QF B744s VH-OEC, VH-OED Grounded

[Anti Skid On]

I've been on one of these 744's (OED I think) and also at least six different MH 744's - to quote Kylie-

I should be so lucky,
lucky lucky lucky!

On a side note, I think this is the sort of thread that should be on the main Rumours and News and not just D & G - especially when the issue concerns a range of aircaft from similar sources.

[EPIRB]

Globaliser, what in fact happened was that the check was due on a certain date but they had a 10% time frame on top of the original time in which to do it. The aircraft was actually scheduled to have its check done within that allowable 10% period. So in fact it was still legal. CASA never apologised for this misinformation that was fed to the public. I also believe that five of the 767's that were grounded had no maintenance issues tagged to them at all but CASA still grounded them. Of the aircraft that were inspected, CASA found the following: one had a paint chip that wasn't written up, another had two too many bundles of inflight magazines aboard and a third one had one too many BCF extinguishers on board. In fact CASA didn't even inspect all of the aircraft that were grounded because they were happy with the ones they inspected. Talking of CASA, have a read of November's Australian Aviation when it comes out. Nice people......

[VTM]

BIK,
Not every tradesperson in Australian aviation belongs to the ALAEA, many structures trades belong to other unions, we are all trained from the day we start as are apprentices cautions when working with aluminum alloys.
This is not the first time this type of defect has occured overseas, Boeing have many reports on record.
Thankfully a trained eye picked this defect up, it my have been a AME, who carried out the inspection and not a LAME, I would choose your words carefully regarding unions and safety.
In any case I will pass your post on to the ALAEA.
VTM

[Snowballs]

Conspiracy theories ……….. the idiots, or people who cannot face reality are at it again, AN fell on it’s own sword, sharpened over many years for all sorts of reasons. The current problem, that has surfaced with the QF 744’s (and Ryanair 737-200s) are of an entirely different cause.

I have had my differences with the industrial tactics of Oz aircraft engineers, but in this case give them credit for picking up the problem, professionally, with scheduled maintenance, carried out on time, unlike the terrible problems that occurred in AN.

[pullock]

VTM,

I too have passed the BIK post on to the ALAEA. The word lible springs to mind here.

[Zeke]

I thought the main reason why most of the larger aircraft were painted overseas was due to the number of carcinogens involved it could not be done legally here (workplace H&S) reasons and we don’t have the correct facilities

I understand these laws are somewhat different in NZ, Ireland, Germany, and the USA, allowing the work to be done in those locations.

Pullock, VTM et al,

Don’t think BIK was into union busting, there is a public relations problem engineers have with pilots, the present problem is that a number of times in the recent past the public have been told that pilots are not “safe” doing some things….eg what was the reason why pilots could not do a walk around on red jets ? why is it at some ports pilots can do a walk around and fuel and at others they do not ?

Just wondering like many others if “safety” is being applied consistently or conveniently by some representative bodies ?

It’s the old pilot vs engineer argument, it will never go away.....please pass this post along to the ALAEA, and hopefully next time pilots will not be branded "unsafe"

[gaunty]

I guess this goes to reinforce the fact that painting an aircraft has always been and is actually a construction and maintenance issue not just a cosmetic operation and therefore needs to be done or carefully supervised by suitably qualified people.

Particularly the stripping and prep, the most difficult and labour intensive part, there are approved methods and materials and the others you use at someones elses peril.

[Winstun]

Is this the same ALAEA that thought you needed a a F/E station on a B767?? My friggin gawd!! Looks like Oz mechanics are tryin to steal poll position from their Aussie pilot counterparts in the self dillusional, best in the world, believe their own bullsh*t competition...

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

In chat rooms there is usually a way to gag someone. Can any computer boffins reading this please develop that killer app for these sorts of forums....."WinstunGag 1.0"??

You'll make a MILLION!!!

[Globaliser]

EPIRB

Thank you. I will read November's AA with some interest.

[AN LAME]

Winstun, in a word...no. I believe the F/E's were a sub branch of the pilots union. But I stand to be corrected on that detail.


Cutest of Borg...I'll second that.

Snowballs. The AN LAMEs were not at fault, it was a section of Tech Services which didn't call up the inspections.Get your facts straight before you hand out backhanded compliments.

[Feather #3]

AN LAME , boy will they get upset!! At that stage the F/E's were fiercely independant of almost anything to do with pilots!!

Likewise, scuttlebutt has it that cost cutting left only one guy and a secretary looking after AN 'Tech Services'. Paperwork on the inspections went astray/overlooked, etc while he was away on hols and not found till MUCH later!! Human error with no backup?

G'day

[Buster Hyman]

For the travelling publics own security, lets ground all of the 744's until we know for sure that this isn't an inherant problem within QF's second hand purchasing department!!!

God bless CASA!

[Snowballs]

Snowballs. The AN LAMEs were not at fault, it was a section of Tech Services which
didn't call up the inspections.Get your facts straight before you hand out backhanded compliments

............................................................ .......................................
AN Lazy, I nor anyone else as far as I know, have ever said said LAMEs were the cause of the collapse of AN ………. You cannot read anything without taking personal offence. Maybe a touch of hyper tension. Take a Panadol and relax

[AN LAME]

Feather#3 - Thanks for the correction. Your scuttlebutt is fairly accurate as well.

I have had my differences with the industrial tactics of Oz aircraft engineers, but in this case give them credit for picking up the problem, professionally, with scheduled maintenance, carried out on time, unlike the terrible problems that occurred in AN.

Snowballs - no personal offence taken. I didn't take your comment as reason for the collapse, but the inference, with regard the groundings, appeared fairly obvious.

Curious about the''lazy'though

[Orville]

Zeke

you would be referring to this type of article.

"Pilots accused of fudging safety checks
David Potter, industrial reporter
08mar03
VIRGIN Blue pilots have been observed completing pre-flight inspections in less than 60 seconds – a procedure the airline admitted yesterday took at least five to 10 minutes to fully complete.

Allegations also surfaced yesterday that a number of Virgin pilots had signed off on the pre-flight section of the flight log before carrying out the inspections.

Virgin Blue commercial operations manager David Huttner said both claims were "baseless", but a Civil Aviation Safety Authority source has confirmed that during a surveillance operation last month a number of pilots rushed through their inspections in less than a minute.

Mr Huttner said yesterday he had been informed by pilots the inspection took five to 10 minutes. The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association estimates it takes 10 to 20 minutes.


However, Mr Huttner confirmed one pilot had been stood down "without prejudice" as a result of the CASA investigation into the airline's safety practices, but had later been reinstated.

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson had previously confirmed that after two days of secretly observing Virgin safety practices last month, a number of inspections had not been done properly.

Mr Gibson said pilots on some flights had been rushing checks and cutting corners.

The hasty inspection process was part of the reason why Virgin Blue was issued with a formal safety alert last week.

The issue has been raised again after a dispute between the engineers' association and Virgin Blue over the airline's safety practices.

Under new procedures at Virgin Blue, engineers are required to examine aircraft only at the beginning of the day. Pilots make visual checks between flights.

During a hearing in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission on the threat of strike action over the dispute, the engineers' association raised six "incidents" – the most serious of which was an allegation that a pilot missed evidence of a possible bird strike, which was later picked up by a maintenance engineer.

An engine on the plane was found to be damaged and subsequently replaced.

As a result of the commission hearing engineers will now continue to check every domestic flight before take-off, while discussions between the two parties take place.

Allegations also were made by the engineers' association to CASA in a letter from president Michael O'Rance late last month that a number of pilots had pre-signed their pre-flight check forms.

Mr Gibson said the allegations referred to in the letter had not been investigated by CASA. He said since the formal notice to Virgin Blue the airline was "living up to its safety responsibilities".

He said the airline would continue to be monitored."


Unfortunately this like many other incidents across all working groups reflects poorly on those that are trying to do the right thing, it's always a few lazy sods that tarnish the silver ware.

I appologise to those who are doing it right.

[30/30 Green Light]

The union for the F/E's was the Australian Airline Flight Engineers Association,totally independent of the AFAP.
Shouldn't we all be happy that the vigilance of an individual or group of individuals has resulted in heading off what could have been a major disaster?The assertion that the use of incorrect procedures or equipment, which may have instigated the problem, would not happen in Australia is naive to say the least.Any number of accident/incident reports can attest to the fact that we are far from perfect,although I will agree better than a lot of others.As with the Ryanair problem, we may see more of this yet.

[bush mechanics]

Hey wasnt this thread about 2 QF 74s.Not about AN.

[mainwheel]

Ironic that these 2 aircraft came from an overseas carrier that constantly has QF engineers, on holidays-long sevice etc etc, maintaining the same types in their fleet.
Who "missed" this at the last layup? Yaaawwwwnnnn!!
"plaps clear" should have been a timely reminder!

[BIK_116.80]

AN LAME,

Once a d!ckhead always a d!ckhead.

Well I wasn’t going to be quite that harsh, but yeah – I fully agree.

The statement :

If the aircraft had been painted in AUS this wouldn't have happened.

was always a very silly thing to say.

But the author of that statement seems to want to emphasise his state of delusion by further ridiculous and outrageous claims along the same lines :

I can say for certainty that this would have not happened in Australia.

and

Airlines carrying maintenance out in developing countries to take advantage of the low wages and poor exchange rates can only result in safety compromises, it just stands to reason.

In my view such statements reflect a dangerously arrogant and xenophobic attitude that could only be held by someone who is drunk on their own misplaced sense of superiority and infallibility. There is nothing wrong with striving to be the best in the world – but it’s an extremely dangerous state of affairs when you start to believe your own publicity.

Aviation history is littered with dozens (if not hundreds) of catastrophes that resulted from events that “could never happen”. There are numerous texts on the subject – The Tombstone Imperative by Andrew Weir is a particularly good one.

In my mind the most dangerous person in aviation (whether they be a pilot, a grease monkey or whatever) is the person who believes “that could never happen here”. History shows that such beliefs tend to be self-defeating prophecies.

In regard to aviation, I’ve learned to never say “never”.

30/30 Green Light,

The assertion that the use of incorrect procedures or equipment, which may have instigated the problem, would not happen in Australia is naive to say the least.

I fully concur.

AN LAME,

If an Australian engineer stuffed up then the only thing the ALAEA would provide him with is appropriate representation

What you might euphemistically characterise as “appropriate representation” I would describe as “distract and delay until any incriminating evidence had been inexplicably misplaced”. This is an issue of paradigm – we have different perspectives.

The Association provide legal support if and when engineers are called to task by CASA. What else would you have them do?

I agree that the union’s role is to stick up for its members. I would expect the union to try to cover it up.

You seem to equate any safety related engineering issue with industrial issues.

No – exactly the opposite, in fact.

It is the ALAEA that has, in its very public scare campaigns of the recent past, shown its willingness to pretend that what is actually an industrial relations issue is some kind of safety issue.

Having observed the ALAEA’s behaviour, I now believe, after very careful consideration, that many of the issues that the ALAEA says are safety issues are in fact nothing more than industrial relations issues that the union has dressed up to appear as if they are safety issues.

In my view the ALAEA (and some other unions) have inappropriately waved the safety flag far too often for their own good.

The ALAEA has become the little boy who cried “wolf”.

Unions exist to further the interests of their members – and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

But unions who try to dress up what are essentially industrial relations issues as if they were safety issues are being disingenuous in the extreme.

The recent non-sense where the ALAEA tried to claim that pilots are incapable of conducting walk-around inspections on Boeing 737s is an example of this kind of disingenuous behaviour.

pullock’s suggestion that :

You get what you pay for with aircraft maintenance, and it is important that CASA realises this now, and puts a halt to the practise of allowing airlines to carry out maintenance off shore.

is nothing more than someone trying to dress up an industrial relations issue as if it were a safety issue.

It is clear to me that the real issue that concerns pullock is that Australian engineers are fearful that more efficient maintenance organisations outside Australia will win an increasing proportion of maintenance work on Australian registered aircraft to the long term detriment of the relatively generous terms and conditions of employment enjoyed by the Australian engineers. This is an industrial relations issue pure and simple.

pullock has made a thinly veiled attempt to dress up this industrial relations issue as if it were a safety issue. But his line of reasoning and his choice of language are far from convincing.

If pullock was genuinely concerned about a safety issue then he might have said something like :

It is important that CASA enforces regulated maintenance standards irrespective of where in the world Australian registered aircraft are maintained.

But he didn’t. Instead, he comes out with :

… it is important that CASA....puts a halt to the practise of allowing airlines to carry out maintenance off shore

That seems to be inferring that the only place in the world where an aircraft can be maintained to a suitable standard is in Australia. Such a notion is demonstrably absurd. As I suggested earlier - such statements reflect a dangerously arrogant and xenophobic attitude that could only be held by someone who is drunk on their own misplaced sense of superiority and infallibility.

CASA has no role to play in regard to industrial relations issues – like where in the world Australian registered aircraft are maintained.

CASA has a very important role to pay in regard to the standard of maintenance that Australian registered aircraft receive.

If an Australian registered aircraft receives sub-standard maintenance work in Australia then CASA needs to take action to enforce the regulated standards.

Similarly, if an Australian registered aircraft receives sub-standard maintenance work outside Australia then CASA needs to take action to enforce the regulated standards.

G’day Zeke,

....why is it at some ports pilots can do a walk around and fuel and at others they do not ?

Just wondering like many others if “safety” is being applied consistently or conveniently by some representative bodies?

Yeah – I’ve always been curious as to why certain types of aircraft must (on “safety grounds”) have an inspection by an engineer when the aircraft is at places like Coolangatta, but not when it is at places like Mount Isa.

I guess I’d rather live in Coolangatta than Mount Isa too.