Latest Qf Incident,where Will All This End
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Asia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me if this has been mentioned, as I have only read about 7 pages of this thread.
I have often wondered why major airlines don't use the expertise at their disposal to come up with a concise, definitive, explanation of exactly what a crew have at their disposal in the event that they end up on basic standby power.
Of course I am talking about more than the basic list given in the systems manual. I have noted over the years how the sections seem to be getting less and less as they amend them.
I used to fly a Boeing in the Middle East and no one really knew for sure if it had the battery mod connecting the APU battery to the main batteries thus giving 90 mins on SBY instead of the normal 30.
I asked if there were any electrics required to run the normal flap/gear extension as I was concerned we might end up at an airfield with depleted batteries after a major electrical fault. It wasn't easy to get an answer and in the end I think the ginger beers said they thought there probably was a need for some electrics for the normal flap extension. The systems section for the 75/767 is now even more basic than it used to be when I first came onto the type.
My point is, why isn't all this stuff worked out for us by the companies and Boeing/ Airbus etc so that we have it all at our fingertips.
Even if there is only a slight chance of such an event, I think a little prescience would go a long way.
If we could get this happening then maybe we should arc up about proper full face Oxygen masks in the cockpit as well. The thought of major smoke in the cockpit with the silly little goggles we now have is of concern to me.
Good luck.
I have often wondered why major airlines don't use the expertise at their disposal to come up with a concise, definitive, explanation of exactly what a crew have at their disposal in the event that they end up on basic standby power.
Of course I am talking about more than the basic list given in the systems manual. I have noted over the years how the sections seem to be getting less and less as they amend them.
I used to fly a Boeing in the Middle East and no one really knew for sure if it had the battery mod connecting the APU battery to the main batteries thus giving 90 mins on SBY instead of the normal 30.
I asked if there were any electrics required to run the normal flap/gear extension as I was concerned we might end up at an airfield with depleted batteries after a major electrical fault. It wasn't easy to get an answer and in the end I think the ginger beers said they thought there probably was a need for some electrics for the normal flap extension. The systems section for the 75/767 is now even more basic than it used to be when I first came onto the type.
My point is, why isn't all this stuff worked out for us by the companies and Boeing/ Airbus etc so that we have it all at our fingertips.
Even if there is only a slight chance of such an event, I think a little prescience would go a long way.
If we could get this happening then maybe we should arc up about proper full face Oxygen masks in the cockpit as well. The thought of major smoke in the cockpit with the silly little goggles we now have is of concern to me.
Good luck.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney
Age: 54
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas flies into stormy weather
By Peter Gosnell
January 11, 2008 08:22am
Article from:
Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
AFTER the turbulence of 2007, Australia's national airline has emerged this side of the New Year certain of little more than the precarious state of its reputation and the prodigious size of its profits.
In its wake is a vapour trail of incidents and events that has those believing in Qantas' status as an Australian corporate icon reaching for the oxygen.
To sum up, the Flying Kangaroo endured a failed takeover bid, the departure of its chairwoman in the aftermath, prolonged industrial disputation and soaring fuel costs which have been passed onto consumers through so-called fuel levies.
It has also copped a plea over a price-fixing scandal and agreed to pay $60 million in fines to the US Justice Department. Then there was an executive health scare which may yet mean boss Geoff Dixon steps down before his July 2009 departure date and most recently near disaster, when an electrical fault on a flight from London to Bangkok this week put the airline's legendary safety record to its gravest test yet.
Despite the bumpy ride, Qantas has maintained its grip on 65per cent of the domestic market thanks to the success of its budget carrier Jetstar.
It has plans to spend $35billion over the next decade replacing its ageing fleet, with orders in place for the giant A380 airbus and the Boeing 787 Dreamliners.
Big plans, and with a forecast full-year profit of $1.44 billion certain to send the bonuses of the airline's senior executives into the stratosphere, the firm will have all the borrowing capacity it needs to put its plans into action.
And while Qantas engineers might rightly believe they're entitled to a portion of this burgeoning financial growth, Qantas management has so far given barely an inch in its recent war with its engineers.
Yesterday the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers' Association (ALAEA) - which is seeking a 5 per cent annual wage increase for its 1700 members - deferred for a second time to refuse overtime. Enterprise bargaining agreement negotiations are continuing.
But can Qantas maintain its reputation in the wake of the poisonous disputes, the odious publicity, rising fuel costs, perceptions of declining service standards and most importantly last Monday's incident?
Reports yesterday suggested QF2 had experienced electrical faults before departing London, a claim Qantas denied.
"The flight departed normally ... we have no reports of any technical or other issues," a Qantas spokesman said.
The wisdom of admitting to having no knowledge aside, the incident has plenty in the industry worried, not least the plane's manufacturer.
"We're not entirely sure about what happened on that particular flight and we've got a high-level investigation into the incident," Boeing Australia spokesman Ken Morton said.
"The fact that this happened at all is highly unusual and we need to better understand the facts of the case."
It's a sentiment echoed by pilots. So far the power failure has been attributed to water leaking through a cracked drip pan under first class. The water got into the electrical system and caused a short circuit.
The pilots switched to emergency battery power which lasts for at least 30 minutes.
Fortunately the plane was about halfway through its descent into Bangkok and was on the ground 15 minutes later.
But a pilot who asked not to be identified said the critical elements in a power failure of this kind were where you were and whether it was night or day.
"In Europe or Asia there's plenty of places you can go but in the middle of the Pacific where the nearest place is three hours away, you'll probably have to stick it in the water," the pilot said.
Mr Morton was unable to say just what Boeing recommended to its customers in terms of maintenance inspections for the drip trays, although he confirmed Boeing did provide extensive recommendations in relation to maintenance.
"There are some areas of the plane that command more attention than others," he said.
"A lot of components are maintained on condition that they don't have a finite life which means if they are not broken they don't have to be replaced," Mr Morton said.
Qantas has one maintenance division based in Sydney comprising employees but outsources maintenance at its Avalon base outside Melbourne.
A spokesman was unable to say when the plane was last inspected or where.
Depending on where the fault lies will have a big bearing on whether Qantas' reputation finishes the year with fewer blemishes than when it started. Not that is necessarily so important any more. As it showed in 2007, a few stains didn't undermine Qantas' incredibly profitable bottom line.
By Peter Gosnell
January 11, 2008 08:22am
Article from:
Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
AFTER the turbulence of 2007, Australia's national airline has emerged this side of the New Year certain of little more than the precarious state of its reputation and the prodigious size of its profits.
In its wake is a vapour trail of incidents and events that has those believing in Qantas' status as an Australian corporate icon reaching for the oxygen.
To sum up, the Flying Kangaroo endured a failed takeover bid, the departure of its chairwoman in the aftermath, prolonged industrial disputation and soaring fuel costs which have been passed onto consumers through so-called fuel levies.
It has also copped a plea over a price-fixing scandal and agreed to pay $60 million in fines to the US Justice Department. Then there was an executive health scare which may yet mean boss Geoff Dixon steps down before his July 2009 departure date and most recently near disaster, when an electrical fault on a flight from London to Bangkok this week put the airline's legendary safety record to its gravest test yet.
Despite the bumpy ride, Qantas has maintained its grip on 65per cent of the domestic market thanks to the success of its budget carrier Jetstar.
It has plans to spend $35billion over the next decade replacing its ageing fleet, with orders in place for the giant A380 airbus and the Boeing 787 Dreamliners.
Big plans, and with a forecast full-year profit of $1.44 billion certain to send the bonuses of the airline's senior executives into the stratosphere, the firm will have all the borrowing capacity it needs to put its plans into action.
And while Qantas engineers might rightly believe they're entitled to a portion of this burgeoning financial growth, Qantas management has so far given barely an inch in its recent war with its engineers.
Yesterday the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers' Association (ALAEA) - which is seeking a 5 per cent annual wage increase for its 1700 members - deferred for a second time to refuse overtime. Enterprise bargaining agreement negotiations are continuing.
But can Qantas maintain its reputation in the wake of the poisonous disputes, the odious publicity, rising fuel costs, perceptions of declining service standards and most importantly last Monday's incident?
Reports yesterday suggested QF2 had experienced electrical faults before departing London, a claim Qantas denied.
"The flight departed normally ... we have no reports of any technical or other issues," a Qantas spokesman said.
The wisdom of admitting to having no knowledge aside, the incident has plenty in the industry worried, not least the plane's manufacturer.
"We're not entirely sure about what happened on that particular flight and we've got a high-level investigation into the incident," Boeing Australia spokesman Ken Morton said.
"The fact that this happened at all is highly unusual and we need to better understand the facts of the case."
It's a sentiment echoed by pilots. So far the power failure has been attributed to water leaking through a cracked drip pan under first class. The water got into the electrical system and caused a short circuit.
The pilots switched to emergency battery power which lasts for at least 30 minutes.
Fortunately the plane was about halfway through its descent into Bangkok and was on the ground 15 minutes later.
But a pilot who asked not to be identified said the critical elements in a power failure of this kind were where you were and whether it was night or day.
"In Europe or Asia there's plenty of places you can go but in the middle of the Pacific where the nearest place is three hours away, you'll probably have to stick it in the water," the pilot said.
Mr Morton was unable to say just what Boeing recommended to its customers in terms of maintenance inspections for the drip trays, although he confirmed Boeing did provide extensive recommendations in relation to maintenance.
"There are some areas of the plane that command more attention than others," he said.
"A lot of components are maintained on condition that they don't have a finite life which means if they are not broken they don't have to be replaced," Mr Morton said.
Qantas has one maintenance division based in Sydney comprising employees but outsources maintenance at its Avalon base outside Melbourne.
A spokesman was unable to say when the plane was last inspected or where.
Depending on where the fault lies will have a big bearing on whether Qantas' reputation finishes the year with fewer blemishes than when it started. Not that is necessarily so important any more. As it showed in 2007, a few stains didn't undermine Qantas' incredibly profitable bottom line.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney
Age: 54
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shares may face more than a near miss
January 09, 2008
HOW near was the miss? Just another "incident" - or enough to rattle a rampaging Qantas share price?
Qantas had clamped down the information shutters last night -- and to be fair, no one knew what the problem was -- yet "the incident" will throw into stark relief, again, that critical nexus between costs, profits and safety.
The Boeing 747 flying into Bangkok on Monday from London to Sydney had a highly improbable electrical failure and had to resort to the back-up system -- a battery.
This battery, according to pilots and an aviation engineer contacted by The Australian, lasts for about 30 minutes and provides a cockpit light, a radio and the captain's instruments.
The speculation now is twofold: how did four independent electrical systems (four generators on four engines) fail simultaneously? And what would have happened had the failure occurred over an ocean in the dark?
As the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the Australian Transport Safety Board , Boeing, the Thai authorities and Qantas were investigating last night, no one had any answers.
Neither could Qantas provide confirmation on the age of the aircraft. It's a 747-400 and could be anywhere from five to 25 years old.
This matters. If it is a fair vintage, the "incident" will bring controversy, perhaps even dent the stock price. Qantas has one of the oldest fleets in the developed world at roughly 11 years, while management focus on eliminating costs has brought terrific internal debate on the trade-off between profits and safety.
Three years ago, David Forsyth, the airline's former executive general manager of engineering and maintenance, presented to the executive committee on the challenges of maintenance and the sustainability of the cost-cutting program.
Forsyth left shortly afterwards, said to be dissatisfied with the company's approach and spending on maintenance.
The debate has raged, and so it should, as Geoff Dixon and his team drive billion-dollar profits with their comparatively old fleet. Almost anyone trying to get a ticket overseas knows the yields and load factors are running full-tilt at Qantas, and at most of its competitors.
Besides the age of the fleet is the array of aircraft types and configurations, which make maintenance a difficult job. Bombardiers, 737s, two types of 767s, three types of 747s and the incoming 787s are all in the fleet.
Perhaps the greatest concern in last year's private equity tilt at Qantas was the one least featured in the press. Amid all the debate on price and the role of the board, valid issues all, was the matter of cost savings.
The Macquarie-Allco-TPG consortium plan was to run up debt to drive financial performance and cut costs. The issue of safety was mostly ignored in the public debate, although the chances of an increase in "incidents" may well have risen under a more aggressive management.
There comes a point, however, in aviation when safety can really damage the bottom line. Were Qantas to crash, the premium for safety would be wiped out with devastating consequences for the stock price.
For Qantas, the only positive in the incident is that it may redirect attention from the latest fuel surcharge. Given that management had been telling the market how well the company was hedged for 2008, it's a cheeky outcome indeed that, according to analysts, the latest hike should plonk another $130million on the bottom line.
January 09, 2008
HOW near was the miss? Just another "incident" - or enough to rattle a rampaging Qantas share price?
Qantas had clamped down the information shutters last night -- and to be fair, no one knew what the problem was -- yet "the incident" will throw into stark relief, again, that critical nexus between costs, profits and safety.
The Boeing 747 flying into Bangkok on Monday from London to Sydney had a highly improbable electrical failure and had to resort to the back-up system -- a battery.
This battery, according to pilots and an aviation engineer contacted by The Australian, lasts for about 30 minutes and provides a cockpit light, a radio and the captain's instruments.
The speculation now is twofold: how did four independent electrical systems (four generators on four engines) fail simultaneously? And what would have happened had the failure occurred over an ocean in the dark?
As the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the Australian Transport Safety Board , Boeing, the Thai authorities and Qantas were investigating last night, no one had any answers.
Neither could Qantas provide confirmation on the age of the aircraft. It's a 747-400 and could be anywhere from five to 25 years old.
This matters. If it is a fair vintage, the "incident" will bring controversy, perhaps even dent the stock price. Qantas has one of the oldest fleets in the developed world at roughly 11 years, while management focus on eliminating costs has brought terrific internal debate on the trade-off between profits and safety.
Three years ago, David Forsyth, the airline's former executive general manager of engineering and maintenance, presented to the executive committee on the challenges of maintenance and the sustainability of the cost-cutting program.
Forsyth left shortly afterwards, said to be dissatisfied with the company's approach and spending on maintenance.
The debate has raged, and so it should, as Geoff Dixon and his team drive billion-dollar profits with their comparatively old fleet. Almost anyone trying to get a ticket overseas knows the yields and load factors are running full-tilt at Qantas, and at most of its competitors.
Besides the age of the fleet is the array of aircraft types and configurations, which make maintenance a difficult job. Bombardiers, 737s, two types of 767s, three types of 747s and the incoming 787s are all in the fleet.
Perhaps the greatest concern in last year's private equity tilt at Qantas was the one least featured in the press. Amid all the debate on price and the role of the board, valid issues all, was the matter of cost savings.
The Macquarie-Allco-TPG consortium plan was to run up debt to drive financial performance and cut costs. The issue of safety was mostly ignored in the public debate, although the chances of an increase in "incidents" may well have risen under a more aggressive management.
There comes a point, however, in aviation when safety can really damage the bottom line. Were Qantas to crash, the premium for safety would be wiped out with devastating consequences for the stock price.
For Qantas, the only positive in the incident is that it may redirect attention from the latest fuel surcharge. Given that management had been telling the market how well the company was hedged for 2008, it's a cheeky outcome indeed that, according to analysts, the latest hike should plonk another $130million on the bottom line.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney
Age: 54
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i am really starting to fear for the flying public now,incident after incident,power outages,oxy sys filled with nitrogen,eels held together with staples,checks not done as there meant to ,inspections down in a fraction of the time allocated (re Singapore checks) and the list goes on,and all this in such a short space of time since Syd Heavy was shut down.
What the hell is CASA up to,when will someone there be held accountable
What the hell is CASA up to,when will someone there be held accountable
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: concert hall
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EP, did you not know the real intent of CASA?.
campaign against safe aviation
Maybe we (as maintenance and flight crew, as we are ultimately legally responsible) should take heed of who lobbys what in Canberra more closely. Just a thought.
Apologies to all for thread drift.
campaign against safe aviation
Maybe we (as maintenance and flight crew, as we are ultimately legally responsible) should take heed of who lobbys what in Canberra more closely. Just a thought.
Apologies to all for thread drift.
Last edited by U.K. SUBS.; 12th Jan 2008 at 01:14. Reason: spelling
employees perspective;
Thanks for the posted article.
From the article, the author (unnamed) writes:
Such are the ethics of airline managments and shareholders today that the only comment ever offered regarding their concerns over safety is, "There comes a point, however, in aviation when safety can really damage the bottom line".
The corporate concern is not for the passengers and crew, not for the professional ethics that each of their pilots and flight attendants holds dear regarding the safety of their passengers, but... "the bottom line".
Wow. It doesn't get much more succinct than that.
What on earth has this industry come to?
Thanks for the posted article.
From the article, the author (unnamed) writes:
There comes a point, however, in aviation when safety can really damage the bottom line. Were Qantas to crash, the premium for safety would be wiped out with devastating consequences for the stock price.
The corporate concern is not for the passengers and crew, not for the professional ethics that each of their pilots and flight attendants holds dear regarding the safety of their passengers, but... "the bottom line".
Wow. It doesn't get much more succinct than that.
What on earth has this industry come to?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ2 I think the author, in speaking to that particular audience (shareholders), is trying to reach them via a vehicle they understand. You are so right, but when in Rome.....
ferris;
Thanks... - in which case I hope it works.
I think the message is too vague and soft for shareholders to see or hear, however. Only someone who knew what they were investing in, aviation, would sense what was really being said.
For most, a message that cites a possible shareholder risk, such as complete loss of the shareprice, or worse, a possibly-fatal accident and all the financial and governance outcomes which follow because safety priorities were not accorded as high a corporate priority as they should be, should raise the hair on the back of their necks sufficiently so that they at least take more than a casual look at their investment and ask some questions of management. I realize that it's far more complex and involved than that and that I am not a financial expert nor am I knowledgable of such things - I only am aware of some of the effects of same on the airline business...
Thanks... - in which case I hope it works.
I think the message is too vague and soft for shareholders to see or hear, however. Only someone who knew what they were investing in, aviation, would sense what was really being said.
For most, a message that cites a possible shareholder risk, such as complete loss of the shareprice, or worse, a possibly-fatal accident and all the financial and governance outcomes which follow because safety priorities were not accorded as high a corporate priority as they should be, should raise the hair on the back of their necks sufficiently so that they at least take more than a casual look at their investment and ask some questions of management. I realize that it's far more complex and involved than that and that I am not a financial expert nor am I knowledgable of such things - I only am aware of some of the effects of same on the airline business...
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only way the focus will change is if someone is held accountable. We all know the pilots and engineers on the day will be the scapegoat, but the people who should be held criminally accountable are the board of directors AND the shareholders.
The reason why I include shareholders (primarily institutional as opposed to the small family investor), is because they endorse these directors, and the continue to endorse their decision making with large, ridiculous increases in remuneration.
As to how prosecution of shareholders/enforcement would occur, I have no idea.
It cannot be sustainable, to have the CEO/directors of the company, just pass the buck when something goes wrong.
The reason why I include shareholders (primarily institutional as opposed to the small family investor), is because they endorse these directors, and the continue to endorse their decision making with large, ridiculous increases in remuneration.
As to how prosecution of shareholders/enforcement would occur, I have no idea.
It cannot be sustainable, to have the CEO/directors of the company, just pass the buck when something goes wrong.
We have such a law in Canada already. It's formal name is "Bill C-45" but it is widely known as the Westray Bill and was commented on in Parliament thus:
"Mr. Speaker, the passage of Bill C-45 represents the final step in the House in making significant reforms to the criminal law as it applies to all organizations. The bill has its origins in the terrible tragedy of the Westray mine explosion. All parties in the House co-operated in ensuring that the bill received high priority."
Paul Macklin,
Liberal MP and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada on introducing Third Reading of Bill C-45 on October 27, 2003.
From the United Steelworkers web page:
"Westray was a coal mine in Pictou County, Nova Scotia that exploded on May 9, 1992 killing all 26 miners who were working underground at the time.
"The resulting public inquiry delivered a damning report of management greed and government incompetence. In all, Judge Richard made over 80 findings and 74 recommendations. Most notable is recommendation #73:
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to
"Mr. Speaker, the passage of Bill C-45 represents the final step in the House in making significant reforms to the criminal law as it applies to all organizations. The bill has its origins in the terrible tragedy of the Westray mine explosion. All parties in the House co-operated in ensuring that the bill received high priority."
Paul Macklin,
Liberal MP and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada on introducing Third Reading of Bill C-45 on October 27, 2003.
From the United Steelworkers web page:
"Westray was a coal mine in Pictou County, Nova Scotia that exploded on May 9, 1992 killing all 26 miners who were working underground at the time.
"The resulting public inquiry delivered a damning report of management greed and government incompetence. In all, Judge Richard made over 80 findings and 74 recommendations. Most notable is recommendation #73:
"The Government of Canada, through the Department of Justice, should institute a study of the accountability of corporate executives and directors for the wrongful or negligent acts of the corporation and should introduce in the Parliament of Canada such amendments to legislation as are necessary to ensure that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety."
From the Act's Summary page, (link above):This enactment amends the Criminal Code to
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re-assign blame?????
That is the difference between technical /scientific people and managers/executives.
In the past it was considered ok to just "sack the wrongdoers" and pretend the problem was fixed. (the blame game.) Some still want to continue this. That is half doing the job. (shifting blame)
I once went to a breakfast meeting where Professor James Reason spoke at length about these things. (the only time I got a free feed from CASA) Professor Reason emphatically made the point that the blame game was usually a diversion from the real purpose of preventing such things from happening again.
Sure you have to find who did it wrong (if they did) but sacking them will not usually solve the problem. You have to then find out why, and the trail may lead to many places. They all must be fixed.
An example is the airliner that crashed and killed many people because the cargo door was not properly closed. The person who closed the door could not read english. And the door instructions were in english.
In the past it was considered ok to just "sack the wrongdoers" and pretend the problem was fixed. (the blame game.) Some still want to continue this. That is half doing the job. (shifting blame)
I once went to a breakfast meeting where Professor James Reason spoke at length about these things. (the only time I got a free feed from CASA) Professor Reason emphatically made the point that the blame game was usually a diversion from the real purpose of preventing such things from happening again.
Sure you have to find who did it wrong (if they did) but sacking them will not usually solve the problem. You have to then find out why, and the trail may lead to many places. They all must be fixed.
An example is the airliner that crashed and killed many people because the cargo door was not properly closed. The person who closed the door could not read english. And the door instructions were in english.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bushy
The inimitable Professor could only shake his head at this one:
and then there is accident at a WA mine construction site;
Happened very recently but reflects the pressure on resources, self generated or not we do not yet know, but the lesson is obvious. The deeper the cuts and the shorter the short cuts the closer we all come to this in this new world of corporate arrogance and corporate greed.
QF001 and this recent very very close shave makes 2 strikes, both for different reasons but the same root cause.
I have to travel to the US and other parts at the end of the month to facilitate the purchase of another corporate jet. Trouble is, to get into the haven of one I am now a little no, a lot apprehensive about travelling airlines. Good 'ol United here I come, unless I go the other way on British.
The egg cant be unscrambled but the sale of our National carriers into the hands of corporate brigands was never a rational nor sane idea.
The inimitable Professor could only shake his head at this one:
and then there is accident at a WA mine construction site;
“He got wedged there and the other worker could not get to the controls to take the boom down to release him,” Mr ***** said.
“His head hit the top of the building and pushed him over the controls so the other worker could not get to the controls.”
Mr ***** said that there was an override switch on the ground but that the three men on the ground, who he said were from ****** and did not speak English, were not able to operate the switch.
“His head hit the top of the building and pushed him over the controls so the other worker could not get to the controls.”
Mr ***** said that there was an override switch on the ground but that the three men on the ground, who he said were from ****** and did not speak English, were not able to operate the switch.
QF001 and this recent very very close shave makes 2 strikes, both for different reasons but the same root cause.
I have to travel to the US and other parts at the end of the month to facilitate the purchase of another corporate jet. Trouble is, to get into the haven of one I am now a little no, a lot apprehensive about travelling airlines. Good 'ol United here I come, unless I go the other way on British.
The egg cant be unscrambled but the sale of our National carriers into the hands of corporate brigands was never a rational nor sane idea.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hurtling towards another incident (767)
On the back of last year's incident where blocked drains resulted in "moisture" being found in the avionics bay aboard ZXC, and given recent events one would rekon that there would be a sense of caution about sending out an a/c knowing that its drains were blocked....
well not so at Q today - where the ever reliable 767 RR powered ZXG complete with taped off galley sinks and instructions that the drains are blocked (just like XC last year) was sent off the starting blocks for another day of domestic legs.
Initial diagnostics late yesterday apparently determined that the a/c would require at least 12 hours off line to rectify the drain blockage and therefore........ it would just have to wait while pax endured a soggy mess upfront.
Spare a thought for the maintence crew tomorrow that have wade through the stinking putrid waste water and lets hope that any wayward 'moisture' doesnt find its way into anything important in the meantime.
dilgence again dies in the debate for dollars - seems like the LAMEs didnt need to take action on defects - Q is taking the do it yourself path!
well not so at Q today - where the ever reliable 767 RR powered ZXG complete with taped off galley sinks and instructions that the drains are blocked (just like XC last year) was sent off the starting blocks for another day of domestic legs.
Initial diagnostics late yesterday apparently determined that the a/c would require at least 12 hours off line to rectify the drain blockage and therefore........ it would just have to wait while pax endured a soggy mess upfront.
Spare a thought for the maintence crew tomorrow that have wade through the stinking putrid waste water and lets hope that any wayward 'moisture' doesnt find its way into anything important in the meantime.
dilgence again dies in the debate for dollars - seems like the LAMEs didnt need to take action on defects - Q is taking the do it yourself path!
Globalisation works on all levels. MPLs, indonesian airlines about to start in Oz and less and less money being spent on safety can only indicate a globalisation of safety culture. Australia was once a stand out but we are on the skids.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: strayia
Age: 53
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushy,
I think what you mean to say , is I believe "that is the difference is between people who have integrity and people who do not. "
but ultimately you are correct, also in my experience australian Management/executives/middle manager bean counters are a wholly untrustworthy and about as solid as a peking duck pancake , their teamwork and resilience is appallingly bad and their empathy for their "team" extends to what the team can do for them.
pretty poor.
that is the difference between technical /scientific people and managers/executives.
but ultimately you are correct, also in my experience australian Management/executives/middle manager bean counters are a wholly untrustworthy and about as solid as a peking duck pancake , their teamwork and resilience is appallingly bad and their empathy for their "team" extends to what the team can do for them.
pretty poor.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got a similar, but slightly different take on the matter. I don't know how the process works at Qantas, but usually the VP's/directors/managers send the strategy and support down to the employees who make the work happen and it's the employees' role to do the work and pass updates back up the line. (I know, it's not perfect.) Even during cost cutting however, this process should continue to function. Something in this process is missing and Qantas should be extremely concerned to identify and rectify the situation asap.
First, where is the communication breaking down on changing from enclosed to loose coffee grounds? Who made the decision to use loose coffee grounds and what advice did he/she receive? Was the advice from a suitably qualified person? Was that advice received, and if so was it ignored and why?
Second, it is apparent that loose coffee grounds have been causing problems for some time. Being charitable and suggesting that the decision was taken by someone not totally familiar with the situation, who then was responsible for ensuring the appropriate decision makers were made aware of the problem and could then take appropriate action after implementation? What is being done to mitigate flight with blocked sinks now?
Third, who or what organization has been signing off or ignoring cracked drip pans? Were senior management aware of this and what action did they take to rectify or mitigate the situation? Were the supervisors who are supposed to see the big picture aware of the correlation between cracked drip pans and clogged sinks because it sounds like a few LAME's should have known the possible consequences? Were the concerns travelling back up the line? And what is being done now to fix the problem?
Finally, as others have suggested, what role did CASA play or not play in this and what are they doing now to avoid similar occurences in the future? Did anyone in Qantas who may have been in a position to realize the possible consequences of cracked drip pans and blocked sinks ever contact or try to inform someone in CASA? If not, why not? And how much action and resources is CASA currently employing to thoroughly research the incident?
Where's Richard Feynman? There should be a thorough open and independent investigation of this incident carried out either by CASA (with appropriate government funding) or a reputable third party. The investigation shouldn't be directed at castigating the Qantas management, but tasked with determining where the breakdowns in communications are occurring and checking into the fitness of the appointed supervisors to responsibly listen to advice from employees and make appropriate decisions. If there is no investigation, or simply an internal Qantas investigation, then I would expect business to operate as usual and it will only be a matter of time before another serious incident occurs. I would think a responsible and informed shareholder would not only welcome, but call for an independent investigation.
First, where is the communication breaking down on changing from enclosed to loose coffee grounds? Who made the decision to use loose coffee grounds and what advice did he/she receive? Was the advice from a suitably qualified person? Was that advice received, and if so was it ignored and why?
Second, it is apparent that loose coffee grounds have been causing problems for some time. Being charitable and suggesting that the decision was taken by someone not totally familiar with the situation, who then was responsible for ensuring the appropriate decision makers were made aware of the problem and could then take appropriate action after implementation? What is being done to mitigate flight with blocked sinks now?
Third, who or what organization has been signing off or ignoring cracked drip pans? Were senior management aware of this and what action did they take to rectify or mitigate the situation? Were the supervisors who are supposed to see the big picture aware of the correlation between cracked drip pans and clogged sinks because it sounds like a few LAME's should have known the possible consequences? Were the concerns travelling back up the line? And what is being done now to fix the problem?
Finally, as others have suggested, what role did CASA play or not play in this and what are they doing now to avoid similar occurences in the future? Did anyone in Qantas who may have been in a position to realize the possible consequences of cracked drip pans and blocked sinks ever contact or try to inform someone in CASA? If not, why not? And how much action and resources is CASA currently employing to thoroughly research the incident?
Where's Richard Feynman? There should be a thorough open and independent investigation of this incident carried out either by CASA (with appropriate government funding) or a reputable third party. The investigation shouldn't be directed at castigating the Qantas management, but tasked with determining where the breakdowns in communications are occurring and checking into the fitness of the appointed supervisors to responsibly listen to advice from employees and make appropriate decisions. If there is no investigation, or simply an internal Qantas investigation, then I would expect business to operate as usual and it will only be a matter of time before another serious incident occurs. I would think a responsible and informed shareholder would not only welcome, but call for an independent investigation.
Last edited by Lodown; 12th Jan 2008 at 18:47.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lowdown,
one of dixon's actions of late was to "compartmentalize" Qantas into five separate divisions, each one responsible for maintaining/containing their own profits/costs.
What we see now is one department competing against another with regard to the apportionment of cost with no one really concerned about how things affect the whole business just their department or KPIs.
The decision to use loose coffee no doubt saves the cabin services department money but probably results in an increase in engineering costs AND delays due to an increase in incidents of blocked drains.
Yes, the dregs shouldn't end up in the sink but despite peoples best intentions they obviously do.
This sort of thing is occurring all over the company.
There isn't a holistic approach to anything anymore only concerns for ones own department or worse, KPIs.
The other problem is to do with communication or the lack of it due to the fact that our management structure has been layered with non airline people.
Speak to anyone operational and they will tell you the same. We all invariably report to people who have no idea what it is that we do, how we do it or why.
For them the airline industry is just a concept. Take cabin crew as an example. We report to and are managed by people from banks, call centres, the scout movement, casinos, CES etc.
Can you imagine how frustrating that is? I've been to my managers with operational issues only to get black stares of incomprehension or pithy replies just to get me to go away.
End result, people no longer bother or worse, care.
This airline is fundamentally sick but hell we are making lots of money and that really is ALL that matters to those running it
one of dixon's actions of late was to "compartmentalize" Qantas into five separate divisions, each one responsible for maintaining/containing their own profits/costs.
What we see now is one department competing against another with regard to the apportionment of cost with no one really concerned about how things affect the whole business just their department or KPIs.
The decision to use loose coffee no doubt saves the cabin services department money but probably results in an increase in engineering costs AND delays due to an increase in incidents of blocked drains.
Yes, the dregs shouldn't end up in the sink but despite peoples best intentions they obviously do.
This sort of thing is occurring all over the company.
There isn't a holistic approach to anything anymore only concerns for ones own department or worse, KPIs.
The other problem is to do with communication or the lack of it due to the fact that our management structure has been layered with non airline people.
Speak to anyone operational and they will tell you the same. We all invariably report to people who have no idea what it is that we do, how we do it or why.
For them the airline industry is just a concept. Take cabin crew as an example. We report to and are managed by people from banks, call centres, the scout movement, casinos, CES etc.
Can you imagine how frustrating that is? I've been to my managers with operational issues only to get black stares of incomprehension or pithy replies just to get me to go away.
End result, people no longer bother or worse, care.
This airline is fundamentally sick but hell we are making lots of money and that really is ALL that matters to those running it
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NSEU: Mate I'm not stupid Of course you'd need to have enough fuel to descend to 10,000'. Most of the time mid-Pacific you'll have 70 to 80 tonnes of the stuff, enough to fly to the nearest suitable airfield at 10,000' I chose 10,000' so you could depressurize the ship BEFORE you lost ALL power to the valves. And yes this would only work in daytime VMC.
So, answer my original question: Couldn't you just turn off the battery to conserve power AFTER you've 1/ descended 2/ depressurized 3/Advised ATC and 4/ worked out Navigation .
This must be better than pulling god knows how many cb's powering god knows what.
Of course you'd need to have enough fuel to descend to 10,000'. Most of the time mid-Pacific you'll have 70 to 80 tonnes of the stuff, enough to fly to the nearest suitable airfield at 10,000' I chose 10,000' so you could depressurize the ship BEFORE you lost ALL power to the valves. And yes this would only work in daytime VMC.So, answer my original question: Couldn't you just turn off the battery to conserve power AFTER you've 1/ descended 2/ depressurized 3/Advised ATC and 4/ worked out Navigation .
This must be better than pulling god knows how many cb's powering god knows what.