QF11 Eng Failure - Sensationalism journalism with Qantas or truly a trend?

[FRQ Charlie Bravo]

For more times that I care to remember over the past year and a half I woke up this morning to read about QF pax describing "a loud bang". Such was the case again this morning when I read about yesterdays "Qantas Jet Engine Failure (http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/8656669/another-qantas-jet-engine-failure/)" on QF11 SYD-LAX in a B747.

The headlines certainly always garner attention and I believe that there is most definately an aspect of sensationalism but looking also at all the QF-related threads here as well as coverage in Australian Aviation recently I wanted to know what the general feeling is amongst the profession.

To all professional pilots my two questions are these:

If there is an abnormal trend is it worrying to you?
If so are you (rightly or wrongly) tempted to place blame for this on transferring maintenance overseas?Thanks,

FRQ CB

[1a sound asleep]

Why is it always a RR engine that goes bang??? You dont see the GE engines having the same drama.

I hate to admit it, but I am wondering myself. Offending plane was OJS built in 1991. Would like to know the history of the engine - anybody?

[ampclamp]

The rollers are having a bad run for sure.
Qf will deny any trend or any issue with outsourced maintenance ( or lower LAME v AME ratios) but they will and should be looking very closely at why.
It looks bad regardless of whether the problems are related to any of the above.

[PPRuNeUser0198]

1a Sound Asleep - it is all about the numbers. There are a greater number of "roller" units than there are GE, so, statically, the rollers should ****e themselves more often than the GE's if both engines have typical reliability numbers - which they would.

A question for the mass - why is it that anytime something goes wrong - it is "linked" to maintenance overseas?

Most of today's foreign carriers use MRO etc and "outsource" some maintenance functions - yet they don't seem to have the sam regular "episodes" Qantas has...

Or maybe it is because you just don't hear about it...Delta had two in-flight engine failures a few months ago (one had Leonardo Di Caprio on-board) yet, it hardly made the news here...perception management...

And for some other reason - people think that Australian Maintenance Engineers are the cream of the planet and are invincible. They're still humans and still susceptible to mistakes - which they make.

[blackhand]

A question for the mass - why is it that anytime something goes wrong - it is "linked" to maintenance overseas?
Is that a question to be asked in a Catholic Church, or do you mean a question for the masses.

And answer that comes to mind is " because that is where the maintenance is being carried out"
Or are you being purposely obtuse:confused:

[Old Fella]

1a sound asleep asks why it is that it is always RR engines that go bang and says we dont see GE engines having the same drama's. Well 1a sound asleep you don't read enough. In May last year the the American ATSB issued four Urgent Safety Recommendations to the FAA as a result of four individual FAILURES of GE engines in less than 12 months. All relate to LP Turbine Stage 3 disc failures.

[Ultralights]

Would like to know the history of the engine - anybody?
well, since QF no longer maintain (heavy maintenance) their engines, they no longer have the trend data or historical data for their engines anymore.
:=

[Tankengine]

Because when QF engine shop did heavy rebuilds we did not seem to have the current problem.:uhoh:

OR


Total coincidence.:hmm:

[empire4]

I can't remember a time when QF had so many Inflight Shutdowns. Sure it is a relatively common thing, and quite safe. However I think the reason Qantas gets more neg publicity is due to the fact that the one and only sales pitch they have is the safety record.

Lets face it, many other airlines have better aircraft, cabins, staff etc. Slowly, the maintenance has been erroded at QF. T & C for engineers are getting worse and along with the "Boys club" that is engineering does not help to attract or keep good quality staff. blah blah blah.

I remember thinking how proud I was to wear the Uniform, to go the extra distance. Not for anything than the pride of the Aussie brand. Now that seems to have gone with management in place for short term gain.

The dead wood management that were operating Eng. have gone, but unfortunately the damage they have done may take years to right itself if at all. It will take a massive staff commitment and $$$ which in this age of greed and corruption I can't see happening.

As far as MRO's are concerned, I have worked in asia and can tell you the standards are far far lower than what they are at QF. Sure, lames from QF go up there but they only represent 10% of the workforce. MRO's are a business, and will take all shortcuts necessary to ensure they make money. period.

[BogeyBoy]

Huh?? Wrong. Of course they (QE) still have the data, and the ability (within TS) to review it.

The issue with the RR -524 fleet is well known - related to the HPC. Whether this QF11 event is linked only time will tell, however there have been numerous HPC failures in recent times and they typically result in a bang and then sparks out the back etc that the media outlets love. The fault is not linked to the maintainer - but instead to design.

I'm not talking down the significance of the fault though - a HPC failed engine is cactus and I would imagine that a self-run engine line would have assisted with the speed that any fixes were/are rolled through the fleet.

[MTOW]

The way (Sydney radio) 2UE's been beating up the 747 engine failure is amazing and not a little disturbing.

One could be forgiven for thinking the station management had some hidden, anti-Qantas agenda.

[LandIT]

Wondering why engine parameters can't indicate the trend of a fault. If an airline dispatches a plane-load of passengers only to not even get into the air they probably deserve all the bad publicity they get. Expectation is that a plane should be more reliable than QF's seem to be at this time. The Pacific is a pretty lonely place to have an engine let go. Looks more like QF's policy is just fix it when it goes wrong.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Hey all. Just a little story. I think it fits with this thread.

I was invited as a union leader by qantas (was still an employee then) to spend a week in the bush with managers and those who wanted to be. There was this exercise where you answered a questionnaire to determine how you viewed things. You were either in the artsy creative category or the logical clear thinking one. All the people on the course then lined up respective of their scores. I was down one far end out of the 30 people and the bloke at the other end was the former head of qantas engine maintenance. The manager was not just past the last engineer on the "artsy" end of the line, his score was so out there it was amazing he could even work out how to drive a car.

He shut down the Melbourne engine shop and shifted the work to a start up shop in tullamarine and called it a "center of excellence". They have since downgraded the engine tolerances and set records for time taken to overhaul a cfm (think it took them 12 months to do a two week job). The holes will line up one day.

[Syd eng]

MH or RH?

The old raft trips huh.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

..................M.

[missy]

interesting that it was a mayday call...

[teresa green]

Certainly QF seems to have more engineering problems than it used to, but then aircraft in the early nineties were sent out with probably 12 hold items or so and a couple of trans quals. Now they go out with up to 70 or so hold items and I don't even want to ask how many trans quals. Even so in the seventies, eighties and nineties, from the time when TAA, Ansett, and QF were all in the air, engine failures (in some form) were fairly run of the mill, and it was not uncommon to pod a engine somewhere in a month of flying, but of course nothing to serious. What happened yesterday would not even make it into the press. More of a bugger, get another aircraft "dressed" over to the airport, is the crew going to be out of hours, need a fresh crew, stuff it, attitude, not a OMG we could have all died stuff that is printed now. As long as I flew from the late 50's to the 90's there was always a problem somewhere. But it seldom made it into the papers. Of course the fleet are now aging, and this brings its own problems, but I think QF have been unlucky (or lucky whatever way you look at it) but looking back it does not seem unusual. (The A380 and the oxy cylinder aside) The press certainly just love this sort of stuff, which happens every day, somewhere in the world, but as 99.9% of PAX make it to their destination unscathed, we can assume that things are not to bad.

[Going Boeing]

Offending plane was OJS built in 1991

Sorry 1A Sound Asleep, but OJS is one of the three "newer" RR powered B744s - it was built in 1999. As engines are removed from aircraft for maintenance, they are normally refitted to the next aircraft that requires an overhauled engine so it's possible that the engines currently fitted to OJS were delivered with the original batch of (18) B744's. Normal maintenance procedures would mean that there would be no difference in performance/reliability but since the engine overhaul went O/S there is certainly a distinct difference in reliability.

[Ero-plano]

The Media will only be happy when they have brought QF to their knees, Ansett style. Hammer the company until it reaches breaking point then try and find who was to blame for its closure. The Media are lying maggots we all know that and I think most of the general public are comming to understand this point. Is there any "genuine", "truthful" reporters left or have we gone down the American path?

[Skystar320]

This is why!

The Lazy Journalists Plane Story Generator (http://radans.net/jens/planestory.html)

[TIMA9X]

Blow-up grounds Qantas flight bound for LA | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/blow-up-grounds-qantas-flight-for-la/comments-e6frfq80-1225988730178)

And now the story goes to news.com.au........ pretty much the same as the OP Yahoo/7 one... but already 108 comments. Interesting reading.:sad: Sadly this is what the punters are saying about our QF.
By teresa green.. The press certainly just love this sort of stuff, which happens every day, somewhere in the world, but as 99.9% of PAX make it to their destination unscathed, we can assume that things are not to bad. I agree.... but I don't think this report is as dramatic as some of the others over the past year or so... and I can't help thinking what ampclamp said...

The rollers are having a bad run for sure. Qf will deny any trend or any issue with outsourced maintenance ( or lower LAME v AME ratios) but they will and should be looking very closely at why.
It looks bad regardless of whether the problems are related to any of the above.Yeah, certainly starting to look bad if the punters are writing comments like

" Qantas an accident waiting to happen"There seriously is an image problem at QF that must be addressed sooner rather than later.. it's not just going to go away this time.

[woftam]

Quote:
By teresa green.. "The press certainly just love this sort of stuff, which happens every day, somewhere in the world, but as 99.9% of PAX make it to their destination unscathed, we can assume that things are not to bad."
You're right about that TG.
It does happen every day around the world, but it's not front page news in these countries for some reason? The Aviation Herald (http://avherald.com/)

[Millet Fanger]

Offending plane was OJS built in 1991.1A - The aircraft involved was actually OJO.

since QF no longer maintain (heavy maintenance) their engines, they no longer have the trend data or historical data for their engines anymore.BBoy - To a certain extent you are right, and wrong. Trend data - Yes. Historical data - No. The RB211 is a group of modules bolted together. Now that engine heavy maintenance is outsourced overseas, best case senario is that QE assembles a module that comes with serviceable paperwork. QE no longer controls the quality of work that goes into the build up of the module. The work is done to a dollar figure so as to pass the minimum standard required, not to a quality standard that will continue to break records for on wing endurance. (It's a revisit of the outsourcing of landing gear o/haul). The figures look good on paper, in practice it's an expensive mistake.

The dead wood management that were operating Eng. have goneempire4 - I agree that the QE management at present is better than before, but they are still short term / bonus orientated. The is no commitment to quality / or employee engagement. They look like they are busy shuffling the deck chairs while QE sinks.

This is about the 6th or 7th major engine failure in the last year. How long has engine overhaul been outsourced for now? What steps have QE management taken to address the issue? - Nothing!

[1a sound asleep]

My apologies.:= Yes OJO not S. Had the build date right as 1991 but had S on the brain.

There are enough pax today that are on all the frequent flyer forums to report engine failures on every EK,UA,DL,SQ,NZ,CX,MH,BA in and out of Australia as well as all the domestic flights and there are just no where near the reports on issues like there are with the QF 744 RR. Where there's smoke there's fire.

Of course QF has the statistics. Yes QF has had a run of bad luck. If these engines are being maintained in the same shop in SIN as engines for other major airlines why are the other airlines not having the same dramas?

Like many I have a godhelpmezillion number of QF shares and I don't want to bring the place undone. I recognise that to survive and compete with the Asian carriers paying peanuts to monkey we have to cut back, work harder and be more efficent. What I dont understand is why the "safest airline" is becoming the:* "nearest to disaster airline" in the eys of the media.

Once upon a time all the lovely used QF planes went off to new homes. The 742 fleet were sold off whilst still relatively young and found homes with the likes of VS, UA and CO. We now have 20+ year old 744s . What happened?:ugh:

[SMOC]

Out of interest what is QFs current SOPs on reverse thrust, ie MAX or IDLE when performance allows?

[Feather #3]

Once upon a time all the lovely used QF planes went off to new homes. The 742 fleet were sold off whilst still relatively young and found homes with the likes of VS, UA and CO. We now have 20+ year old 744s . What happened?

We didn't buy the B777 at the right time....there, I've said it!:=

G'day ;)

[Bumpfoh]

And for some other reason - people think that Australian Maintenance Engineers are the cream of the planet and are invincible. They're still humans and still susceptible to mistakes - which they make.

And to use an equally outlandish generalisation

Unlike the Australian pilots who are a very humble group of professionals.

:=

[peuce]

as Empire4 said:

However I think the reason Qantas gets more neg publicity is due to the fact that the one and only sales pitch they have is the safety record.

As long as Qantas holds that out as its point of difference .... then it's reasonable that the punters will challenge it. And the perception, if not reality, at the moment is that they're not coming through with the goods.

It's fine to say that "we have to cut costs to compete with others, like the Asian airlines" ... as long as that's what you want your company to be ... just another Asian airline.

But, as I have often said on this forum, I think Qantas' successful future might lie in making its point of difference .... quality ( which it thinks it does now, but doesn't)... and charge accordingly. To achieve this, dollars have to be spent on keeping the product in the air and its service impeccable.

Or ... it could continue to be just another Asian airline.

[Pontius]

Semi rhetorical question but if, as has been suggested quite a few times in this thread, the problem is RB211s and/or older 744s, why do you not see the same trends or reports from BA? I can't remember the last time BA had a snag with their 744 engines and they operate the largest fleet of them in the World.

[HARDNUT]

Not buying 777's will probably go down in history as one of Q's biggest strategic mistakes.

Having worked in engineering for a long time RR engine failures have definately increased. The creation of specialised boro section helped reduce failures, since boro section is still operating we need to look at what else has changed for the answer.

After the 08 pia, unfortunately Q has recieved intense media scruitiny.
If only G.D had come to an early agreement this may not be happening now.

Obviously anything to do with Q and aircraft safety sells papers.

[Ngineer]

Sensationalism journalism with Qantas or truly a trend?


I am sure management have a highly trained bunch of Bolly Boys trying to determine this. (supplied by the lowest bidder, of course.....)

[ampclamp]

Hi pontius, I remember one almighty failure on a BA 747 back late 80's early 90's perhaps.It was parked in Sydney and blew , presumably on its way out, not sure.

Shot bits of donk all over the place and just about cut the engine in half.

[mcgrath50]

Shhh ampclamp the media will get onto it :oh:

[ampclamp]

yeah mc50 very funny:)

Things do happen at other airlines as evidenced by the aviation herald site.
Qantas is one of those love hate things we have in OZ.
Qantas dont officially trade on the good safety record but since Rain man the media just launch into everything little thing as if it only ever happens at the rat.
The batch of failures glitches hiccups etc are not a good.

Is the engine failure issue a trend? One is an isolated incident.More than one could indicate a trend depending the area of failure the hours on wing, cycles etc etc.

But in the media and public eye it = a trend without doubt.

[Sunfish]

No, engine failures are not related to "Ageing Aircraft".

Almost all of the rotating parts in the engine, plus a lot of the stationary parts (eg, Nozzle Guide Vanes) are "consumable" parts, in that they will eventually wear out and can't be repaired, or will be automatically replaced when they reach their service life limit (e.g Turbine discs).

What that means is that even though in theory an engine may be "twenty years old" most of the critical parts will be no more than four or five years old.

Furthermore, in order to balance out engine shop workloads, it was common practice years ago to take one or more of the brand new engines off a brand new aircraft and fit an older one, or parts of an older one, so as to "average out" the age of the engine pool. Don't know if Qantas does it that way. But if they still do, your "New" Aircraft won't necessarily have "New" engines at all.

As for working out if QF is having more or less engine failures, I would assume that QF keep failures /by type/by module/by engine hours/by cycles data and probably time/temperature/pressure/rpm history as well. It's very simple to apply a Poisson statistical distribution to the data and set confidence limits that will tell you if something really has changed, or if all you are seeing is a set of coincidences.

Not that QF would tell anyone if there was a real change for the worse...

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

You can work it out pretty closely by the SDR reports publically available on the CASA website.

NavigateFrameless (http://sdr.casa.gov.au/sdronline/REPORTS/REPORTVIEWER.ASPX?TRANCD=RPTVWR)

On my account the serious incidents on the 524G that appear to have caused or could have caused inflight shutdowns trend as such -

2001-4
2002-5
2003-2
2004-0
2005-2
2006-5
2007-8
2008-3
2009-8
2010-6
2011-1 (in first month)

List excludes things like bird strikes.

From memory the entire 524G (747-400) fleet had arrived by 2000 with OJU being the last one. By the end of the decade numbers were the same excluding jk that had been parked in the desert.

Breaking down these figures we can have a look at the first half of the decade as opposed to the second. (Before the grammar police pull me up I know my decade is running from 01-10, that is the available data from CASA).

2001-2005 (5 years) 13 incidents.
2006-2010 (5 years) 30 incidents.

130% increase or these type of defect occuring 2.3 x the rate they previously had.

So what happened in the second half of the decade?

2006 Qantas closed Sydney heavy maintenance were many of the defects were detected early and repaired before they progressed to an "incident". Many of the checks were sent overseas.

Shortly after Qantas started sending Engine component overhaul to overseas facilities with the major components of the engines coming back in "module" form and were only assembled in Syd.

2009 Qantas completely closed its RR overhaul facility in Syd.

This is not over reporting, a coincidence, bad luck or a series of unrelated events. They are all linked via management decisions to put profits ahead of safety (IMHO).

Qantas would be aware of this trend. No wonder they have employed a spokesmodel to answer the media questions. An Engineering manager on the box may in some way be compeled to tell the truth.

[mrdeux]

Out of interest what is QFs current SOPs on reverse thrust, ie MAX or IDLE when performance allows?
Max normally.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Just to add to my previous post. Another trend list that has removed my professional discretion that had me only list defects that I considered would lead to a donk shutdown. This list includes all defects on 524G engines over the 10 year period excluding the one birdstrike in 2005.

2001 - 6
2002 - 8
2003 - 2
2004 - 1
2005 - 6
2006 - 8
2007 - 12
2008 - 6
2009 - 19
2010 - 12

2001-2005 (5 years) 23 incidents.
2006-2010 (5 years) 57 incidents.

147% increase or defects occuring at 2.47 x the rate they previously had.

A couple of points for those doubters who think this is just a union beat up.

The year that the ALAEA members undertook Protected Industrial Action, we were accused of going out of our way to find things wrong with aircraft. That was 2008. The lowest figure in the second half of the decade.

The problems we are predominantly highlighting is the poor quality of Qantas Engine maintenance. Engine overhaul Engineers are not and never have been ALAEA members. LAMEs just want to know that the parts that they fit to an aircraft will do the job that they were designed for. I assume that Flight Crew would have a similar expectation.

[ampclamp]

Thanks for that Fed Sec.
illuminating to say the least.

[Sunfish]

Based on the numbers and assuming constant utilisation, almost, but not quite statistically significant change at the 95% confidence level by my possibly faulty reckoning. Possibly significant at the 90% level, but I may be making the wrong assumptions so don't quote me.


Don't ask me to do it again, I've discarded the spreadsheet and I did it from memory, so don't quote me. The cause might not be maintenance, but instead some operating procedure, maintenance policy, etc. You would have to investigate the whole thing in detail to confirm.

[hadagutfull]

Heres my 2 bob worth......

Sunfish,
Operating procedures would not really be an issue these days as the 524 and GE engines are controlled by an EEC or FAFC. Most of the failures (excluding bird strikes or FOD ingestion) originate from an internal failure in my experience.
There is the odd failure induced by defects in other systems, but again usually due to a component failure, even in those instances.

Powerplant engineering monitor performance trend data and occasionally call out in situ " tweaking" to optimize perfomance.

There seems to be a general quality issue with the engines supplied from MRO's. I believe this would account for a majority of the increased incidents that reflect in the Fed Sec statistics.

Cheers

[StallBoy]

Wouldn't the main problem with all these engines be that they are reaching the end of their life. You can only rebuild any piece of machinery so many times before it becomes unreliable even with the highest standards in the workshop. The stresses that are put on all the components of a gas turbine are truely incredible.:8

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Reliability shouldn't be affected by age if proper maintenance programmes are in place.

[rmm]

You can add another to the list,

BREAKING: Qantas Flight 107 from Sydney to LA diverts to Fiji with engine trouble - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller (http://www.ausbt.com.au/breaking-qantas-flight-107-from-sydney-to-la-diverts-to-fiji-with-engine-trouble)

OJA I believe

[Sunfish]

Stallboy:

Wouldn't the main problem with all these engines be that they are reaching the end of their life. You can only rebuild any piece of machinery so many times before it becomes unreliable even with the highest standards in the workshop. The stresses that are put on all the components of a gas turbine are truely incredible.

No that is not the problem at all. These engines are the proverbial grandfathers axe.

The critical components are repaired and/or replaced regularly. Stuff wears out and gets replaced all the time.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

The pic from flight 107 has GE's?

[ampclamp]

Fuel valve according to the news. Qantas "emergency".Good grief:ugh:

[peuce]

It may not be an "emergency", but as far as the punters are concerned .... it's more proof that something's rotten in the state of Qantas! It's more proof that there's a pretty good chance my aircraft won't leave on time, or won't leave, or it will get diverted or something may go bang in the night... in the middle of the Pacific.

All these "perceptions" are starting to make the competition look pretty attractive.

What will change these "perceptions" ?

[TIMA9X]

What will change these "perceptions" ?Some people in Qs top management & corporate relations department need to fall on their swords, the media smell blood over the recent incidents and won't let it go until they sense some positive change in how the airline responds to this "perception" that Q indeed has issues from striping its maintenance capabilities in favour of outsourcing. It's obvious now to all (except the beancounters at Q, stiff upper lip stuff) that some investment is required to fix this problem.

The current team of managers calling the shots are failing the staff & shareholders

There, I have said it!

[tichy]

friend on facebook this morning...
Both engines cut out as we were attempting take-off from Brisbane airport. We had to halt the take-off and we are stuck on the tarmac. "I'm sure you would appreciate Qantas' strict safety procedures" is the best explanation to date.

flying to Melbourne, delayed for 2 hours

[The_Pharoah]

I have to be honest - as a member of the 'general public' and also part of the business community there's two things I take into considering when choosing flights:

1. timeliness ie. depart/arrive on time +15 mins; and
2. reliability ie. I want all my take offs to = my landings without any dramas.

Unfortunately Qantas has lost a lot of its reliability. There's only one way to regain that reliability and thats to NOT have so many engine failures (I use that term loosely). I actually believe VB has a better reliability record than QF and so do a lot of people that I talk to on flights.

Someone needs to do something to rebuild this reputation and soon. Maybe the fact that QF operates older a/c or untested a/c is a factor, I don't know. (and before I get flamed, I'm not an engineer or whatever - this is just my perception as a paying customer) but something has to be done. If I were BG, I'd be kicking butts in Engineering. If Mark Webber's car keeps breaking down, do you kick Mark Webber?

Thats my $1k worth (or whatever I've paid for travel over the last few weeks).

[troppo]

OJA still at Nadi with two engines getting attention when I was past there about 3PM

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Well they flew OJA home from Fiji and guess what? Thats right the engine sh!t itself again. Being changed now.

[C441]

Not quite true Steve.
The engine operated normally from departure Nadi to shutdown in Sydney.
You are no doubt correct that it was changed after the aircraft returned to Sydney but it certainly did not "**** itself" on the way back.

Oh and Troppo; only one engine had a problem despite the fact that you may have seen activity around two.

[troppo]

And that's why I worded it the way I did. Never said two engines had problems. Said two were getting attention and that could have been minimal if nothing at all one of them.

[ampclamp]

Add the BKK air return to the list.
Not a good look.Another roller broken.
Trend? looks like it to me.