CASA Pulls Plug on QF D-Check
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
****hatsbig, but you needed viagra!
****hatsbig, good to see people recognise you as the stooge you are!
You should change you name to ****mypants though, as I expect you have.
No need for speaking shyte, wait and see what happens in the next couple of days. Stooge
Hows the Birthday Card from Rolls Royce for having an engine in the shop for 12 months!
You should change you name to ****mypants though, as I expect you have.
No need for speaking shyte, wait and see what happens in the next couple of days. Stooge
Hows the Birthday Card from Rolls Royce for having an engine in the shop for 12 months!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pants down
Word on the street is that SIAE was caught pants down by a spot audit of CASA with approx 100 AME's working that B747 classic aircraft and 1 LAME to sign, not even working in the same hangar. That ratio sounds drastic, i know, it is just what you hear on the street..........
They lost the approval for 2 days apparently.
They lost the approval for 2 days apparently.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA's call to Qantas .... "What would you like us to do now, Sirs".
Do you really think that p#ss weak Auditor is going to come down hard here? That would make all the three big guns Qantas, SIAEC and CASA look like fools following the staple incident. Now who keeps who in a job?
If that alleged level of supervision 100:1 or 50:1 or even 20:1 was the reason the approval was suspended, it is a direct and significant breach of rules on SIAEC's behalf. No, those jobs being undertaken by AMEs are not being done properly, they simply can't be. This is a very serious situation and a 2-day penalty is just laughable.
This regulation is a joke.
Do you really think that p#ss weak Auditor is going to come down hard here? That would make all the three big guns Qantas, SIAEC and CASA look like fools following the staple incident. Now who keeps who in a job?
If that alleged level of supervision 100:1 or 50:1 or even 20:1 was the reason the approval was suspended, it is a direct and significant breach of rules on SIAEC's behalf. No, those jobs being undertaken by AMEs are not being done properly, they simply can't be. This is a very serious situation and a 2-day penalty is just laughable.
This regulation is a joke.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Here
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WoW what a suprise. I wonder what else they "didn't" uncover whilst they were there. I wouldn't be suprised either if SIAEC started some sort of legal proceedings against the CASA auditor for bringing their good name into disrepute!
