Qantas Maintenance Changes

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Hey guys. I just wanted to open up some conversation on changes implemented by Qantas last week that has effectively extended the daily check on 738 aircraft out to 48 hours. Up until last Monday, a check 2 was carried out overnight on all aircraft. A check 2 included engine oil servicing and brake/tyre wear checks.


Yesterday VZW had an rtb because the good crew were concerned that engine quantity levels after start were low, particularly considering they were to operate Syd-Bme-Syd. Engines were showing 12 and 13. We believe consumption rates can be up to .7 per hour for each engine.


The boys put 3.5 Quarts into each engine and off she went. Additionally there have been other verbals from crews seeking a check of the oil levels where 4 quarts per donk were added.


It appears that low quantity can be picked up by a vigilant crew however the extension of the check intervals will now often lead to a situation where quantity levels drop to a much lower level before a mandatory Engineering check is undertaken.


I was wondering what triggers are in place for you guys to prompt you to check the levels and at what point do you call for oil level servicing? Also what information has been disseminated by management to make you aware of the changes.


Also other things that reside in the check 2 have been pushed out such as tyre and brake checks. I'm not sure how you guys gauge the serviceability or otherwise of these components.

We often raise these concerns with management and they just brush it aside with a - "If there is any doubt the crew will just call a LAME". How do you guys know when to call a LAME or even if doubt exists in the first place?


cheers in advance. Steve P

[Paragraph377]

Steve, please excuse my ignorance as I am a Driver not a Gingerbeer, but vigilance aside, has management done a risk assessment on each separate item that they have extended the maintenance interval on - tyres, brakes, engine oil etc? One would assume 'yes' and that they are tracking data to ensure that extending these service intervals is actually effective, reduces any safety risk and of course lastly reduces costs? Are management going back and reviewing these changes to see if they actually are effective and not causing some inadvertent or even latent risks?
Is extending the intervals done in the name of 'best practise'? Has something changed in the evolution of maintenance for these intervals to now be extended? I assume the manufacturers and CASA are comfortable with these extensions?
The Alaska Airways crash, re: unlubricated jackscrew, often comes to my mind when I hear of maintenance cuts, extensions or intervals. I'm not saying that the aforementioned accident is relevant to QF and I absolutely respect the work the Australian Gingerbeers do, 100%, but management types do tend to skirt the fringes at times for the sake of saving a few bucks, earning some brownie points and receiving a bonus.
Sorry for the string of questions but those of us who don't do the maintenance can be somewhat naive with all the processes and procedures, but are naturally concerned when there is any change to established procedures. One could assume that in regard to what you mention about VZW that the new procedure isn't working? I could be wrong as there are numerous factors that will cause or contribute to a lower than expected oil level, but my red flag has for some reason popped up!

For those unfamiliar with the Alaska Airways crash;
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/summary/AAR0201.html

[Prince Niccolo M]

What does the OEM's maintenance schedule require?


Is this actually an extension, or is it the removal of QF-imposed additional maintenance to revert to the OEM schedule?

[CoolB1Banana]

The horse has bolted mate. Flight Ops approved the changes so we are meant to believe the tech crew are OK with it.

Pilots have to realise they need to be more aware of things such as oil levels because there won't be an engineer checking them anywhere near as often. It's a bit late to find out your low on oil after push-back. I bet my left one it went down to an engineering delay regardless. Inbound crews need to report EVERYTHING if they want a safe serviceable aircraft, even if it is an un-manned port. Funny how NGs only seem to get defects on the way back to a maint port...

Just the other day one flew three sectors with a no-dispatch door defect that was written up but not reported. More than one ar$e needs kicking there!

[Toruk Macto]

Min oil quantity can be nominated plus .7 for every hour planned for flying . Insert some pictures of a U/S tyre in ops manual showing what to look for .

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Off to footy but just briefly. Qantas do some risk assessments. If the Engineering change they want is not endorsed, they find someone who will sign off on a new risk assessment and then deem the first person who rejected the change as a troublemaker and their career is over. This is how Qantas operate.


AMM says to check oil every 24 hours unless otherwise amended in an operator's System of Maintenance. The other option is there for airlines who don't fly their aircraft as much but Qantas take it literally to mean "if we can find some buffoon in CASA to sign off" it will be ok. There are lots of buffoons at CASA and of course many good people also.

[bazza stub]

If it's unsafe, I'd be putting on a REPCON and then sending the (no doubt bull****) response from QF to the good Senator and maybe some press outlets.

This industry stinks of so many latent threats now, it seems inevitable that something is about to go horribly wrong.It looks like there is no stopping QF and CASA's "relationship", so our only course of action is to make as many impartial organisations aware of our concerns.

This isn't the only safety downgrade being introduced across the QF network either so I am told.

[Blueskymine]

In my type it's 11q minimum with an additional 0.3 per planned flight hour. It's checked by the PNF every sector on the SD of ECAM.

Daily and preflight valid for 36 hours.

It's funny though, from what I recall the intent of even a 36 hour window was not to use it as a rule, but flexibility with aircraft at non engineering ports.

Now it's a target.

[QF22]

I have been working overseas for a few years.
The B738 48 hour check has been standard where I work for several years.
AMM minimum oil quantity is 12qts, but I never see it that low.
Regardless of check interval, if its my aircraft, the oils, tyres and brakes are checked every transit. Thats just me, its so easy to do on the 738.
If the aircraft is operating MOD I suggest the pilots adopt the same standard. Its your arse up there at 35,000 feet. If in doubt call for an engineer, they will gladly come out and make sure you aircraft is safe to fly !
Cheers !

[Bootstrap1]

For a comparison, don't virgin only do a daily check every 2 days unless it is an ETOPS flight. Seems to work for them, and if I am correct it has been that way for 7 years I know of.

[MELKBQF]

I asked a mate at Virgin, they have gone back to 24hr checks at most ports. A small number of aircraft that overnight at some outports with limited engineering resources operate up to 48hrs.

[Dunnocks]

^^^Very much, this.

[600ft-lb]

It is possible it could be up to 48hours + 12hours before an engineer looks at the aircraft again.

The engineer will typically do the check on a nightshift and the MXI work package will be closed immediately prior to the first flight the next day. I'm sure most tech crew have been delayed due to maintenix issues of a morning and know what it's all about.

The clock starts counting for the next check from the moment the MXI package is closed, usually in the morning, not from when the check was actually carried out the night before.

Just some more food for thought for the tech crew. Think about how many support vehicles approach the aircraft between nightshift and prior to first flight - and where do you see 99% of all aircraft fuselage damage.

[plasticmerc]

I work over seas, we used to do the daily checks religiously every 48 hrs but believe it or not made life a hassle.
The 48 hrs was only meant to be there to get us out of trouble in case of being stuck somewhere.
All our destinations are unmanned with very little or no support.
Note all our flights are international and some are ETOPS.
Thanks to EASA etops can be certified by pilots now.
Also the NG oil use is a max 0.7 qts an hr for oil alerts.
The minimum for dispatch is 70% I have never seen one get so low in 48 hr period so not a big deal.
Before any one judges we can do 40 min hops to 6 hr legs.
It sucks to have management hate you and wish to degrade the quality of service you provide but welcome to the new world is all I can say.

We are a dying breed and an expense that no one wants, but they all need.
Also I have nothing nice to say about EASA pt 66 lic.
I have met dozens of people who have cashed up family go over to England do a 147 training package come out with basic lic, companies go ooh he has a basic lic he must be great!
Yes on paper he is 'great' but no hand skills no common knowledge just spoon fed basics.

Good luck guys.

VA have been doing maintenance on demand for years they haven't had any issues, QF will be fine as well.

[illusion]

-Pilot gets in cockpit.

-As part of pre-flight procedures, pilot checks oil level on cockpit display.

-As per flight manual, pilot calculates minimum oil required for sectors ie base amount plus 'x' per flight hour. Note that on ETOPS sector an engineering check of levels required AS PART OF ETOPS sign off.

In the HIGHLY UNLIKELY case that oil level is less than required, maintenance release entry requesting oil addition.

Airyplane departs and arrives at destination.

Maintenance is required to monitor individual engines for adverse trends in oil consumption.

It ain't that hard.......:ugh:

[hotnhigh]

Hey illusion,
The problem is nowhere in Qantas supplied manuals to pilots, does it state the minimum oil required amounts....base amount or usage per hour.
So yes pilots do have a problem when faced with a 8 hour day of flying stopping at a non maintenance port and turning up to see the aircraft having oil levels anywhere between 12-20 qts.
The first question isn't "are we safe?", it's "are we legal."
And in asking engineers across the network it appears not to many know themselves because the documentation appears lacking. However, on transit through Sydney today, it appeared a more definitive answer of 60% has been established.
But the other issue raised was what about an etops sector?
The answer was 16 qts, again good to know but nowhere is that number listed in pilot documentation.
The next revelation of course is the rumour that shortly Qantas will dispatch all 737 non etops, eliminating the need for engineering input preflight.
One does ask wtf is going on in this place and where is casa in allowing this rubbish to be occurring.
I haven't had time to go back and re read the CARs to establish the pilot in commands requirements for confirming adequate fluid levels on board the aircraft preflight, but it makes it difficult when Qantas' own documentation to pilots provides no reference.

[2Plus]

I'm sure we're all aware, but...

CAR REG234

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not commence a flight within Australian territory, or to or from Australian territory, if he or she has not taken reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft carries sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety.

(2) An operator of an aircraft must take reasonable steps to ensure that an aircraft does not commence a flight as part of the operator's operations if the aircraft is not carrying sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety.

To all, do you know how much you require for the flight to be undertaken in safety? If not, best find out!

[Managers Perspective]

Maybe it is actually time to waddle out of your protected little pond at Taronga Park Zoo.

Oh boo-hoo, the QF documentation doesn't tell me the limits. Would you even consider that maybe, just maybe, as a professional you should actually know these.

They are published in the OEM data. But no, if it isn't on my spoon I can't swallow it.

The flight deck is not an extension of the forward cabin, it isn't full service.

MP.

[Bootstrap1]

Thanks for the updated info I wasn't aware they righted the wrongs.

[2Plus]

I would bet that the first most crews would have heard about this 48hr business, if they have at all, is from chatting with a dispatch engie. Of the 3 jet types that normally operate domestically, I see one entry on 8th April on a official (unofficial) blog.

[airsupport]

It is just so sad to see how much standards have dropped in recent years by Companies just worried about saving money. :(:(:(

[hotnhigh]

Managers perspective, thanks for the diatribe.
And thanks also for not addressing any of the issues. Qantas has the right to operate their aircraft however they like, and on this,my opinion doesn't count. I accept that, however, now we have a situation where the information you allude to is not available to the pilots.
Again the question is "are we legal."
So get off the blinkered high horse and understand the problem. Qantas has introduced a system where the information the required by the pilot in command is not there. Do the pilots have access to the OEM or AMM?
Answer=no
As for the taronga park line, I've visited a few different zoos around the world and the Qantas one on coward street has a goose as the prized animal, the biggest monkeys enclosure out of the lot of them, and a huge trough out the back,which if drunk from, seems to be able to produce effluent of giant proportions when you consider the metrics of running a successful business.

[Paragraph377]

There are a few comments popping up where posters are saying the pilots should be monitoring systems, picking up potential tech issues of their own accord etc, but I don't think that is the point of this thread.
The point is that a system that worked well was in place, it was a system that added an extra 'defence' in the Swiss cheese model. But in my opinion that particular defence has now been removed. The removal of just one defence creates an elevated level of risk. How many more defences will be removed before the remaining holes in the cheese line up?

[No Hoper]

Yes indeed, para377.
Won't be long before the management team will have certifying priveliges and then all LAMES can be sacked

[waren9]

cant speak for the type mentioned by the op but for the bus, oil qty checks preflight by the tech crew are in the normal procedures. minimum qty and an allowance for burn are promulgated.

reading that first post simply seems the tech crew missed it preflight.

when mgmt get sick of the delays, return to gates and getting aircraft stuck at non engineering ports i guess they'll change it back

agreed, mgmt do seem to take limits as targets.

[V-Jet]

Again the question is "are we legal."

I don't think those words mean much to senior QF management. As pilots and engineers we are taught from day 1 'You must be SAFE AND LEGAL - and they are NOT the same'. I just don't think these guys (like MP) actually understand the issues. Their world is based on what you can get away with, the worst they are likely to come across in their lives is losing their job. The 'real' world Qf operates in (like you do something wrong and lots of people are likely to die very quickly) is diametrically opposed to the nice fluffy world of cash-flow projections and PPT presentations.

A bad day for a senior QF manager is a leaking pen, or losing your smartphone in the toilet at Rockpool. Trying to explain a double engine failure at V1 in a nasty crosswind will just get a blank look. I don't think they understand 'cause' and 'effect'.

Which is why an Engineer, Pilot, F/A and Ground staff member really needs to be on the board, so they can explain to the numpties what it is an airline REALLY does and what it NEEDS to do. And it sure as hell aint Lounges and shiny new corporate HQ's.

[framer]

Does anyone actually know what the minimum oil quantity is for 738's ?
I asked a LAME while doing a walk around a few months ago and he said 16. That made sense to me as it is always 16 or higher on our aircraft as we get topped up every turn around (EDTO). But try as I might I couldn't find it in any manual.
Does anyone have anything definitive?

[griffin one]

In a galaxy far far away and many light years passed a flight engineer would examine water drains after every refuel,oil would be topped up regardless of qty indication,landing gear struts would be wiped clean and hydraulic qty at optimum ops level and oil tank caps inspected before dep.
This is now referred to as gold plating maintenance.id rather have gold like the smell the taste the touch of it than any other form.

[LAME2]

ask us next week

[yotty]

Just a small point. To get accurate oil level indications following several hours on the deck, the engines need to be operated for 5 minutes at idle. :ok:

[OBNO]

Guess we could ask the Tech Pilot about oil requirements. Oh that's right, those positions no longer exit!!

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Thnx for the posts guys. Interesting to see an array of answers. If I could ask a couple of questions specifically about Pilot maintenance. Is there information given to you as part of your 738 training about minimum oil levels? What have you guys been told or taught about this and other things such as tyre and brake limits?

[plasticmerc]

From the maintenance manual minimum dispatch oil level on a 738 is 70% .

I don't remember if 1 qt is 4 or 5% but I assume it is 14 at 5% a can.

Hope that helps after that the oil pressure starts to drop too low.

[hadagutfull]

From what I understand , the airline must be maintained by a part 145 MRO , and the Qantas CASA approved part 145 rules do not allow for pilot maintenance in any form. Not even for an independent inspection if only 1 lame on station. The devil is in the detail of what is considered maintenance or servicing.
Pilots can check oils on the indicators, fair enough, but if EDTO rules are changed to allow pilots to carry out ETOPS checks, what about the IDG oil and delta p checks required ? Servicing function?? Will you be trained to vent the IDG to get the correct oil level ? Will u have PPE to prevent breathing in MJ2 vapour?
Manufacturer and industry standards do not translate to best practice.
It's good to get an overview of opinions from various departments.
Cheers

[Managers Perspective]

A small correction.

Pilot Maintenance is not performed under a Part 145 Maintenance Organisation Approval.

It is performed under the CASA approved policies and procedures of the CAMO under Part 42.300.

The Part 42 Manual of Standards limits Pilot Maintenance to the following activities:
1. A pre-flight or daily inspection or an inspection that is equivalent to a pre-flight or daily inspection in the aircraft maintenance program.
2. Replacement of bulbs and lights.
3. Replacement of seats, if the replacement does not involve disassembly of any part of the primary structure of the aircraft.
4. Replenishment of a system fluid other than a gas.
5. Maintenance that is required for the application of a minimum equipment list if the maintenance does not involve any of the following:
(a) removal or disassembly of parts;
(b) disassembly of control systems;
(c) the use of special tools or equipment.
6. Maintenance required by an airworthiness directive, if the airworthiness directive permits a pilot licence holder or a flight engineer to carry out the maintenance.

These activities can only be approved after the pilot has been appropriately trained and approved by the CAMO.

MP

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Thnx Manager. The CAMO now doesn't cover this oil level check.


It used to form part of a daily check. That check is now a 48 hourly check and is no longer daily.

[NSEU]

2. Replacement of bulbs and lights.

Seriously, who writes these CASA regs? How do the pilots get tools through the x-ray machines or get access to the maintenance manual to know which circuit breakers to pull, which parts to fit*, etc.

*The reason why the light is broken may be because the wrong bulb was fitted in the first place.

Doesn't lamp removal invariably involve the removal of a part and the disassembly of a light assembly?

[Short_Circuit]

QF engineering policy for replacement of lamps is, power isolated (pull C/B), document pulled C/B in maintenix and use of PPE in the form of eye shields. Ensure correct P/N lamp is used IAW AMM - IPC

[SRM]

If you read the new regulations, pilots of a Large Aircraft can no longer perform ANY maintenance unless he is trained and approved by a Part 145 AMO. This includes changing light bulbs and pulling CB's for the application of an MEL.
Refer CASR 1998 Division 42.G 4 and MOS part 42

maintenance means any task required to ensure, or that could affect, the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft or aeronautical product, including any one or combination of overhaul, repair, inspection, replacement of an aeronautical product, modification or defect rectification.

And the penalties are:

24 Interference with crew or aircraft

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person does an act; and

(b) the act:

(i) interferes with a crew member of an aircraft in the course of the performance of his or her duties as such a crew member; or

(ii) threatens the safety of an aircraft or of persons on board an aircraft.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

(2) A person must not tamper with:

(a) an aircraft; or

(b) an aeronautical product that is of such a type that tampering with it may endanger the safety of an aircraft or any person or property;

if tampering with it may endanger the safety of the aircraft or any person or property.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

http://i61.tinypic.com/if3h93.jpg

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

http://i61.tinypic.com/2pyrww5.jpg

[Troo believer]

Management .........?
If you knew anything about Qantas and it's promulgation of documentation then you would know that the company supplied documentation is the only reference to be used by pilots. Company manuals and Jeppesen supplied info only for operational requirements. No need to be a smart arse. There was specific oil consumption and minimums published for the classic 737 but not the NG. If this is anything like the enroute LDR calculations changes then there will be memos standing orders and intams to totally confuse everyone and in six months they will back peddle.

[AEROMEDIC]

CASA basically sit back and watch each airline self regulate it's own operations.

Non conformances SHOULD be captured during an audit or a surveillance as part of the regular activities of the airworthiness surveyors, but often NOT.

They know full well that it's the advance notification that prompts operators to check their books and get their houses in order in time for the check that is the main driver for compliance.

In the end, operators ARE self regulating, and policing of compliance is difficult at best.
What to do about it, but what's fair as well?

[Managers Perspective]

Sorry SRM, I suggest you keep reading the new regulations and the associated CASA guidance material.

Pilot Maintenance training may be carried out by a Part 145 Maintenance Organisation OR a Part 147 Maintenance Training Organisation (Aviation Australia for example).

The purpose of the training is to impart the knowledge and skill necessary to carry out the maintenance. The regulation does not specify the level and scope of the training. This will depend on the type of maintenance for which the pilot or the flight engineer is being authorised and the prior knowledge and skill of the individual in relation to carrying out the maintenance. The training may need to include both theoretical and practical elements or just practical. If a pilot or flight engineer currently holds the privilege to carry out a particular maintenance, the scope of required training for the maintenance may be minimum.

The training may be carried out by either:
 an AMO that holds the privileges to carry out the maintenance; or
 a maintenance training organisation approved under Part 147 that is approved to provide training for the maintenance; on the relevant aircraft type.

After the required training, the pilot or the flight engineer must be assessed by the AMO or the maintenance training organisation for competency. Before the CAMO issues an authorisation under regulation 42.630 for a particular maintenance, the CAMO must ensure the pilot or the flight engineer holds written statement from the AMO or the maintenance training organisation to
verify that the pilot or flight engineer is competent to carry out the maintenance. Under regulation 42.660, the CAMO is required keep a copy of the statement for 2 years after the authorisation ceases to be in force.

[OBNO]

MP,

All good policy, except None of this training is being provided to Pilots...

[AEROMEDIC]

[QUOTE][If none of these documents exist because CASA has not approved the changes,we ask that CASA ground the Qantas fleet of 738 aircraft until such time as the previous system of maintenance are restored and corrective actions taken to complete any maintenance that may have been neglected/QUOTE]

Steve,

I agree with the sentiment, but I think that CASA will feel that your request is too much to ask. I think you might do better with a more "middle ground" approach. More to the point, they will do nothing of substance when pushed to the front Of the crowd.
On the other hand, it might be said that the "if you don't ask, you don't get" approach might yield something of value.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Yes Aero, we tossed up over the final ask and decided that we better take the second hand car advert approach. Always ask for more than the price you would be willing to accept.


Thnx MP for the post. Wondering how many Pilots reading this hold the necessary approval for maintenance after receiving the appropriate training???

[SRM]

MP you are correct.

The document covers a lot more than you or I have mentioned.

As it stands at the moment and as far as I am aware, there has been NO training provided to Pilots.

This being the case then Pilots are no longer permitted to carry out ANY maintenance as I have previously stated, if they do then penalties apply!

[Bagus]

Look at MAS ,the minister gave MAS 2 days to come up with report regarding incident of their plane.All it take one incident and passengers number reported drop by 25%.

[Bagus]

The Star online
Netizens split over MAS incident.

Venubalan Rajaram said the incidents could be due to sheer coincidence or other factors. “Could it be due to low employee morale, complacency and incompetence at MAS’ repair and maintenance division? Or inferior quality parts and skipped processes to help meet the struggling financial bottom line?”

Dan Capper offered this perspective: “So five incidents, three relatively minor, out of how many flights exactly? Not bad luck or anything, probably comparable to any airline around the world actually.”

What netizens agreed upon was the need for stringent aircraft maintenance, with the incidents needing to be taken as a wake-up call for the highest professional standards to be employed in aircraft maintenance.

[V-Jet]

SRM and others:

Correct. Pilots are not allowed to touch anything. Circuit breakers, lightbulbs - almost anything.

It seems silly, but as with everything aviation a little knowledge can often be a very dangerous thing and a lot worse than no knowledge at all.

And that is strangely enough why most pilots have the GREATEST respect for Engineers, because it is a very rare pilot who has not been saved from huge embarrassment (or worse) by Engineers.

[Paragraph377]

FL 401, an L1011 that crashed into the Florida Everglades. Complete hull loss, 99 dead, and one of the causal factors - Pilots trying to change a bulb for which they had not been trained for the task. Starting to sound familiar?
Take a look at Training Inadequacies Event Number 3:

http://flightsafety.org/ap/ap_jan91.pdf

People are forgetting something, and that is this; In our aviation industry there are both outcome based and prescriptive compliance. There are processes and procedures that an organisation can implement of its own accord so as to attain compliance, however there are still prescriptive processes and procedures that are set by manufacturers and regulators which must be followed so as to attain and maintain compliance. What has occurred at QF in this instance is going to be a very interesting case to follow.

Steve, well done with the Observation letter sent to the Skull, and the FOI request you sent. Good luck on both counts. I have no doubt that both of these organisations will be feeling somewhat uncomfortable at the moment with how this is unfolding. It would appear that yet another half baked money saving decision that has been poorly rolled out has backfired. And as for CASA, well, say no more.

FOOTNOTE: I trust the Miniscules department, as well as Senators Xenophon and Fawcett are taking a cursory interest in this and the Virgin ATR incident?

[Capt Quentin McHale]

Ladies and Gents,


Regarding this oil fiasco, everybody on this forum has been quoting min/max oil figures, oil consumption figures etc, etc.


As oil is the lifeblood of YOUR engine, do you really trust what the oil quantity gauge is telling you, or do you trust what your engineer is telling you? Is that oil gauge reading min 16 or full 18 correct and exact??? We have been caught out before with faulty oil gauges!!!


The ONLY way to ensure you have enough oil is to physically check the oil level in the SIGHTGLASS situated beside the oil tank fill cap. Easy as pie to check on a pilots walkaround, just open the oil fill access door and voila, the oil sightglass is right there staring you in the face. If you can't see oil in the sightglass, I'd be screaming for an engineer, no matter what that bloody gauge tells me upstairs!!!


McHale.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Ah you know what they say, a little knowledge can be dangerous. Yes Capt. you can easily open the access panel and check the sight glass to tell if there is oil in the tank. Well sometimes you can.


That physical check must be done between 5 and 30 minutes after engine shutdown otherwise the oil will likely have crept back into cavities in the oil system and read incorrectly.


Your well intentioned post is an absolute demonstration of the whole issue at play here. No Pilot or Engineer should follow your, or my instructions on how to service or check engine oil levels. This needs to be taught properly and recorded as per the Regs. I only wish the numpties out at Qantas could understand this.

[Nassensteins Monster]

The ONLY way to ensure you have enough oil is to physically check the oil level in the SIGHTGLASS situated beside the oil tank fill cap.

Some sightglasses are discoloured. Common knowledge to those in the know - the blokes who top them up daily. So, a discoloured sightglass gives the appearance of full oil - until you add oil and it subtly changes appearance. And that's in full daylight, not by the light of the pathetic little LED keyring torch i've seen some pilots do a walkaround with at night.

A little knowledge is indeed a VERY dangerous thing.

[SRM]

Opening the oil panel and checking the oil level is considered a maintenance action.

Undocumented maintenance WILL cancel the CRS.

[Australopithecus]

Even if I was a LAME turned pilot, I don't have tools or a ladder. The only oil checking I do is on a display. And +1 on sightglasses. All of my life I have been checking them, on boilers, machine tools, various internal combustion things. They are routinely stained and can easily lead the untrained astray.

[Capt Quentin McHale]

Steve, Monster, SRM and Austro.....,


Indeed, you are all correct. My post was not meant to lead people astray. Submitted perhaps out of frustration with a system (in my view) that is total madness. Apologies.


McHale.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Capt your post was a really good one. It helped highlight the extent of some of the problems.

[CoolB1Banana]

You are a very game QF pilot if you think it's a good idea to open an engine panel and carry out a physical oil check. If any half decent LAME sees you doing it the $hit will hit the fan in a big way I can promise you. There's a list of CASA regs and QF policies you've just broken and you no longer have a valid CRS so your aircraft is not airworthy. And don't forget to smile as you are being filmed on almost every Australian domestic ramp the whole time.

[bdcer]

Hey nassensteins-monster,

Sorry to drift off thread, but, with regard to torches, what type would you recommend for walk around? I've been looking for a replacement, but can't seem to find one that is both small & bright (I've got a Fenix with lithium batteries, but lithium battery powered personal torches aren't popular with my employer).

[Australopithecus]

LED torches? Try these guys: DealeXtreme - Cool Gadgets at the Right Price - DX Free Shipping Worldwide (http://www.dx.com)

[MrPeabody]

SRM/CoolB1Banana

Maybe you should have a good look at the regulations. Opening and closing a quick access panel is not a "maintenance" action and it does not invalidate the CRS.

Maybe look up the meaning of "servicing". Servicing is generally considered not maintenance.

Is the CRS invalidated by any of the following???:

Aircraft fuelled.......access panel opened/closed (fuel added).
Water uplifted..........access panel opened/closed (water added).
Toilet serviced.........access panel opened/closed (get the picture).:rolleyes:

[Nassensteins Monster]

bcder, try a Led Lenser P14: 4 x AA. $73 on eBay free postage. Battery life about 100 hrs,


210 lumens 205mm long
Rear mounted thumb switch
Effective beam length up to 280m
One-handed adjustable beam: flood & spot

[Managers Perspective]

Mr Peabody, you are 100% correct.

Let's stick to fact not emotion.



And Steve, for reference, a Part 42 CAMO is permitted to vary its approved maintenance program as long as it is not less restrictive than the Instructions for Continuous Airworthiness (in this case the OEM MRB/MPD). It does not require CASA to approve the change.

How well they implement the change is a completely different discussion point, but approval wise they can do it themselves.

MP.

[bdcer]

Thanks Nassensteins Monster & all, I'll have a look at the LED Lensers,

Not as bright as the lithium battery torches but I guess it'll have to do.

Thanks

[AEROMEDIC]

Actually, the facts are,
That a daily or pre flight inspection involving the tasks of checking fluid levels and general inspections for defects IS maintenance. If one were to actually top up fluid levels as a result, THEN it would be classified as servicing.

If you need to open a quick access type panel in the process of carrying out the daily inspection, then that is maintenance as well (according to CASA's guide to pilot maintenance).

It's reasonable that a pilot should be be able to carry out tasks that can identify obvious damage or defects so he/she can seek the technical advice from suitably qualified engineers as to how to proceed. Those defects or damage may be identified as Major defects (those that affect the safety of the aircraft) and different pathways will be taken and then may affect the CRS.
BUT, having said that, here are plenty of circumstances where having a Licensed Engineer do the daily or pre flight instead of the pilot is validated.
Experience in identifying a defect is the FIRST thing that is of benefit. The difference between a crack in paint or in structure, or leaking fluid from a drain mast. Is it engine oil or hydraulic oil and what is the permissible leak rate while static or dynamic?
Certainly saves some time for the pilots for peace of mind and to dedicate that time to other operational matters that contribute to " on time departures".

So, Mr Peabody is not 100% correct .

MP, on the other hand is right to observe whether or not change is implemented for the better.

[V-Jet]

And if pilots have to perform all of MP's suggestions (and they were mentally capable of absorbing all that information) then how many flights would depart within even an hour of 'on time'?


Does anyone reading this, who has any understanding of how much work is involved in safely getting a big jet off the ground safely, actually think the likes of MP's suggestions are anything close to realistic?

I dislike providing people ammunition by responding, but this is madness!!!

IMHO.

[Managers Perspective]

Then let me clarify.

The act of opening and closing a quick access panel for the purpose of a fluid level "check" is not maintenance. Under the regulations a pilot of the aircraft may check fluid levels, even if this entails opening and closing quick access panels.

That's not to say that it is practical for all operations, but it is permitted.

The act of "inspecting" against a specified criteria for the purpose of determining serviceability (inspecting oil level and calculating consumption rate per AMM requirements) is clearly a maintenance activity. The check of oil level as described in the earlier paragraph is also maintenance if it forms part of the approved maintenance program for the aircraft (Daily or similar level maintenance pre-flight checks).

MP.

[Toruk Macto]

Can a Qantas 737 go to and airport with out engineering support ? Ie a pilot does walk around , refuels and signs maintence log . No riding eng or ground engineer at all ?

[V-Jet]

MP:
How about you learn to complete a pilots preflight in (let's be generous) 40 minutes - generous because you won't pass a course unless you can do it in 15, and you have to know ALL the regs associated with every button push and indication. Then add all the crap you are talking about adding to the workload, not on the flight deck, but the tarmac. Ever walked off the flight deck with 200-400 pax walking the other way? Do you understand what the fast moving hand on your watch actually means?

You aren't Joyce are you? If you aren't, then you may have a friend, because he is as ignorant in what his airline actually does as you are....

[Managers Perspective]

No argument from me on the practicality of any of this in the QF operation.

My point is that it is no use writing to and blaming CASA for QF poor operational decisions, or poor QF implementations.

CASA's hands are held if the action is permissible under the regulations.

MP.

[V-Jet]

I appreciate your response, but in Casa's case I disagree.

Acquiescence, in Qf's case to it's desires, is complicit in the subterfuge.

It is demonstrably impossible to comply, therefore CASA's hands are tied, as you suggest. But as I see it, in the complete opposite way as to how you see the regulations applying.

If the regs are impossible to comply with, then it is CASA that HAS to act. Whether they want to wipe their hands of it or not, the responsibility, ultimately is theirs. If not theirs, then who else?

[Managers Perspective]

The regulations are fine.

I respectfully suggest that you think they only apply to you guys, they don't. They apply to any AOC operation, which may be a Piper or a Beech aircraft.

Many pilots perform maintenance pre-flights in smaller operations, be they smaller aircraft or smaller fleets of large aircraft. In these situations the adequate controls can be effectively managed to the safe and compliant outcome.

As I mentioned earlier, how the operator implements the changes is the key.

MP.

[CoolB1Banana]

MrPeabody

You are right that a pilot can perform some servicing functions but you are wrong when it comes to a physical check of engine oils on a QF aircraft. CASA may deem it OK for a pilot to physically check engine oils but the QEPM and QF 145 Exposition does not. A physical check of engine oils requires a certified tech log entry to record uplift, even if the uplift is nil. It is this tech log entry that will cause your CRS to be no longer valid. A similar example is removal of landing gear down lock pins. Considered by CASA as a servicing function and able to be carried out by a pilot but not by the QF system of maintenance. The QEPM specifies that an entry be made in the tech log that must be certified by a licenced engineer. A CRS can not be issued until that happens.

It is not as simple as reading the CASA regs when it comes to maintenance/servicing. The QF 145 Exposition and all docs it refers to demonstrate to CASA how QF complies with the intent of its regulations and in both the above cases OVERRIDES those regulations.

[Tankengine]

Sure about the pins cool banana?
Inserting and removing pins is in the 737 ops procedures for Pilots for unscheduled overnights at non maintenance bases as I recall.

[SRM]

PB and MP I have checked with CASA and opening of the oil service panel after the completion of maintenance is considered undocumented maintenance.

This action WILL cancel the CRS as previously posted.

No emotion just facts.


Civil Aviation Act 1988


maintenancemeans any task required to ensure, or that could affect, the continuingairworthiness of an aircraft or aeronautical product, including any one orcombination of overhaul, repair, inspection, replacement of an aeronauticalproduct, modification or defect rectification.

[Australopithecus]

I cannot decide if all of this makes sense or is regulation gone wild.

How is inspection defined? When I do an external preflight it is to verify the airworthiness of the aircraft. Doubly so when no engineer performs the task. So I check for gear pins, brake wear pins, tyre condition, external damage, missing static wicks, leaks, etc, and I check the fluid quantities, various temps and pressures on my gauges. On the 737 pilots even check hydraulic reservoir sight glasses.

How do the light twin operators handle this? Surely a pilot can open the panel, twist open the cap and check the oil dipstick? How about checking tyre pressure? Refuelling? Deicing?

[CoolB1Banana]

It might take you a while to find the engine oil dipstick on a QF aircraft, unless you have a time machine on hand.

What do you think happens when an engine runs out of oil because a pilot left the cap off during his undocumented physical oil check? They carry out a MEDA investigation and slot the last engineer to document an oil check. :ugh:

[Australopithecus]

Well, if you would be so kind as to RTFQ I mentioned dipsticks in the context of light twins. And don't be so insulting...I have a catalogue of horror stories of engineer stuff-ups. How many days of LAME instruction is devoted to twisting the oil cap back on?

[CoolB1Banana]

Why don't you RTF-thread name buddy, last time I looked we weren't operating light twins...

At the end of the day, if you are a QF pilot you can't open engine panels. Get over it and get over yourself.

[Prince Niccolo M]

SRM,
I have checked with CASA...So, that was the DAS was it? Hopefully not just an AWI, given the pages of PPRuNe filled with criticism of CASA's lack of standardisation and policy control...

Yes, the Act does define maintenance for the purposes of those sections that it seeks to specifically regulate, such as s20AB:
20AB Flying aircraft without licence etc.
(1) ...
(2) A person must not carry out maintenance on:
(a) an Australian aircraft; or
(b) an aeronautical product in Australian territory; or
(c) an aeronautical product for an Australian aircraft;
if the person is not permitted by or under the regulations to carry out that maintenance.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.As an aside, the existence of s20AB is why your waving around of s24 as the "crime" is wrong.

As to the general thought that CASA would use s20AB(2) to stitch up an unauthorised change of light bulb or, shock horror, opening a quick access panel - highly unlikely, given the need to establish beyond reasonable doubt a fault and a physical element as well as the need to explain to the beak why you are wasting his/her time on matter more appropriately dealt with under the regulations and the administrative fines system.

Because the Act does not seek to regulate servicing, it is not defined therein. However, the regulations are intended to deal with the myriad of lesser crimes that do not invoke the spectre of incarceration for offending - guess what we find:
servicing, in relation to an aircraft, means preparing the aircraft for flight, and includes providing the aircraft with fuel and other fluids that are necessary for its operation, but does not include any work that is maintenance.So then we come to the distinction between inspection and "checking" as raised by Aeromedic - I suspect it would take a serious court to determine whether a task such as checking a fluid level, albeit one of many tasks constituting a maintenance inspection such as a daily inspection, is of itself automatically defined as maintenance.

It seems reasonable that an inspection is a search for defects. However, it also seems reasonable that a diminished fluid level is not a defect, although an excessive usage rate may well be. Is the identification of a need for servicing due to a diminished fluid level reasonably defined as maintenance and, if so, is it legally defensible to demand an authorisation to identify a need for an activity for which an authorisation is not required to conduct?

Now back to the matter that is really at hand.

If a company decides that it will not allow certain groups of people to conduct certain activities, then that is entirely an internal matter. If such a restriction results in inefficiencies and entrenches work practices that are otherwise not required, that remains a matter of commercial choice. However, if that company then elects to change that established "custom and practice", then they are equally committed to manage the change to ensure that safety is not compromised.

Finding "crimes" in the legislation is not the solution - identifying the shift in risk from LAME to pilot and assessing the consequential change in overall risk is the first step in developing the mitigators, followed closely by the risk recipient determining if the mitigators are sufficient for them to accept the expansion of their personal risk exposure.

And this is where CASA fails - change management in this case is not solely the prerogative of the company and it is not solely about theoretical processes, it is all about "where the rubber hits the road" and it must be assured by the regulator at the risk recipient level!

The solution comes from the representative bodies holding a blow torch to CASA's feet to ensure that a mutually satisfactory outcome is achieved, since CASA lacks the intellectual and practical horsepower to unilaterally assure a safe outcome.

[SRM]

(How is inspection defined? When I do an external preflight it is to verify the airworthiness of the aircraft. Doubly so when no engineer performs the task. So I check for gear pins, brake wear pins, tyre condition, external damage, missing static wicks, leaks, etc, and I check the fluid quantities, various temps and pressures on my gauges. On the 737 pilots even check hydraulic reservoir sight glasses.)

The pilot preflight is NOT a maintenance inspection and therefore, is not part of the aircraft's Approved Maintenance Program (AMP).

Not my words.

servicing, in relation to an aircraft, means preparing the aircraft for flight, and includes providing the aircraft with fuel and other fluids that are necessary for its operation, but does not include any work that is maintenance.

This means refuelling, toilet and potable water servicing.

[Australopithecus]

Cool Banana...where did I express a yearning to get my hands dirty? I asked a simple question related to the thread. Don't bother replying.

[Managers Perspective]

Here is the CASA published list of servicing tasks:

Servicing Tasks

Refuelling and de-fuelling;
Fuel system water drain checks;
Replenishment of hydraulic fluid;
Replenishment of engine oil;
Toilet cleaning;
Replenishment of engine coolant;
Replenishment of water;
Sanitize potable water;
Adjustment of tyre pressures;
Replenishment of de-icing fluid;
Periodic lubrication of components, other than lubrication that is required for the accomplishment of scheduled maintenance, which does not require disassembly of the component, other than removal of non-structural items such as cover plates, cowlings and fairings eg: lubrication of door hinges;
Aircraft internal and external cleaning, including windscreen cleaning;
Disinfecting of the aircraft;
Removal of ice and snow;
Application of preservative or protective material to components where no disassembly of any primary structure or operating system is involved and where such coating is not prohibited or is not contrary to good maintenance practices;
Checking aircraft battery electrolyte levels and topping up with distilled water but excluding wet cell nickel-cadmium batteries;
Servicing tasks required by the aircraft flight manual or maintenance manual;
Towing, parking and mooring including tasks to facilitate these functions eg: quick disconnect and re-connection of torque links; and
Replacement or repair of signs and markings.

Note: The servicing of liquid and gaseous oxygen systems is to be carried out only by an appropriately rated LAME.

As mentioned earlier, if any of these are written into the aircraft Approved Maintenance Program (not a policy or procedure manual) then they are maintenance tasks.

Further factual reading here:
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - AWB 12-1 Issue 2 - Aircraft servicing and ground handling tasks (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90648)

Again, that's not to say that any of this is appropriate for any particular operator. But these are the actual regulator guidelines.

MP.

[AEROMEDIC]

Just to remind everybody, Fedsec started this thread in order to get some feedback with respect to Qantas's maintenance system and 48 hour checks on THEIR aircraft.

Some fair and reasonable posts have been made about what constitutes a breach of the current regulations and what does not.

The feedback requested was not about any other owners aircraft, but discussion raised some salient points about pilots duties and privileges in a much broader sense.

Having said that, I think t's better to keep the focus on the thrust of Fedsec's letters to CASA and what help he is hoping to get from this thread.

The point about what constitutes a cancellation of the CRS is very interesting and how Qantas's Maintenance Progam fits with the current regulations so there might be something there to mull on.

In the light of keeping SAFETY for all at the top of the list in running an airline, costs reduction by Qantas (and others) has meant testing the boundaries of the regulations. In my view, I have to say that this is being done with the complicity of the regulator. Others might not agree with that.

So it might be more helpful to provide something that shows the issues that are conflicting the maintenance program with the regulations on these aircraft.

[Nassensteins Monster]

As mentioned earlier, if any of these are written into the aircraft Approved Maintenance Program (not a policy or procedure manual) then they are maintenance tasks.

Sanitize potable water

Recently we had a manager argue that sanitising potable water was a servicing function. On B738 a/c it requires pulling c/bs and removing brewers/boilers. That makes it a maintenance function, over and out, not a servicing function.What hope is there when our managers can't tell **** from clay?

[hotnhigh]

Yes there has been good discussion about the implications of accountants running there eyes over maintenance and engineering functions.
However, since fed sec raised the issue what's happened?
Traditionally you got to the aircraft, as a pilot, had a glance at the oils, and 99.9% of the time they'd be at or above 18qts. This no longer occurs. You can find any values from 11-18 qts.
The crux of the problem for the pilot in this brave new world, is wtf is the manufacturers recommended minimum? And lets move up from there.
A memo has been published with numbers, but is this an official document in CASa's eyes, or even a Qantas operational perspective?
I think not. People can bang on here about what pilots and engineers should cop but the fact is,from a legal stand point, you've got the right and need to ask is it acceptable? Clearly not.
So now you have a ridiculous scenario where engineers are saying under the new 48 hour requirements they simply cannot inspect the oil levels on a quick turnaround because they fear it will be read as some form of industrial action by Qantas, pilots and engineers saying the place has gone completely bonkers, pilots then placing tech log entries about oil levels for fear that 8 hours flying to non maintenance ports could run the oil levels below minimums, what ever that number is.
And where is compliance in all of this?

[CoolB1Banana]

Well said hotnhigh!

[SRM]

PM, Would you like to read the background to your post and does it apply today?

'Maintenance means…the doing of any work (including a modification or repair) on the aircraft that may affect the safety of the aircraft or cause the aircraft to become a danger to person or property…'

'Servicing…means preparing the aircraft for flight, and includes providing the aircraft with fuel and other fluids…but does not include any work that is maintenance.'

Certification for the completion of servicing tasks is not required when preparing the aircraft for flight, unless specifically required as part of an approved system of maintenance.

Certification is required when performing servicing tasks in conjunction with a maintenance activity.

I guess checking engine oil levels is maintenance task then.

SRM

[griffin one]

Most jets sitting around overnight gulp oil.if the crew get on and it's below minimums two choices,call an appropriate lame and enter in tech log start engines and idle for five minutes like the meerkat says simplez

[hadagutfull]

Regardless of whether a job is considered a servicing task or a maintenance task, it must be done IAW the relevant AMM which covers any warnings or cautions applicable to the task. Some of the most basic tasks have the requirement to safety or lock out a system.
If you are legal to do something , by all means do it if u must. But do it properly.
These rules are a dogs breakfast at the best of times .

If qantas want to adopt industry standards ... Let the pilots do the oils and servicing and give engineers aircraft taxi authority !
It's in the AMM! :-)

[MrPeabody]

SRM,


"Certification for the completion of servicing tasks is not required when preparing the aircraft for flight, unless specifically required as part of an approved system of maintenance.

Certification is required when performing servicing tasks in conjunction with a maintenance activity."


Correct, good to see you've done some homework.......though you missed my initial point entirely; the opening of a quick release panel does not invalidate the CRS. The carrying out of a maintenance activity invalidates the CRS. A check 1 or 2 requires you to check the oils amongst other things; the check or a defect entry is what kills the CRS.


Some operators require oil servicing at certain locations but not as part of their SOM but rather a convenience; usually prior to a sequence of unmanned legs. Also some MROs will check your oils on every turn (Good for the bottom line). Assuming all is within consumption rates this does not invalidate the CRS.


As an aside; this has created some healthy discussion which highlights how poor our new regulations are..........you had to go to the ACT to get to the meaning of "maintenance".......... and where did you go for "servicing"???

[AEROMEDIC]

Yes, if there is a conflict between the maintenance program and the regulations , post what that is and Fedsec can proceed on it .

[SRM]

Mr PB,
Most of the operators in the Region require a certification for engine oils whether uplift is required or not, some even require a duplicate inspection if the oil cap is lifted.

I cannot recall any Large aircraft, say in last 50 years that required a flight crew member as part of their duties and included in the Aircraft Operating Manual to open a panel and do a physical check of the engine oil quantity.
I my previous life I never had any requirement to do so.

If opening a panel to carry out a physical check of the engine oil quantity is included as part of the aircrafts operating procedures then this of course this should be carried out. However, if a pilot opens a panel after I have released the aircraft to service, I have a problem.

REASON: If the panel is left open and I was the last person to certify it was closed, I will get in the SH!T.

Get my point.:ok:

[CoolB1Banana]

I can assure you that it is not within QF policy/procedures for a pilot to open an engine panel and carry out a physical oil quantity inspection. If you need me to quote documentation to prove it, you obviously have no place flying or maintaining a QF aircraft. If you can't find a QF procedure that tells you to do it, but you still think it's a good idea to give it a go because you read some obscure CASA reg that you think covers it, please give me some of whatever it is you are smoking!

[MrPeabody]

SRM/Coolb1banana,


The pair of you have not got the point at all!! Have I said anything about engine oil inspection or checking...........NO!! SRM you seem obsessed with checking and leaving oil service panels open. Have you left them open before?? Was it the pilots fault??


Leaving open a refuel panel may be a lot worse but you have no consideration of this.


You have shoved it up a post that QF do not operate light twins............in the old days these were called F27s (Blue team I'm sorry).


The pilots had to some times check engine oils; even the gearboxes!!!


You have assumed I am a pilot.........WRONG!!! I wish I were!!


You quote your QEPM as the gospel (as you must)..........but it is the biggest piece of ****e in the industry!!


One day the pair of you will grow up to understand the system around you!!


Regards


PB

[SRM]

Mr PB grow up mate!

As a B1 LAME I am not talking about GA, I am talking about Large aircraft that are covered by a System of Maintenance.

Every time a Lame signs for an item he has to do so IAW approved data.

If a pilot opens a panel that is not included on his pre-flight check OR has not been trained and approved by a Part 145 or an approved training organisation to do so, he will cancel the CRS this is a FACT!

This is called undocumented maintenance.

Read the Regulations or if you like check with CASA.

[hotnhigh]

Hmmm, a notice has now been issued stating min oil for start is 12 litres. And that's all you need to worry about. Shame the number in the fleet blog is different!!!!
So the world is a happy place. Off you go boys and girls.
But hang on, lets say I'm going Sydney Karratha Perth for the day?
I take it starting in Sydney with 12 litres, everything is Kosher?:ugh::ugh:

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Can anyone please get a copy of that notice for me? Even if it is a printed version and you photograph it and mms to my mobile? Is 0400 071 505.


cheers

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Thnx guys -


http://i59.tinypic.com/10h2e1i.png

[CaptCloudbuster]

New FSO promulgated to reflect min oil required....


I take it starting in Sydney with 12 litres, everything is Kosher?

Yes. Use your professional judgement to decide if an engineer in SYD to top up would be prudent to save possible costs to the company at a following non maintenance port. It's what a competent FCM would do....

[Australopithecus]

Does anyone else marvel at the attendant irony of the Oscar Wilde quote?

For an organisation that prizes blind adherence to procedure and doctrine that is surely a piss-take?

Does Joyce dispense those bon mot with the morning management pep talk? (There is a shared nationality and proclivity. Not that there is anything wrong with that). Much.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

This from a company that punished 6 blokes who wrote up defects on cockpit doors that could be opened with paddle pop sticks. Oscar Wilde would have been proud of them.

[Australopithecus]

The difference of course, is that Wilde was a man of both principle and logic. He had the misfortune of being born 120 years too early, yet left enduring mirrors that still reflect today. Our Joyce will be more akin to his ancient cousin James, famous for gibberish too, but artful gibberish.

[porch monkey]

Interesting. Must be a management thing. We get the same "quotes" from our management pilots....:rolleyes:

[MELKBQF]

The NG oil qty is dispalyed in quarts not litres so if its QF policy to dispatch at 12 litres then the the indication will read 13!

[Australopithecus]

This entire episode reminds me of when American Airlines decided, in the 1980's, that 727s could economically power-back from gates, eliminating all but one ground crew member, tractors and tow-bars. The arithmetic proved that a 12 Million US manpower savings would only be offset by, on average, 9 million dollars worth of engine damage due to FOD, sand etc. Yay! 3 million fun tickets for management parties! And all for only one or two revenue engine failures. Pffft!

The idea that you can quantify public perception of carelessness did not work in 1984, and I'll bet that thirty years later it will only take a little bit more convincing before the travelling public demands responsible behaviour from airline management. If we still flew JT-8s this would already be apparent.

[CaptCloudbuster]

The NG oil qty is dispalyed in quarts not litres


Incorrect on QF 737-800's from the Pilots perspective for whom this FSO is written.

[hotnhigh]

Capt cloud buster, agreed sort of. I used the example of flying to a non maintenance port a long way off.
We still don't have a figure for oil consumption. So dispatching with 12, what can we expect after a 5 hour sector?
No engineers on the ground there. Again we are talking compliance.
Of course no one should leave with that amount, but I'd bet the stuff would hit the fan if you dispatched with 12 and got to the other side of the country and found the oil levels below 12 for the next sector.
The place has gone nuts.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Just remember guys and gals. If you start at 12 and it drops to 9 (with engines running) prior to takeoff on your Bme-Syd-Bme flights and return to the bay in Sydney for more oil, the company could view that as unprotected industrial action. You can protect yourself from such a claim by calling for more oil when you get to Broome. If you make it of course.


This whole scenario is absolute madness.

[CaptCloudbuster]

Based on current information available....

As a professional FCM I have anticipated the possibility of transit through non Maint ports and have made enquiries of engineers to ascertain normal oil consumption rates expected.

If I had inadvertently dispatched ex Syd to a non maint port some 5 hours away with the min promulgated 12 litres then subsequently discovered an indication less than 12 litres I would manage the situation by

1: contact Maint Watch and advise oil qty indication less that required by SOP

2: I would convey what rate of consumption observed over the previous sector along with pressure and temp indications.

3: As there is no actual limitation on oil qty and if temp / pressure indications over the previous sector were normal I would reasonably expect Maint Watch to authorise dispatch whereby oil could be uplifted at the next port.

[CaptCloudbuster]

If you make it of course.

And this comment undoes all the otherwise well intentioned dialogue you provide FEDSEC.

It is precisely this penchant you have to go one step too far (now demonstrated on more than one occasion) that has rendered the remainder of your message impotent where it counts.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

You are pretty right Capt. It's so hard to watch these layers of safety being removed by managers who are only thinking of profit. You raise your concerns as legitimately as you can (as you can see from the letters to CASA), then nothing happens. It's frustrating and sometimes my comments are as frank and damning as they possibly can be in order to try and get someone to wake up and do something. My apologies if I push the boundaries at times, I suspect I may do so again.


A blog issued by some check Captain telling your that 12 is ok for oils is not the answer to this issue. We shouldn't even be discussing the problem on here as a group of Engineers and Pilots attempting to work out what the safe oil levels for departure should be. It should be clear to everyone.


The call to Maintenance Watch is also not the answer. The LAMEs up there have no clear guidelines either. We are all just stabbing in the dark hoping the operation will be safe. They aren't authorised to give you a "she'll be right mate" answer but I suspect commercial pressure will require them to do that anyway. The engine oils is just the tip of the iceberg here. We could be having the exact same conversation about tyres or brakes.


Sorry again for the sarcasm.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

This may help demonstrate how inept Qantas are. 11.4 litres is 12.05 Quarts. From the maintenance manual -


http://i59.tinypic.com/lcdpe.png




They have now issued instructions (if this guidance blog could be considered that) to dispatch the aircraft with less than the required minimum oil. They have forgotten to add the expected oil usage over the sector to the guidance.


Now we have a situation where Pilots may feel comfortable following the incorrect message from the Check Captain and CASA sitting on their hands. This whole situation is fraught with danger, particularly considering that both engines would be consuming oil simultaneously at roughly the same rate.

[Sunfish]

CASA? Where are you CASA????? Please put an end to this foolishness on the part of Qantas with a few quick and concise sentences.

[blackbook]

Minimum oil Qty is not just a bold figure of 12qrts for takeoff (this is so low oil press light does not come on during takeoff, oil gulp) there is also calculations to made to ensure at the end of flight leg there is a minimum for a go around.
Also if traveling to un-maned ports like Mt Isa calculations should be made to include the return flight, including the minimum go around figure.

I'm not sure the crews are aware of such calculation which they now have to consider.

Also oil checks should be made 5-30min after shutdown. So if the crew turn up to an A/c that has been sitting at the gate for longer they will have to run engine before departure. This can not be done on push back unless the crew are happy to shut the engine down and wait min 5mins to check oil.

[ANCDU]

Just wondering is this a Qantas issue only? What are VA procedures with regard to this? Or do they do line maintenance differently? I thought they had a similar system to Jetstar's, which is the way maintenance on the 738 seems to be going at Qantas.

[ANCDU]

Thanks Silverado, I have to agree with you on QF reaction compared with VA.

Your post does raise some interesting questions, if VA have been using this maintenance system for a while and there are obviously questions in regard to checking oil levels and other items why haven't these issues been raised earlier?

I thought Fed Sec might have been onto something here but I find it confusing that he hasn't seemed to mention anything regarding VA using the same system, or does VA have a different requirement for checking Boeing oil levels before operation ? Comparing how the two major 738 operators in Australia do such checks might just show the shortcomings in the Qantas system.

[MELKBQF]

As I stated in an earlier post, VA have gone back to 24hr checks at most ports. A small number of aircraft that overnight at some remote ports can have up to a 48 hour daily.

[Derfred]

So what does Virgin publish to their flight crew as minimum oil quantity for dispatch?

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Fed Sec didn't mention about Virgin using the same system because they don't. They have approval to operate up to 48 hours between their daily checks but this is only to cater for an aircraft which may overnight at an unmanned location. The aircraft always have the daily check done when the end of flying concludes at a manned port.


Qantas have also now had approval given by someone to operate up to 48 hours between checks. Rather than use this as a means to allow aircraft to overnight at an unmanned port, they have introduced this for every aircraft even when there are Engineers present to carry out the check. Bare minimums is now the new normal for Qantas even when as in the case with oil checks, the minimums someone has set has obvious flaws.


I'm not sure what Virgin Tech Crews are told are the minimum oil levels to start.

[The The]

There seems to also be some confusion in what is actually "dispatch"?

The DDG specifies the point of dispatch as up to "the commencement of the take-off roll".

The extract provided by ALEA Fed Sec quotes "dispatch" 11.4L. What is this document from and what is its definition of "dispatch"?

All the FSO's and memos from Flight Ops quote "prior to engine start".

Which is correct? If you had 12L before start, you satisfy the Flight Ops FSO. If after start the quantity drops below 11.4L, you are then below the minimum per the ALAEA document but ok as far as the FSO.

How can something so simple be so complex?

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

The document is from the Boeing 737NG Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM). Dispatch when talking Engineering terms would mean prior to engine start. I don't think there is a definition of this in the manual.