PDA

View Full Version : Defect Reports


ALAEA Fed Sec
9th Nov 2012, 00:01
Hey guys I just wanted to open a bit of discussion on something that is concerning me. Here we are at a time when Qantas are trying to shaft any employee under the sun and today we are sent in something like this. It appears to be an example of us, "employees", digging our own graves by bending rules to make the unworkable Qantas system work. Can any crew or Engineer reading this explain how it could be legally explained away. We have already reported it to CASA btw, it sits with another dozen we reported last week.


First sector - Aircraft defected by crew into Adl. At some point crossed out as entered in error. No Engineers called.



http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/1245/13426564.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/827/13426564.png/)




Second Sector - Almost exact defect that was entered in error was reported into Syd.




http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/2151/49514929.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/208/49514929.png/)



How could this be? Unless I am missing something, this is what is costing Engineers jobs and an airline, its safety reputation.

Short_Circuit
9th Nov 2012, 00:31
Look at the rego, its one of AJ's new gen aircraft that fix themselves.

swh
9th Nov 2012, 00:35
The crew may have entered it on the wrong page, and the database entry only may have been done for both coupons in SYD.

ALAEA Fed Sec
9th Nov 2012, 00:50
The crew may have entered it on the wrong page, and the database entry only may have been done for both coupons in SYD.

Thought about that scenario. The coupons are entered into a database by an Engineer directly from what is written on the log coupons.

Prior to a flight if there was no defect, the crew must write "Nil" or "Nil Defects". So if this was the case and done properly, why would the crew accidently enter a defect into an already used coupon?

The Green Goblin
9th Nov 2012, 02:34
Steve,

I respect you, but it's probably not too bright posting that on a public forum. I'm sure if you emailed the guys at AIPA or any of the tech guys privately you'd get the response you required.

swh
9th Nov 2012, 03:03
"Prior to a flight if there was no defect, the crew must write "Nil" or "Nil Defects"."

I think you mean post flight.

"So if this was the case and done properly, why would the crew accidentally enter a defect into an already used coupon? "

If you are saying that no engineer was called in ADL, then one would have to assume both coupons were entered on return to SYD. The crew would have had both pages. Would not be the first time someone opened up the the wrong page, or even skipped a page.

"but it's probably not too bright posting that on a public forum"

I agree, esp when tracking who views database records is so easily tracked these days. It might cost someone their job.

ALAEA Fed Sec
9th Nov 2012, 04:36
Yes you are right, post flight. Is pre the next flight though.

About posting it here. We aren't having any luck going through official channels. I don't expect AIPA to have a crack at their members, that's not their job. I've posted it here so at least the crews who read it can understand the impact of what is taking place. I really just want the message to get out there, please report defects as they occur wherever you are.

We did a survey of 1800 flts to/from unmanned ports. 93% of defects occured on the sectors back to the capital city. 7% only to Kgi, Kta, Zne etc.... This is statistically not possible unless people are bending the rules.

If this coupon leads to a pilot being disciplined or sacked (unlikely but possible), then so be it. 500 Engineers are about to lose their jobs partially because all of us are bastardising a flawed system to make Alan Joyce look like a hero. Tough love is required before it is too late.

hadagutfull
9th Nov 2012, 04:41
ATA 9980?? No MAINT staff??
In ADL? That's a manned port isn't it?

Syd eng
9th Nov 2012, 04:48
Not for LAME less trainsits

NuckingFuts
9th Nov 2012, 04:57
Stinks of peanut pilots to piss weak to do their jobs and write up defects when they happen. More concerned about losing their jobs than losing peoples lives.

:mad:

LAME2
9th Nov 2012, 05:05
Without any evidence to the contrary, I quote Commissioner Logan in a recent determination;

"were not the acts of men faithful to their trade responsibilities"

ALAEA Fed Sec
9th Nov 2012, 05:14
It's not about any of us doing something deliberately wrong. It's about a flawed system. In this case I fully suspect a paperwork mistake, if not the rules have been bent in an alarming manner. We all make mistakes because of the high pressure environment. If they go unchecked, they become norms.

Is it normal to allow 93% of defects to be reported one way and 7% the other? Even CASA didn't give a cods wad about this when we wrote to them. This industry needs oversight and nobody is providing it. Things need to change or we will lose our collective reputations.

I'm sorry if some poor bastard is fronted by management over this, I will be the first to help them but I think for all of us, something needs to change and it must start somewhere and somehow. We need to reverse the rot.

golfjet744
9th Nov 2012, 05:39
About posting it here. We aren't having any luck going through official channels.

If your sphere of influence is such that you can't go through the official channels with something as small as this then it's no wonder your members are getting smashed.

I really just want the message to get out there, please report defects as they occur wherever you are.

If that's what you want then great motives but completely inappropriate method.

Managers Perspective
9th Nov 2012, 07:40
Very poor form.

This is nothing but a slur on the professionalism of the flight crew.

Dragging everyone down with you is not a credible survival strategy.

It is this behaviour that stops key decision makers listening to your proposals, that is not the best outcome for your members.

MP.

Arnold E
9th Nov 2012, 07:59
Was the defect there or not? that is the only important question??

mmciau
9th Nov 2012, 08:05
Should there be a aircraft related fatality or an aircraft related accident that a Coroner deems to be in the "public interest', then the person or persons that change or alter an Aircraft Maintenance Report that leads to an aircraft incident, then watch out.

Mike

ALAEA Fed Sec
9th Nov 2012, 08:23
Of course I don't expect someone viewing things from a managers perspective to agree with this. Most managers want to sweep things under the carpet. More importantly I'd like to highlight a small snippet from a previous comment.


with something as small as this

How big does an aviation error need to be before you address the problem? We don't know if this is a paperwork issue or a greater one. I find the bigger danger is complacency and it has crept into so many aspects of Australian Aviation because some people couldn't give a damn.

So how small is this? Is it the sign of a systemic problem? Should we turn a blind eye because it is only small? How do you even measure how small it is? How big does an error have to get before a plane is brought down?

framer
9th Nov 2012, 08:28
Arnold E Was the defect there or not? that is the only important question??

There is another important question. Should the tech-log be scanned and posted on a public forum in order to further the aims of the union when nobody is sure if anyone has erred? Half of QF domestic will look at their rosters and figure out who was flying the aircraft that day and form an opinion about the crews actions even though the crews actions might have been fine.worse still, it will probably force public follow up action.
Basically one of two ILS receivers was poked.For all we know it was a gin clear day in both ADL and Sydney, with a multitude of different approaches available at either end, the DDG probably would have let them depart anyway......and now someone's career could be on the line because of politicking? ......rubbish.
There is probably a wife and kids relying on that salary, I doubt SP will be popping around to help out if someone does lose their job, I also doubt that posting it will help his cause because it indicates he's lost touch with real people doing real jobs in the real world, and is wholly wrapped up in the ego war that has developed.
Framer

Arnold E
9th Nov 2012, 08:32
I ask again, was the defect there or not? dont see why its a hard question, not interested in how many backups were available, the defect either existed or it didnt, if it did someone lied, simple as that!

Dont care if he/she has 10 kids at a private school

framer
9th Nov 2012, 08:33
We don't know if this is a paperwork issue or a greater one.
Precisely why you should have got more information before putting it in a public forum. If it is just a paperwork issue, and the fault occurred on the return sector, you have most likely caused someone a whole lot of grief in order to push your point.

framer
9th Nov 2012, 08:35
There would have been a fault Arnold, where the fault occurred is the question. If it happened on the return sector then there is no problem as the crew ( or Engineer) wrote EIE.

ALAEA Fed Sec
9th Nov 2012, 08:37
If it is just a paperwork issue, and the fault occurred on the return sector, you have most likely caused someone a whole lot of grief in order to push your point

If the crew who wrote this know it is a paperwork issue, why would they have any grief?

framer
9th Nov 2012, 08:49
Maybe they won't. But if it was me I would be annoyed if a tech log entry I wrote ended up being posted on the Internet by a union as an example of dodgy practices. I would be even more annoyed if I then had to explain myself during any type of investigation, an investigation that wouldn't have happened if it had'nt been posted on the Internet as a prop for the Union/ Management dust up that never seems to end.
Why don't you identify the Engineers that left the flight control rigging pins in or the ones that didn't reconnect the pitot static lines while you're at it?
( I was being facetious then, please don't)

Arnold E
9th Nov 2012, 09:13
I would be annoyed if a tech log entry I wrote ended up being posted on the Internet
If it was fair dinkum WHY???

Actually dont worry, there wont be any [email protected]#$king engineers left soon so you wont have to worry:ugh:

piston broke again
9th Nov 2012, 09:18
Why turn this into an engineers vs pilots debate over work practices? Some of u guys are pathetic and it makes me sick.

soldier of fortune
9th Nov 2012, 09:25
Can the moderater close this down please!!!!!

framer
9th Nov 2012, 09:31
If it was fair dinkum, and being used as an example of "bending rules" , then I would be annoyed as it was not " bending rules" .....it was fair dinkum.

This was posted and given as an example of employees", digging our own graves by bending rules . Ie , it is saying that this crew acted illegally, they were flying aircraft XYZ on such and such a date to this location. So if my entry was fair dinkum and that was posted, I'd most likely hop in my car and drive around to Steves house and ask for an apology.

None of us actually know what the result of any investigation into this was or will be. As Fed Sec said, it could just be a paperwork error. The tech log itself might be normal and the information was entered into the data base incorrectly. it wouldn't be the first time someone has made a data entry error.
It was not appropriate to post the scanned document on the Internet.
That's my two cents worth anyway.
Have a good day.

ALAEA Fed Sec
9th Nov 2012, 09:37
Why don't you identify the Engineers that left the flight control rigging pins in or the ones that didn't reconnect the pitot static lines while you're at it?


You have obviously read my press release. Take note that I am the first to point out that Engineers are making mistakes now too because of understaffing, lack of training and excessive tasks in the wee hours.

I've made mistakes too and we all have to be big enough to admit them in what is meant to be a no blame culture environment. I can tell you my biggest stuff up, and it was such a small issue that you would think it almost trivial. It caused a rejected take off on a 767 when the takeoff warning horn starting blaring away on the runway.

I'd put a diode in back to front. I got the polarity wrong on a component so small you almost need a magnafying glass to see it. The bloke who did the back up check on my wiring job (with mutimeter) didn't detect it because he had the red and black leads orientated so as not to detect the problem. All this casued a RTO with 300 people on board.

We can't protect each other by not reporting errors (paperwork or real) because we don't want someone to get in trouble. We need to learn from mistakes to make our industry safer. I did not post this to embarass the crew and will take it down for a bit whilst I blank out the flight numbers and dates.

I am of a mind to post a few more serious issues we have reported to CASA though. This system is failing and it will end in an accident. 500 less Engineers will make it worse.

golfjet744
9th Nov 2012, 09:42
I'd like to highlight a small snippet from a previous comment.

Too close to the bone was I? The reality is you have almost zero influence within Qantas and how it operates. This one off paperwork issue can hardly be called systemic.

I find it sad that someone of your smarts and passion resorts to these cheap stunts.

Your better than that. The engineers are better than this. The proud Qantas brand and tradition is built on great engineers who didn't resort to cheap stunts that demean their profession.

rmcdonal
9th Nov 2012, 09:43
It was not appropriate to post the scanned document on the Internet. I agree.
I am of a mind to post a few more serious issues we have reported to CASA though. This system is failing and it will end in an accident. I also agree that making issues public is useful, however not the way this was done.

The Green Goblin
9th Nov 2012, 09:46
Steve,

If you were a Pilot and you were flying something like an Airbus and had to do a reset on a sector to an outport with no engineering, would you write it up at the outport? Or on the way back to base to be signed off?

It isn't black and white out there, just shades of gray.

Oh Me Oh My
9th Nov 2012, 09:47
I've sat on the fence for long enough now I might lose my job because I turned a blind eye or wouldn't put my hand up and report for fear of upsetting the boss. My reward is that my job is on the line (I only have 2 tickets).
From now on its black or white right or wrong.

Wellwellwell
9th Nov 2012, 09:53
Can you post a Virgin tech log, a Tiger one, Rex, or maybe Skywest or Alliance.......oh that's right it's just a Qantas thing.....right?

ALAEA Fed Sec
9th Nov 2012, 09:58
If you were a Pilot and you were flying something like an Airbus and had to do a reset on a sector to an outport with no engineering, would you write it up at the outport? Or on the way back to base to be signed off?

It isn't black and white out there, just shades of gray.

There are no shades of grey in Engineering. That's why we are Engineers and not artists. You have rules. You follow them. If you disagree with the rule, you question it.

So a reset on an airbus would depend if there was a flt ops procedure to cover it. If not and you reset a CB (not sure what you would want to reset), there is a procedure to follow. Circuits break for a reason remember, the source of the fault may need to be investigated.

Again if you trivialise this simple task of resetting a circuit, you may think it can be done to any circuit. So I'd have to know. Why would a pilot be resetting something at a non manned port in the first place?

Jethro Gibbs
9th Nov 2012, 09:59
From now on its black or white right or wrong.


Its to late now the ship has sailed .

A_Vinculo_Terrae
9th Nov 2012, 10:08
If licenced professionals are breaching laws, losing income/jobs should be the least of their worries. As a recent event has high-lighted, it seems not to matter in the eyes of CASA who was at fault, it all lies with the licenced PIC.

Like being issued a drivers licence has responsibilities, so too does an Engineer/Pilots licence, at the higher end of penalty being potential criminal action for breaches of legislation. An older Captain gave me the advice "on the tarmac there are only two groups with licences - the engineers and the pilots. We are the ones held to that standard and as such comes the responsibility of the licence."

This information could have been obtained under FOI rules if someone knew to ask for it. Perhaps censoring of the flight number and date would prevent employee investigators determining the personnel involved. If they have followed the rules there would be no issue in regards to defending their actions. This potentially raises questions of whether this is limited to QF or more widespread?

If an MEL grounds an aircraft at a non-maintenance port then so be it. After all it is the company who has elected to make it a non-maintenance personnel port and are the signatory authority on what is included in the MEL book.

framer
9th Nov 2012, 10:09
You have obviously read my press release. Take note that I am the first to point out that Engineers are making mistakes now too because of understaffing, lack of training and excessive tasks in the wee hours.
To clarify my position on this....I am not anti Engineers or pro pilots.

I've made mistakes too and we all have to be big enough to admit them in what is meant to be a no blame culture environment.
There is not an adult alive who doesn't make mistakes, we all know that.
No blame cultures don't work. That's why the whole concept of them has been dropped in most modern industries. I'd be surprised if it was still in vogue in Australia, and even more surprised if it was still the way in Australian Aviation.

I agree with you that reporting of incidents is critical if we as an industry are going to create error tolerant systems. By publicly posting potential examples of errors (yet to be investigated) you will not create a strong safety culture, you will weaken it, and you will not get the reporting trends you are after with a weak safety culture.
In short, you are shooting yourself in the foot if your goal is a strong reporting culture.

ALAEA Fed Sec
9th Nov 2012, 10:25
Maybe I started this thread knowing too much from the inside.

By publicly posting potential examples of errors (yet to be investigated) you will not create a strong safety culture, you will weaken it, and you will not get the reporting trends you are after with a weak safety culture.
In short, you are shooting yourself in the foot if your goal is a strong reporting culture.

Just imagine if some fool posted an aviation error publically. It scared people from future reporting and things were constantly hidden by aviation employees in case this fool posted something else. - I think it get it.

What we have is this - things are being reported and nothing gets done. How are we to break this cycle?

Arnold E
9th Nov 2012, 10:31
What we have is this - things are being reported and nothing gets done. How are we to break this cycle?

It looks to me that Q is breaking the cycle by getting rid of engineers, and it would appear to me that some people here are happy with that.

HF3000
9th Nov 2012, 10:38
A plausible explanation: Crew operate into ADL with NIL defects. It is common to fill out all sections of the coupon during flight and leave the report section blank until after shutdown. Before MOD, the crew would fill out NIL defects prior to passing the tech log out the window.

Since MOD, the tech log doesn't get passed out the window, so it is conceivable that during this transition period the crew forget to write NIL defects, and as they are transiting on the same aircraft they don't check that the tech log is complete before departing on the same aircraft.

On the next sector to SYD they have an MMR failure. The other pilot is PNF this time, so he opens the tech log to write it up. Before MOD it was not normal to see the white copy of the previous coupon because it had always been pulled by the engineers at the previous port. The PNF sees that the coupon has already been partly filled out and assumes the other guy did it earlier in that sector. He reports the failure in that coupon and at some stage later on or after shutdown they realise that they have reported the defect on the wrong coupon. They correct the error in the correct way: that is, they use the EIE protocol so that it doesn't look like anyone is trying to cover anything up.

This is a very probable scenario, particularly while the crew are still coming to terms with this MOD stuff.

ALAEA Fed Sec
9th Nov 2012, 10:47
HF - This is exactly what I wanted to hear and the most likely scenario.

It supports our concern, that this MOD thing was introduced without thought, appropriate mechanisms or training. It would have meant that a breach still had occured by leaving Adl with the coupon not completed. This is a paperwork error.

If I get a chance I will post some of the very real incidents that have occured in last few months. I will de-identify everything, this is not meant to embarass, just a reality check thing.

The two that come to mind are the plane that flew for weeks with no fuel filter fitted to an engine and the aircraft that was about to push with ice above and below wing.

clark y
9th Nov 2012, 10:49
I don't know how QF's paperwork is done, but the statistic of 93% of reports at manned ports versus 7% at unmanned ports is startling. Get homeitis is a very powerful force.

Velikiye Luki
9th Nov 2012, 10:51
Total agree with HF's scenario....

The Mr Fixit
9th Nov 2012, 17:07
All licenced personnel must comply with the regs - end of story

Defects must be reported when and where they occur, regardless of nature, let the licenced professional decide how it is to be actioned.

Defects must be attended to, rectified (or put on hold or MEL) and signed off in the correct manner - no excuses.

All of us Pilots, Engineers, Flight Attendants, Ramp staff have set responsibilities - follow them - NO SHORT CUTS.

Last but not least - we are all in this boat together, like it or not, time to realise that SOLIDARITY IS THE ONLY ANSWER.

DO THE RIGHT THING,
FLY IT,REPORT IT AND SIGN IT,
AS IF YOUR FAMILY IS ON BOARD.

unseen
9th Nov 2012, 22:13
Defects must be attended to, rectified (or put on hold or MEL) and signed off in the correct manner - no excuses.


Not if it is at a non maintenance port and considered a minor defect by the pilot in command.

Sunfish
9th Nov 2012, 22:27
"the warning light didn't go on until just after we took off" was the old phrase. Doesn't work though in the digital age and there should be traces somewhere if something went inop.

gobbledock
10th Nov 2012, 00:40
I don't think some people here understand what I believe to be Steve's methods.
The system is f#cked, hundreds of jobs (and the majority are NOT redundant positions, they are being made to look redundant due to clever PR and spin) are going, along with hundreds before.
Planes have moving parts, moving parts break, broken parts need fixing. The rhetoric that all these jobs need axing due to more modern technological aircraft is crap. A restructuring perhaps, yes. Change is part of life. But mass redundancies based on more modern planes? Bollocks.

Is it normal to allow 93% of defects to be reported one way and 7% the other? Even CASA didn't give a cods wad about this when we wrote to them. This industry needs oversight and nobody is providing it. Things need to change or we will lose our collective reputations. Bloody good point. The figures, if correctly analysed and trended are worrying, very worrying, and mathematically not possible under normal operating conditions.
It is ironic, not surprising, but ironic that CASA aren't worried. Doesn't the Regulator require an operator to do the following:
- Report
- Analyse
- Trend
- Mitigate
- Change
- Fix
- Review
etc etc etc?
All as proof that the internal operating system is being monitored, reviewed and improved. All as part of the 'change management' process and improvement, as per the operators SMS? Hmmm.
So let's think about it, Steve and friends have done this, yet CASA turn a blind eye and aren't interested?
It would also indicate the Human Factors training and education isn't working?
It would also indicate the 'Just Culture' component of the organisation isn't working?
Hang on - SMS, HF, Just Culture, all required under the Regulations. I didn't think it was acceptable to not comply with the Regulations?

Aren't Steve and friends identifying 'holes in the Swiss cheese? Latent conditions? And the Regulator and QF management aren't interested? It does beggar belief. And if Steve's data is accurate and QF and CASA won't even listen or act interested then I would say there are some very real concerns here. When was it that the FAA and ICAO were coming back?

Creampuff
10th Nov 2012, 00:42
Not if it is at a non maintenance port and considered a minor defect by the pilot in command.Really?

I don’t see that as an exception to regulation 50:(1) This regulation applies to each of the following persons:

(a) the holder of the certificate of registration for an Australian aircraft;

(b) the operator of an Australian aircraft;

(c) a flight crew member of an Australian aircraft.

(2) If:

(a) there is a defect in the aircraft; or

(b) …

a person mentioned in subregulation (1), who becomes aware of the defect …, must endorse the maintenance release of the aircraft or other document approved for use as an alternative for the purposes of this regulation, setting out the particulars of the defect … and sign the endorsement.

Penalty: 25 penalty units.And as a matter of interest, how does the pilot judge what's 'minor', and what airline permits this procedure?

gobbledock
10th Nov 2012, 00:45
And as a matter of interest, how does the pilot judge what's 'minor', and what airline permits this procedure?
Bingo!!! Creamy, I am starting to warm to you mate. Excellent point :ok:

unseen
10th Nov 2012, 01:55
Not if it is at a non maintenance port and considered a minor defect by the pilot in command.Really?

I don’t see that as an exception to regulation 50:(1) This regulation applies to each of the following persons:

(a) the holder of the certificate of registration for an Australian aircraft;

(b) the operator of an Australian aircraft;

(c) a flight crew member of an Australian aircraft.

(2) If:

(a) there is a defect in the aircraft; or

(b) …

a person mentioned in subregulation (1), who becomes aware of the defect …, must endorse the maintenance release of the aircraft or other document approved for use as an alternative for the purposes of this regulation, setting out the particulars of the defect … and sign the endorsement.

Penalty: 25 penalty units.And as a matter of interest, how does the pilot judge what's 'minor', and what airline permits this procedure?

Yes you have to write it in the tech log.

However, for one airline in Aus, if it is considered a minor defect by the PIC at a non maintenance port then no action is required prior to departure. Rarely used because we prefer to ask our LAMEs.

Also remember that the flight crew can apply certain MELs that do not require maintenance action in certain circumstances.

Managers Perspective
10th Nov 2012, 02:33
Yes the defect has to be written in the Tech Log (CASA approved Alternate Maintenance Release), but the Maintenance Release only "ceases to be in force" if it is a Major Defect.

Like it or not, that is the Australian Regulation.

CAR(1988)47 refers.

If it is a minor defect the aircraft may be flown.

MP.

Creampuff
10th Nov 2012, 02:34
MEL/PUS is a different matter. Experts have already assessed the risks arising from the unserviceability, and the circumstances in which they can be appropriately mitigated.

Does the Ops Manual for the airline to which you refer include the procedure for the PIC to make a judgement call at a non-maintenance base?

Creampuff
10th Nov 2012, 02:46
You might want to read CAO 20.18 paragraph 10, MP. Twice.

It depends on whether the 'minor' defect is to an instrument or any equipment.

Creampuff
10th Nov 2012, 06:20
For the benefit of MP:10 Serviceability

10.1 In the case of a charter or regular public transport aircraft, all instruments and equipment fitted to the aircraft must be serviceable before take-off, unless:

(a) flight with unserviceable instruments or equipment has been approved by CASA, subject to such conditions as CASA specifies; or

(b) the unserviceability is a permissible unserviceability set out in the minimum equipment list for the aircraft and any applicable conditions under subregulation 37 (2) of the Regulations have been complied with; or

(c) CASA has approved the flight with the unserviceable instrument or equipment and any applicable conditions that CASA has specified in writing have been complied with; or

(d) the unserviceable instrument or equipment is a passenger convenience item only and does not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft.[Bolding added, except in the heading.]

For my benefit: I request that all PICs who make the judgement call to carry a ‘minor’ defect that isn’t in the list of exceptions above, please make a PA announcement of the decision and the defect.

There's no reasonable ground on which to keep PAX in the dark. After all, it’s legal and zero risk, right?

ALAEA Fed Sec
10th Nov 2012, 07:00
Report: A small amount of fluid found leaking from area at rear of left inboard aileron.

Action: Nil maintenance required before flt as defect is considered minor IAW Managers Perspective post on Pprnue dated 10 Nov at 14.33. To hold until whenever.

ALAEA Fed Sec
10th Nov 2012, 07:24
She'll be right mate, she'll be right mate, export light mate, drink it all night.

Cockpit Voice Recorders: Transcripts: Lauda 004
Time: Source: Contents:
23.21:21 - [Warning light indicated]
23.21:21 FO: Shit.
23.21:24 CA: That keeps, that's come on.
23.22:28 FO: So we passed transition altitude one-zero-one-three
23.22:30 CA: OK.
23.23:57 CA: What's it say in there about that, just ah...
23.24:00 FO: (reading from quick reference handbook) Additional system failures may cause in-flight deployment. Expect normal reverse operation after landing.
23.24:11 CA: OK.
23.24:12 CA: Just, ah, let's see.
23.24:36 CA: OK.
23.25:19 FO:
23.25:26 CA: Ah, you can tell 'em it, just it's, it's, it's, just ah, no, ah, it's probably ah wa... ah moisture or something 'cause it's not just, oh, it's coming on and off.
23.25:39 FO: Yeah.
23.25:40 CA: But, ah, you know it's a ... it doesn't really, it's just an advisory thing, I don't ah ...
23.25:55 CA: Could be some moisture in there or somethin'.
23.26:03 FO: Think you need a little bit of rudder trim to the left.
23.26:06 CA: What's that?
23.26:08 FO: You need a little bit of rudder trim to the left.
23.26:10 CA: OK.
23.26:12 CA: OK.
23.26:50 FO: (starts adding up figures in German)
23.30:09 FO: (stops adding figures)
23.30:37 FO: Ah, reverser's deployed.
23.30:39 - [sound of snap]
23.30:41 CA: Jesus Christ!
23.30:44 - [sound of four caution tones]
23.30:47 - [sound of siren warning starts]
23.30:48 - [sound of siren warning stops]
< starts and continues until the recording ends]
23.30:53 CA: Here, wait a minute!
23.30:58 CA: Damn it!
23.31:05 - [sound of bang]

Arnold E
10th Nov 2012, 08:09
Looks like a minor defect there Fed Sec!

Just a bit of moisture:ugh:

Long Bay Mauler
10th Nov 2012, 09:19
At the end of the day, the LAME who certified for the defect should raise an SDR on a Form 500, if he/she hasn't already? Also, a report should be made independently to CASA, followed up with a letter explaining what the situation is to both the Minister for Transport and the Opposition Shadow Minister. They can only ignore the alarm bells for so long.

For those who are unaware, the LAME owns the licence, not Qantas. We still have a duty to ourselves and the public, even if there are certain pilots(99% do the right thing,and have the highest ethical standards), and certain managers(reverse the last statement) wish to ignore the procedures as set out by said management.

If the LAME feels the system is failing, its time to step outside of the company procedures and alert CASA (who may not want to hear) and those who make the decisions, the politicians. If nobody wants to listen, then there is not much more that can be done apart from repeating those steps until an accident occurs and the ATSB gets involved.

legacy LAME
10th Nov 2012, 09:26
Good to hear from you bug a lugs.
Looks like it is game on again.

unseen
10th Nov 2012, 09:41
At the end of the day, the LAME who certified for the defect should raise an SDR on a Form 500, if he/she hasn't already? Also, a report should be made independently to CASA, followed up with a letter explaining what the situation is to both the Minister for Transport and the Opposition Shadow Minister. They can only ignore the alarm bells for so long.

Agree 100% if the flight crew did what you are accusing them of . There are a number of alternative explanations that happen every day that can explain this event.

Be careful - make too many unsubstantiated accusations, accuse too many of the 99% (pilots) of illegal activities, and I give you about 10 minutes before you drive a wedge between our groups that will take years to remove.

LAMEs are not perfect either but I accept their word when they tell me that they mistakenly wrote the wrong date in the Check 2 and they don't need to do another one with 5 minutes prior to pushback because "it really was only done just last night."

The pilots want you around - word of advice - don't alienate them.

gobbledock
10th Nov 2012, 10:26
Fed Sec. Very good post. Let's hope the Rat never gets to feel that occur in it's lifetime. And if it does happen I can only hope she is full of managers and executives on there way to some rort somewhere.

Bug-a-lugs, that is the post of this thread.:ok:

Managers Perspective
10th Nov 2012, 10:37
No need to write anything in the action field, the flight crew can assess and if satisfied it is a minor defect they can continue.

No need for some meddling engineer to come along and impose their self beliefs.

MP.

gobbledock
10th Nov 2012, 10:45
No need for some meddling engineer to come along and impose their self beliefs
And perhsps that was the same rhetoric at Lauda, MP?

Seems like one of the 'Magnificent 11' is bored tonight!!

Sunfish
10th Nov 2012, 10:51
When the holes in the Swiss cheese finally line up, defective, badly maintained, aircraft systems will be one of them.

600ft-lb
10th Nov 2012, 10:52
No need to write anything in the action field, the flight crew can assess and if satisfied it is a minor defect they can continue.

No need for some meddling engineer to come along and impose their self beliefs.

MP.


Funny that..

What about when they see fit to seek the advice of maintenance watch and write as such in the report field on the way back.

What about when they fly back with the above such statement and the aircraft is grounded on arrival with a major defect ?

What about when they write words to the effect of 'this happened on the way over and also on the way back' ?

What about when an MEL is applied and the (M) action is carried out by the pilot ?

I've seen all of the above.

Is that a meddling engineers self belief to say that something here is not right ?

unseen
10th Nov 2012, 10:58
The Lauda aircraft had numerous previous reports of TR defects.

A lot of work had been carried out to no avail.

What is the relevance of this accident to this discussion?

Are you implying that a pilot had not reported something and the aircraft crashed because of this?

Hugh Mungous
10th Nov 2012, 11:00
MP, those "self beliefs" are generally referred to as training and experience. The only employee group that is qualified to determine the severity of a defect and the ability to wade through numerous documents in order to find the correct supporting data to aid their evaluation are the Engineers. Not the tech crew who are in an unmanned port somewhere and who are only paid per their industrial agreement when they are flying, not the cabin crew and certainly not some bloke sitting in an ivory tower in Sydney thousands of km's away from the job, declaring an aircraft serviceable, operating with plausible deniability and never putting their name on paper.

unseen
10th Nov 2012, 11:13
No need for some meddling engineer to come along and impose their self beliefs

Provocative statement mr MP - engineers are trained to be proactive in their assessments and investigations. I want the engineers to be sticklers for the rules and have confidence in their ability to determine if an aircraft is airworthy or not. If engineering management feels that individual LAMEs are unjustly grounding or delaying aircraft then there will be discussions I am sure. Just as I don't let myself get pushed around when in the air, I don't pressure LAMEs into letting me depart in questionable circustances. Even if I tried to do so, every LAME I have ever worked with would not back down.

What about when they see fit to seek the advice of maintenance watch and write as such in the report field on the way back.

That is the documented procedure. There appears to be a lot of argy bargy between the LAMEs and maintenance watch. If that is a problem then that is an internal engineering issue and nothing to do with flight crew - sort it out.

What about when they fly back with the above such statement and the aircraft is grounded on arrival with a major defect ?

See previous - if maintenance watch is not doing the right thing that is an internal engineering issue. We as flight crew have to be able to trust those who are put in positions of advice and guidance in the engineering world, otherwise the whole system will break down.

What about when they write words to the effect of 'this happened on the way over and also on the way back' ?

What about when an MEL is applied and the (M) action is carried out by the pilot ?

Both inexcusable and worthy of tea and bickies with the boss.

ALAEA Fed Sec
10th Nov 2012, 11:24
What about when they write words to the effect of 'this happened on the way over and also on the way back' ?

What about when an MEL is applied and the (M) action is carried out by the pilot ?

Both inexcusable and worthy of tea and bickies with the boss.

I have log coupons of several examples of each of these. The LAMEs are reporting it internally on form 500's. They tick a box to make it an SDR (reportable to CASA). Management overule and don't report to CASA. We do anyway and CASA do not act.

The combination of CASA, Qantas and a useless Govt. are an accident waiting to happen.

Acute Instinct
10th Nov 2012, 11:25
You are driving a modern car, that requires near to no maintenance, and it has tried, 7 times to cross over into on coming traffic. What do you do? You call the service centre. They will know. They will know the last time this happened and how. The driver says he's happy to continue.........

600ft-lb
10th Nov 2012, 11:40
That is the documented procedure. There appears to be a lot of argy bargy between the LAMEs and maintenance watch. If that is a problem then that is an internal engineering issue and nothing to do with flight crew - sort it out.

I have no issue with maintenance watch, they fill the mandated position as required by the regulator and often provide good advice and in all my dealings the guys are great.

I'm happy to be proven wrong - I've never seen that procedure you speak of..

But

Are you sure the procedure allows a verbal instruction from someone sitting in Sydney to allow further flight with an aircraft with an open defect in lieu of what the LAME would do in the same situation ? As in that's the entire reason why LAME's exist in the first place and have a licence granted to them by CASA.

I can imagine a procedure exists so that any defects that occur en route/at an unmanned port need to be reported to maintenance watch for liasing with IOC, engineering rescue support etc. But that's it.

I think pilots need to be aware, a verbal instruction is as good as it never happening. One of the major facets of our trade is and one of Qantas's stated Maintenance Error Reduction Beliefs they like to display everywhere, is to 'only accept written instruction'.

Happy to be proven wrong though. Maybe its just my self belief failing me again.

QF94
10th Nov 2012, 12:24
No need to write anything in the action field, the flight crew can assess and if satisfied it is a minor defect they can continue.

No need for some meddling engineer to come along and impose their self beliefs.

MP.

I couldn't agree with you more MP! I think you are a person of foward vision and deep insight.

I don't like my cups of tea being interrupted for fear of meddling in the service and maintenance of aircraft defects. I'm of an age where meddling engineers fixed aeroplanes and discussed problems with the flight crew. You're of an age where bag chuckers and pilots can assess defects on an aircraft and continue on their way.

I'm with you. I'll just go back and have another cuppa.

gaunty
10th Nov 2012, 13:31
Beginning of the year I spent several months researching and closing the purchase of a Gulfstream.

CASA Part A maintenance requirement as for Qantas.

I had the privilege of working alongside one of the most experienced US engineers in the business and with whom I have worked for many years.

There was much poring over log books and reconciling of flight records.

The vast majority of the operators were as expected 100%, no short cuts, 100% integrity, outside MEL grounded wherever, until fixed.

What was important for us to establish was the integrity of the "signature", pilot and engineers alike, on the flight and maintenance documentation.

Sounds self evident, but sadly not necessarily so. Forensic analysis, experienced listening and a bit of a chat generally gave up the lie if there was one.

We had the notion reinforced beyond any doubt that at the end of the day this whole business depends absolutely like no other on the integrity of that process. I have never had an Australian LAME act otherwise.

I used to think that the Austalian system was right up there at this level.

This thread suggests a breakdown of this integrity on the pilot, management, regulatory side.

Are we at risk of adding an Australian high capacity airline to the list of Royal Commisions, that includes, Seaview, Monarch, Whyalla, Lockhart River and so on.

genxfrog
10th Nov 2012, 13:50
MP...we get your point of view and understand exactly what you're suggesting. Cover it up....shut your mouths.....turn a blind eye.....deny any knowledge....etc etc etc.
This forum has always been an avenue to post rumours, facts, conspiracies, and evidence amongst other things. If you feel uncomfortable about some of the content contained here, I'd suggest you subscribe to something more to your liking such as How to deal with bad bosses, problem supervisors and difficult managers (http://www.badbossology.com/)

Prince Niccolo M
10th Nov 2012, 14:30
Steve said:

I don't expect AIPA to have a crack at their members, that's not their job.

I beg to differ.

I reckon the union has a responsibility to not defend the indefensible - the tenets of "just culture" apply equally to representative bodies as they do to employers.

If the crew was being "operationally clever" in order to get home or not inconvenience their employer, a suggestion not in any way substantiated, then the union should make sure that those pilots know that their actions are illegal and, more importantly, may cover the start of a defect sequence that can bite them in the arse before they get home. If the System of Maintenance, the Maintenance Control Manual and the Defect Rectification Procedures do not adequately cater for the problem occurring at a non-maintenance base, then the problem is for the operator to solve, not the pilots.

The union is there to protect its members and their system of work when both do the right thing. The union is there to protect its members from their system of work when the latter does not do the right thing, but not vice versa.

PS I can't believe that anyone would seriously respond to the troll MP!

gobbledock
10th Nov 2012, 23:44
Are we at risk of adding an Australian high capacity airline to the list of Royal Commisions, that includes, Seaview, Monarch, Whyalla, Lockhart River and so on.
Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. Gaunty, you are an experienced aviator, but do you really need to ask the question? You know the answer, I know the answer, industry knows the answer and so do the Senators.

Tick tock

AEROMEDIC
11th Nov 2012, 01:50
I have log coupons of several examples of each of these. The LAMEs are reporting it internally on form 500's. They tick a box to make it an SDR (reportable to CASA). Management overule and don't report to CASA. We do anyway and CASA do not act.


Fed sec,

Were you able to provide these form 500's, SDR,s (and coupons if necessary) as evidence to any senator sitting on this enquiry for CASA to provide a response?

CASA's job is obvious to all and with evidence presented to them, a response to the senators could be interesting.

aveng
11th Nov 2012, 02:44
There is a way of verifying avionic faults and what leg they occurred on 737NG's - the hud computer stores 99 flt legs of faults and it would indicate if the fault was both sectors.

"We have ways" in german accent

gaunty
11th Nov 2012, 11:37
gobbledygook

I do not doubt fo a moment that LAMEs do right thing, usually under more pressure Han s acceptable.

The fact that you/we (and we might include pilots here but they are hopelessly conflicted) need a union to protect them from their employer and the regulator says it all.

If you cant rely on the regulator to protect your back against commercial and political agenda when you you are simply enforcing the regulatory requirements, then we are all lost.

Slow motion train smash. Innocents will be injured or die, the actors will go to goal or be sent to Coventry, there will be much hand wringing and renting of garments by the actual culprits who will be promoted or rewarded in he usual manner. The legal buzzards will as usual wax rich on the subsequent commission/ enquiry as ever and we will go back to the future.

The circus surrounding the Norfolk accident is evidence of just how totally f!cked is the whole system. As another in these halls observed the bona fide regulators worldwide must be falling of their chairs laughing.

Ban ex RAAF/airline persons from the regulator, contract the service to FAA NZ/CAA, require yearly forensic financial viability audits, reinstate closed skies policy.

Tell him he's dreamin. :uhoh:

gaunty
11th Nov 2012, 11:41
Oh BTW to echo a famous US General during the Normandy invasion observed to his staff when he was faced with a similar cluster, "I wouldn't want you to think I am just simply angry......"

30/30 Green Light
12th Nov 2012, 05:38
600 ft lb,can you point me to the mandated regulatory requirement for maintenance watch please?

SOPS
12th Nov 2012, 06:02
Oh for the days of the DCA and the AFAP tech committee.

Safety Concerns
12th Nov 2012, 07:15
all very interesting. Glad this doesn't go on in Europe. Whatever next, we will have patients telling doctors which illnesses are serious and which not.

Big respect for flyers but please just fly.

Gas Bags
12th Nov 2012, 23:37
As a prior poster pointed out...There are two groups of people in aviation who hold licences. Pilots and engineers.

The pertinent point is that both licences entitle the holder to declare an aircraft unserviceable...Only one licence entitles the holder to declare an aircraft serviceable.

HF3000
13th Nov 2012, 14:02
This thread is varied in it's relevance to the original post, but given many of the responses here it is probably relevant to note the following:

The 93% vs 7% report statistic is just that... a statistic. Statistics can be used or misused for an agenda. So far no evidence has been posted on this thread that identifies a real issue with respect to aircraft maintenance in or out of a "non-maintance port". The argument of a pilot not being qualified to determine whether or not a "defect" affects the airworthiness of his/her aircraft has been blown way out of proportion.

How many of those 93% vs 7% tech log reports were of an airworthiness nature? For example, would you write in a tech log that the windscreen needs cleaning when inbound to a non-maintenance port? Would you write that the ACARS printer paper needs replacing? Would you write that a light bulb needs changing when your ops manual says you can replace it yourself if need be? Would you write that a bit of plastic trim is working loose in the cabin? Would you write that the carpet is dirty? Would you write that a bit of black paint has been worn off the glare shield?

Most tech log reports are of a non-airworthiness nature. The fact that 7% of reports are actually written inbound to non-maintenance ports indicates to me that the pilots ARE doing the right thing and writing issues up when they are of an airworthiness nature.

I haven't personally seen any evidence that pilots in my company are fudging their way through non-maintenance ports with airworthiness defects. If Fed Sec has evidence to the contrary I would fully support him taking that up through the appropriate channels.

Pilots and Engineers are the team that keeps the air safe. Let's work together on this - please no more us/them attitudes between pilots and engineers.

600ft-lb
13th Nov 2012, 16:11
Most tech log reports are of a non-airworthiness nature. The fact that 7% of reports are actually written inbound to non-maintenance ports indicates to me that the pilots ARE doing the right thing and writing issues up when they are of an airworthiness nature.

You are correct with the minor nature of the 93%. I think what needs attention is the seeking advice on the phone from maintenance watch and getting the verbal 'OK' to continue and it'll get sorted out next port.

It's my personal belief that M/W shouldn't be providing technical advice to pilots at an unmanned port where a pilot has determined that 1) there is a defect and 2) seen fit to contact M/W to seek further advice when M/W engineers don't have to put pen to paper after verbally telling a pilot it's fit to fly.

Otherwise wouldn't the company put it in the official procedures like MEL's the pilot can apply ? How about a section about ramp equipment impact damage allowable limits ? How about a section flight controls not returning to neutral positions ? A section on how to clear thrust reverser faults ?

The reason the above don't exist is because no one is brave/stupid enough to approve them without an engineer doing further investigation as to WHY the problem happened in the first place. Ask Mr Purvinas if he has proof of the above examples. I'd bet my left one he does.

At the end of the day, if something goes wrong you won't be held in high esteem because of your heroic efforts to get the plane and pax back home because some bloke in SYD said it was ok.

HF3000
13th Nov 2012, 16:50
I agree completely with what you say.

As far as I am aware, in my company, a phone call to MW does not let you depart a non-maint port with any defect that requires maintenance attention.

The only time you CAN depart a non-maint port is when you have a defect that does NOT require maint action.

The phone call to MW is required when any defect is recorded in the tech log. If that defect requires maint action then a phone call to MW does not let you depart the port.

However, there are situations where an airworthiness defect does not ground the aircraft, and the aircraft is still allowed to depart after a phone call. For example, an oxygen cylinder is used inbound to Kalgoorlie. That requires an entry in the tech log. The aircraft is down 1 oxy cylinder on departure. The crew are required to phone MW prior to departure and get approval to apply an MEL to depart. That can be done over the phone. The MEL allows flight with one oxy bottle used. Does anyone here have a problem with that? We are not talking about a thrust reverser inop.

OzSync
13th Nov 2012, 22:16
Can some Engineering manager please make his or her engineers aware of Chapter 19 in the Flight Administration Manual, thanks.

hadagutfull
14th Nov 2012, 00:40
Fascinating thread.... For my 2 bobs worth it's not about the ability of the people concerned , it's about the rules we are professionally bound to follow.

As I understand it, all defects are to be recorded in either the cabin or tech log. The pilot / lame will ensure all airworthiness defects ( MEL ITEMS) are entered into the tech log.
The crew may apply the intent of any MEL that does not have an (M) requirement.
A permissible defect will be covered by an MEL, EA or MM/SRM/TSM REFERENCE.

This applies to manned or unmanned ports..
Yes.. Always good to run it by MAINT WATCH either way if its an unmanned port. Even if just to give the next port a heads up.

Simple as that isn't it?????

As for pilot maintenance, if the rules allow it, you can do it . BUT, it does state that u will have been trained to do it. Within the QF SYSTEM I presume that would involve classroom training and some prac training by a qualified instructor , and a record of that training available for any audit or legal purpose.
Not to mention any possible recurrent training.
Can any pilot out there eg 737/A330/767/744/380 shed any light on that for us, as I really don't know what u have or have not been trained on.
We never had this problem when we had Flight Engineers on board hey ;-)

As for engineers, for them to get what was known as a "transit authority" on a type they were not rated on, it was an approved course and prac training with an approved trainer, which allowed only certification of transit check items. No application of MEL, no defect rectification.

We are all bombarded with legislation, regulations, policies, procedures etc etc. I fully appreciate that. It's a minefield of ambiguities, grey areas and conflicts.
These forums are a good place to throw it out there for discussion. I may learn a thing or two from u guys.
We are all going through tough times and frustrations are showing on all sides. Pilots and engineers are on the same team. We have a common enemy. Lets work as a team.

Cheers.

hadagutfull
14th Nov 2012, 01:25
This pretty well sums it up.....

AMC 42.030 (2) (e) - Continuing airworthiness requirements — all aircraft
An acceptable means of compliance with this paragraph is to ensure that the flight crew of the aircraft does not commence a flight with defect in the aircraft unless:
 operation of the aircraft for the flight with the defect is permitted by the MEL or the CDL for the aircraft;
 a special flight permit;
 the rectification of the defect is deferred in accordance with CASR Subdivision 42.D.6.1
by an individual on behalf of an AMO; or
 the defect is in an item of operational or emergency equipment that is not required by the
certification basis for the aircraft and is not required by or under these Regulations for the operation of the aircraft for the flight.
The procedures for flight crew to ensure this may be included in the flight technical log for the aircraft or in case of an AOC holder, in the AOC holder’s operations manual.
GM 42.030 (2) (f) - Continuing airworthiness requirements — all aircraft
The registered operator of an aircraft is to enter in the flight technical log for the aircraft, the following defects, before the aircraft commences a flight:
• any defect the rectification of which is not required under the MEL or the CDL for the aircraft; and
• a defect in an item of operational or emergency equipment fitted to the aircraft.

hadagutfull
14th Nov 2012, 01:30
And this....

GM 42.115 (1) - Rectification of defect to aircraft before flight - all aircraft
If there is a defect in an aircraft then the defect must be rectified before the next flight unless continued operation is permitted or rectification of the defect may be deferred.

hadagutfull
14th Nov 2012, 01:37
It gets better....


GM 42.360 - When qualified individual may defer rectification of defect
Paragraph 42.360 (3) (a) should only be applied to items that are not required for flight, for example, passenger convenience items and cabin interior items that are only decorative.
Defects in aircraft structure or flight related systems, no matter how minor, may only be deferred in accordance with the maintenance data for the aircraft or affected aeronautical product.
Furthermore, the defect must be the primary consideration for application of paragraph 42.360 (3) (a) with the system or part as secondary. If there is a defect in a system that is not related to flight, but the defect has the potential to affect another system or structure that is related to flight, then paragraph 42.360 (3) (a) may not be applied. If the defect in the non-flight related system requires maintenance action to isolate the defect from other systems and structure, then paragraph
42.360 (3) (a) may not be applied.
Several examples have been provided to illustrate the intent of the regulations with regards to when paragraph 42.360 (3) (a) may be applied and when it may not. Note that the examples are generic in nature and any maintenance must always be carried out in accordance with the relevant maintenance data.

ALAEA Fed Sec
14th Nov 2012, 08:19
One thing appears obvious here. Pilots are not readily able to access Engineering manuals or may not understand our Regs. Engineers on the other hand know little about pilot Regs and manuals.

I have a couple of questions for the Tech Crews who fly 738's into unmanned ports. I know where to find these answers in Engineering manuals but am genuinely interested in how much and how you guys know.

What level does the oil quantity on the cockpit gauges need to drop below before you need to add oil?

How much canvas can show on a tire before you need a wheel change?

What reference do you use to check this?

QF22
14th Nov 2012, 09:59
Gday Steve
I am sure you have a good reason to ask those 2 questions.
A couple of more challenging ones would be the length and depth of a cut tyre, fly on damage limits for fan blades, dent and damage limits, and engine drain leak limits.
I guess a call to MW would find an answer to most of the above, in the heat of the moment?

ALAEA Fed Sec
14th Nov 2012, 10:23
I've posted the two easy questions for a reason. I know crew will read this, it shouldn't take long to get an answer. As the conversation develops I will ask something more complicated and then have a look at the MW role. Just for now though the simple questions are -


What level does the oil quantity on the cockpit gauges need to drop below before you need to add oil?



How much canvas can show on a tire before you need a wheel change?

Mstr Caution
14th Nov 2012, 10:36
Steve,

I don't fly the 737, however the answer for the aircraft I fly is, it's not written in any of our manuals & we are not trained to make that assessment.

I only know the required oil quantity cause I asked an engineer when I was checking out on my current aircraft type.

ALAEA Fed Sec
14th Nov 2012, 10:49
Interesting. Sort of in line with the answer I would expect from 738 crew. Can any 738 pilots shed any light on these simplest questions?

Mstr Caution
14th Nov 2012, 11:08
Steve,

The 737 would be the same as other aircraft types.

The Pilot manuals will say something like:

Exterior Inspection:

Tyres, Brakes and wheels..........Check

Nose Gear Assembly..........Check

Fan Blades, Probes and Spinner..........Check

Ask a pilot then an engineer what the dispatch limits are & the answers will be way different.

QF22
14th Nov 2012, 11:19
Steve with reference to your question on amount of canvas showing, do you mean the tread reinforcement ply, or the carcass ply? There is a big difference!

OzSync
14th Nov 2012, 11:46
Question 1: There is no value in any of our documentation.

Question 2: As above.

May I ask what the point is?

ALAEA Fed Sec
14th Nov 2012, 12:01
May I ask what the point is?

Of course.

The point is just like your answer. There is no documentation for crew to refer to for instructions on even the most basic of maintenance tasks.

I quite often read or hear an answer like - but if in doubt we can always call maintenance watch. What triggers the call to maintenance watch? When are you in doubt? When does another pilot call maintenance watch?

You see every single task or inspection carried out by an Engineer is referenced to documents where the limits are black and white. It is called approved data. Qantas has introduced a system where some of these checks are now happening without approved data.

The clock is being turned back here and you really are flying by the seat of your pants. An aviaition term that in its true sense left us in the 20's.

OzSync
14th Nov 2012, 12:36
But oil quantity was never checked by engineers every turnaround on the 737 I don't see what has changed?

If a pilot notices canvas on a tyre he or she will call an Engineer or send a photo to Maintenance Watch and wait to be told "it will be changed tonight".

Pilots are a conservative bunch, if doubt exists clarification is sought.

Hugh Mungous
14th Nov 2012, 13:06
Perhaps a cabin fume event would be a good example.. How does the captain determine whether a burnt smell in the galley was a defective door area heater, or light balast in the ceiling cavity above the galley, or just over cooked fish? Maintenance watch advises that there is no history of similar events... I hope he doesn't look out the window and realise that there is no suitable accomodation, look at his watch and realise he is not getting paid, and decide the wife's roast chicken at home sounds like a much better option...

CaptCloudbuster
14th Nov 2012, 14:35
Interesting hypothetical HM...

Perhaps Cabin Crew reported a smell in the cabin. Now was this odour a smell or a fume? I imagine there is a subtle difference. Did the Captain conduct an operational debrief to assertain any symptoms such as dizziness, nausea etc experienced? Did he then gather more info from Maint Watch as to any recent history? I imagine Professional Aircrew are paid to make judgement calls every day. I imagine the Capt was doing his best to get the job done Safely, Legally and judging by the comments from his Engineering Bretheren on this thread:- additionally covering his arse lest an ASIR be raised against his actions...

Sunfish
14th Nov 2012, 15:20
Even a mug like me knows that there has to be " approved data" in black and white for everything and anything done to a certified aircraft. ALAEA Fed. Sec. is absolutely correct.

If reference can not be made to printed approved data, then you are flying an experimental aircraft, period. No ifs, no buts. You are your own test pilot.

This is at the core of the problem with engineering management. They see some engineer look at something and pass it, then make the wild assumption that the airline is paying far too much money for what they think of as a jumped up car mechanic.

My bible is AC43-13b

Hugh Mungous
14th Nov 2012, 16:50
Capt CB, I have another hypothetical scenario..

An aircraft is on the ground at an unmanned outstation. During the Crew's pre departure inspection they notice a large fuel puddle under the number 2 engine.
There is a 'hold' coupon in the technical log that describes a fuel leak from an engine control component that is within the manufacturers limits at 28 drops per minute. However, due to the volume of fuel on the tarmac, the crew determine it is significantly greater that the documented leak rate, and have concerns that they may be observing a new defect.
Maintenance watch is contacted, and inform the Crew that there is no static leak rate limit for the original, documented fuel leak. The annotated leak rate of 28 drops per minute is measured with the engine running, and they declare the aircraft serviceable..
What then is the Crew's thought process in regards to evaluating this situation? Where by the only way to determine the origin and rate of the leak is by opening the engine cowling and carrying out a maintenance procedure.
Capt CB, I'm not trying to pick a fight. I genuinely appreciate your response. I have numerous other "hypothetical scenarios" from birdstrikes and lightning strikes to flight control and thrust reverser anomalies, but I'll try not to bore you with any more of my "imagination" today...

ALAEA Fed Sec
14th Nov 2012, 20:18
But oil quantity was never checked by engineers every turnaround on the 737 I don't see what has changed?


Are you sure that it was never checked? FYI I am not 737 licenced just asking, seem to recall checking it myself when under guidance of 737 LAMEs.


If a pilot notices canvas on a tyre he or she will call an Engineer or send a photo to Maintenance Watch and wait to be told "it will be changed tonight".


Do you need to see canvas before those steps are taken? What about the depth of the groove?

Pilots are a conservative bunch, if doubt exists clarification is sought.

I agree totally. 90% of pilots I worked with were fantastic. In 21 years I only ever had an argument with one, he was a dic**ead, even the F/O thought so. Next question.

How many erroneous pilots does it take to bring a plane down?

SpannerTwister
14th Nov 2012, 20:34
I see many references to the fact that a pilot can call maintenance watch and ask if there is a "history" of the defect he has just noticed.

Did he then gather more info from Maintenance Watch as to any recent history?
How does the captain determine whether a burnt smell in the galley was a defective door area heater, or light balast in the ceiling cavity above the galley, or just over cooked fish? Maintenance watch advises that there is no history of similar events...

In our hypothetical example the burning smell is actually Hugh Mungous's defective door area heater, that has just failed, yet of course when Capt CloudBuster telephones Maintenance Watch they (correctly) tell him there is no history of that airplanes door area heater failing, so it can't be the door area heater !

Capt....."Hey Maintenance Watch, I'm in Karratha and my #1 engine has just blown up"
MW...."Hang on, I'll just check the history, {insert pause and sounds of keyboard typing} no, it's OK, it can't be that, there's no history of that engine blowing up".

Meanwhile, in the aft galley ceiling, the door area heater that has never failed before has just burst into flames !

ST

Mstr Caution
14th Nov 2012, 22:10
Another Hypothetical:

During the preflight procedure the Flight Crew Notice the "CARGO HEAT ON" light is NOT illuminated preflight with the switch in the ON position.

Flight Crew conduct a Annunciator Light Test & the light does not illuminate.

With the absence of any EICAS massage indicating a fault with the cargo Heat System the aircraft departs with the reasoning the bulb is failed & it will be written up and changed on return to a main port.

OzSync
14th Nov 2012, 23:31
Stupid hypothetical, we would not dispatch with a failed indicator light unless there was an MEL with no (M) procedure.

CaptCloudbuster
15th Nov 2012, 00:04
HM, I'm glad you are not trying to pick a fight. Your other hypotheticals are excellent examples of what we flight crew are faced with every single day.

I can assure you I am fully cognicent of the threat posed by "get home itis". We Pilots are Human after all. Please continue to respect the fact 99% of us are genuinely doing our level best to perform our role Safely and Legally.

Roast Chicken dinners, woeful QF leadership and the ongoing war against Engineering excellence replaced by worlds best practice I consciously forget whilst doing my job with the tools I'm given.

Mstr Caution
15th Nov 2012, 00:10
Ozsync,

Maybe not "stupid" for you, I'm sure some have heard of similar examples.

Strange things do happen, takeoff with IRS in ALIGN as an example.

Ngineer
15th Nov 2012, 00:20
worlds best practice

Is a very glossy term for "Worlds STANDARD Practice". Never forget that.

600ft-lb
15th Nov 2012, 00:29
The term 'best' is subjective.

For bean counters it means as little money as possible.

For management it means as little money as possible whilst still staying within the realm of legality.

For Engineers at least it means having the resources available to do the job properly and safely.

possible conflict of interest at play ?

HF3000
15th Nov 2012, 01:29
What level does the oil quantity on the cockpit gauges need to drop below before you need to add oil?

How much canvas can show on a tire before you need a wheel change?

What reference do you use to check this?

1. We don't know. It's not in the documentation.

2. We don't know. It's not in the documentation. I asked an engineer once and he told me, but I still call an engineer to verify tyre damage when I see it because "some guy told me" is not something that will stand at the subsequent inquiry.

3. If in doubt call Maintenance Watch. If not satisfied with their answer, we still have the legal responsibility not to depart until we are completely satisfied with the airworthiness of the aircraft. If that results in tea and bickies then so be it, but I've never heard of a pilot in my company subject to disciplinary action for grounding an aircraft.

HF3000
15th Nov 2012, 01:41
By the way, I'm not attempting to defend the system, I'm just advising what the system is. I would love to have an engineer at every transit at every port.

I note however that every component on an aircraft has NEVER been checked on every transit EVER. There are many bits on an aircraft you just can't get to without pulling the whole thing apart. I remember we all got a bit scared when 738 fuel pumps started failing causing possible fuel tank fires. It was too impractical to check the fuel pumps all the time so Boeing issued an AD requiring a minimum fuel quantity in the tank at all times. Then they issued an AD requiring modifications to the fuel pump wiring. Then they started installing Nitrogen generators in new model aircraft.

It's the system as a whole that keeps the skies safe - from manufacturer to regulator to operator to engineer to pilot. What they've done now is cut a little bit of that chain out - pilots are not happy about it, engineers are not happy about it, the operator says if other operators are doing it they must too or they can't compete, the manufacturer allows it because it's a marketing edge for their product and the regulator allows it for some reason.

Steve is looking for any holes in the swiss cheese that we should all be concerned about - keep it up Steve.

the_company_spy
15th Nov 2012, 01:57
"Worlds best practice" = "lowest common denominator"

Short_Circuit
15th Nov 2012, 03:39
Worlds best practice = what the other shonks get away with....

ampclamp
15th Nov 2012, 09:23
I think the point is every one of us stuffs up sometime, nobody has perfect judgement especially under pressure , late at night , personal issues (like being sacked) family troubles etc.

The mechanisms to keep those holes lining up are being reduced.

Pilots and engineers need to work together to reduce risks and keep a very close eye on what we all do.

We cannot afford to be divided.

Both groups have their problem children and I ask we put that minority aside for the real aim of working as pro's and keeping this game as a safe as we can. Exec's, hatchet men and thick headed pollies come and go, but we will carry the can if there is major incident.

unseen
15th Nov 2012, 15:30
[QUOTE=Sunfish;7519530

My bible is AC43-13b[/QUOTE]

Having trouble tracking this one done, can you provide a web address? Want to make sure I read the correct doc.

Cheers

unseen
15th Nov 2012, 15:33
My bible is AC43-13b

Having trouble tracking this one down, can you provide a web address? Want to make sure I read the correct doc.

Cheers

Sunfish
15th Nov 2012, 17:51
Typo ac43-13 -1b

SAAA - Sports Aircraft Association of Australia - Builders of Experimental Aircraft (http://mail.saaa.com/home.php?contentpage=download)

Or

AC 43.13-1B - Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices - Aircraft Inspection and Repair [Large AC. This includes Change 1.] - Document Information (http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentid/99861)

waren9
15th Nov 2012, 20:28
Interesting discussion.

The clock is being turned back here and you really are flying by the seat of your pants. An aviaition term that in its true sense left us in the 20's.

An aviation term that could very well be back with us in its true sense by the time the 20's come back round...

-438
15th Nov 2012, 23:33
What is the point of this thread??
Are pilots doing the wrong thing? If so provide the evidence and report it to CASA.
If CASA aren't doing the right thing, report CASA to a higher authority.

If in fact the thread is designed to paint Qantas pilots as unprofessional to suit your industrial agenda, then the engineers should be looking for a new union leader.

ALAEA Fed Sec
16th Nov 2012, 00:23
What is the point of this thread??


It's to let you know that breaches will be reported to CASA. If you think that is an Industrial agenda, go back to your HR office. What in fact is an Industrial agenda?

Beg Tibs
16th Nov 2012, 08:30
What breaches are you going to report ?

owen meaney
16th Nov 2012, 08:35
It's to let you know that breaches will be reported to CASA
From recent experience CASA will only deal with the "accountable" person in the organisation. So you will be ignored.

ALAEA Fed Sec
16th Nov 2012, 08:51
What breaches are you going to report ?

Any rule breach we come across. We lodged a dozen two weeks ago. They need to be investigated to make sure they don't happen again. An example is what started this thread. At best it is a paperwork error, an error none the less that has a root cause. Its about making aviation safer.

We are sick of Qantas relying on cowboys and those too scared to speak out. We will do it (report) ourselves, there are enough good members who send things to us. Don't think Engineers are immune, they are involved in many reports we submit.

I rarely see any breach that is not in part or totally attributable to management. Be it fatigue, pressure, stress, a norm they allow to develop, understaffing, direct threats ....... you name it.

Sarcs
16th Nov 2012, 10:19
ALAEA Fed Sec love your work and totally admire your endeavour!:ok:

Have been monitoring this thread for sometime now and thought the following Vasta/McKinnon v CASA in the AAT was particularly relevant to what it is you've all been banging on about:
Vasta and Anor and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2010] AATA 499 (6 July 2010) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2010/499.html)

It is a particularly long decision by Member Taylor but is very much worth the read especially when Taylor basically tells CASA and Qantas management to stop being so precious...utterly priceless!:E

Beg Tibs
16th Nov 2012, 14:04
Steve - if a bug dies in my windscreen in mt Isa shall I write it up or should I wait till I get home ?

empire4
16th Nov 2012, 15:58
If pilots think they know better than the engineer, then by all means carry out as much or no write ups as you wish. After all it is you who will be in the smoking hole and not me. I just hope I'm not in the back when your ignorance catches up to your arrogant sky god mentality.

Beg Tibs
16th Nov 2012, 16:29
Oh god god really ? Smoking holes ? Empire4 are u serious ?! Bloody hell . Glad I've spent the last 3 years looking after us all .

Beg Tibs
16th Nov 2012, 16:32
Ok . Onya Steve . Be careful about glass houses mate , we are your only ally _

Beg Tibs
16th Nov 2012, 16:34
Same as you empire 4 . Let's all just relax hey !!!!

ALAEA Fed Sec
16th Nov 2012, 18:09
Ok . Onya Steve . Be careful about glass houses mate , we are your only ally _

I know that mate. This discussion is not a LAME versus Pilot thread. Each group has its small number of cowboys. This is a thread for those people from each group who always do the right thing to keep air travel in this country safe versus the cowboys.

I hope readers can understand this.

ALAEA Fed Sec
16th Nov 2012, 18:11
Steve - if a bug dies in my windscreen in mt Isa shall I write it up or should I wait till I get home ?


Wait for home of course. If you fly through a locust plague and vision is in any way impaired, I'm sure you know what my answer would be.

unseen
16th Nov 2012, 23:18
I assume you will let the flight crew know somehow when you report them?

A copy to the relevant fleet captain and AIPA perhaps.

Also, how do we report your guys/girls when they make mistakes? In the past I have just called them back and we would sort it out face to face.

There are always a number of ways to get your message across. Make sure you don't choose one that ruins what is currently one of the key safety structures in our business. That is what will happen if flight crew think that your members are waiting for us to make a mistake and then scurry off to report it to someone.

If you do so without telling the flight crew involved what their supposed crime is, then you will lose your greatest supporters in a heartbeat.

CaptCloudbuster
17th Nov 2012, 00:34
Also, how do we report your guys/girls when they make mistakes? In the past I have just called them back and we would sort it out face to face.

Not attaching appropriate MEL stickers, wrong UTC date in Check 2 box, attempting to visually indicate "cleared to pressurise" when positive interphone comms are required etc etc.... shall we go on?

Steve, We Pilots have admired your courage and tenacity in the past. Judging by your 1st post and subsequent replies from your fellow engineers like Empire 4 you run the risk of seriously damaging the goodwill, teamwork and esprit de corps built up over generations.

600ft-lb
17th Nov 2012, 00:56
Not attaching appropriate MEL stickers, wrong UTC date in Check 2 box, attempting to visually indicate "cleared to pressurise" when positive interphone comms are required etc etc.... shall we go on?


The first 2 are administrative with 2 additional paperwork systems we have to complete when we do a scheduled check, back in the office, easily producable upon request should a pilot so well ask.

The last one is possibly safety and both groups are guilty of that.

Believe me but, when one of us f**k's up good, the guys are put through the ringer. Stood down indefinitely until they're drug tested, interviewed and put up against a diminishing culpability chart to determine how they should be punished - ie the kangaroo court is alive and better then ever.

It's been many years since an engineering mistake has been swept under the rug. The consequences for doing that are far more serious in terms of employment if they are found out. It just doesn't happen anymore.

The focus here is unmanned ports, MOD aircraft and delayed reporting of SERIOUS issues that some bloke in Sydney said was ok to fly, cowboys, etc.

Having said all that, when was the last time a pilot was stood down for flying back an aircraft that was grounded upon arrival with a serious defect that was known at an unmanned port but flown back anyway ?

Beg Tibs
17th Nov 2012, 02:10
So what's a "serious" issue that was reported late in order to get the jet home ?

CaptCloudbuster
17th Nov 2012, 02:25
6000ft-lb, I'm fully supportive that the focus here should be

unmanned ports, MOD aircraft and delayed reporting of SERIOUS issues


As for SERIOUS issues that some bloke in Sydney said was ok to flythat, "some bloke", is Maintenance Watch, an ENGINEERING function we Pilots must rely on to give accurate, reliable and reputable guidance to make informed judgement calls out in the field.

As I've said we do our best with the tools we are given.

Insults such as "Cowboys", "Skygods" or "Peanut Pilots" do OUR cause no justice.

Acute Instinct
17th Nov 2012, 02:33
Answer. Two bugs on the windshield.........If it ostructs your vision, then report it. Two aircraft flying towards each other at cruise are all over each other in about 6 seconds from first sighting. Two bogan moths holding hands with their arseholes around their necks can literally conceal an entire squadron. (a quote taken from the book 'Oh Dear, My Career Is Over')

600ft-lb
17th Nov 2012, 03:08
CaptainCloudBuster

as quote from myself earlier on in this thread

It's my personal belief that M/W shouldn't be providing technical advice to pilots at an unmanned port where a pilot has determined that 1) there is a defect and 2) seen fit to contact M/W to seek further advice when M/W engineers don't have to put pen to paper after verbally telling a pilot it's fit to fly.

Otherwise wouldn't the company put it in the official procedures like MEL's the pilot can apply ? How about a section about ramp equipment impact damage allowable limits ? How about a section flight controls not returning to neutral positions ? A section on how to clear thrust reverser faults ?

The reason the above don't exist is because no one is brave/stupid enough to approve them without an engineer doing further investigation as to WHY the problem happened in the first place.

It's not a dig at the pilots, but at dig at the system that pushes a perceived pressure on pilots that what the M/W guy says over the phone is as good as a LAME putting their signature on a techlog coupon with an action carried out IAW with approved data.

Why are the rules different at unmanned ports ? You wouldn't take someones advice over the phone for clearing a logged fault or GSE impact damage in BNE/SYD/MEL/ADL/PER/CNS. So ask the question why is it acceptable for a M/W engineer to give advice over the phone without providing something in writing that he is taking responsibility for it ?

We have cowboys dispersed through engineering too CCB, it's not a dig at pilots, its a dig at everyone forgoing a proven safe approach to make things work.

CaptCloudbuster
17th Nov 2012, 03:52
600ft-lb

Thanks for the reasoned, polite and rational response. Keep that up and encourage your fellow engineers to do the same. Steve Purvinas could also take example from your style of communications.

One point I beg to differ,

a dig at everyone forgoing a proven safe approach to make things work.

We Pilots and Engineers aren't the ones driving and overseeing the change to "worlds best practice". We just get paid to get the job done completely within the approved rules as safely as we personally feel comfortable with. Aviation will never be 100% risk free.

ALAEA Fed Sec
17th Nov 2012, 07:36
In this thread when have my responses been other than reasoned, polite or rational?

CaptCloudbuster
17th Nov 2012, 09:05
You lost my confidence when posting details from the Tech Log here on PPRuNe which identified specific Flight Crew:=

We did a survey of 1800 flts to/from unmanned ports. 93% of defects occured on the sectors back to the capital city. 7% only to Kgi, Kta, Zne etc.... This is statistically not possible unless people are bending the rules.

I think you have cast unreasonable aspersions with the above statement upon me and my fellow flight crew. Dammned lies and statistics...

Lets have all the data regarding exactly what the defects were (windshield clean / seat cover change / (insert minor defect here)) before we declare QANTAS Pilots are Cowboys who bend the rules.

I think your push to report any perceived deviation from the rules is a valid one and is to be applauded.

ALAEA Fed Sec
17th Nov 2012, 09:19
You lost my confidence when posting details from the Tech Log here on PPRUNE which identified specific Flight Crew:=


Understood. Knew posting it would be a little confronting. All identifying marks are gone.

aveng
18th Nov 2012, 03:15
CCB
With respect to what is going on with MOD a/c and reporting in next base - IT IS HAPPENING!

Why? could it have anything to do with.....
Very junior Capts (especially in Perth base) with the Qantas command balloon about to burst.
An award that doesn't pay the pilot unless he flys (who the hell accepts that?)
Bad info over the phone - not hardcopy (with signature/licence #)

Whilst I accept that you may have the highest standards - some of your colleagues and mine do not. We as engineers have access to multiple aircraft/crew per day (of varying types), you are only aware of what is happening in your cockpit.

CaptCloudbuster
18th Nov 2012, 04:10
Aveng

I fully support the notion of reporting all breaches of SOPs or rule breaking.

HF3000
18th Nov 2012, 12:45
I'm getting confused now.

Is this thread about MOD or unmanned ports?

They are two completely different issues. I suggest a new thread to deal with whichever it is that we are not discussing here.

I can't work out which one we are discussing now. Both noble discussions.

-438
18th Nov 2012, 22:05
During a decade of flying QF 737's I never once had a Captain suggest we fly an aircraft from a non maintenance port without disclosing a problem with the aircraft. I have, however been grounded in non maintenance ports on many occasions due to U/S aircraft. On any of the occasions where maintenance watch were contacted, we would always ask for any advice received to be put in writing and forwarded to us prior to departing and only when we were completely satisfied all actions were within the rules.
I have flown with approx 150 QF Short haul Captains & have never seen the rules bent as you are suggesting.
If cowboys represent 1 per cent of the pilot body (I haven't seen them), he would need to be paired with another 1% FO who agrees to break the rules. Then also operate through a non maintenance port & have a defect. What are the chances?

ALAEA Fed Sec
18th Nov 2012, 22:39
Is this thread about MOD or unmanned ports?

They are two completely different issues. I suggest a new thread to deal with whichever it is that we are not discussing here.


Well I started the thread, it is not specifically about either. It is about people not reporting defects in aircraft as per the Regs and/or Procedures. The reason MOD or unmanned ports has come into the debate is because these two situations appear to be having less reports made than prior.

MOD essentially makes a capital city an unmanned port so looking at trends from unmanned ports may give you an indication of problems.

If cowboys represent 1 per cent of the pilot body (I haven't seen them), he would need to be paired with another 1% FO who agrees to break the rules. Then also operate through a non maintenance port & have a defect. What are the chances?

About .01% on your figures. The theory is wrong though because our study found 7% of defects reported to unmanned ports as opposed to 93% on return sectors. Over a 2 month period tracking every single flight (1807) this cannot be explained away by chance, there is something systemically wrong here. Qantas of course have turned a blind eye.

Terminalfrost
19th Nov 2012, 00:49
Well, if I were a flight crew member thinking about whether or not I wrote up a defect that appeared to me to be "minor" I would be wise to consider the requirements of CAR 50 in relation to endorsing defects on the maintenance release and the penalty provisions for members of the flight crew. I would hate to be constantly worried about whether or not someone was going to put me in for breaking the law because I decided to "defer" reporting a defect until a more convenient time.

ALAEA Fed Sec
19th Nov 2012, 01:00
CAR 50 is here -


50 Defects and major damage to be endorsed on maintenance release
(1) This regulation applies to each of the following persons:
(a) the holder of the certificate of registration for an Australian aircraft;
(b) the operator of an Australian aircraft;
(c) a flight crew member of an Australian aircraft.
(2) If:
(a) there is a defect in the aircraft; or
(b) the aircraft has suffered major damage;
a person mentioned in subregulation (1), who becomes aware of the defect or damage, must endorse the maintenance release of the aircraft or other document approved for use as an alternative for the purposes of this regulation, setting out the particulars of the defect or damage, as the case may be, and sign the endorsement.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.

Terminalfrost
19th Nov 2012, 01:05
How much is a penalty unit these days?

ALAEA Fed Sec
19th Nov 2012, 01:24
I think a unit is $110.

Terminalfrost
19th Nov 2012, 01:28
Ouch $2750 because I didn't want a delay. Food for thought

Ngineer
19th Nov 2012, 01:47
Has anyone else heard that there is a new QF hangar being built in LA, and QF SYD Base is set for closure in 12 months? Just 2 seperate rumours I heard this week that seem to tie together.

Creampuff
19th Nov 2012, 02:02
There is a Bill in the Senate that proposes to change one penalty unit from $110 to $170. So if the Bill gets through, 25 penalty units will equal $4,250 (in addition, of course, to the relevance of the breach to your duties as a pilot).

According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the reason for the change is “to accommodate increases in the Consumer Price Index”.

ALAEA Fed Sec
19th Nov 2012, 02:03
Has anyone else heard that there is a new QF hangar being built in LA, and QF SYD Base is set for closure in 12 months? Just 2 seperate rumours I heard this week that seem to tie together

They already have a dual 747 hangar up there. I wouldn't see any point in more space with no increase in flts. Wonder if the existing or this rumoured one is 380 capable?

unseen
19th Nov 2012, 02:08
CAR 50 is here -

Quote:
50 Defects and major damage to be endorsed on maintenance release
(1) This regulation applies to each of the following persons:
(a) the holder of the certificate of registration for an Australian aircraft;
(b) the operator of an Australian aircraft;
(c) a flight crew member of an Australian aircraft.
(2) If:
(a) there is a defect in the aircraft; or
(b) the aircraft has suffered major damage;
a person mentioned in subregulation (1), who becomes aware of the defect or damage, must endorse the maintenance release of the aircraft or other document approved for use as an alternative for the purposes of this regulation, setting out the particulars of the defect or damage, as the case may be, and sign the endorsement.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.

What definition do you use for 'defect' and 'major damage'?

ALAEA Fed Sec
19th Nov 2012, 02:20
2. Definitions
The CASR Dictionary defines MAJOR DEFECT to mean:
 in relation to an aircraft, a defect of such a kind that it may affect the safety of the aircraft or cause the aircraft to become a danger to persons or property; and
 in relation to an aircraft component that is not fitted to an aircraft, a defect of such a kind that if the component is fitted to an aircraft it may affect the safety of the aircraft or cause the aircraft to become a danger to persons or property.

CASA regards a DEFECT as any defect that is not a major defect and is something that is an imperfection that impairs the structure, composition, or function of an object or system of an aircraft or component.

CaptCloudbuster
19th Nov 2012, 02:47
How have QF competitors been operating into all these non manned ports? Do they have Engineers available at KGI, NWN, BRM etc etc?

ALAEA Fed Sec
19th Nov 2012, 02:56
How have QF competitors been operating into all these non manned ports? Do they have Engineers available at KGI, NWN, BRM etc etc?


No none of them have Engineers there. Would I suspect Virgin have similar reporting ratios to Qantas? yes I suppose so but we haven't done a study there.

CaptCloudbuster
19th Nov 2012, 03:04
So what do you want to achieve? An Engineer on station at every port?

ALAEA Fed Sec
19th Nov 2012, 03:10
No the outstations have been unmanned for years. I think there must be a tipping point at some stage though where you do want someone in port. We did suggest that Kta was at about that point with 20 flts per week.

What makes this worse is that the company has rushed in this MOD thing, the aircraft will run out to Kta or Kgi and get back to Per and see no Engineer then head off again.

CaptCloudbuster
19th Nov 2012, 03:16
I think there must be a tipping point at some stage though where you do want someone in port. We did suggest that Kta was at about that point with 20 flts per week.

Agreed. There is a floating Engineer based through the week there now.

ampclamp
19th Nov 2012, 03:26
Some pertinent points. With the so called MOD system. All ports are now in effect, out-ports.

There have reportedly been incidents of aircraft flying with open defects because engineers were not told about them as flight crew have forgotten or cabin crew have not alerted the techies about their defects.Don't get me wrong. Everyone makes mistakes, this MOD just allows more leeway for ****ups.

Engineers are not permitted to inspect an aircraft on a MOD turn or presumably even check the books lest it be called industrial action. :ugh:

Even if MOD persists, and I cant see it going, I do believe the engineers must do a physical check of the logs for forgotten entries every turn at manned ports.

yet another movie
19th Nov 2012, 06:23
Hmmm. Been having aread of this and a few things are apparent.
Complacency will lead to accidents.
Complanency will lead to retrenchments.
Retrenchments willl lead to lower safety standards.
Airlines fly with economic advantage with unrealised losses - UNTIL the big bang happens.

Time to wake up people. The Aviation regulations are there for a reason. They may seem anal to somone that thinks they know everything, but those people are few and far between. For the rest of us Rules are Rules. Stick to them and you won't go wrong. Engineers stay employed the aircraft stay safe.

Suck&Blow
19th Nov 2012, 11:44
Give us back our pogo sticks. Oh no, thats right, there have been reports of elbow strains from opening the window! :ugh:

gerry111
19th Nov 2012, 12:07
Goodness, Creampuff!
I wonder what all those retired military on DFRDB pensions will make of that 'CPI increase'? ;)

yet another movie
20th Nov 2012, 02:54
Can someone tell me if there are any financial disadvantages for a QF Domestic pilot if their aircraft is delayed overnight or for several hours? I heard that they are only paid for their flying hours and if they suffer a delay then that counts as unpaid time. It didn't sound right to me.

Creampuff
20th Nov 2012, 09:19
I wonder what all those retired military on DFRDB pensions will make of that 'CPI increase'?I am sure that that all DFRDB pension recipients would welcome an increase of approximately 57% in their pension ‘to accommodate increases’ in the CPI. :ok:

HF3000
20th Nov 2012, 13:16
Can someone tell me if there are any financial disadvantages for a QF Domestic pilot if their aircraft is delayed overnight or for several hours?

Go fish somewhere else.

empire4
20th Nov 2012, 13:34
The bottom line of "acceptable risk" will always continue to climb with the greed of people that line their pockets with the offset of such.

"NASA management, when repeatedly faced with evidence that something was wrong, normalised the deviance so that it became normal to them."

There are books and studies written about the current culture at Qantas. I will feel sorry for those who lose their lives due to such deviance.

ALAEA Fed Sec
20th Nov 2012, 19:21
Can someone tell me if there are any financial disadvantages for a QF Domestic pilot if their aircraft is delayed overnight or for several hours?

This is a more than reasonable question. If there is a financial penalty to a pilot who reports a defect it my affect the decision itself. 7% one way 93% the other is a reason for concern.

angryrat
20th Nov 2012, 21:48
I've stayed out of this one, but you guys are pissing me off now. If you seriously think that a pilot will not U/S an aircraft because it costs him finacially, you are in the wrong jobs/company or have had your heads so far up your :mad: that you haven't been paying attention in your company.

Keep this crap up of questioning our professionalism and I won't give a :mad: who loses their job. You are treading a very dangerous line and about to lose the support of the pilots.

aveng
20th Nov 2012, 22:53
Pull your head in RAt!

This thread is here because we have lost the support of some pilots. :=

ampclamp
20th Nov 2012, 22:58
angryrat,
someone posed the question. I dont think anyone has made an accusation.It is pleasing to see you take offence. It shows integrity.:)

I dont know any Q pilot who has, or would knowingly fly with defects to keep getting paid but I do not want a situation to ever get to that either.

I worked for an OS contractor long ago and there was an incentive to fly.

Not all airlines are as good or as clean as Q pilot group or culture. We however cannot predict the future.

The industry is being dumbed down imho with new rules to allow cheaper, less qualified labour where financial or employment pressures may come to pass. That is something we must fight as professional groups. The engineering group is being carved up and I know the vast majority of them are digging in to uphold standards against quite tough time constraints.
Don't get cut by comments on largely anonymous chat rooms, just keep doing the right thing. :ok:

HF3000
20th Nov 2012, 23:16
Have a look at the join date and number of posts of the person who posed the question. Integrity? Professionalism? Give me a break.

angryrat
21st Nov 2012, 02:15
aveng,

I won't pull my head in because I haven't stuck it out.

If you think you have lost the support of some pilots, I think you are paranoid as it is in our interest to have good aircraft. As I said though, keep the tone of this thread up and you WILL have NO support from the pilots.

From SP,

This is a more than reasonable question. If there is a financial penalty to a pilot who reports a defect it my affect the decision itself.

Nothing has changed in the way QF pay pilots, so why is it an issue now? To even suggest that it 'my affect(sic) the decision', I find it insulting and questions the professionl integrity of ALL pilots. I let the troll go through to the keeper, what pissed me off is when I feel that the head of the engineering union starts casting aspersions across the professionalism of pilots.

Steve, while I admire your quest for 100% safety, I don't like the way you have gone about it in this public forum. There is a process for the company wanting to know why issues are not reported out on the line, the process involves AIPA and they question the pilot. I suggest you contact AIPA and sort out a process with them, but be warned, you will want to be constructive and be able to explain where the pilot made his/her mistake, not just accusing them of breaking the law.

aveng
21st Nov 2012, 02:52
If you think you have lost the support of some pilots, I think you are paranoid as it is in our interest to have good aircraft.

Just telling it like it is. Like I've said before - you are only aware of whats going on in 1 cockpit or are you omnipresent (like some sort of god)?:ugh:

FCMC
21st Nov 2012, 03:00
Ok guys at the risk of shooting from the hip, I will state only fact as I was personally there. I'm not getting into specifics.

A Narrow Body RPT tech crew from a normally unmanned station had an intermittent defect pre-dept, which if it reoccured would result in shutdown of a significant system.The flight would still proceed to base but in a degraded state.They elected not to write it up until return to main base as if they did it would result in a delay due to troubleshooting.There prime concern was running out of hours which would preclude them from a 8 hour flying day the next day and losing pay.
This was stated to me!
They were very professional guys and I would have no problem flying with them or that A/C which I didnt due to other commitments.

ITS JUST TO SHOW YOU IT DOES HAPPEN! NOT ALL DEFECTS ARE REPORTED UNTIL RETURN TO A MANNED BASE. If you disagree you either dont fly regularly to an unmmaned station or your too inexperienced to know.
Sorry, I dont mean to upset anyone, be it right or wrong this is a commercial fact.

ALAEA Fed Sec
21st Nov 2012, 03:36
HF3000 and other Crew who always do the right thing please understand. We have raised these issues with CASA and Qantas and they don't care. We know nearly all of you do the right thing but some do not. I have started this thread in an area where us as aviation people can talk about it because I don't know what else to do. I said before, it is not AIPAs job to pass it on.

The sad thing is that CASA and the airline don't care. The thread originally started with a pretty tame example that can be explained away as a paperwork error. I have one now that is real and in my view is shocking. What am I supposed to do with it? Without too much detail it goes like this -


Nil
Nil
Nil
After takeoff nose wheel vibration progressively getting worse each of last 4 sectors.
There was an event before the Nil sectors that most likely caused this problem and the crew did know about it. I won't explain it here because I have no intention of anyone being identified.

If the above example was legit (I have seen the paperwork so pretty sure it is) does anyone think it ok to report a defect that has been known over 4 sectors on the last one?

Mstr Caution
21st Nov 2012, 04:02
The company response would be, policy requires technical crew to enter defects into the log as soon as the defect is recognised.

I wouldn't be going out of my way to provide band aid solutions, in turn putting my tenure or licence on the line in the process.

Especially so that some other desk dweller can achieve their targeted KPI's.

MC

angryrat
21st Nov 2012, 04:12
If it is not AIPA's job then why is it your job? As I said get onto AIPA.

Take it to Senator X, get a meeting with Albanese. Failing all of that, go to international bodies. Failing all of that, release it to the media without crucifying all pilots.

Still can't get through? Then you are either wrong, or sadly you will have to continue campaigning until the big smoking hole. Just keep a paper trail so they can be locked up.

1746
21st Nov 2012, 04:28
Angry, unfortunately Steve is definitely not wrong in what he says.:ugh:

Potsie Weber
21st Nov 2012, 04:37
Doesn't AIPA put out a quarterly magazine to members? Why not talk to them about submitting an article to help pilot education. Talk about defect reporting, MOD, common errors, traps, oversights. An education piece.

airsupport
21st Nov 2012, 07:10
I think it is terrible the way things are going, loss of lots of Engineering jobs and loss of LAME preflights, glad I am now retired and away from it all.

This sort of thing went on for all the 40 odd years I was in the Industry, but NOT if it was written up.

We had aircraft every day go up say to ROK-MKY-ROK and back to BNE with no defects then have many written up on return to BNE.

Often used to even get aircraft arrive from MEL via SYD (a major base) and have many defects logged into BNE, if you asked the Pilots what SYD said they would usually say we did not bother telling them as they would not do anything. :rolleyes:

Not QF, the other mob. ;)

edoil
21st Nov 2012, 09:55
Fed Sec. In answer to your LAX Hangar question.

A New hangar is to be (maybe even being) built in LAX, (Would make sense to be A380 capable) as the old double 747 hangar needs to be demolished (Maybe even gone by now) to accommodate the TBIT extension and relocation of one of theNorth South Taxiways.

Also heard (which is rumour) that some of the more eminent /critically acclaimed A380 engineering staff are being prepared for a sojourn in SOCAL. Who knows CN may be CEO yet! :\

empire4
21st Nov 2012, 18:58
Angryrat, are you talking about the same Albanese that was in the Emirates tent with Joyce? hahaha, you're joking right?

Pith Helmet
22nd Nov 2012, 04:09
Well I can assure you of this. I have never gone public during my career within the QF Group, ever. So this is the first time, something has to be done. The last 18 months has become so bad that many of us Drivers are actually seriously concerned while taking the wheel in some aircraft. We rely on Engineers and safety systems to keep us safe, as well as our own ability. Many of us do not have that confidence any more that when we enter the aircraft we will arrive safely at our destination.
We can read it on the engineers faces. We see it in the reports. We hear it during our walkarounds and then we see things first hand. Our final line of defense, the regulator, has been captured by the red beast and is toothless to act.
When will it end? Or more to the point, how will it end?

Sunfish
22nd Nov 2012, 20:11
It will end with smoking holes my friend. It always does.

Then there will be a belated realisation that Qantas has lost engineering control of its fleet. There will be a lot of hand waving about worlds best practice contractors and so on, but a simple audit will demonstrate "gaps" in the maintenance records of most if not all of the fleet.

This is what destroyed Ansett - the inability to determine the maintenance state of its fleet, leaving CASA with no choice but to pull its operators certificate.

To put that another way and in case a journo might be reading: An Aircraft is just a pile of scrap metal unless the entire operation and maintenance history of virtually every part of it is both certified and recorded and available at all times for scrutiny.

To put that another way, you don't get to declare an aircraft is airworthy, you have to be able to PROVE it is airworthy. If you have insufficient proof, then its just junk. That is why Ansetts B767 aircraft were broken up for scrap on the tarmac.

CaptCloudbuster
23rd Nov 2012, 00:32
Pith Helmet, are you for real?? 5 posts on the 1st day including this gem (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/501054-qantas-engineering-redundances-advice-required.html#post7533832)

Fight it out
Best of fighting to the bitter end. Better to die on your feet than on your knees. I am about to receive my marching orders as well.

PH

You read more like a disgruntled Engineering troll masquerading as a Perth Based QF Pilot.

Before my Engineering brethren get up in arms, your Fed Sec started the tone of this thread and others have continued in kind.

As a QANTAS Pilot I see merit in some minor issues raised over MOD and threats to the integrity of the operation associated with Pilot pay contracts (ie no payment when not flying), however, I am as incensed at the not so subtle subtext the ALAEA is promoting as the TWU was (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/qantas-executive-has-claimed-the-decision-to-ground-the-fleet-was-made-for-safety-reasons/story-e6freuy9-1226180955942) last year

the Transport Workers Union accused Qantas last night of "being silly" for implying in documents lodged with Fair Work Australia that the airline feared its jets would be sabotaged by disgruntled employees.


Spare us the histrionics, slander and mis-directed rage.

many of us Drivers are actually seriously concerned while taking the wheel in some aircraft

Many of us do not have that confidence any more that when we enter the aircraft we will arrive safely at our destination.

Bullshit.

Fed Sec, put up or shut up.

Report all perceived breaches (why haven't you been doing this all along?)

I'm starting to believe Alan Joyce might have been right when declaring (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-29/qantas-locking-out-staff/3608250)

They are trashing our strategy and our brand

ALAEA Fed Sec
23rd Nov 2012, 01:21
Report all perceived breaches (why haven't you been doing this all along?)


I have. Pretty sure I said this in the first post.

CaptCloudbuster
23rd Nov 2012, 02:03
Fed Sec, I re read your posts and concede you have indeed been reporting all along.

I stand by the remainder of my post.

Safety Concerns
23rd Nov 2012, 07:47
captcloudbuster I am struggling to follow you.

I get the impression that no matter which way this is handled you will find something wrong in it.

Perhaps we should go back to basics and ask some very simple questions-

Defect ratio's used to be spread across all stations more or less evenly because most stations had an engineer present.

Manufacturers however have still not produced the defect free aircraft. Aircraft go wrong all the time as the rate of defect reporting remains consistent. So the issue isn't whether we have defects because the same logbook statistics tell us we do.

All aircraft including modern ones depart station A, land at station B and usually have something defective. Could be minor could be more serious. An autopilot A fault is just as serious today as it was 40 years ago. No change. System redundancy is the same today as 40 years ago. The difference is only in the amount of space such systems take up on board and the increased reliance on technology to reduce size and weight.

Yet 40 years ago an engineer would have been at station B awaiting that defect. Now there are no engineers at stations so what do we do?

The fact is that based on a flawed logic that modern jets don't go wrong or defects are less serious than 40 years ago, the way defects are handled has changed.

How do we know this?

Globally defect ratio's are no longer evenly spread. ALL AIRLINES produce similar results 92% of defects are written up going into a manned base.

Airline management also like to compare aircraft maintenance with modern day cars often citing the need for less maintenance and longer servicing intervals. However we are not talking about scheduled maintenance we are talking about the daily operation of the aircraft.

And to make a further comparison with cars, national car breakdown associations have a similar statistic which reports 75% of their call outs are to cars out of home base. Only 25% of call outs are to the owners home. I would suggest this reflects reality and aviation should be reporting a similar statistic. It isn't.

And it is getting worse. Birds and lightning strike damage inspections are now being performed and assessed by pilots at unmanned stations. On what basis are you making these highly technical and safety based decisions?

amount of blood determines remaining airframe strength or severity of damage?

But where I do agree with you is that we need to find a solution to this situation. Safety is being undermined. Intentionally or not is actually irrelevant just as who is to blame. We need to come together to find a way of stopping it before more people die. I chose my words carefully because there have already been avoidable accidents due to this irresponsible attitude to handling defects.

CaptCloudbuster
23rd Nov 2012, 08:42
Birds and lightning strike damage inspections are now being performed and assessed by pilots at unmanned stations. On what basis are you making these highly technical and safety based decisions?

As a QANTAS Pilot I don't, full stop.

I have been personally stuck in unmanned ports on many occasions waiting for hours or occasionally overnight due to birdstrike, fuel leaks, fume events and even careless baggage handlers who scratch cages along cargo hold doors. One entire PER based 737 crew stayed overnight in the Aircraft at YNWN due no accommodation last year.

When a defect occurs though that is not minor we have a procedure whereby the Capt consults with Maintenance Watch who can authorise him to use an MEL or issue an ATP that does not require maintenance action.

I am very satisfied with the safety of this procedure. As the Fed Sec has stated himself this procedure has been in place quite satisfactorily for years.

He says now that MOD has changed the game. He talks about oil not being checked every turnaround. We have posters here claiming Main ports are now virtually the same as non-maintenance ports.

QF 737 Pilots do lots of sectors. I don't need QF to send me to a course to be able to ask one of the many Engineers I see on a daily basis at work to figure out a 737-800 takes approx 18 units of oil. I've never seen less than 14. I have a personal limit now if I see 10 I'll call for an Engineer. I'm told the indicator will show LO qty at approx 4 units. Engineers tell me the oil consumption normal range can be as much as 0.5 units per hour. It is simple maths to realise with the MOD requirement for an Engineering check 2 to be performed at a max of 30 hours we have the oil situation covered.

Lets get this straight. At most ports if we have an issue Engineers are made available - MOD.

ALAEA Fed Sec
23rd Nov 2012, 08:54
Not in QANTAS there not. I have been personally stuck in unmanned ports on many occasions waiting for hours or occasionally overnight

Capt. I am certain you always do the right thing when reporting defects. This would be why you may find what I had originally posted a little confronting. Not all crew are the same though. There is a growing problem that is seeing a change in the places defects are reported. The problem is being caused by the system that Qantas are forcing upon us all.

1746
23rd Nov 2012, 08:56
Well done CCb keep it up, report everything when and where it occurs.:D:D
Nothing more is required or asked for.

OzSync
23rd Nov 2012, 11:41
FFS can we drop the oil thing...

Engineers never checked the oil more than they do now. Remember how they would never come up to the flight deck? Tech Log out the window?

airsupport
23rd Nov 2012, 23:46
Birds and lightning strike damage inspections are now being performed and assessed by pilots at unmanned stations. On what basis are you making these highly technical and safety based decisions?

CaptCloudbuster,

(Quote)

As a QANTAS Pilot I don't, full stop.

I have been personally stuck in unmanned ports on many occasions waiting for hours or occasionally overnight due to birdstrike, fuel leaks, fume events and even careless baggage handlers who scratch cages along cargo hold doors. One entire PER based 737 crew stayed overnight in the Aircraft at YNWN due no accommodation last year.

When a defect occurs though that is not minor we have a procedure whereby the Capt consults with Maintenance Watch who can authorise him to use an MEL or issue an ATP that does not require maintenance action.

I am very satisfied with the safety of this procedure. As the Fed Sec has stated himself this procedure has been in place quite satisfactorily for years.

(Endquote)

For the sake of all that fly Qantas, including many members of my Family, I hope ALL Qantas Pilots agree with you. :ok:

I was personally involved many years ago now, actually decades ago, with an incident with a B737-300 that almost ended as a disaster by Pilots not doing as you do.

We had a B737-300 operate daily BNE-ROK-MKY-ROK-BNE with no Engineers except for BNE.

The aircraft had multiple bird strikes on landing in MKY, the Pilots checked the aircraft over then phoned us in BNE, I wanted to send someone up to MKY but they were adamant that the only damage was to the fan blades on #1 engine and they were happy to return as normal to BNE via ROK.

At TOD into ROK they noticed a full scale deflection on a vibration indicator, shut down #1 engine, declared an emergency and landed on only #2 engine, it was then logged at ROK.

I went up to ROK with an AME and all the spare fan blades we had, after reading the logs we changed the worst of the fan blades on #1 engine, then I had a good look around and found that the fan blades on #2 engine were shingled.

Before deshingling them I decided to carry out a ground run out of curiousity, I did not even get it running, the Traffic Officer on the headset for me, used words I will not repeat here, to tell me how much the aircraft was shaking.

We subsequently confirmed it was actually #2 engine that the vibration reading went off the clock on at TOD, NOT #1 at all, so the Pilots actaully shut down the better engine.

I flew back to BNE the next morning with the same Pilots, who both admitted they did not even know what shingled blades were.

QF22
24th Nov 2012, 00:46
Ozsync
On a 737 there is no need to come to the flt deck to check the oil and hyd level.
Its just as easy to do it from the sightglass on the engine oil tank and on the hyd reservoir.
It was a blue team habit not to come to the cockpit, you will find that most red team engineers would still check and service oils every transit, and come to the cockpit.
Sadly with MOD that will no longer be the case.
GLTA !

airsupport
24th Nov 2012, 01:51
On a 737 there is no need to come to the flt deck to check the oil and hyd level.
Its just as easy to do it from the sightglass on the engine oil tank and on the hyd reservoir.


I never worked for Qantas, and do not have a clue what this MOD business is, however in my experience any LAME would check the levels at the tank/reservoir :confused: the flight deck indications are for the Flight Deck Crew to give them an idea of the levels. :confused:

QF22
24th Nov 2012, 02:31
airsupport
On a 737 it is easy to check hyd qty in the wheel well, on others 747,777,767 and others it is not so easy or practical as the reservoirs are in less accesable locations, and it is normal practice to use the cockpit or remote indication.
It is good practice to physically check the engine oil at the oil tank, and do a sniff check for fuel in the oil. But unfortunately in this day and age of MOD and cost cutting the engine oil is often checked by guage on transits, and only physically at night or layover.
Old heads like myself still tend to do physical checks, but we are considered dinosaurs now, and the bean counters prefer to take shortcuts.
It only costs less than $1 per pax to have an engineer do the preflight check, but the bean counters know better than us who have been doing it for 30 or 40 years. Apparently?
GLTA !

airsupport
24th Nov 2012, 02:39
Yes I realise that, just it was B737s that were being spoken of. :ok:

I too am a dinosaur then, more than 40 years in the Industry, there are way too many shortcuts and chances being taken today for my liking. :(

QF22
24th Nov 2012, 02:53
airsupport
I first heard the term affordable safety some 10 or 15 years ago at QF, thats how long it has been going on, and probably more?
I recently heard it called something else, at an MRO where i now work they call it "S eleven "ie $ sign with 2bars, ie dollars before safety !
The bean counters will keep cutting until there is a major incident/accident, and then they will blame everybody but themselves for it ! Sad but true !
GLTA !

OzSync
24th Nov 2012, 03:33
Wow sniffing the oil for fuel, checking the oil at the engine every turnaround. Sif.
Most of you can't even plug ground power in without whinging.

airsupport
24th Nov 2012, 04:06
airsupport
I first heard the term affordable safety some 10 or 15 years ago at QF, thats how long it has been going on, and probably more?
I recently heard it called something else, at an MRO where i now work they call it "S eleven "ie $ sign with 2bars, ie dollars before safety !
The bean counters will keep cutting until there is a major incident/accident, and then they will blame everybody but themselves for it ! Sad but true !
GLTA !

Well no Company I have ever worked for was too keen about spending money, however it is ridiculous now. :(

What price can you put on your Passengers safety, and Crew of course. :(

QF22
24th Nov 2012, 05:44
Ozsync
Most LAMESs of my vintage 30-40yrs experience have it ingrained in them to do the basics correctly, but there are exceptions, especially since 1994.
It was the Australian Airlines guys who didnt want to go upstairs, but then on a 35 minutes turnaround with one man, you can waste a lot of time going up to the flight deck.
Personally myself i still always go to the flight deck to check the logs and perhaps chat to the crew.
But these days if i encountered crew with an attitude like you, i dont bother interacting with them. Life is a 2 way street, you get what you dish out !
Cheers !