PDA

View Full Version : QF Engineering Part 145... FAIL?


Nassensteins Monster
13th Oct 2012, 08:12
Public air transport operations using large aircraft must have maintenance performed by a Part 145 approved organisation.

Anybody heard the "rumour" that CASA has given QF Engineering management's application to be a Part 145 maintenance organisation a big FAIL?

If true, it raises plenty of questions.

Ummm... didn't QF Engineering management WANT this system? How long have they had to prepare for it? What HAVE they been doing? Who has the most egg on his face?

What let them down? Was it...

A management system which is desirably integrated and will produce aviation safety and quality outcomes?

A process for preventative and corrective actions of maintenance errors?

A staff training program?

Adequate facilities?

Jethro Gibbs
13th Oct 2012, 09:08
Adequate facilities Would have to be one of the reasons this mob is so far behind the times when compared to other industries its not funny Avalon is a great example the staff here have made do with inadequate facilities and equipment since the beginning .

ampclamp
13th Oct 2012, 09:26
Nass's monster..,Rumour has it, that is the case but I'm not in the loop.Would not surprise if it was designed to fail. Sounds like they may have left a lot of things until the last gasp. Too busy busting unions I suspect.:rolleyes:

ALAEA Fed Sec
13th Oct 2012, 09:56
There have been too many errors caused by systemic problems. They have been smashed by the growing list of breaches due to the MOD rubbish they put in place. Please keep reporting these problems to the ALAEA. Its the only way they get to CASA now that Qantas themselves keep blocking any SDRs reported by LAMEs.

I understand their failure to follow their own change management procedure is delaying their 145 approval.

mightyauster
13th Oct 2012, 13:18
I believe, but can't find a reference for it right now, all Australian Class A RPT aircraft are to be maintained by CASA Part 145 AMO's from June next year and no extensions to this will be allowed. I find it hard to believe that Qantas will not have this change in place in time, but I guess anything is possible.:}

gobbledock
13th Oct 2012, 13:53
I find it hard to believe that Qantas will not have this change in place in time, but I guess anything is possible.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gifNot hard to believe at all when you have a group of........to busy cutting staff, quality and systems, looking after mates, and enlarging their bonus portfolios. This mob lost sight of the ball a long time ago so I am not surprised they lost sight of this small change in the system. Besides, the term 'change management' is not in their inventory so they wouldnt know what it actulally means, also sounds like their 'risk management' processes are still a pile of steaming doo doo, any mature risk assessment would have identified there was a lot of work to be done here!

Tsk tsk it's not the QF it was years ago is it?

mightyauster
13th Oct 2012, 14:31
It's not a small change at all GD, upgrading from CAR 30 to Part 145 and I do know JHAS and AMSA are already EASA Part 145 compliant and VA are well under way.
I am also lead to believe it was Qantas that stalled the Part 66 change process. Back in 2007, CASA decreed that all new aircraft types would be maintained by full Part 66 compliant personnel only. VA spent a large amount of money putting their LAME's through the Part 66 conversion at Aviation Australia, for the introduction of the Embraer 170's and 190's, as this was the first type to be affected by this change. The VA B777's were to next, hence SIAEC bringing down dozens of their LAME's from SIN to get their CASA licenses, as VAI were/are using SIAEC's approval for maintenance.
I have been told though, that Qantas bitched to CASA about the cost of putting their LAME's through Part 66 conversion, so the decree was knocked on the head. I guess the situation wasn't helped by Aviation Australia being the only CASA approved training organisation at the time, with a monopoly status and costs to match.

gobbledock
13th Oct 2012, 15:22
Sorry Mightyauster, my comment was meant as tongue in cheek. I agree with you entirely, it is most certainly not a small change internally and externally. Had QF been the QF of yesteryear they would have certainly been on the ball and gotten the changes over the line with a fair amount of blood, sweat and tears but they would not have dropped the ball so to speak.
If they had quality management who understood and could foresee the future changes, combined with less interest in fighting Engineers and sacking them then they would be sailing through calmer waters I believe.

Kharon
13th Oct 2012, 19:51
I was looking for a reference yesterday, thought I'd seen something in a Phelan article a while ago. Anyway; I eventually found the two year old piece and there at the bottom (right down) I came across a readers comments, posted very recently (11/10/12).

To hell with the rules. Phelan. (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2010/10/to-hell-with-the-rules/)

The comments are hard to find, they are a looong way down, right at the bottom of the page; it's a long article too. If you have time and a cuppa they are worth the trouble (IMO).

Why? can someone please explain, do seem to have these endless problems: the rest of the world seems to be able to develop, implement and work with changes to systems and regulation. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

hiwaytohell
14th Oct 2012, 00:45
Why? can someone please explain, do seem to have these endless problems: the rest of the world seems to be able to develop, implement and work with changes to systems and regulationUnfortunately other parts of the world have their share of problems as well. EASA is still going through a lot of pain and last I saw had an ongoing battle managing the local interpretation/application of the rules by the different NAAs. Having dealt with the UKCAA, the French DGAC and the German LLB. EASA is not without its share of issues.

Likewise the FAA is struggling with Parts 42, 66, 145 & 147, and last I heard was closely looking at parts of the Australian rules as well as using our VET system as a model.

From what I saw, Bruce Byron was on the right track, but he had a pretty big dinosaur to deal with. The team he put in place to manage the suite we are talking about (Parts 42,66, 145 & 147) were headed up by some very good people like Hondo Grattan, plus had some very good industry representatives.

Unfortunately, I am told, what was pretty good draft legislation, became utter crap after the Office of Legal Council got their hands on it.

Secondly, partly due to external pressure, the project team did not get to finish the job... such as the B3 for GA.

Thirdly there were a few of the dinosaurs that were moved (or left) under Bruce Byron still yapping from the sidelines because while this carping goes on the real job is not getting the attention it deserves.

The current legislation / system is far from perfect, but it is not the dog's breakfast some would have you believe.

thorn bird
14th Oct 2012, 20:58
"The current legislation / system is far from perfect, but it is not the dog's breakfast some would have you believe."

Which probably explains why other countries in our region are beating a path to NZ's door seeking to adopt their regulations, which seem to work,along with a lot of business from the USA, dont see any offshore work coming Australia's way with our legislation.
Our legislation seems more focused on beating the record for the amount of paper work required to comply with it and of course maximizing CASA's profits to ensure healthy bonuses for its directors.

Kharon
15th Oct 2012, 00:26
HW2H# 10 - Unfortunately other parts of the world have their share of problems as well. EASA is still going through a lot of pain and last I saw had an ongoing battle managing the local interpretation/application of the rules by the different NAAs. Most enlightening post for may reason (I did read the full version), thankyou: I note again the 'old enemy raises it's ugly head.

ongoing battle managing the local interpretation/application of the rules by the different NAAs. Blackie could you without spilling too many beans indicate how many of your NCN were 'subjective', i.e. based on opinion and interpretation. Understand if not; but the amount of times I fall over 'opinion' forced into a compliance exposition is a significant number. I am wondering just 'how' much this 'interpretation farce' is a radical cause of aggravation. It certainly is to flight operations.

thorn bird
15th Oct 2012, 02:15
and Blacky I guess nobody has bothered to add up just what all this is costing and is going to cost in the future?
Whats the point of it? will it lead to better maintenance? or just never ending box ticking that flying training has become, with no appreciable improvement in standards, the only improvement being CASA's bottom line and of course directors bonuses.
The rule of the regulator is becoming rampant along with the corruption.

Engineer_aus
16th Oct 2012, 13:05
June Next year and we are mid through October 2012 now. $50 there will be an extension.

Kharon
19th Oct 2012, 19:44
Tanks Blackie, curious now. Does the 145 'matrix' come with a compliance 'briefing', for want of a better word. Some form of advice on the how of doing it, or are you just left to swing on your own hook? hoping you got most of it right.

LeadSled
23rd Oct 2012, 14:24
Apart from PNG, which other countries are using NZ Regs?Blackhand,
As I recall, several of the CIS states, and several of the small Caribbean nations. I certainly discussed this with the Bermuda DCA, quite a few years ago, now.

It's not just the "rules", it is the vastly different approach by NZ CAA.

A some of you may be aware, ANZ has just opened its new completion center, already there is a backlog of BBJs, the first "green" one is already in progress.

NZ has just been voted the best country in the world to start a new business, Singapore No2. --- where was AU ---- well down the list, 12, from memory.

Can you imagine trying to run a business like that in Australia --- not just CASA making it impossible, but all the other bureaucracies that get to put the boot in, making Australia hugely uncompetitive.

As Senator Heffernan reminded everybody yesterday in Canberra, OH&S "rules" prevented firefighter from fighting some bushfires in the Brindabellas, result, large swags of Canberra were burnt out when the fire finally moved in a big way.

And--- don't just blame the value of the AU$$, if Lufthansa can make a profit on MRO at German cost levels, where are we going in Australia.

and one would imagine not open to interpretation.Mate, are you fair dinkum???

There are some real bunfights going on ---- and, please, people, don't imagine the Australian Part 145 ( or Part 66) is really anything like EASA or FAA Part 145, or much like the Part 145 that the Byron team put together.

I know of two small CAR 30s who are having huge difficulties with a CASA Part 145 Exposition** --- apart from the sheer volume of regulations and MOS --- it's the ever changing interpretations --- and that goes for Part 66.

For an Australian org. to get an EASA or FAA Part 145 approval is a piece of cake, compared to CASA.

Tootle pip!!

** Exposition - French for --- guess what?? Manual!!

hiwaytohell
25th Oct 2012, 06:41
Good post Leadie

Re the NZ CAA.

The first significant difference is their clarity of purpose:

Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand (http://www.caa.govt.nz/about_caa/vision.htm)

Our Vision

Safe and secure civil aviation.
Our Mission

To manage safety and security risks in New Zealand civil aviation through the implementation of efficient oversight, regulatory, and promotional action.
Strategic Priorities:



effective entry control and monitoring;
effective analysis and intervention;
international alignment and effective engagement;
responsive to aviation sector changes; and
capable and efficient business processes, information systems, and people.

The red highlighting is mine.

The entire organisation can and often is held accountable to the stated Vision, Mission and Priorities.

Unfortunately our CASA has no such clarity of purpose, which leave so much open to interpretation.

The second big difference is a capable Board, aligned with the public and industry that appoints the Director General.

The Authority (http://www.caa.govt.nz/about_caa/contact_caa_staff/Authority_page.htm)

As for Part 145 the biggest current problem I see is the lack of guidance and standardisation between the different CASA people involved in the assessment process (in no small part due to the crap drafting by the Office of Legal Council).

Quote:
and one would imagine not open to interpretation. Exactly. However the 145 applications in Australia are dogged by this very problem of interpretation and opinion rather than compliance.

Mind you having dealt with EASA the French DGAC are nearly as bad!

moa999
25th Oct 2012, 11:48
And--- don't just blame the value of the AU$$, if Lufthansa can make a profit on MRO at German cost levels, where are we going in Australia.

Pricing their services in Euros.... yes that fine currency dragged substantially down by lets see Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain, Ireland....

German Industry is making money hand over fist thanks to the crazily weak Euro at present, just that the US is even more of a basket case.

Ngineer
25th Oct 2012, 19:42
I thought per 145 rules that you needed a certain number of B1 and B2 guys in each section.

This is obviously not the case with some aircraft types. Seems like a play on words, a mis-representation of the rules, or a work-around how some-ones else may interpret them.

But either way it is definately not a safe way of operating in my eyes.

POT100
27th Oct 2012, 10:54
If Australia wanted to be part of the EASA system they should've taken it verbatim, instead of bastardising it and then finding out it doesn't work..Duh!!!!!!..
Part 66,145,147 has be runnning pretty well in Europe, certainly UK, although its not a perfect system..

Unfortunately QF have a Quality system thats deeply flawed.Which other modern airline could allow a fake LAME through!!..All the while, QF LAMEs have to do more and more bullshit like mountains of paperwork, carry more ID cards etc etc..As usual, with this company, we'll just skate around the problem not rectify it, which ultimately costs the business millions!!!..

But have no fear, ..MOD will save us millions!!!!!....yay
:ugh: