniquely different industry we are so far away from attaining the efficiencies you state and our management so blinded by cost control that they are simply unaware of how to develop and evolve aircraft maintenance to the effectiveness of other 'comparable' industries.

Sunfish, I think you wish to be given free reign to build such an enterprise from the ground up but the realities are we and our neighbors are not anywhere near this theoretical organisation you envision.

Certainly not while they are selling $29 seats.