You've Got To Be Kidding, Red Rat Ground Return

[Sunfish]

My family is under strict instructions not to fly Qantas, no exceptions. The last International business class trip I took with them to the States some years ago was a disgrace. Now add engineering cost cutting on top and the mess is complete.

[Mud Skipper]

Please Don't Feed The Fish

[SARMC]

Let us get a few things straight. Aircraft are a very complex piece of equipment with millions of parts.

Most, if not all aircraft fly with some sort of defect. It could be as insignificant as a blown light globe in a passenger's reading light or as significant as partial failure of a tripple redundant system.

In some circumstances defects are allowed to be carried. Depending on the sort of defect, the defect may be carried for a specified number of hours or until the aircraft is at a suitable place of repair. An example of this is an unserviceable navigation/strobe light. A defect to be sure but one that can be carried for a specified time.

Qantas AFAIK comply with the MELs and carriable defects as specified by the manufacturer and relevent regulatory bodies.

I would fly with Qantas every day and twice on Sundays because of the recent "so called" adverse publicity. To me it demostrates that, despite intense (and inaccurate) media scrutiny, Qantas will delay or cancel flights until a non carriable defect is repaired. As a passenger that is exactly what I want to see.

The media are too quick to bandy about words such as "emergency" etc when the incidents are not emergencies at all. This irresponsible reporting unfairly damages Qantas' reputation for the sake of selling more media advertising. It deters people from flying with arguably the safest major airline in the world to the detriment of the company and its employees.

I would suggest that the media have a good look at other mainstream airlines' safety records. Having had access to this sort of information in the past I have no hesitation in saying Qantas has no more, and probably significantly less, problems with their aircraft than other major carriers.

Only a very small amount of Qantas' maintenance is done overseas, and that is overseen by Qantas LAMEs. I can not see how this affects Qantas' maintenance quality. The media seem obsessed with this maintenance situation. For example, despite the media's hysteria, QF30 was not an aircraft that had its last D check or refurbishment done overseas. Not that situation would have made any difference it seems.

I hope the media can start acting responsibly and stop unfairly targeting Qantas before irrepairable damage is done to Qantas' reputation.

Maybe the Olympics will quench the media's feeding frenzy.

Regards to all
Stephen

[HANOI]

The usual "look at me , everybody" , I flew international Business class !!!!.
Over 2,700 posts of mainly boring , repetitive , predictable QF bashing.

Good post SARMC for a bit of balance.

[Mstr Caution]

How the article should have been written (hardly news)

A Qantas Boeing 737 has aborted a takeoff at Melbourne airport after noises were heard comming from the undercarriage.

The pilots followed standard operating procedures and elected to reject the takeoff as a precuationary measure.

The Canberra bound plane returned to the terminal and passengers were transferred to another flight.

A Qantas spokesman says QF850 had problems with it's air conditioning duct unit.

"It was a routine return to the terminal due to an air-conditioning fault," she said.

"Rather than delay passengers further a replacement aircraft was arranged and the flight took off just before 1pm"

The worldwide average for rejected takeoff's is approximately 1 in every 2000 departures. Whilst some takeoff's are rejected for serious events, others like this are of a precautionary nature.

With Qantas operating in excess of 450 flights per day, rejected takeoffs rates are well below world averages.

[Carlos169]

Heard a whisper that it was the 737 that was so well maintained in Malaysia recently. Also it heard it has been rescheduled into Heavy maintenance to have the check done again.

Was there anymore on this particular rumor?

[SARMC]

Hi Mstr Caution,

Ironically, I think you may be a victim of inaccurate reporting.

As far as I am aware, the B737 did not even taxi as far as the RWY THR.

The take off was not aborted/rejected, it was never commenced.

It seems that the noise was heard by some of the pax as the aircraft taxied out, the pax alerted the FAs and the FAs informed the PIC.

It was then, during the taxi phase, that the decision was made to return to a parking bay to have the noise investigated.

A responsible decision made by a responsible disciplined crew who carried the correct actions in the name of safety...media be dammed.

The original media reports, it seems, reported the incident as an aborted take off, later media reports reported the aircraft was still taxiing out to the RWY.

"Aborted take off" is a much more sensational phrase than "taxiing".....never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

I wonder if Australia will ever get accurate journalism or will journalists main concern be to generate sales not write accurate and researched articles. (I know, I hope for too much...an eternal optimist)

Regards
Stephen

[Mstr Caution]

SARMC.

I agree with your sentiments about the media, whether the aircraft got to the taxi stage or takeoff phase I dont know.

My post was to purely highlight the fact that any event can be beat up by the media.

MC

[SARMC]

I agree with your sentiments about the media, whether the aircraft got to the taxi stage or takeoff phase I dont know.

My post was to purely highlight the fact that any event can be beat up by the media.

No argument from me, I thought your effort was great, keep up the scepticsm.

Regards
Stephen

[Short_Circuit]

The question is why are there so many engineering delays with Qantas flights THESE DAYS?


Simple answer,


NOT ENOUGH ENGINEERS TO FIX THE "NORMAL AMOUNT OF DEFECTS" THAT HAVE ALWAYS BEEN,
and same IN ANY AIRLINE OPERATING IN AUS OR OVERSEAS.!

Poor pay and the "buggery campaign" has seen to the demise in LAME numbers!

Thanks GD, DC, MH and (a couple of) ops managers.

[woollcott]

I have seen the damage and the work required to fix this A/C and return it to service. To put it mildly, this situation is disgraceful.
I expect the A/C to lose 3+ days in downtime. All due to a supposed cost saving mentality that has actually wasted money.

A few points:

* Someone, somewhere must be held accountable. This incident and several similar incidents has cost QF a major amount of $, not to mention the cost to its reputation.

* The above people responsible ( DC, MB etc ) will not be held to account - Management is simply a "Boys club" that looks after their own.

* The above management will hold QF engineers responsible for not adequately supervising the lay-up in Malaysia.

*Mel heavy is supposedly the southern Hemispheres "Centre of excellence"
It is so good that management has decided to out source its 737s to JH, Malaysia and Forstaff

* Mel heavy has approx 30% less staff than it had a year ago - yet it has more managers.

* I am sick of hearing Company spin. DC - "we are training 1000 apprentices." Rubbish! This is counting 3rd and 4th years. The previous 2 years, they didnt employ any, and this year they only employed a token amount. Even the Apprentice school has been closed down and outsourcedto a local TAFE! (If you need a conspiracy theory, check out who sits on the TAFE board )
Who will be around in Heavy Maint in 10 years time?


* QF will be thankful the Olympics are in full swing - this will take them off the front pages.

* A damning ATSB report will soon be released that, in theory, will put even more heat on QF management. It will be interesting to see the spin
it generates.

* Qantas' engineering reputation will probably never recover.

[carbon]

SARMC,great post.

I honestly hope the day of reckoning for the media is before us.....

[QF22]

MAS Engineering

I have just resigned from MAS Engineering due total frustration with local work practices.
I believe next QF 737 due for C check at Subang next week !
Hangar 6 at KLIA has been nickname 'The Qantas Hangar" rumoured lots of QF 744/767 work coming. Contractors furiously constructing dockings in preparation.
QF are in for a BIG SHOCK ! MAS may be cheaper but every check will overun by weeks and nothin will get fixed !
When will these QF management idiots ever learn? They had one of the best HM facilities in the world H245 and they shut it down ! They have one of the best 737 HM facilities in the world in Melbourne. Lets hope it doesn't suffer the same fate !
The sooner they sack these clowns MH, DC etc . . the better !

[chockchucker]

Not too sure how much more work will me done in Malaysia in the near future. The aircraft involved in the latest incident was indeed VH-TJU, the very same beast that was last outsourced to MAS in May.

Task cards have been pulled from that check for investigation into the aircon duct failure. Apparently, inspection cards for this area were simply signed as "carried out". No MM ref or any additional work carried out listed. Yet, it was obvious on inspection that substantand repairs were carried out to the duct (exactly where it failed) and other leaks (holes) have also been found by the MEL HEAVY crew, that were not repaired in MAS.

Interesting to me that in other press this week, D.COX and another QANTAS spokesperson, said that this incident was both minor and had nothing to do with the work done in MAS. Well, it WAS covered by the check in MAS (Hence the request for the task cards involved) and yes it is a little more than a minor problem with the best ETS for the aircraft now likely to be Monday (Despite COX saying to the press that the aircraft had returned to service later on Thursday.

QF management, to my mind, are just like nappies. They should be changed often, and for the same reason!


Here's why MEL HEAVY might be around for a little while longer yet...............




Qantas cancels overseas check-ups

Jonathan Dart
August 9, 2008
Advertisement

QANTAS has shelved plans to send two 737 planes to Malaysia for heavy maintenance checks.

The decision was made while the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) investigated the airline over a series of incidents in recent weeks, including the emergency landing of a Melbourne-bound jumbo in Manila when a two-metre by four-metre hole was blown in its fuselage.

The airline faced another maintenance problem yesterday. Flight QF107 was prevented from flying to Los Angeles because a screw needed to be replaced.

The airline's decision to send its 737s to Malaysia for maintenance checks has come under intense scrutiny after the first plane sent there two months ago came back with 95 defects. It was grounded in Melbourne on Thursday because of noise from an air-conditioning fault.

Malaysia Airlines issued a statement yesterday defending its checks and calling Australian reports on defects unsubstantiated.

Two other planes were earmarked for heavy "C" checks - a regular procedure lasting more than a week, in which engineers have to check most of the airplane's parts - in Malaysia.

But the airline's monthly maintenance schedule put out last week showed the planes were rescheduled to be checked at Tullamarine in Melbourne.

As a result, checks on two other planes that were to take place at Tullamarine will now take place at Avalon in Victoria, and two planes that were to be checked at Avalon will be sent to a third party, John Holland Aviation Services, in Tullamarine.

"We don't know why it changed, but it's likely tied to the fact that CASA are yet to finish their investigation [into maintenance procedures]," a source said.

The executive general manager of engineering at Qantas, David Cox, confirmed the maintenance work will now be done in Australia. "We only have overflow heavy maintenance work undertaken overseas," he said. "We explored options for checks on two 737-400 aircraft. Once space became available at our Tullamarine facility, the decision was taken to have the work done there."

A CASA spokesman said the decision was made by the airline and was not the result of an order made by the authority. He confirmed that the airline has regulatory approval to conduct maintenance checks at the Malaysian base but investigations into the aircraft that returned from that facility earlier this year were continuing.

"It's too early to say whether [the aircraft's grounding in Melbourne] was related to the maintenance check in Malaysia or not," the spokesman said.

The senior general manager of Malaysia Airlines, Mohammed Roslan Ismail, defended the checks in a statement yesterday, saying Qantas had 12 personnel attached to its maintenance team.

"All the highlights were rectified, to the satisfaction of the Qantas team, before aircraft delivery to Australia," he said.

"With regards to the 'string of faults' that were reported in the media, [Malaysia Airlines] investigated and established that these were unsubstantiated.

"This is based on the fact that all these aspects were originally checked and found to be free from defect during the maintenance check and test flight, with the concurrence from the Qantas team."

[teresa green]

Just read the letter from David Cox, (The Australian 7/08), he proudly claims that QF has spent millions of dollars on Engineering, and has improved heavy maint. and wait for this: looking forward to working with CASA to find if The mighty Q might have a little problem! Spare me, David Cox, if you read this (and we know you do) every pilot, every engineer will be splitting their sides with laughter as we all know, as you do, that QF and CASA have been sharing the same bed for years. It would appear that this has been detrimental to the company as it has basically done as it pleased, (unlike Ansett and some small companies that they shafted) and now starting to see the consequences. Show the beancounters the door Mr. Cox and go back to what was one of the finest heavy engineering A/C maint. in the world. Before it is to late! Oh, and Sunfish, despite all the problems QF is still one of the safest going around, I flew Business to Europe and back via BKK and SIN, four A/C and a old nitpicker like me, could not fault the service, the state of the A/C pleasant and hard working cabin crew, A/C basically on time. Even the child bride, who is ex TAA/QF cabin boss was suitably impressed (not easy let me tell you)!

[woollcott]

As I said before - Who will be held responsible?

As an afterthought, imagine if the duct had of broken at cruise........
Not an airworthiness issue, but all the ceiling panels would have come crashing down and the pax would have thought the A/C was breaking up.
Imagine the papers then!

Its just lucky the Olympics are in full swing to take QF of the front page.

Oh, and at risk of stating the obvious...........DC you are an idiot........

[ozangel]

This is all very enjoyable.

Qantas is getting the boot up its arse for treating its staff dreadfully.

The media is being seen as sensationalist, on a witch hunt, and biased..

Killing two birds with one stone imho.

[HotDog]

With all due respect to QF LAMEs and their sentimets in regard to outsourced maintenance; let's put this into perspective. The latest hyped up drama by the press about the aircon duct failure on VH-TJU occured some two months after it left the MAS service facility, where I believe around 12 QF LAME inspectors supervise the maintenance schedule and certify the aircraft C of A; after the completion of the particular check has been carried out. Nor the press or the average man in the street is aware of the fact that defects can and do occur at any time of operation. If, as some of the correspondents seem to imply; that the duct leak or rupture happened at a previous site of repair, how do they know the repair was carried out by MAS? I belive VH-TJU has been maintained in Australia previously. The world fleet of passenger aircraft is approximately 15,000 airframes (not counting commuter aircraft with less than 100 seats) and is expected to double in the next twenty years. Qantas fleet size is around 230 at this time, not counting orders. That means that 14,700 aircraft are being maintained by LAMEs other than Qantas trained personnel, happily flying around the world; including in and out of Australia. I myself operated several jet aircraft for 33 years that were maintained overseas, without any major mishaps or maintenance errors. Yes, Australian and QF LAMEs are good but no better than others. I only wish the press would be aware of this fact, I cringe when I read reports in the paper about an aircraft being grounded instead of delayed until a defect is rectified, one that was found on a pre flight check; an action which proves the safety factor in aviation.

Donning my steel helmet and flack jacket.

[chockchucker]

Question asked by hotdog...........

"If, as some of the correspondents seem to imply; that the duct leak or rupture happened at a previous site of repair, how do they know the repair was carried out by MAS?"


Answer: because we have task cards / additional workcards to say that that is exactly what happened. Shoddy maintenance may get a customer aircraft over the fence but, the paperwork will always catch up with you eventually.


As for the so called 12 engineers sent to oversee the check, only six (two avionic and four mechanical) were actually LAME's. The rest is typically made up of planners and a "Team Leader", from Sydney. Whose main skills seem to be producing excel charts, and avoid making decisions (particulary if they might effect turn time). Yet who also seem intent on burying the tech reps (LAME's) in duties such as "Vetting" task cards. Rather than allowing them to spend as much time as possible on the aircraft overseeing the maintenance being (we hope) carried out. Coupled with the fact that there are over two thousand individual task cards to monitor on such a check (not counting additional or non-routine work cards), it is impossible to expect 100 % supervision. Unless Qantas send more engineers with the aircraft to oversee the work. At which point, you might as well get the work done in-house anyway.


Also, in defence of the sacrificial bunnies that were sent to Malayasia with TJU (No, I'm gladly not one of them.), the engineers at any MRO you go to know you're there to scrutinize them. They will quite cleverly try to bury you in technical enquiries whilst they aquitt other work whilst you're too busy to look at what they're up too. They also put on quite a performance when you ask to look at the stuff they tried to hide behind your back. Only thing that matters to an MRO is turntime. Because if they don't deliver on time, they have to pay. Hence, corners are likely to be cut in order to avoid penalties.


So hotdog, you survived flying aircraft for over 30 years without a major mishap. I'm glad. You say Australian LAME's are no better than overseas LAME's. I don't doubt that there are some great operators out there. Just that we in Australia don't like to aim just for the manufacturers minimum standards but, in fact, like to aim a lot higher than that.


A reputation for which, before the likes of Dixon and Cox came along, made both Qantas (and once upon a time a company called Ansett) the envy of the aviation world. A reputation that sold a lot more tickets than any marketing campaign could ever hope to.

[HotDog]

Just that we in Australia don't like to aim just for the manufacturers minimum standards but, in fact, like to aim a lot higher than that.

Right on, I had the same philosophy when I was serving Qantas as a Lame in the sixties (I am now 74 years of age). I took a pride in the fact that I never let any flight crew down. That unfortunately changed after I transitioned to flying. My trust in ground support was severly compromised on a few occasions by ground engineers overseas and Qantas. I won't go into details but I can assure you that some of the short comings were expensive and potentially dangerous. In the end, it just shows that we are all human and prone to make omissions and mistakes; and to think that one cannot make a mistake or omit something, is an extremely dangerous attitude.