Qantas Maintenance Story On Ch.7
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt SIA would shut down their maint facility and send their work to QF paying top dollar in the process, then see reports come in that an aircraft was stapled together in emergency lighting cables and say nothing. Further I don't think SIA would sit there and support QF after these events by saying they are in the top tier of facilities in the world and send more aircraft there.
I don't thnk the Sin regulators would do nothing.
On another note, aircraft in Lon overnight were checked for any further problems and more staples were found in lighting system. OJG was one of the aircraft, the third one which received HM in Sin last year. The one on tele was OJQ. How many more do we need to find before it is deemed a problem? When will CASA step in? What other poor practices have taken place up there?
I don't thnk the Sin regulators would do nothing.
On another note, aircraft in Lon overnight were checked for any further problems and more staples were found in lighting system. OJG was one of the aircraft, the third one which received HM in Sin last year. The one on tele was OJQ. How many more do we need to find before it is deemed a problem? When will CASA step in? What other poor practices have taken place up there?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
head of singapore maintenance refutes claim that any work was done in this area. question how exactly did they remove the floor boards for inspections,without removing the emergency lighting ? so now we have undocumented maintenance as well
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chemical Ali,
You are wrong mate, The floorboards probably never came up
because that takes time and involves actually doing the
inspection, therefore it isn't undocumented maintenance
because there was no maintenance!
You are wrong mate, The floorboards probably never came up
because that takes time and involves actually doing the
inspection, therefore it isn't undocumented maintenance
because there was no maintenance!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Here
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF engineers in SIAEC are there to vet the cards as they are returned and try and suss out if anything is amiss.
Qantas do not want their LAMES supervising work because that is what they are paying SIAEC to do.
As for SIAEC's bloody crocodile tears in the Australian today, I have never seen such a load of ****e in my life. They contradict themselves.
They have basically accused the Qantas Quality and Risk Auditors of making up the whole story.
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)If CASA doesn't come out now and make a correction it means they concur with SIAEC and support the facility.
Perhaps CASA are covering their asses because they carried out an inspection of the facility in august 2006 at the same time VH OJQ was getting a dodgy D check and saw nothing but at the same time Qantas QA guys saw all that you are hearing about in the media.
To top it off they then call D.Cox a liar by saying that the staple inciddent didn't happen there and that CASA agrees with them, this is despite Coxs statements in the media that they identified the practice in October and asked SIAEC to stop doing it.
If Cox is correct where was the Quality alert bulletin and the inspections of other aircraft that had been through that facility. Or did he make it up in the face of media pressure. Someone is not telling the truth. It seems that the union is only putting forward the facts and the guilty parties are falling over themselves to refute them.
The bottom line is the DOLLAR. On the part of all three parties, CASA , SIAEC and QANTAS. They all want to make some or save some.
Another quote from SIAEC
"It was audited by 27 aviation authorities, including Europe's EASA and the US Federal Aviation Administration, and underwent 107 audits a year."
Maybe if they sent some higher calibre Quality Auditors such as the guys that did the job for QF then the quality of the place would be better. Obviously the 107 audits that were carried out were similar to the CASA audit in august sept. Does SIAEC really have 2 audits carried out every week, why? QF have had to audit them everytime they send an a/c there because of all the quality issues.
Another quote "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"
Thats because they were oo busy skimming over the inspections to actually snag anything that needed fixing. i can't believe that they are saying that the EEL never came up during the structural inspections of the sub floor area.
No wonder they could carry out 50 odd hrs of inspections per shift and find no defects.
Ever seen a floor track with no defects? 5 thou is a defect. I bet you'll find them every 32" where a seat has been sitting for years. And where the corrosive galley fluids have been eating away at the forward r/h C zone area.
SIAEC Engineers found no defects on any floor track.
I guess it depends on how close you look, doesn't it?
Qantas do not want their LAMES supervising work because that is what they are paying SIAEC to do.
As for SIAEC's bloody crocodile tears in the Australian today, I have never seen such a load of ****e in my life. They contradict themselves.
They have basically accused the Qantas Quality and Risk Auditors of making up the whole story.
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)If CASA doesn't come out now and make a correction it means they concur with SIAEC and support the facility.
Perhaps CASA are covering their asses because they carried out an inspection of the facility in august 2006 at the same time VH OJQ was getting a dodgy D check and saw nothing but at the same time Qantas QA guys saw all that you are hearing about in the media.
To top it off they then call D.Cox a liar by saying that the staple inciddent didn't happen there and that CASA agrees with them, this is despite Coxs statements in the media that they identified the practice in October and asked SIAEC to stop doing it.
If Cox is correct where was the Quality alert bulletin and the inspections of other aircraft that had been through that facility. Or did he make it up in the face of media pressure. Someone is not telling the truth. It seems that the union is only putting forward the facts and the guilty parties are falling over themselves to refute them.
The bottom line is the DOLLAR. On the part of all three parties, CASA , SIAEC and QANTAS. They all want to make some or save some.
Another quote from SIAEC
"It was audited by 27 aviation authorities, including Europe's EASA and the US Federal Aviation Administration, and underwent 107 audits a year."
Maybe if they sent some higher calibre Quality Auditors such as the guys that did the job for QF then the quality of the place would be better. Obviously the 107 audits that were carried out were similar to the CASA audit in august sept. Does SIAEC really have 2 audits carried out every week, why? QF have had to audit them everytime they send an a/c there because of all the quality issues.
Another quote "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"
Thats because they were oo busy skimming over the inspections to actually snag anything that needed fixing. i can't believe that they are saying that the EEL never came up during the structural inspections of the sub floor area.
No wonder they could carry out 50 odd hrs of inspections per shift and find no defects.
Ever seen a floor track with no defects? 5 thou is a defect. I bet you'll find them every 32" where a seat has been sitting for years. And where the corrosive galley fluids have been eating away at the forward r/h C zone area.
SIAEC Engineers found no defects on any floor track.
I guess it depends on how close you look, doesn't it?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the Singaporeans saw it for exactly what it was.
Another short sighted industrial campaign to force QANTAS into keeping its maintenance at poor performing Australian bases.
Why not become efficient rather than so protective? Much more secure in the longer term.
All this tripe about the long standing safety record of QANTAS, for gods sake some of you lot have only been there 10 minutes, the rest should be put out to rest....
M.P.
Another short sighted industrial campaign to force QANTAS into keeping its maintenance at poor performing Australian bases.
Why not become efficient rather than so protective? Much more secure in the longer term.
All this tripe about the long standing safety record of QANTAS, for gods sake some of you lot have only been there 10 minutes, the rest should be put out to rest....
M.P.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: BNE
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If your after the video's there here
http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/video#
Got this from the ALAEA yesterday as well
Media Watch is hoping to speak to Qantas Engineering and Maintenance staff (past or present) who tried to contact 2UE's John Laws after David Cox interview on Wednesday, 18th July.
Media Watch was tipped off that several callers were not put through to John Laws.
If you were one of these callers, or know somebody who is, please call Antoinette Chiha on ########## (PM for the number) This mobile can be reached anytime, so feel free to call over the weekend.
We are happy for you to go on the record without broadcasting your name.
Thank you.
Antoinette Chiha
MEDIA WATCH ABC Television
p:+612 8333 4371 f: +612 8333 4962 w: abc.net.au/mediawatch
http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/video#
Got this from the ALAEA yesterday as well
Media Watch is hoping to speak to Qantas Engineering and Maintenance staff (past or present) who tried to contact 2UE's John Laws after David Cox interview on Wednesday, 18th July.
Media Watch was tipped off that several callers were not put through to John Laws.
If you were one of these callers, or know somebody who is, please call Antoinette Chiha on ########## (PM for the number) This mobile can be reached anytime, so feel free to call over the weekend.
We are happy for you to go on the record without broadcasting your name.
Thank you.
Antoinette Chiha
MEDIA WATCH ABC Television
p:+612 8333 4371 f: +612 8333 4962 w: abc.net.au/mediawatch
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sydney
Age: 57
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by LME-400; 21st Jul 2007 at 08:06.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the head of the company should not Darth be explaining about this.....
From Managers Perspective...."I think the Singaporeans saw it for exactly what it was"....
Just as we see your post for what it was....
From Managers Perspective...."I think the Singaporeans saw it for exactly what it was"....
Just as we see your post for what it was....
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But wait there is more.
Some more regarding the lack maintenance done at SIAEC.
Many of the checks inspections require consumables, filters, parts etc
On completion of the D/C checks the preloaded consumables, kits supplied to SIAEC were left unused especially the parts that were unique to QF aircraft e.g. RR filters.
After the first check, not using the parts supplied could be excused due to lack of knowledge of the existence consumables and using local stock then billing QF for the SIA parts.
Did this practice continue for all the checks done by SIAEC?
Were the inspections done , filters replaced ? A proper look at the job cards may reveal some interesting reading regarding release No of parts used.
Managers perspective..
The work is already gone the hangar is shut many people are out of job. The failings of the out sourced heavy maintenance work is being picked up by ACS and that is why it is being brought out in open as non of the current managers have the intestinal fortitude to tell the emperor he is naked.
The timing of the bad press is probably political but you have to use the tools at hand and it does not diminish the facts or the evidence.
I very much enjoyed watching DC sweat in front of the camera.
and judging by the witch hunt following the TV interview to persecute the whistle blowers he wasn't amused either....
Is it just me whom has noticed DC has an appropriate second name.
Some more regarding the lack maintenance done at SIAEC.
Many of the checks inspections require consumables, filters, parts etc
On completion of the D/C checks the preloaded consumables, kits supplied to SIAEC were left unused especially the parts that were unique to QF aircraft e.g. RR filters.
After the first check, not using the parts supplied could be excused due to lack of knowledge of the existence consumables and using local stock then billing QF for the SIA parts.
Did this practice continue for all the checks done by SIAEC?
Were the inspections done , filters replaced ? A proper look at the job cards may reveal some interesting reading regarding release No of parts used.
Managers perspective..
Another short sighted industrial campaign to force QANTAS into keeping its maintenance at poor performing Australian bases.
Why not become efficient rather than so protective? Much more secure in the longer term.
Why not become efficient rather than so protective? Much more secure in the longer term.
The timing of the bad press is probably political but you have to use the tools at hand and it does not diminish the facts or the evidence.
I very much enjoyed watching DC sweat in front of the camera.
and judging by the witch hunt following the TV interview to persecute the whistle blowers he wasn't amused either....Is it just me whom has noticed DC has an appropriate second name.
Last edited by Bolty McBolt; 22nd Jul 2007 at 09:30.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bolty, I understand your sentiments entirely. However, if you care to reflect on some of the replies of LAMEs on this thread, you must admit that there is a large gap between wielding a spanner and using the brains in the communications sector of this fraternity, which is not doing you guys any favours.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....ahhhhh us fish have something good to feed on.....and as always, the usual trolls come to drop the baited hook in. Guys, don't let trolls like Managers Perspective and Hot Dog get to you. Ignore them. I remember as far back as 15 years ago, an aircraft that had an IFE system installed overseas, (I believe it was in Singapore), had to have a lot of the wiring re-done because it had been zip tied to existing looms over clamps! One could say "but were the employees at that facility aware that it was an incorrect procedure"? (This same question was asked of the staples). I guess it is a little hard to understand when your only tool is a biro and your workplace is a cubicle, but there are standard procedures that apply to all aircraft. If you are properly trained, you would understand the very basics of these procedures. To staple wires.... to run wires over clamps... this is not ignorance, it is blatant negligence. Engineers in Sydney had been picking up the pieces for many years on aircraft that had been maintained in certain overseas MRO's. What an insult it is to them now, after losing their jobs, that these aircraft are being maintained at those same facilities.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: concert hall
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have the two aircraft vh-ojj and vh-oei being inspected yet for more undocumented maintenance/non conformant repairs on the emergency lighting system?. They were in SIAEC earlier this year for c checks.....oh sorry..... Mr Tan says it wasn't his company......the ALAEA are using this as a wedge in an industrial dispute. Steve Creedy go and get fcuked for writing such a crap piece of literary drivel. How much did they pay you for that?....probably more than John Laws......cash for no questions
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry but does this mean that SIA aircraft, some of which are 14 years old (delivered in 1993) are poorly maintained and are in danger of falling off the sky very soon? Are Oasis Hong Kong 744s also in danger of falling apart? Should Australia then ban all SQ aircraft from flying into Australia seeing as they are (apparently!) so poorly maintained?
What about VS who sent an A340 to SIN 2 years ago, and Air Canada who sent 2 744s around the same time? Are those planes also in trouble? SIA has close to 100 planes now flying around everyday. Are we thus concluding that they are all poorly maintained with faulty wiring? Is SQ's entire fleet held together by staples? Perhaps the A380 due to arrive next month is held together by household staples too!
What about VS who sent an A340 to SIN 2 years ago, and Air Canada who sent 2 744s around the same time? Are those planes also in trouble? SIA has close to 100 planes now flying around everyday. Are we thus concluding that they are all poorly maintained with faulty wiring? Is SQ's entire fleet held together by staples? Perhaps the A380 due to arrive next month is held together by household staples too!