Qantas Maintenance Story On Ch.7
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bolty,
how do we know it ever worked. In fact, the reason the QF engineers probably found the staples was because the lights were probably u/s!
The other thing, i dont get Cox. He says that times are difficult due to trying to remain competitive. Who cares if QF Engineering is or isnt competitive if they send it all overseas!!
All he is worried about is his performance bonus.
DIXON AND COX = GREED
how do we know it ever worked. In fact, the reason the QF engineers probably found the staples was because the lights were probably u/s!
The other thing, i dont get Cox. He says that times are difficult due to trying to remain competitive. Who cares if QF Engineering is or isnt competitive if they send it all overseas!!
All he is worried about is his performance bonus.
DIXON AND COX = GREED
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sydney s/h
Believe it or not maintenance checks are carried out regularly, just because you are not there or don't see it does not mean it doesn't happen.
The emergency evac lighting system is checked on any transit longer than 6/12 hours. (depending on Aircraft type)
The EEL system on the 744 is a biatch to fix and has severe ramifications if parts of it don’t work. e.g. Whole zones which must be left un-occupied.
Therefore it is checked regularly and this checking is what uncovered the staple repair method probably due to the failure of the repair and eel system plus it must have worked sometime as all these were checked prior to departure SIN heavy maint..
To alcohol, the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems
how do we know it ever worked. In fact, the reason the QF engineers probably found the staples was because the lights were probably u/s!
The emergency evac lighting system is checked on any transit longer than 6/12 hours. (depending on Aircraft type)
The EEL system on the 744 is a biatch to fix and has severe ramifications if parts of it don’t work. e.g. Whole zones which must be left un-occupied.
Therefore it is checked regularly and this checking is what uncovered the staple repair method probably due to the failure of the repair and eel system plus it must have worked sometime as all these were checked prior to departure SIN heavy maint..
To alcohol, the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: concert hall
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Syd s/h. Right on the mark there. And it begs the question, how many aircraft that have gone through that facility are flying around the globe and have that same non-conformance?...... i'm sure the FAA, EASA would be interested.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dc.............rip !
Rumour doing the rounds on QCA/9 is that DC has definetley fallen out of favour with his fellow EXCO" team". To put in laymans terms:
"HE'S YESTERDAY'S MAN"................"dead cat syndrome"
Apparently, MH is the MAN .
"HE'S YESTERDAY'S MAN"................"dead cat syndrome"
Apparently, MH is the MAN .
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orstralya
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And now Qantas returns fire via steve creedy in Singapore..............
Singapore rejects Qantas claims
Don't drag us into a domestic union squabble, says SIAEC writes aviation writer Steve Creedy | July 20, 2007
UNION claims of problems with the overseas maintenance of Qantas aircraft has outraged Singaporean officials, who say they have been caught in the crossfire of a Qantas union campaign.
Union officials and executives from the island state joined forces yesterday to condemn and reject claims by Qantas engineers that work done at the Singapore Airlines Engineering Company (SIAEC) was substandard.
The latest allegation concerned emergency lighting wiring crudely stapled together on a plane that had undergone a heavy maintenance check at SIAEC in August-October last year.
But SIAEC said yesterday a thorough review of its maintenance records showed it had carried out no such repairs in the aircraft locations identified by Qantas.
It said stapling electrical wiring was not an approved practice at its facility.
"Really, I want to express the feeling of outrage," SIAEC chief executive William Tan told The Australian yesterday.
"These allegations are not new. We've gone through them before, except for the staples, and every single allegation has been proven false not by us but by (the Civil Aviation Safety Authority).
"And really bringing us down, dragging us into the fight between the Qantas unions and Qantas is really despicable. I am really very upset with the developments."
Mr Tan said he was speaking out in the hope he could get some sense "into the whole ridiculous episode".
He said an original Qantas internal audit report on SIAEC's practices was proven incorrect byCASA.
He said recent publicity about the report had smeared the company's reputation.
It was a global maintenance and repair organisation with more than 40 airlines from throughout the world bringing aircraft to its facility.
It was audited by 27 aviation authorities, including Europe's EASA and the US Federal Aviation Administration, and underwent 107 audits a year.
"What really makes me feel unhappy and sad about the entire situation is that this false accusations really affected the public's confidence in aircraft safety and it is totally irresponsible," he said.
Mr Tan said he was confident SIAEC's standards were so high as to be able to withstand any scrutiny, and it would survive being caught in the crossfire of the Qantas disagreement on outsourcing.
He was critical of Qantas's handling of the staples issue and the fact that management appeared to confirm that SIAEC was to blame.
"The staples were found 10 months after the aircraft left the facility," he said.
"We can go through the records again with CASA, which I think is a very professional body ... and the records will again confirm that no work was undertaken in the areas that were highlighted by that report."
Mr Tan was also unhappy with inferences that there was a cultural difference involved in maintenance issues.
He said recent TV reports highlighted that impression.
"Some of the allegations talk about our engineers and technicians not being able to speak and write English properly," he said. "I think that is outrageous." Mr Tan's criticism was echoed in a letter to Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association federal secretary Steve Purvinas from the SIAEC Engineers and Executives Union.
In the letter, general secretary Chua Swee Lee said the union was outraged "by the frivolous and false false allegations" against its members.
The union said allegations that work in Singapore was inferior was totally baseless and offensive. "These allegations have seriously harmed our reputation and questioned our integrity and professionalism," the letter said.
Mr Purvinas said last night that the union was not saying that Singaporean licensed engineers were inferior to their Australian counterparts but was questioning whether some companies operating outside of Australia had the correct ratio of licensed to unlicensed technicians.
"The Singapore engineers are trained to pretty much the exact same level as the Australian guys and they are just as good as we are," he said.
"What we are questioning here is not the quality of the licensed engineers in Singapore ... (but) the Qantas maintenance system that has allowed this to happen."
Singapore rejects Qantas claims
Don't drag us into a domestic union squabble, says SIAEC writes aviation writer Steve Creedy | July 20, 2007
UNION claims of problems with the overseas maintenance of Qantas aircraft has outraged Singaporean officials, who say they have been caught in the crossfire of a Qantas union campaign.
Union officials and executives from the island state joined forces yesterday to condemn and reject claims by Qantas engineers that work done at the Singapore Airlines Engineering Company (SIAEC) was substandard.
The latest allegation concerned emergency lighting wiring crudely stapled together on a plane that had undergone a heavy maintenance check at SIAEC in August-October last year.
But SIAEC said yesterday a thorough review of its maintenance records showed it had carried out no such repairs in the aircraft locations identified by Qantas.
It said stapling electrical wiring was not an approved practice at its facility.
"Really, I want to express the feeling of outrage," SIAEC chief executive William Tan told The Australian yesterday.
"These allegations are not new. We've gone through them before, except for the staples, and every single allegation has been proven false not by us but by (the Civil Aviation Safety Authority).
"And really bringing us down, dragging us into the fight between the Qantas unions and Qantas is really despicable. I am really very upset with the developments."
Mr Tan said he was speaking out in the hope he could get some sense "into the whole ridiculous episode".
He said an original Qantas internal audit report on SIAEC's practices was proven incorrect byCASA.
He said recent publicity about the report had smeared the company's reputation.
It was a global maintenance and repair organisation with more than 40 airlines from throughout the world bringing aircraft to its facility.
It was audited by 27 aviation authorities, including Europe's EASA and the US Federal Aviation Administration, and underwent 107 audits a year.
"What really makes me feel unhappy and sad about the entire situation is that this false accusations really affected the public's confidence in aircraft safety and it is totally irresponsible," he said.
Mr Tan said he was confident SIAEC's standards were so high as to be able to withstand any scrutiny, and it would survive being caught in the crossfire of the Qantas disagreement on outsourcing.
He was critical of Qantas's handling of the staples issue and the fact that management appeared to confirm that SIAEC was to blame.
"The staples were found 10 months after the aircraft left the facility," he said.
"We can go through the records again with CASA, which I think is a very professional body ... and the records will again confirm that no work was undertaken in the areas that were highlighted by that report."
Mr Tan was also unhappy with inferences that there was a cultural difference involved in maintenance issues.
He said recent TV reports highlighted that impression.
"Some of the allegations talk about our engineers and technicians not being able to speak and write English properly," he said. "I think that is outrageous." Mr Tan's criticism was echoed in a letter to Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association federal secretary Steve Purvinas from the SIAEC Engineers and Executives Union.
In the letter, general secretary Chua Swee Lee said the union was outraged "by the frivolous and false false allegations" against its members.
The union said allegations that work in Singapore was inferior was totally baseless and offensive. "These allegations have seriously harmed our reputation and questioned our integrity and professionalism," the letter said.
Mr Purvinas said last night that the union was not saying that Singaporean licensed engineers were inferior to their Australian counterparts but was questioning whether some companies operating outside of Australia had the correct ratio of licensed to unlicensed technicians.
"The Singapore engineers are trained to pretty much the exact same level as the Australian guys and they are just as good as we are," he said.
"What we are questioning here is not the quality of the licensed engineers in Singapore ... (but) the Qantas maintenance system that has allowed this to happen."
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Planet Earth
Age: 39
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SP and the Union
From the way SP has handled this matter in quite a professional manner, I can only assume (that is a big assumption I know) that the union has some form of proof that the staples were actually installed at SIAEC.
SIAEC's response was that their records show no work done at that location.
Please tell me, who the hell would document maintenance of that sort to be actually carried out and certified for.
SIAEC's response was that their records show no work done at that location.
Please tell me, who the hell would document maintenance of that sort to be actually carried out and certified for.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Delhi
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He was critical of Qantas's handling of the staples issue and the fact that management appeared to confirm that SIAEC was to blame.
Qantas have openly admitted it had happened in Singapore this come from the master of PR for Qantas DC and was in The Australian on Wed.
Qantas head of engineering David Cox said the use of staples was unnacceptable. Qantas staff had picked up on the practice as it was happening in October and had told Singapore to eliminate it.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: HEAVEN
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas Head of engineering David Cox said the use of staples was unnacceptable. Qantas staff had picked up on the practice as it was happening in October and had told Singapore to eliminate it.
I think Cox is making reference to ANOTHER occassion "C" check 767", which was done in Singapore in October 2006 ...... but aren't they done by SASCO ?????
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Really, I want to express the feeling of outrage," SIAEC chief executive William Tan told The Australian yesterday.
If SIAEC are of such high calibre maintenance facility someone should ask them if they had any problems with the quality of their own work on the worlds longest 744 freighter conversion, some 9 months,,,,,,
Because if you asked whether the engine squib harnesses were connected up and the aircraft was flown without fire protection for quite some time without detection of the defect, I am sure you would find lots of loss of face on William Tan and many other SIA engineers and cargo pilots alike and that is a major defect. Yet alone the myriad of other failings found post heavy maintenance mods
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Cox is making reference to ANOTHER occasion "C" check 767", which was done in Singapore in October 2006 ...... but aren't they done by SASCO ?????
All the info is in records as dozens of form 500s were filled out after being bitten by the first 2 SIAEC D checks to record the failings of SIAEC
DC should know all about it but his strategy is CHEAP not quality !
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VH-OJG
From what I can see of the document that Ch.7. handed to DC and the quick fly over the said document,the rego was VH-OJG.
One question that I think would be interesting is,how many Qantas engineers left today are actually ex-QF apprentices,and more to the point,how many are from overseas originally?I would suspect that there are lots.
Xenophobia my ar$e.
One question that I think would be interesting is,how many Qantas engineers left today are actually ex-QF apprentices,and more to the point,how many are from overseas originally?I would suspect that there are lots.
Xenophobia my ar$e.
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any country that has to instigate a "courtesy week" to it's populace so that they can be friendly to others has some serious issues.
It is then with no surprise that they are indignant and upset that someone else is criticising them.They have never taken kindly to anyone else telling them that they are wrong.
It is then with no surprise that they are indignant and upset that someone else is criticising them.They have never taken kindly to anyone else telling them that they are wrong.