Food for thought when you outsource your maintenance
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
test flight ????????????
to be fair ,no aircraft comes out of a d check clean .even when the good old guys and girls of syd heavy carried out the work there was always tech log write ups and snags .I ask the question the aircraft had a test flight before being ferried back to syd who signed it out,why did the fly boys accept it ? yes there were qf guys on the ground in sin looking after it and most of these guys are ex syd heavy, you think that thay would stand hard come a release to service signature
As for CASA approval - maybe that has been delegated to a QANTAS engineering manager. After all it happens in the pilot ranks. Licence renewals are a CASA responsibilty but that is delegated to QANTAS Senior Check Captains. When in the sim the QANTAS SCC wears a CASA hat when doing a licence renewal and a QANTAS hat when doing training.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it is a duty incumbent upon all engineers to report any incidents that they feel compromise the basic standards directly to CASA.
It is all very well for SIAEC or SASCO to talk up their credentials, but it would be interesting to see them in action when the FAA man or the EASA people are there paying a visit. One suspects they handle these "audits" quite differently to the way Qantas does.
It is all very well for SIAEC or SASCO to talk up their credentials, but it would be interesting to see them in action when the FAA man or the EASA people are there paying a visit. One suspects they handle these "audits" quite differently to the way Qantas does.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Looking for the bridge of trust
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reply to EmiratesSandpit:
Quote:
A bit surprising that SIA Engineering Company (SIAEC) did the work.
Quote:
In the last financial year, we underwent 92 internal audits and 107 external audits. Constant review of our work procedures ensures that a high standard of service is maintained. As a testament to the Company’s high quality of work, we currently hold regulatory approvals from 23 national aviation authorities and 20 airlines (as of April 2006). These includethe FAA, EASA, Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB), Emirates Airlines and Qantas Airways
SIAEC Annual Report 2005/2006
May I put forward the following reasons this A/C came out of a "D Check" in such a mess:
- Internal Audits at SIAEC are rubber stamped (SIAEC is a money making concern and we don't want to upset the honey cart or lose face do we?).
- External Audits if done by CAAS are also rubber stamped (I'll grease your palm if you grease mine).
- External Audits done by Regulatory Authorities from outside Singapore are well controlled by SIAEC:
- Plenty of notice given when an audit is going to be carried out.
- SIAEC dedicate 2 or 3 "Customer Relations" people to "look after" Outside Authority/Customer Inspectors. (Keep em away from job while we inspect lah). After all, the locals know where the best bars are.
- Keep all those uncontrolled items away from prying eyes.
EmiratesSandpit, if you beleive the sales pitch you quoted I think you may have been in the sun a bit too long.
As QF MAINT OUTSOURCED said: "now here is the best bit about this aircraft OJQ that just had it's D check done,it had a 55 hr structual inspection done in 8hrs overnight while on this check,1 person carried out the structual inspections on 4 pax doors,the wet area of the floor in E zone( TOILET AREA AT THE BACK OF THE AIRCRAFT),and the pressure deck in D zone(structure between the cabin and the landing gear wheel well),and the grand total of 1 defect was raised,this was of coarse done overnight when there was no QF rep around,bearing in mind that the nexted time these areas will be looked at will be 6 yrs,and this current check was not too flash,that will be 12 yrs before this area has a decent inspection.That's if it is done proerly the nexted time."
Don't forget, MROs employ LAEs/LAMEs to use a pen not swing a spanner. Get the inspection done ASAP, with the minimum of fuss and while no one else is looking. Unfortunately the customer (QF) reps are really only there to make sure the paperwork has all the "I"s dotted and the "T"s crossed. The MRO does the "inspection and rework".
It is for this reason that MROs can do Major Maintenance Checks so cheap.
Quote:
A bit surprising that SIA Engineering Company (SIAEC) did the work.
Quote:
In the last financial year, we underwent 92 internal audits and 107 external audits. Constant review of our work procedures ensures that a high standard of service is maintained. As a testament to the Company’s high quality of work, we currently hold regulatory approvals from 23 national aviation authorities and 20 airlines (as of April 2006). These includethe FAA, EASA, Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB), Emirates Airlines and Qantas Airways
SIAEC Annual Report 2005/2006
May I put forward the following reasons this A/C came out of a "D Check" in such a mess:
- Internal Audits at SIAEC are rubber stamped (SIAEC is a money making concern and we don't want to upset the honey cart or lose face do we?).
- External Audits if done by CAAS are also rubber stamped (I'll grease your palm if you grease mine).
- External Audits done by Regulatory Authorities from outside Singapore are well controlled by SIAEC:
- Plenty of notice given when an audit is going to be carried out.
- SIAEC dedicate 2 or 3 "Customer Relations" people to "look after" Outside Authority/Customer Inspectors. (Keep em away from job while we inspect lah). After all, the locals know where the best bars are.
- Keep all those uncontrolled items away from prying eyes.
EmiratesSandpit, if you beleive the sales pitch you quoted I think you may have been in the sun a bit too long.
As QF MAINT OUTSOURCED said: "now here is the best bit about this aircraft OJQ that just had it's D check done,it had a 55 hr structual inspection done in 8hrs overnight while on this check,1 person carried out the structual inspections on 4 pax doors,the wet area of the floor in E zone( TOILET AREA AT THE BACK OF THE AIRCRAFT),and the pressure deck in D zone(structure between the cabin and the landing gear wheel well),and the grand total of 1 defect was raised,this was of coarse done overnight when there was no QF rep around,bearing in mind that the nexted time these areas will be looked at will be 6 yrs,and this current check was not too flash,that will be 12 yrs before this area has a decent inspection.That's if it is done proerly the nexted time."
Don't forget, MROs employ LAEs/LAMEs to use a pen not swing a spanner. Get the inspection done ASAP, with the minimum of fuss and while no one else is looking. Unfortunately the customer (QF) reps are really only there to make sure the paperwork has all the "I"s dotted and the "T"s crossed. The MRO does the "inspection and rework".
It is for this reason that MROs can do Major Maintenance Checks so cheap.
The Bungeyed Bandit & QF MAINT OUTSOURCED
I hope both of you have unequivocal proof of what you have just claimed here and are willing to put your own name to them because I’m quite sure Pprune have no intention of being hung out to dry when these claims are taken to court which I’m sure they will be. These are very serious accusations to make especially if they are hearsay. And has been said before if a court orders Pprune to disclose your identity, it has no choice but to comply. If as I suspect what is being said here is purely for industrial reasons, you are treading on very dangerous grounds.
And before you go trying to shoot me down, I “DO NOT” for one minute support outsourcing. It's immoral in my book. But I despise spin even more.
"now here is the best bit about this aircraft OJQ that just had it's D check done,it had a 55 hr structual inspection done in 8hrs overnight while on this check,1 person carried out the structual inspections on 4 pax doors,the wet area of the floor in E zone( TOILET AREA AT THE BACK OF THE AIRCRAFT),and the pressure deck in D zone(structure between the cabin and the landing gear wheel well),and the grand total of 1 defect was raised,this was of coarse done overnight when there was no QF rep around,bearing in mind that the nexted time these areas will be looked at will be 6 yrs,and this current check was not too flash,that will be 12 yrs before this area has a decent inspection.That's if it is done proerly the nexted time."
May I put forward the following reasons this A/C came out of a "D Check" in such a mess:
- Internal Audits at SIAEC are rubber stamped (SIAEC is a money making concern and we don't want to upset the honey cart or lose face do we?).
- External Audits if done by CAAS are also rubber stamped (I'll grease your palm if you grease mine).
- External Audits done by Regulatory Authorities from outside Singapore are well controlled by SIAEC:
- Plenty of notice given when an audit is going to be carried out.
- SIAEC dedicate 2 or 3 "Customer Relations" people to "look after" Outside Authority/Customer Inspectors. (Keep em away from job while we inspect lah). After all, the locals know where the best bars are.
- Keep all those uncontrolled items away from prying eyes.
- Internal Audits at SIAEC are rubber stamped (SIAEC is a money making concern and we don't want to upset the honey cart or lose face do we?).
- External Audits if done by CAAS are also rubber stamped (I'll grease your palm if you grease mine).
- External Audits done by Regulatory Authorities from outside Singapore are well controlled by SIAEC:
- Plenty of notice given when an audit is going to be carried out.
- SIAEC dedicate 2 or 3 "Customer Relations" people to "look after" Outside Authority/Customer Inspectors. (Keep em away from job while we inspect lah). After all, the locals know where the best bars are.
- Keep all those uncontrolled items away from prying eyes.
And before you go trying to shoot me down, I “DO NOT” for one minute support outsourcing. It's immoral in my book. But I despise spin even more.
Guest
Posts: n/a
)Many guys that I work with, who have spent time working overseas as reps, have recalled stories almost exactly the same as this.
Worst part about it is that when the aircraft is in a QF facility at a later date, QF employees recieve pineapples sideways for having found the vast amounts of corrosion in wet areas..... naughty naughty QF engineer! You shouldnt have found it! Now the check will slip 2 or 3 days!
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Bungeyed Bandit & QF MAINT OUTSOURCED
I hope both of you have unequivocal proof of what you have just claimed here and are willing to put your own name to them because I’m quite sure Pprune have no intention of being hung out to dry when these claims are taken to court which I’m sure they will be. These are very serious accusations to make especially if they are hearsay. And has been said before if a court orders Pprune to disclose your identity, it has no choice but to comply. If as I suspect what is being said here is purely for industrial reasons, you are treading on very dangerous grounds.
I hope both of you have unequivocal proof of what you have just claimed here and are willing to put your own name to them because I’m quite sure Pprune have no intention of being hung out to dry when these claims are taken to court which I’m sure they will be. These are very serious accusations to make especially if they are hearsay. And has been said before if a court orders Pprune to disclose your identity, it has no choice but to comply. If as I suspect what is being said here is purely for industrial reasons, you are treading on very dangerous grounds.
As the silly pr*ck who had to do the maintenance budgets for Ansett, now deceased, before it was gutted and sold, I concur with Bungeyed.
Threats of legal action are easy to make.
What the general public does not understand, not do pilots, is that failures and defects are a bit like bank accounts. The more you have of them the more your account i in debit. If one day your accounts are called in and your debits exceed your credits then you are F%^$ed.
If Woomera and Danny decide to censor this information, then they can bear the responsibility when the inevitable happens.
To put it another way, GD will not bear the financial cost if a QF ship goes in. Neither will the rest of the Board.
My gut feel (as someone no longer associated with an airline) is that airlines are buying new aircraft and planning to dispose of them before they need heavy maintenance. In other words, putting the burden on tomorrows managers.
Threats of legal action are easy to make.
What the general public does not understand, not do pilots, is that failures and defects are a bit like bank accounts. The more you have of them the more your account i in debit. If one day your accounts are called in and your debits exceed your credits then you are F%^$ed.
If Woomera and Danny decide to censor this information, then they can bear the responsibility when the inevitable happens.
To put it another way, GD will not bear the financial cost if a QF ship goes in. Neither will the rest of the Board.
My gut feel (as someone no longer associated with an airline) is that airlines are buying new aircraft and planning to dispose of them before they need heavy maintenance. In other words, putting the burden on tomorrows managers.
BHMvictim
Bwahahahahahahaha. Yeh right. GD? Couldn’t be further from the truth. I couldn’t even be bothered pissing on his shoes. For all I know the rumours here could be true but you had better be prepared to back it up and even if you do and the company looses, they have won. You know why? Because you have been identified and the next thing you realise you are a leper in the industry and lots of other industries as well. You are unemployable. Think it can’t happen? Just ask the poor b******d LAME that blew the whistle on Alaskan Airlines in the mid 90’s. He has never worked as a LAME again even though he was right and supplied the info anonymously to the FAA.
Think very carefully before you open your mouth on this or any other forum. The working life of a whistle blower is a very short one, whether you are right or wrong.
Bwahahahahahahaha. Yeh right. GD? Couldn’t be further from the truth. I couldn’t even be bothered pissing on his shoes. For all I know the rumours here could be true but you had better be prepared to back it up and even if you do and the company looses, they have won. You know why? Because you have been identified and the next thing you realise you are a leper in the industry and lots of other industries as well. You are unemployable. Think it can’t happen? Just ask the poor b******d LAME that blew the whistle on Alaskan Airlines in the mid 90’s. He has never worked as a LAME again even though he was right and supplied the info anonymously to the FAA.
Think very carefully before you open your mouth on this or any other forum. The working life of a whistle blower is a very short one, whether you are right or wrong.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: n.s.w
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over the last 30 years QANTAS has outsourced maintenance to various company's, it has never gotten a good result. From United in the 80's, EEI at Singapore, the Ugly sisters, cheaper has never been better.
QANTAS engineers may not be God's gift to engineering but they are pretty good, what they can't do is paper work to satisfy FAA and EASA, eg BA repairs to a/c after engine failure and ATLAS repairs. Nothing wrong with the repairs only the paperwork was f
ed. Overseas MRO's know how to pander to these organisations to keep their authorisations, QANTAS doesn't!(Don't call an FAA inspector a piss head when he is teetotal, alah Robbo!)
As long as the bean counters can see a saving on the bottom line a/c will continue to be sent overseas. When they finally add up the cost of an overseas check and the repairs afterwards they may finally see that it is more cost efficient to do it at home, I don't see that happening in a long time, by then it will be to late.
QANTAS engineers may not be God's gift to engineering but they are pretty good, what they can't do is paper work to satisfy FAA and EASA, eg BA repairs to a/c after engine failure and ATLAS repairs. Nothing wrong with the repairs only the paperwork was f
ed. Overseas MRO's know how to pander to these organisations to keep their authorisations, QANTAS doesn't!(Don't call an FAA inspector a piss head when he is teetotal, alah Robbo!) As long as the bean counters can see a saving on the bottom line a/c will continue to be sent overseas. When they finally add up the cost of an overseas check and the repairs afterwards they may finally see that it is more cost efficient to do it at home, I don't see that happening in a long time, by then it will be to late.
MRO maint contracts
Having been involved in a few aircraft sent to MRO organisations and also returning them to service I can say that the work done is ONLY what the WRITTEN CONTRACT between the owner and the MRO states unless a further extension and further work is agreed to. Aircraft are always returned with defects outside the contract agreement still open.
If your aircraft is returned with open defects it is because the owner eg QF, has decided not to have the defects cleared at the MRO. It is not the MRO's fault that it still open it is the customer who decided where, when, and what gets done.
The contracts for C and D checks can and do sometimes run into 100's of pages of legal documents on who is resposible for what. This is all run by the owner i.e. the one that pays the bills in the end.
If your aircraft is returned with open defects it is because the owner eg QF, has decided not to have the defects cleared at the MRO. It is not the MRO's fault that it still open it is the customer who decided where, when, and what gets done.
The contracts for C and D checks can and do sometimes run into 100's of pages of legal documents on who is resposible for what. This is all run by the owner i.e. the one that pays the bills in the end.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if Qanats want to take me to task over a rumor i heard,well let them,i'm sure the media would love to be there at this court hearing to hear about all the rumors going round,then QF can explain to the courts in detail what is happening really to there aircraft,rumor has it there is alot of rumors going around about qantas outsourcing
Guest
Posts: n/a
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: n.s.w
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
c100driver is correct to a point, the operator dictates what they want fixed, all airlines do it. What is at question is if cannon plugs and wiring being disconnected and other problems were approved. The MRO is usualy responsible for the work and certification, the reps are there to oversee proceedings. Depending on the number of reps most of these problems would not have been noticed until departure and by then its too late. As the a/c was probably a positioning flight back to Syd cabin defects would not be picked up until being prepared for the next flight. It would be a good bet that pressure by QANTAS to get the plane back to SYD would be extremely high. So who is to blame for the state of the a/c? The MRO, the flight crew, the reps or QANTAS management. Probably all of them, but mostly QANTAS mismamagement for having to put the aircraft there in the first place.
Last edited by company_spy; 16th Oct 2006 at 02:27. Reason: spelling
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz (30% of the time)
Age: 62
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404 Titan
Just ask the poor b******d LAME that blew the whistle on Alaskan Airlines in the mid 90’s. He has never worked as a LAME again even though he was right and supplied the info anonymously to the FAA.
He's probably living off the proceeds of his unfair dismissal lawsuit against Alaska Airlines !
I think this has been discussed to death before, but it would appear that QF is now going to experience the reality. Speaking as someone who was part of the management of an outsourcing company, let me tell you what we did...
First of all we bid as low as we dared to win the contract - basically we bid at cost. Why did we do this? Because we knew as C100 driver has pointed out, that a contract can never spell out the complete requirements of a job - there are always unknowns - and these unknowns are the money spinners - we call them variations. Anything not in the contract, even the smallest teensiest detail, immediately becomes a variation and attracts a premium price.
The two immediate consequences are first that the simple repetitive boring stuff contained in the contract gets done as quickly and as cheaply as we can possibly do it. And secondly (thats right!) we put all our effort into finding variations and getting the customer to sign off on them. E.G.: "half the placards in the cabin are illegible, want us to fix that?".
There are three longer term consequences.
The cost savings are not as great as expected, but its hard to discover why. The heavy maintenance costs have disappeared but (guess what?) the line maintenance costs have increased for some reason.
The outsourcing company will try and "lobotomize" the engineering (or other part involved of the company) if it can to remove any and all expertise in the outsourced area. This has three purposes.
- It removes possible sources of technical criticism of the job the outsourcer is doing.
- It makes it difficult for the customer to remain an "informed" consumer of outsourced services.
- It removes possible criticism of the beancounters that made the decision in the first place.
In our case we connived with the head beancounter of this particular organisation and their technical staff were either hired by us or fired. It took them five years to work out what we had done to them and start the long term job of wresting control of their technical strategy and future from us, by which time we had releaved them of well over $100 million.
Of course if you really want to make money as an outsourcer, ensure that the company has three or four different outsourcing deals that overlap. You can then make heaps of cash claiming incompatibilities between each of your responsibilities and claim major variations because of it.
Sorry for the lecture, I just dislike watching people go down this road only to retrace their steps five years later.
First of all we bid as low as we dared to win the contract - basically we bid at cost. Why did we do this? Because we knew as C100 driver has pointed out, that a contract can never spell out the complete requirements of a job - there are always unknowns - and these unknowns are the money spinners - we call them variations. Anything not in the contract, even the smallest teensiest detail, immediately becomes a variation and attracts a premium price.
The two immediate consequences are first that the simple repetitive boring stuff contained in the contract gets done as quickly and as cheaply as we can possibly do it. And secondly (thats right!) we put all our effort into finding variations and getting the customer to sign off on them. E.G.: "half the placards in the cabin are illegible, want us to fix that?".
There are three longer term consequences.
The cost savings are not as great as expected, but its hard to discover why. The heavy maintenance costs have disappeared but (guess what?) the line maintenance costs have increased for some reason.
The outsourcing company will try and "lobotomize" the engineering (or other part involved of the company) if it can to remove any and all expertise in the outsourced area. This has three purposes.
- It removes possible sources of technical criticism of the job the outsourcer is doing.
- It makes it difficult for the customer to remain an "informed" consumer of outsourced services.
- It removes possible criticism of the beancounters that made the decision in the first place.
In our case we connived with the head beancounter of this particular organisation and their technical staff were either hired by us or fired. It took them five years to work out what we had done to them and start the long term job of wresting control of their technical strategy and future from us, by which time we had releaved them of well over $100 million.
Of course if you really want to make money as an outsourcer, ensure that the company has three or four different outsourcing deals that overlap. You can then make heaps of cash claiming incompatibilities between each of your responsibilities and claim major variations because of it.
Sorry for the lecture, I just dislike watching people go down this road only to retrace their steps five years later.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: sydney, australia
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHMvictim
Bwahahahahahahaha. Yeh right. GD? Couldn’t be further from the truth. I couldn’t even be bothered pissing on his shoes. For all I know the rumours here could be true but you had better be prepared to back it up and even if you do and the company looses, they have won. You know why? Because you have been identified and the next thing you realise you are a leper in the industry and lots of other industries as well. You are unemployable. Think it can’t happen? Just ask the poor b******d LAME that blew the whistle on Alaskan Airlines in the mid 90’s. He has never worked as a LAME again even though he was right and supplied the info anonymously to the FAA.
Think very carefully before you open your mouth on this or any other forum. The working life of a whistle blower is a very short one, whether you are right or wrong.
Bwahahahahahahaha. Yeh right. GD? Couldn’t be further from the truth. I couldn’t even be bothered pissing on his shoes. For all I know the rumours here could be true but you had better be prepared to back it up and even if you do and the company looses, they have won. You know why? Because you have been identified and the next thing you realise you are a leper in the industry and lots of other industries as well. You are unemployable. Think it can’t happen? Just ask the poor b******d LAME that blew the whistle on Alaskan Airlines in the mid 90’s. He has never worked as a LAME again even though he was right and supplied the info anonymously to the FAA.
Think very carefully before you open your mouth on this or any other forum. The working life of a whistle blower is a very short one, whether you are right or wrong.
The truth of SIAEC and their standards of maintenance will come out of their own accord.
And by the way, I believe it is well documented.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's a hard situation.... As stated, the reps are expected to clear cards and provide technical support. That's about it. As stated, they cannot be present to witness every single job taking place.
There is more than just Aussie jobs at stake here. What worries me, and others, is that Qantas seems to be jeopardising it's reputation for safety. Gone are the days of safety (with respect to the aircraft), being number one. Nowdays, management at all levels are more worried about someone pricking their finger on a piece of lockwire. Why? Aircraft are maintained to a medecocre level offshore. Those that are maintained at QF facilities are still recieving the old high level of maintenance however those facilities are under the spotlight for not being able to provide the aircraft in minimum time for minimum money.
Is your manager doing his best to ensure your workplace is competetive? Or is he simply interested in LTI's?
As far as Brissy goes, I know which of the two are more important to our management.
Planes go offshore... they come back without sufficent maintenance. QF engineers uncover these defects at a later date and managment harrass them for "blowing out" the check times. Management have no understanding of what's going on because they are too busy protecting their LTI driven bonuses.
There is more than just Aussie jobs at stake here. What worries me, and others, is that Qantas seems to be jeopardising it's reputation for safety. Gone are the days of safety (with respect to the aircraft), being number one. Nowdays, management at all levels are more worried about someone pricking their finger on a piece of lockwire. Why? Aircraft are maintained to a medecocre level offshore. Those that are maintained at QF facilities are still recieving the old high level of maintenance however those facilities are under the spotlight for not being able to provide the aircraft in minimum time for minimum money.
Is your manager doing his best to ensure your workplace is competetive? Or is he simply interested in LTI's?
As far as Brissy goes, I know which of the two are more important to our management.
Planes go offshore... they come back without sufficent maintenance. QF engineers uncover these defects at a later date and managment harrass them for "blowing out" the check times. Management have no understanding of what's going on because they are too busy protecting their LTI driven bonuses.