Foreign servicing of jets kept secret
Evertonian
Thread Starter
Foreign servicing of jets kept secret
Richard Baker
July 21, 2008
TheAge
AUDITS of overseas facilities used to service Australia's passenger jets are being kept secret by the nation's aviation safety regulator over fears their release could cause adverse publicity for foreign-owned maintenance companies.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority faces accusations of acting against the public interest by refusing to release 1000 pages from its audits of maintenance facilities in Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines and New Zealand during 2006 and 2007.
The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association has sought the audits under the Freedom of Information Act. Its request was prompted by last year's leak of a scathing 2006 Qantas audit of work performed on one of its jets by the Singapore Airlines Engineering Company in Singapore.
"The general quality trend appears to be heading in a negative direction with numerous quality deficiencies considered to be of a serious nature," the Qantas audit concluded.
Last month, a Qantas 737 returned from overseas maintenance with 60 defects.
CASA has repeatedly refused to release its overseas audit reports under freedom of information, claiming doing so could harm the maintenance companies due to "adverse publicity" and also reduce the effectiveness of future audits by inhibiting "frankness and candour".
The aircraft engineers' association responded by saying the Australian public has a right to know the results of CASA's inspections of overseas facilities, and adverse publicity would only occur if substandard maintenance practices had been identified.
The association has applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to direct CASA to release the documents.
The fight over CASA's secret audits comes amid reports of a big increase in the number of Australian passenger jets being outsourced for maintenance by overseas contractors.
A recent Senate inquiry into CASA's administration was told by the engineers' association that the number of Qantas aircraft outsourced for maintenance in overseas facilities had increased from 2% in 2002 to 20% this year.
The airline and the association are locked in a bitter industrial dispute over outsourcing and pay.
An association spokesman told The Age CASA's refusal to disclose the overseas audits make it difficult for engineers to certify the safety of aircraft because they were not given all relevant information about its maintenance history and the people responsible for the work.
CASA deputy chief executive Michael Quinn told the Senate inquiry earlier this month that all overseas maintenance facilities providing services to Australian carriers were audited annually.
The report from the Senate inquiry into CASA's administration is due by the end of next month.
Engineers say it is difficult to certify safety of aircraft without the relevant information.
July 21, 2008
TheAge
AUDITS of overseas facilities used to service Australia's passenger jets are being kept secret by the nation's aviation safety regulator over fears their release could cause adverse publicity for foreign-owned maintenance companies.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority faces accusations of acting against the public interest by refusing to release 1000 pages from its audits of maintenance facilities in Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines and New Zealand during 2006 and 2007.
The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association has sought the audits under the Freedom of Information Act. Its request was prompted by last year's leak of a scathing 2006 Qantas audit of work performed on one of its jets by the Singapore Airlines Engineering Company in Singapore.
"The general quality trend appears to be heading in a negative direction with numerous quality deficiencies considered to be of a serious nature," the Qantas audit concluded.
Last month, a Qantas 737 returned from overseas maintenance with 60 defects.
CASA has repeatedly refused to release its overseas audit reports under freedom of information, claiming doing so could harm the maintenance companies due to "adverse publicity" and also reduce the effectiveness of future audits by inhibiting "frankness and candour".
The aircraft engineers' association responded by saying the Australian public has a right to know the results of CASA's inspections of overseas facilities, and adverse publicity would only occur if substandard maintenance practices had been identified.
The association has applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to direct CASA to release the documents.
The fight over CASA's secret audits comes amid reports of a big increase in the number of Australian passenger jets being outsourced for maintenance by overseas contractors.
A recent Senate inquiry into CASA's administration was told by the engineers' association that the number of Qantas aircraft outsourced for maintenance in overseas facilities had increased from 2% in 2002 to 20% this year.
The airline and the association are locked in a bitter industrial dispute over outsourcing and pay.
An association spokesman told The Age CASA's refusal to disclose the overseas audits make it difficult for engineers to certify the safety of aircraft because they were not given all relevant information about its maintenance history and the people responsible for the work.
CASA deputy chief executive Michael Quinn told the Senate inquiry earlier this month that all overseas maintenance facilities providing services to Australian carriers were audited annually.
The report from the Senate inquiry into CASA's administration is due by the end of next month.
Engineers say it is difficult to certify safety of aircraft without the relevant information.
Thanks for that 'Buster',
I wonder what ever did happen to those two blokes......
"Open" and "Accountable"..???
CASA..(?) Ah, yes, fully funded with OUR $'s.........
Well Mr CASA CEO, I would say that the above two 'gentlemen' need to be addressed in the first instance, THEN you and your 'Authority' may have some 'credibility'....
I wonder what ever did happen to those two blokes......
"Open" and "Accountable"..???
CASA..(?) Ah, yes, fully funded with OUR $'s.........
Well Mr CASA CEO, I would say that the above two 'gentlemen' need to be addressed in the first instance, THEN you and your 'Authority' may have some 'credibility'....
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: An old flying boat station on Moreton Bay
Age: 84
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JetA makes a point aggressively which does need airing.
Before you can comment on residual defects following a "foreign" Major Maintenance event, you do need to know how many defects are typically unresolved in an "in-house" Major maintenance visit.
We've had an awful lot of propoganda recently, for understandable reasons. May be time to get things back towards even stevens.
Before you can comment on residual defects following a "foreign" Major Maintenance event, you do need to know how many defects are typically unresolved in an "in-house" Major maintenance visit.
We've had an awful lot of propoganda recently, for understandable reasons. May be time to get things back towards even stevens.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Audits should not be made public - it undermines the whole process. Anyone purporting to be promoting safety wouldn't even contemplate this. This is so basic that it shouldn't even need to be said.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: N22 E114
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not release the information De-identified?
Overseas Maintenance Provider 123 rather than say ANZ or SATCO.
Allows comparisons without naming names but you also have to release the Australian Audits in the same fashion.
Overseas Maintenance Provider 123 rather than say ANZ or SATCO.
Allows comparisons without naming names but you also have to release the Australian Audits in the same fashion.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JetA, I think you are being a little bit too precious, Whisky makes sense. Audits are an absolute waste of time and money if the results are going to be locked in a filing cabinet never to see the light of day. I do take your point about "in house" failings, however having seen the "lapses" from in house facilities and the o/s MRO's, I am here to tell you they don't even compare. There is a fundamental difference between a lapse and a deliberate omission. The sooner CASA admit that the better for the whole industry, although they seem to not want to upset their sugar daddies.......
Evertonian
Thread Starter
Bit on the fence with this.
Playing Devil's advocate, what if carrier A was known to be in bad shape by the Authority of the day & the worst case happens? From a legal perspective, where would that put the Authority?
Playing Devil's advocate, what if carrier A was known to be in bad shape by the Authority of the day & the worst case happens? From a legal perspective, where would that put the Authority?
Buster;
...what - like if carrier A had a 747 with a nasty decompression?? 
Playing Devil's advocate, what if carrier A was known to be in bad shape by the Authority of the day & the worst case happens? From a legal perspective, where would that put the Authority?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buster;
Quote:
Playing Devil's advocate, what if carrier A was known to be in bad shape by the Authority of the day & the worst case happens? From a legal perspective, where would that put the Authority?
...what - like if carrier A had a 747 with a nasty decompression??
Yesterday 12:27
Quote:
Playing Devil's advocate, what if carrier A was known to be in bad shape by the Authority of the day & the worst case happens? From a legal perspective, where would that put the Authority?
...what - like if carrier A had a 747 with a nasty decompression??
Yesterday 12:27
