More Overseas Maintenance ! ! !
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting article Romulus, but I can assure you that the only spin doctors at work here are Qantas' and I would assume let off the leash by G.D. to cover the @rse of his Exec General Manager Engineering D.Cox.
The facts are that during a maintenance visit to SIAEC a Qantas 747-400 had wiring stapled. Qantas have admitted this in an internal audit of the check. David Cox himself admitted that it had occured on another a/c at the same MRO prior to this occurence. He said that SIAEC had been told to "cease this practice". Anecdotal evidence points to SIAEC also, and I can assure you that Mr Crikey this time is way off beam. The only time the entire aircrafts floor mounted emergency exit lighting strips are required to be "pulled up" and then re-layed back on the floor is during a D check, the check undertaken at SIAEC.
The facts are that during a maintenance visit to SIAEC a Qantas 747-400 had wiring stapled. Qantas have admitted this in an internal audit of the check. David Cox himself admitted that it had occured on another a/c at the same MRO prior to this occurence. He said that SIAEC had been told to "cease this practice". Anecdotal evidence points to SIAEC also, and I can assure you that Mr Crikey this time is way off beam. The only time the entire aircrafts floor mounted emergency exit lighting strips are required to be "pulled up" and then re-layed back on the floor is during a D check, the check undertaken at SIAEC.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are we not asking for engineers of other operators that have their aircraft maintained in Singapore,if they are having the same dodgy defect happening.
If its happening to QF aircraft,then its happening to others as well.
Surely there must be an Aussie LAME working for other carriers,particularly Asian airlines,that if this is happening on their aircraft ex-SIAEC, then surely they must have a comment to add to the debate.Don't CX and other airlines have their overflow work done at SIAEC?
If its only happening to QF aircraft then maybe it is one of our own.And if it is,then he/she should be given the boot.
If its happening to QF aircraft,then its happening to others as well.
Surely there must be an Aussie LAME working for other carriers,particularly Asian airlines,that if this is happening on their aircraft ex-SIAEC, then surely they must have a comment to add to the debate.Don't CX and other airlines have their overflow work done at SIAEC?
If its only happening to QF aircraft then maybe it is one of our own.And if it is,then he/she should be given the boot.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The facts are that during a maintenance visit to SIAEC a Qantas 747-400 had wiring stapled. Qantas have admitted this in an internal audit of the check.
Originally Posted by Crikey.com
Home truths about those Qantas staples
Ben Sandilands writes:
Qantas knows that the illegal stapling of electrical cabling in a 747-400was done by one of its own employees and not in maintenance performed while the jet was being overhauled in Singapore last year.
What was a cause celebre for the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association in its campaign against offshore contracting and for alarmed Qantas pilots last week is now their worst nightmare.
It was shoddy work by an Australian worker in a Qantas hangar where management failed to apply the high standards once taken for granted by the public.
Qantas is running an intensive investigation which may identify the employee responsible for the disgrace, as well as those who then used it knowingly or unknowingly in a campaign to discredit the use of offshore companies, in this case, the Singapore International Airlines Engineering Company (SIAC) which had been the subject of an earlier adverse audit by the airline.
A Qantas spokesperson confirmed the investigation and has defended David Cox, the executive general manager engineering, who sent a confusing signal over the responsibility for the stapling incident by telling Seven’s Today Tonight he would have words with SIAC over the incident.
The spokesman said Cox’s comment were made three days before they went to air, well after the inquiry was launched and the false premises of the union campaign were exposed. Since then the union has been in retreat, claiming that it was not casting aspersions on the training or capability of foreign maintenance workers nor the quality of their work.
SIAC was furious over the report. Cox’s response to that fury is detailed in this Note to Staff on July 20.
However the situation is bad for Qantas as well as the union, because in failing to detect improper repairs in at least one of its jets, it recognises inadequate exercise of its responsibility for the professionalism and capabilities of its in-house engineering and the record keeping supposed to catalogue the service history of this and every jet in its fleet.
But as far as its argument against sending more maintenance work abroad is concerned the engineering union has kicked an ‘own goal’ and lost the match.
If neither Qantas or the unions can be trusted to get it right, isn’t the offshore solution more attractive than ever?
Ben Sandilands writes:
Qantas knows that the illegal stapling of electrical cabling in a 747-400was done by one of its own employees and not in maintenance performed while the jet was being overhauled in Singapore last year.
What was a cause celebre for the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association in its campaign against offshore contracting and for alarmed Qantas pilots last week is now their worst nightmare.
It was shoddy work by an Australian worker in a Qantas hangar where management failed to apply the high standards once taken for granted by the public.
Qantas is running an intensive investigation which may identify the employee responsible for the disgrace, as well as those who then used it knowingly or unknowingly in a campaign to discredit the use of offshore companies, in this case, the Singapore International Airlines Engineering Company (SIAC) which had been the subject of an earlier adverse audit by the airline.
A Qantas spokesperson confirmed the investigation and has defended David Cox, the executive general manager engineering, who sent a confusing signal over the responsibility for the stapling incident by telling Seven’s Today Tonight he would have words with SIAC over the incident.
The spokesman said Cox’s comment were made three days before they went to air, well after the inquiry was launched and the false premises of the union campaign were exposed. Since then the union has been in retreat, claiming that it was not casting aspersions on the training or capability of foreign maintenance workers nor the quality of their work.
SIAC was furious over the report. Cox’s response to that fury is detailed in this Note to Staff on July 20.
However the situation is bad for Qantas as well as the union, because in failing to detect improper repairs in at least one of its jets, it recognises inadequate exercise of its responsibility for the professionalism and capabilities of its in-house engineering and the record keeping supposed to catalogue the service history of this and every jet in its fleet.
But as far as its argument against sending more maintenance work abroad is concerned the engineering union has kicked an ‘own goal’ and lost the match.
If neither Qantas or the unions can be trusted to get it right, isn’t the offshore solution more attractive than ever?
Originally Posted by Bug-a-lugs
If its only happening to QF aircraft then maybe it is one of our own.And if it is,then he/she should be given the boot.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
The facts are that during a maintenance visit to SIAEC a Qantas 747-400 had wiring stapled. Qantas have admitted this in an internal audit of the check.
Are they???
The facts are that during a maintenance visit to SIAEC a Qantas 747-400 had wiring stapled. Qantas have admitted this in an internal audit of the check.
Are they???
Ben Sandilands is a travel writer. His knowledge of aircraft maintenance and regulatory systems would probably extend to the Moet served in A zone whilst writing another puff piece on behalf of Qantas.
This article is pure bunk.
The spokesman said Cox’s comment were made three days before they went to air, well after the inquiry was launched and the false premises of the union campaign were exposed. Since then the union has been in retreat, claiming that it was not casting aspersions on the training or capability of foreign maintenance workers nor the quality of their work.
SIAC was furious over the report. Cox’s response to that fury is detailed in this Note to Staff on July 20.
SIAC was furious over the report. Cox’s response to that fury is detailed in this Note to Staff on July 20.
Last edited by Redstone; 30th Jul 2007 at 10:52.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shouldn't QF contact airlines who had their aircraft maintained by SIAEC in the past to get clarification? Also, can't CASA ask to inspect SIA aircraft that arrive in Australia? There are 90 flights to choose from every week??
If the allegations are THAT serious, they threaten the lives of not only pax who take QF aircraft, but also pax who take SQ aircraft and the over 80 airlines who have/had aircraft maintained by SIAEC. I'm not sure how SIAEC could get away with dodgy maintenance for 80 airlines, but if they did, surely something would have been done about it by now? Or are these experiences unique only to QF aircraft?
If the allegations are THAT serious, they threaten the lives of not only pax who take QF aircraft, but also pax who take SQ aircraft and the over 80 airlines who have/had aircraft maintained by SIAEC. I'm not sure how SIAEC could get away with dodgy maintenance for 80 airlines, but if they did, surely something would have been done about it by now? Or are these experiences unique only to QF aircraft?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Here
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm confused. Cox said they discovered the stapling at SIAEC in October last year and they were told to stop. SIAEC came back and said that it didn't happen and they were disapointed that Qantas inferred they were to blame, they also said they didnt do any work in "that" area and the paperwork proves it.
Ben Sandilands now writes that a "QANTAS spokesman" tells him that they have proof that the stapling was done in a hangar in Australia.
Why then have Qantas not issued a maintenance memo or recall inspections to inspect the eel power feeders on ALL aircraft that were worked on in an AUSTRALIAN hangar? I certainly haven't seen one.
In more than 20 years in an Australian Heavy Maintenance hangar I have never seen or heard of stapling used to repair eel feeders or lockwire used as a replacement male pin on a feeder plug.
QANTAS have only asked us to look at the aircraft that have come from SIAEC for EEL feeder problems.
Another scenario I have heard is that SIAEC said they found the staples and assumed that that was an approved Qantas repair and thus refitted the eel feeders with staples after the floorboards were refitted.
If they were doing their job properly they would have investigated this as should have been obvious to a skilled avionics ame/lame that this was not normal.
But if you put the whole thing in perspective, 50 hrs of inspections carried out in one shift, more than 20 flight control cables defective but not snagged, no seat track defects found on the entire aircraft despite there being cracked and corroded seat tracks found by a suspicious Qantas LAME, Steel knifes used to remove sealant on the aircraft exterior causing damage to the aluminium attach flanges, these clowns are not capable of finding a defect if it jumped up and bit them on the arse.
A quality outfit for sure. Sh!thouse quality.
Ben Sandilands now writes that a "QANTAS spokesman" tells him that they have proof that the stapling was done in a hangar in Australia.
Why then have Qantas not issued a maintenance memo or recall inspections to inspect the eel power feeders on ALL aircraft that were worked on in an AUSTRALIAN hangar? I certainly haven't seen one.
In more than 20 years in an Australian Heavy Maintenance hangar I have never seen or heard of stapling used to repair eel feeders or lockwire used as a replacement male pin on a feeder plug.
QANTAS have only asked us to look at the aircraft that have come from SIAEC for EEL feeder problems.
Another scenario I have heard is that SIAEC said they found the staples and assumed that that was an approved Qantas repair and thus refitted the eel feeders with staples after the floorboards were refitted.
If they were doing their job properly they would have investigated this as should have been obvious to a skilled avionics ame/lame that this was not normal.
But if you put the whole thing in perspective, 50 hrs of inspections carried out in one shift, more than 20 flight control cables defective but not snagged, no seat track defects found on the entire aircraft despite there being cracked and corroded seat tracks found by a suspicious Qantas LAME, Steel knifes used to remove sealant on the aircraft exterior causing damage to the aluminium attach flanges, these clowns are not capable of finding a defect if it jumped up and bit them on the arse.
A quality outfit for sure. Sh!thouse quality.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
No SAR
I think we both know it floats and Quacks!
How is it some regulatory folk are not good Duck Hunters?
But they will bust and fine some poor GA fellow for having his AD done a couple of days late or some similar stupid thing.... (no not me, so its not a gripe)
J
I think we both know it floats and Quacks!
How is it some regulatory folk are not good Duck Hunters?
But they will bust and fine some poor GA fellow for having his AD done a couple of days late or some similar stupid thing....
(no not me, so its not a gripe)J
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orstralya
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The QF spin-doctoring continues, and it appears CASA is happy to keep their head in the sand, for now.
Qantas rues more crude repairsBy Steve Creedy
July 31, 2007 06:00am
QANTAS has been forced to again defend its maintenance practices after two more sections of emergency lighting wiring in one of its jumbo jets were found to be crudely repaired using staples.
The airline's engineering union contacted the Civil Aviation Safety Authority yesterday and reported that the additional staples and another wiring irregularity had been found over the weekend.
The airline discovered more than two weeks ago that wiring in two of five sections of emergency lighting on the same plane had been repaired by stapling them together. The emergency lighting is an essential safety feature meant to guide passengers out of the aircraft in the event of a crash at night or if the cabin fills with smoke.
The staples have now been found in four of the five sections but it is unclear who did the stapling.
The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association believes the staples were used to repair the plane while it underwent heavy maintenance in Singapore, but the Singapore Airlines Engineering Company, which carried out the maintenance, angrily denies this. ALAEA is equally as forceful in its denials that the repair work was done in Australia.
Qantas initially indicated that it had addressed the issue with the Singaporeans but last night said the investigation was still in progress. Qantas head of engineering David Cox said the airline had shortened the frequency of functional tests on the emergency lighting system from the manufacturer's recommended six weeks to two days.
He said the airline was continuing to inspect its aircraft so it could be sure it got everything.
"We're dealing with this as a quality issue, not a safety issue," he said. "So we're working through a rigorous and aggressive program of inspections and follow-up checks so we can be sure."
CASA was also unable to shed any light on who was responsible for the staples but said yesterday it was "comfortable" with the airline's handling of the issue.
CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the authority had allowed Qantas to continue flying the aircraft with some of the wiring still stapled after the airline agreed to regular checks to ensure the emergency lighting was still working.
Mr Gibson said the stapled wiring was in a 12-volt system and it was not considered a safety of flight issue.
"Qantas has its quality assurance systems in place to check that everything's running properly and when mistakes are made, to identify those and rectify them," he said. "Basically we're satisfied that Qantas is doing that successfully. In other words, there's no reason for us to step in."
Qantas rues more crude repairsBy Steve Creedy
July 31, 2007 06:00am
QANTAS has been forced to again defend its maintenance practices after two more sections of emergency lighting wiring in one of its jumbo jets were found to be crudely repaired using staples.
The airline's engineering union contacted the Civil Aviation Safety Authority yesterday and reported that the additional staples and another wiring irregularity had been found over the weekend.
The airline discovered more than two weeks ago that wiring in two of five sections of emergency lighting on the same plane had been repaired by stapling them together. The emergency lighting is an essential safety feature meant to guide passengers out of the aircraft in the event of a crash at night or if the cabin fills with smoke.
The staples have now been found in four of the five sections but it is unclear who did the stapling.
The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association believes the staples were used to repair the plane while it underwent heavy maintenance in Singapore, but the Singapore Airlines Engineering Company, which carried out the maintenance, angrily denies this. ALAEA is equally as forceful in its denials that the repair work was done in Australia.
Qantas initially indicated that it had addressed the issue with the Singaporeans but last night said the investigation was still in progress. Qantas head of engineering David Cox said the airline had shortened the frequency of functional tests on the emergency lighting system from the manufacturer's recommended six weeks to two days.
He said the airline was continuing to inspect its aircraft so it could be sure it got everything.
"We're dealing with this as a quality issue, not a safety issue," he said. "So we're working through a rigorous and aggressive program of inspections and follow-up checks so we can be sure."
CASA was also unable to shed any light on who was responsible for the staples but said yesterday it was "comfortable" with the airline's handling of the issue.
CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the authority had allowed Qantas to continue flying the aircraft with some of the wiring still stapled after the airline agreed to regular checks to ensure the emergency lighting was still working.
Mr Gibson said the stapled wiring was in a 12-volt system and it was not considered a safety of flight issue.
"Qantas has its quality assurance systems in place to check that everything's running properly and when mistakes are made, to identify those and rectify them," he said. "Basically we're satisfied that Qantas is doing that successfully. In other words, there's no reason for us to step in."
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orstralya
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like these problems may soon no longer be confined to planes but, to trains also......
Ex-Qantas manager to review Sydney rail services
Posted July 30, 2007 14:00:00
A former Qantas manager has been appointed to review maintenance procedures within RailCorp.
The management of RailCorp and unions are continuing to work through a series of issues in a bid to resolve a dispute over rail maintenance.
The New South Wales Transport Minister, John Watkins, says the appointment of Keith Clark will bring experience in maintenance procedures from the world's safest airline.
"[He] recently retired [as] general manager of heavy maintenance at Qantas has been appointed by the government to look at a number of matters over the next three months," he said.
"[They include] the maintenance procedures, the management, the performance outcomes [and] work force capability. [They have been asked to] come forward with a blueprint to really improve the output from those public sector maintenance yards."
Good luck to all in Sydney Rail!
Ex-Qantas manager to review Sydney rail services
Posted July 30, 2007 14:00:00
A former Qantas manager has been appointed to review maintenance procedures within RailCorp.
The management of RailCorp and unions are continuing to work through a series of issues in a bid to resolve a dispute over rail maintenance.
The New South Wales Transport Minister, John Watkins, says the appointment of Keith Clark will bring experience in maintenance procedures from the world's safest airline.
"[He] recently retired [as] general manager of heavy maintenance at Qantas has been appointed by the government to look at a number of matters over the next three months," he said.
"[They include] the maintenance procedures, the management, the performance outcomes [and] work force capability. [They have been asked to] come forward with a blueprint to really improve the output from those public sector maintenance yards."
Good luck to all in Sydney Rail!
"We're dealing with this as a quality issue, not a safety issue"
"CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the authority had allowed Qantas to continue flying the aircraft with some of the wiring still stapled after the airline agreed to regular checks to ensure the emergency lighting was still working.
Mr Gibson said the stapled wiring was in a 12-volt system and it was not considered a safety of flight issue."
Mr Gibson said the stapled wiring was in a 12-volt system and it was not considered a safety of flight issue."
Why is there such a vast inconsistency between the regulation of Low Capacity RPT and Qantas? If this was a GA RPT operation they would come down on them like a tonne of bricks.
If I was a low capacity RPT operator I would be calling my local FOI and asking for an explanation, after some of the stuff I have seen CASA take action over; to do nothing about what is basically non approved modifications to aircraft is unbelievable.
Are CASA here to play politics or to regulate?
If I was a low capacity RPT operator I would be calling my local FOI and asking for an explanation, after some of the stuff I have seen CASA take action over; to do nothing about what is basically non approved modifications to aircraft is unbelievable.
Are CASA here to play politics or to regulate?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shouldn't QF contact airlines who had their aircraft maintained by SIAEC in the past to get clarification? Also, can't CASA ask to inspect SIA aircraft that arrive in Australia? There are 90 flights to choose from every week??
Mr Gibson said the stapled wiring was in a 12-volt system and it was not considered a safety of flight issue.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The New South Wales Transport Minister, John Watkins, says the appointment of Keith Clark will bring experience in maintenance procedures from the world's safest airline.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: BAO
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contracted MRO's
This one caught my eye back in February of this year, and have pondered since if the work was done on or offshore???, I don’t think it got any coverage at the time.
Apart from the initial occurrence:
“A duplicate inspection of the elevator control cable run was subsequently carried out by two licensed aircraft maintenance engineers (LAMEs). Both engineers had concerns about the ‘heavy’ feel of the elevators. A noise was heard near the vicinity of the incorrectly routed cable, however, the LAMEs believed the noise was the result of a cable seal rub. They did not initiate a thorough inspection to positively determine the source……”
The Structural aspect and Ultimate Time in Service with the defect- intrigued me, would be interested in any thoughts or knowledge about the incident, of those assembled here??
ATSB Aviation Safety Investigation Report – Final
Release Date: 05 February 2007
Flight control system event; Boeing Company 737-X00, VH-#@^
“...a Boeing Company 737-X00 aircraft, registered VH-#%^, completed a scheduled flight from Melbourne, Victoria to Sydney, NSW. The pilot then reported that the aircraft had ‘heavy’ flight controls. An inspection by maintenance engineers revealed that the left lower rear elevator cable was incorrectly routed around a stiffener and that the stiffener and cable section had been damaged as a result of contact between them.”…..
“In the last week of July 2005, a contract maintenance organisation had replaced eight elevator control cable sections during a scheduled heavy aircraft maintenance check.”
“The aircraft was released to the aircraft operator on 1 August 2005 and remained in service until the pilot in command reported the ‘heavy’ flight controls on 9 August 2005.”…..
Link to Full Report below (trusting that it is functional??):
ATSB Report: 05Feb07- Cable B73-X
Go easy now- new at this……
Apart from the initial occurrence:
“A duplicate inspection of the elevator control cable run was subsequently carried out by two licensed aircraft maintenance engineers (LAMEs). Both engineers had concerns about the ‘heavy’ feel of the elevators. A noise was heard near the vicinity of the incorrectly routed cable, however, the LAMEs believed the noise was the result of a cable seal rub. They did not initiate a thorough inspection to positively determine the source……”
The Structural aspect and Ultimate Time in Service with the defect- intrigued me, would be interested in any thoughts or knowledge about the incident, of those assembled here??
ATSB Aviation Safety Investigation Report – Final
Release Date: 05 February 2007
Flight control system event; Boeing Company 737-X00, VH-#@^
“...a Boeing Company 737-X00 aircraft, registered VH-#%^, completed a scheduled flight from Melbourne, Victoria to Sydney, NSW. The pilot then reported that the aircraft had ‘heavy’ flight controls. An inspection by maintenance engineers revealed that the left lower rear elevator cable was incorrectly routed around a stiffener and that the stiffener and cable section had been damaged as a result of contact between them.”…..
“In the last week of July 2005, a contract maintenance organisation had replaced eight elevator control cable sections during a scheduled heavy aircraft maintenance check.”
“The aircraft was released to the aircraft operator on 1 August 2005 and remained in service until the pilot in command reported the ‘heavy’ flight controls on 9 August 2005.”…..
Link to Full Report below (trusting that it is functional??):
ATSB Report: 05Feb07- Cable B73-X
Go easy now- new at this……
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: n.s.w
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one caught my eye back in February of this year, and have pondered since if the work was done on or offshore???, I don’t think it got any coverage at the time