Qantas ground 6 x B737-400's
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love how CASA hammer small airlines over any and every minor problem yet let major carriers have incident after incident without anyone taking action.
Begs the question what would a major airline have to do to have it's AOC pulled in the current day and age? What does it take for CASA to start firing Maintenance Control Managers or Chief Pilots?
Also begs the question what have CASA been doing in audits over the last 10 years?
They sure are setting some interesting precedents.
Begs the question what would a major airline have to do to have it's AOC pulled in the current day and age? What does it take for CASA to start firing Maintenance Control Managers or Chief Pilots?
Also begs the question what have CASA been doing in audits over the last 10 years?
They sure are setting some interesting precedents.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
re casa audits
I've been a LAME for far too long and frankly have never been under the pump by casa.Nor have I ever really seen them put the cleaners thru anyone.
I was pulled up once for penning something the inspector didnt see me do (but did do the maint action when I wasnt being observed) but thats it.
I've heard of LAME's trying to be pinned AFTER there's been a prang or incident but thats about it.
But general audits seem to be pretty thin on the ground and the one's I've heard of generally arent any surprise if you get the drift.
The QF bashing in the media is really getting kinda tedious.Reporting of issues such as a flap indicator really are frivilous.
But... would not happen without prior incidents or more spare parts & trained people !!
Heeellloo AJ are you listening? Will anyone be held to account for decisions made?
I was pulled up once for penning something the inspector didnt see me do (but did do the maint action when I wasnt being observed) but thats it.
I've heard of LAME's trying to be pinned AFTER there's been a prang or incident but thats about it.
But general audits seem to be pretty thin on the ground and the one's I've heard of generally arent any surprise if you get the drift.
The QF bashing in the media is really getting kinda tedious.Reporting of issues such as a flap indicator really are frivilous.
But... would not happen without prior incidents or more spare parts & trained people !!
Heeellloo AJ are you listening? Will anyone be held to account for decisions made?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is sickening to see quite clear parallels between the demise of engineering within Ansett and with what is happening at Qantas right now. This extends further than maintenance being delayed to save money. It includes all the peripheral crap that we have been subjected to over the last few years.
I do realise that it was more than the above mentioned, it was ultimately the rape and pillage by Air NZ that saw its demise.
Before I go on, I am in no way referring to the fine Ansett engineers many of whom are now colleague’s amongst us at Qantas. I refer to the dysfunctional managers that have weaselled their way into Qantas to spin their web of clichés and half a$$ed ideas for a second time.
So how much of the bad stuff have we taken on? Any ex Ansett and now QF guys want to elaborate?
I know that the strategy map was one. Lean? Which managers currently at QF came from Ansett? Which from Air NZ?
I do realise that it was more than the above mentioned, it was ultimately the rape and pillage by Air NZ that saw its demise.
Before I go on, I am in no way referring to the fine Ansett engineers many of whom are now colleague’s amongst us at Qantas. I refer to the dysfunctional managers that have weaselled their way into Qantas to spin their web of clichés and half a$$ed ideas for a second time.
So how much of the bad stuff have we taken on? Any ex Ansett and now QF guys want to elaborate?
I know that the strategy map was one. Lean? Which managers currently at QF came from Ansett? Which from Air NZ?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
forgive me if I'm wrong - but is this the situation ??
the Boeing Service Bulletin was carried out and signed off, thus the repeat inspections of the bulkhead were no longer required.
However some part of the SB was inadvertantly omitted? (Effectively the AD has been complied with... however the SB has not been complied with)
In which case the problem is more of an operational issue....not management?
Edit: Seems someone already made this point on the first page...!
the Boeing Service Bulletin was carried out and signed off, thus the repeat inspections of the bulkhead were no longer required.
However some part of the SB was inadvertantly omitted? (Effectively the AD has been complied with... however the SB has not been complied with)
In which case the problem is more of an operational issue....not management?
Edit: Seems someone already made this point on the first page...!
Nick, the problem is that if it isn't signed off, nobody knows if it's been done or not.
Now if there is a page missing that contained the instruction that something had to be inspected and signed off, then nobody knows that nobody knows if it's been done or not.
I'm not being a smart@rse, that's the problem, and it's the problem that killed Ansett.
What CASA do is monitor the workings of the system, NOT the actual maintenance itself. An airline the size of QF is simply too big to actually monitor what gets done on a daily basis, it's simply not feasible. Instead they look at the Airlines maintenance system manuals, make sure there are no holes in them, then sample the actual work and documentation to see if the airline is actually in exact compliance with its own system....or not.
What the QF system is supposed to do is make sure (borrowing the old phrase) that Qantas know what they are supposed to know about their maintenance, or at least know what they don't know about it.
The killer is not knowing what you don't know - which is what the ATSB found at Ansett (although they didn't put it that bluntly). The B767 incident was the tip of the iceberg. Ansett had gutted it's maintenance planning function "to save money".' To avoid such a situation, you need plenty of mature aviation maintenance professionals with a little spare time on their hands, so that when an AD comes along, they have time to read, mark, learn, ponder and digest what Boeing or Airbus are prescribing, and ask questions if necessary, and you cannot rush this process.
If you do rush it, you eventually make mistakes, like the misinterpretation by a Japanese Professional Engineer of Boeing's rivetting instructions in a rear pressure bulkhead repair. The passengers had time to write farewell letters to their families before it eventually hit Mt. Fuji.
I'm sure there are no basic flaws at all in QF's maintenance system, but one wonders if the maintenance planning people generally have enough time to dig a little deeper into AD's etc. before time pressures force them to move on.
Now if there is a page missing that contained the instruction that something had to be inspected and signed off, then nobody knows that nobody knows if it's been done or not.
I'm not being a smart@rse, that's the problem, and it's the problem that killed Ansett.
What CASA do is monitor the workings of the system, NOT the actual maintenance itself. An airline the size of QF is simply too big to actually monitor what gets done on a daily basis, it's simply not feasible. Instead they look at the Airlines maintenance system manuals, make sure there are no holes in them, then sample the actual work and documentation to see if the airline is actually in exact compliance with its own system....or not.
What the QF system is supposed to do is make sure (borrowing the old phrase) that Qantas know what they are supposed to know about their maintenance, or at least know what they don't know about it.
The killer is not knowing what you don't know - which is what the ATSB found at Ansett (although they didn't put it that bluntly). The B767 incident was the tip of the iceberg. Ansett had gutted it's maintenance planning function "to save money".' To avoid such a situation, you need plenty of mature aviation maintenance professionals with a little spare time on their hands, so that when an AD comes along, they have time to read, mark, learn, ponder and digest what Boeing or Airbus are prescribing, and ask questions if necessary, and you cannot rush this process.
If you do rush it, you eventually make mistakes, like the misinterpretation by a Japanese Professional Engineer of Boeing's rivetting instructions in a rear pressure bulkhead repair. The passengers had time to write farewell letters to their families before it eventually hit Mt. Fuji.
I'm sure there are no basic flaws at all in QF's maintenance system, but one wonders if the maintenance planning people generally have enough time to dig a little deeper into AD's etc. before time pressures force them to move on.
Last edited by Sunfish; 15th Aug 2008 at 19:18.
So QF will be OK in the end.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers Sunfish, I do agree with all those points.
Planning is everything... When it comes to transport category, no two aircraft are ever quite the same, which leads to headaches when you want to apply the same (large) mod to a whole fleet. Then just add a deadline...!
I'm just a little uncertain as to what has really happened here...I guess we are all left in the dark whilst this issue is being dealt with. So I'm guessing that:
Someone has discovered that part of the SB/AD hasn't been signed off as completed, or that paperwork is missing. So while technically that is "a paperwork issue" as the QF spokesman said
, there is no guarantee that particular part of the SB was ever carried out. Hence the aircraft are grounded until they have been inspected to ensure that the SB was completed in its entirety. Makes a bit more sense.
Planning is everything... When it comes to transport category, no two aircraft are ever quite the same, which leads to headaches when you want to apply the same (large) mod to a whole fleet. Then just add a deadline...!
I'm just a little uncertain as to what has really happened here...I guess we are all left in the dark whilst this issue is being dealt with. So I'm guessing that:
Someone has discovered that part of the SB/AD hasn't been signed off as completed, or that paperwork is missing. So while technically that is "a paperwork issue" as the QF spokesman said
, there is no guarantee that particular part of the SB was ever carried out. Hence the aircraft are grounded until they have been inspected to ensure that the SB was completed in its entirety. Makes a bit more sense.
You just have to love those executives that get a special bonus for getting rid of the old engineering farts that seemingly sit around the office but actually ensure the ongoing airworthiness of the airline's aircraft.
Eddington was the first d!ckhead to try it with Ansett (with the subsequent tabulated history) and now we have have Dixon doing the same with Qantas.
It is rather ironic that these guys are not even licensed by CASA...it does make you think.
Eddington was the first d!ckhead to try it with Ansett (with the subsequent tabulated history) and now we have have Dixon doing the same with Qantas.
It is rather ironic that these guys are not even licensed by CASA...it does make you think.
short flights long nights
Hate to say it ..hate to bring it up...but all this stuff comes from 89. After date anything was allowed by airline management ( a loose term) in Australia. The checks and balances no longer where there..or are there to this day.
The "slash and burn' mentality is alive and well, and since the date above, what comes from management is ok....what comes from than those on the line are ignored.....rant over
The "slash and burn' mentality is alive and well, and since the date above, what comes from management is ok....what comes from than those on the line are ignored.....rant over
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: InDahAir
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, gotta throw the bullsh!t flag on that one Mate! Engineering and cost cutting are as old as the Yanks deregulation model. Mr Dixon was trying to follow it and got out of Dodge before the aluminium shower.
This has got nothing to do with the grey budgie or Abeles.
This has got nothing to do with the grey budgie or Abeles.
