QF Safety Issues Raised by ALAEA
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont really know the background and all the detail, but with reference to the turbulence, does someone know if the the 'severe turbulence' was reported by the crew as defined by the Boeing MM Ch5 as 'temporary loss of flight control' & 'passengers and equipment throw abruptly around the cabin' etc etc.
In Ch5, Boeing places the majority of the reponsibility on the pilot on how to report 'severe turbulence' and if the pilot has reported and agrees that this was the case, then it is mandated by Boeing to pull the flight data recorder to read the forces experienced, and then the required inspections carried out.
If the 'severe turbulence' inspections were deferred as just 'nil time or equip' then shame on you Qantas management and shame on you CASA.
In Ch5, Boeing places the majority of the reponsibility on the pilot on how to report 'severe turbulence' and if the pilot has reported and agrees that this was the case, then it is mandated by Boeing to pull the flight data recorder to read the forces experienced, and then the required inspections carried out.
If the 'severe turbulence' inspections were deferred as just 'nil time or equip' then shame on you Qantas management and shame on you CASA.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would post the EA here if I could work out how but this is how it starts-
List one includes 15 items plus all of part "E" cabin inspections.
List two includes 10 items. The deferred items are -
05-51-04-212-042 section 48 fuse inspection for distortions, cracks fittings etc.
05-51-04-212-045 wing control surface/front/rear spars for cracks and pulled rivets
05-51-04-212-019 hori stab surfaces/spars for buckling, cracks and pulled fasteners
05-51-04-212-050 examine elevator hinge bearings for bindings
05-51-04-212-051 examine elevator actuator bearings for bindings
05-51-04-212-052 fin external surfaces/spars for buckling, cracks and pulled fasteners
05-51-04-212-029 examine internal strut area - examine aft eng mount carefully
05-51-04-212-030 more internal strut checks for spars, lugs, mounts and structures
05-51-04-212-048 examine all engine mounts and adjacent structure
05-51-04-212-010 if accelerations are more than limits - do airplane alignment
And what ****ing amazes me is that the checks were deferred
all sanctioned by CASA, they refuse to reply to my complaints about this alleged breach.
Crew report from VH-OGO of severe turbulence whilst inbound to CNS from BNE. Insufficient time and equipment are available to carry out full AMM 05-51-04 inspections. Approval is requested to PERFORM the sub-tasks in "list 1" and DEFER the sub-tasks in "list 2".
List two includes 10 items. The deferred items are -
05-51-04-212-042 section 48 fuse inspection for distortions, cracks fittings etc.
05-51-04-212-045 wing control surface/front/rear spars for cracks and pulled rivets
05-51-04-212-019 hori stab surfaces/spars for buckling, cracks and pulled fasteners
05-51-04-212-050 examine elevator hinge bearings for bindings
05-51-04-212-051 examine elevator actuator bearings for bindings
05-51-04-212-052 fin external surfaces/spars for buckling, cracks and pulled fasteners
05-51-04-212-029 examine internal strut area - examine aft eng mount carefully
05-51-04-212-030 more internal strut checks for spars, lugs, mounts and structures
05-51-04-212-048 examine all engine mounts and adjacent structure
05-51-04-212-010 if accelerations are more than limits - do airplane alignment
And what ****ing amazes me is that the checks were deferred
to be accomplished no later than the next A-Check
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
WIBF!!
I thought they may have been the more trivial chks but if thats the allegation that's quite amazing.
I shakes me head.
1/ because it was requested
2 It was granted
3/ its a tad liberal
4/someone signed an rts
5/someone flew it.
Hope Kevin's BBJ never goes thru severe turbulence.Wonder if that would be deferred?
I thought they may have been the more trivial chks but if thats the allegation that's quite amazing.
I shakes me head.
1/ because it was requested
2 It was granted
3/ its a tad liberal
4/someone signed an rts
5/someone flew it.
Hope Kevin's BBJ never goes thru severe turbulence.Wonder if that would be deferred?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Put it this way, if these things were not important and inspection was not required, then Boeing/FAA etc would not have put it in the proceedures in the first place.
Go figure.......
As David Cox said of the wires stapled together at SIAEC
"It was a crude but effective repair"
and so it goes.
Go figure.......
As David Cox said of the wires stapled together at SIAEC
"It was a crude but effective repair"
and so it goes.
FEDSEC: CASA have approved Qantas to issue EA's and change change procedures as they like. When you are given an EA that says for example "we are waiving the dual inspection requirement" or "we will defer a mandatory safety check" or "we give you a one off approval to certify for a task that you are not trained on", you can legally do what is instructed no matter how unsafe you think the practice is.
However it may come to pass following discussions with the approver, the LAME has no where to go other than certify for the issue of the EA, given the justification of the approver. In this scenario, should an incident occur and the LAME finds hmself giving evidence, he can hold his hand on his heart and say I did everything he could to avert the issuing of what he thought to be a bad decision. In this scenario I believe the weight of the law would fall more then to the professional approver. It is in these scenarios where arse covering is carried out not only by those who normally practice the ancient art but by those professional enough to see how close to pear shaped the world could become.
In the previous example given where the aircraft has already been certiied for flight following the issue of the EA and some time has passed, the issue of culpability is spread thinner but never the less, still may stain the subsequent LAME.
If I ever find myelf in the hot seat and I feel strongly enough about the scenario printed before me, I have no hesitation to call and if I have to, speak to the professional approver of the document. I have been found correct on some occasons. I have been found incorrect on others and at times I have been intimidated and scorned. However, no matter how they make me feel at the time, I believe the ancient art was played out to both cover myself and to carry out my duties in a professional manner. I can carry my head high knowing I have done my best.
We all play a part in air safety and blindness/ignorance to the regulations/procedures of your profession will not save you from the wrath of the the law. Of cause that is the rule for the individual, not necessarily the corporations as we are now seeing in the court of public opinion!
Last edited by LAME2; 11th Jul 2009 at 04:46. Reason: I'm a terrible speller!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAME2
Well said .... and the integrity of your thought processes is, I hope, not a dying element of our craft.
The 'new' QE management had a great opportunity to regain the balance (IR, costs, structure, development, contracts etc etc etc) and unsurprisingly have followed the unchanged Q doctrine of 'crushing the legacy'.
Wasn't AJ's announcement to reduce management positions supposed to streamline our structure? Instead we have as many, if not, more managers. And how can anyone be inspired by the calibre of recruiting. We have gone two steps backward and no end in sight of the buggery.
I hope we all realise that we have a battle on our hands next time round. Our new managers have no intention of building bridges. We have lost alot of work and our OT bans will have little effect.
Negotiating in faith with this lot .. wishful thinking.
The 'new' QE management had a great opportunity to regain the balance (IR, costs, structure, development, contracts etc etc etc) and unsurprisingly have followed the unchanged Q doctrine of 'crushing the legacy'.
Wasn't AJ's announcement to reduce management positions supposed to streamline our structure? Instead we have as many, if not, more managers. And how can anyone be inspired by the calibre of recruiting. We have gone two steps backward and no end in sight of the buggery.
I hope we all realise that we have a battle on our hands next time round. Our new managers have no intention of building bridges. We have lost alot of work and our OT bans will have little effect.
Negotiating in faith with this lot .. wishful thinking.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dunnunda
Age: 54
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite what may have been said on this site, the issue is not about the facility that mounted the engines incorrectly. In my earlier post I have not even mentioned if it was within Australia or O'seas. This is about Qantas not reporting major defects to CASA as is their requirement according to the CARs.
As David Cox said of the wires stapled together at SIAEC
The alternative that the 'new generation' operators use is to outsource
provision of Technical Services such as EA's; EO's or whatever you want to call them under CAR 35, 36 etc. You would have a lot more trouble convincing some of these Independants or Manufacturer providers to endorse such deferals. Would that be your preferred option?But let's face it CASA issues these people with their Instruments of Appointment so of course they will defend their judgement.
Some of you may remember an Australian Story on ABC TV regarding a Dr Maarten Stapper, who was a CSIRO scientist aired on 1st of June this year. He was advocating a more natural method of plant and food production at the time the Government Enterprise (CSIRO) was pushing Gentically Modified Foods. It was reported during the program, the direction of the CSIRO at the time was towards commercialisation of projects. Without an outcome whereby the project could make money for the enterprise (Government), funding was impossible to achieve.
CASA was and is in my opinion, made to conduct the same journey over the last 10-15 years. Like the CSIRO, CASA was made to fund their own budgets from the persons or organisations who came to them for advise, support or services etc. Thus we saw the closure of CASA offices and the rise in fees. We also have seen the "self auditing" of the industry resulting in the loss of contact with CASA representatives. As long as the boxes were ticked CASA thought it was doing a good job and making money in the process. These boxes were being ticked by the same persons conducting the self audits so any problems were not highlighted (see the recent findings of CASA against QANTAS as an example). These auditors were not hiding the problems, they could not find them to report them.
CASA, like the CSIRO described in the program, needs to find their community responsibilities once more. This costs money, which is the responsibility of Government to fund. The betterment of the nation, those projects or services that are in the national interest, whether it is in agricultural, aviation or whatever, is a responsibility that needs to be nurtured, protected and not delegated onto another to conduct.
I would like to think, behind the scenes CASA is taking notice of what is being raised and displayed in the public arena. I'm hopeful, in time we will see a return to CASA week long audits and we as LAMES will have the opportunity converse with CASA inspectors on matters of safety, processes and concerns. Like most Government Enterprises, it takes a long time to turn them around once a course has been set for so long. I suspect the indignant responses given by Mr Stambi at QANTAS and CASA representatives is mostly brought on by our desires for quick change. Time will tell.
CASA was and is in my opinion, made to conduct the same journey over the last 10-15 years. Like the CSIRO, CASA was made to fund their own budgets from the persons or organisations who came to them for advise, support or services etc. Thus we saw the closure of CASA offices and the rise in fees. We also have seen the "self auditing" of the industry resulting in the loss of contact with CASA representatives. As long as the boxes were ticked CASA thought it was doing a good job and making money in the process. These boxes were being ticked by the same persons conducting the self audits so any problems were not highlighted (see the recent findings of CASA against QANTAS as an example). These auditors were not hiding the problems, they could not find them to report them.
CASA, like the CSIRO described in the program, needs to find their community responsibilities once more. This costs money, which is the responsibility of Government to fund. The betterment of the nation, those projects or services that are in the national interest, whether it is in agricultural, aviation or whatever, is a responsibility that needs to be nurtured, protected and not delegated onto another to conduct.
I would like to think, behind the scenes CASA is taking notice of what is being raised and displayed in the public arena. I'm hopeful, in time we will see a return to CASA week long audits and we as LAMES will have the opportunity converse with CASA inspectors on matters of safety, processes and concerns. Like most Government Enterprises, it takes a long time to turn them around once a course has been set for so long. I suspect the indignant responses given by Mr Stambi at QANTAS and CASA representatives is mostly brought on by our desires for quick change. Time will tell.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Standing at P37
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bravo LAME 2
The last two posts by LAME2 are spot on.
The post regarding the issuance of EA's should be compulsory reading for all LAME's. I agree 100% and I certainly take the same view - if "I" am not happy with the contents of an EA then no amount of whining/pleading/encouragement will see my autograph on the appropriate paperwork. This also goes for "verbal" instructions - i.e NO OFFICIAL authority, then NO ACTION taken.
As for the post about CASA and its direction over the last decade - you've hit the nail on the head - as for anyone who wants to acknowledge it, that's a different story.
Never a truer word spoken. Despit what the Libs/Conservatives say, running a country is NOT a business. Some things just cost money and pretending that any or all government departments should MAKE money is quite frankly a load of crap.
I believe it costs in the vicinity of $200 million to "run" Parliament House in the ACT - in the same vein as CASA, maybe the House should have to 'raise' its own budget. Charge all the MP's rent for their offices, an entry fee each time they enter or leave the chamber, charge them for their car parking, cars etc.
You get the picture, Qantas is a "Business", their aim is to make money (fair enough). However they make their money in a manner that can subject people to exteme danger/death. Therefore, an external safety regulator is required to monitor their business operations to ensure compliance with safety matters. To then suggest that the safety regulator, appointed by the peoples government of Australia, should then in turn "make" money is completely ridiculous. It is a cost borne by the people to ensure the 'safety' of the country's aviation industry.
What next - the Defence Force has to turn a profit? What about the Correctional Department?
Rant over.
.
The last two posts by LAME2 are spot on.
The post regarding the issuance of EA's should be compulsory reading for all LAME's. I agree 100% and I certainly take the same view - if "I" am not happy with the contents of an EA then no amount of whining/pleading/encouragement will see my autograph on the appropriate paperwork. This also goes for "verbal" instructions - i.e NO OFFICIAL authority, then NO ACTION taken.
As for the post about CASA and its direction over the last decade - you've hit the nail on the head - as for anyone who wants to acknowledge it, that's a different story.
The betterment of the nation, those projects or services that are in the national interest, whether it is in agricultural, aviation or whatever, is a responsibility that needs to be nurtured, protected and not delegated onto another to conduct.
Like the CSIRO, CASA was made to fund their own budgets from the persons or organisations who came to them for advise, support or services etc.
You get the picture, Qantas is a "Business", their aim is to make money (fair enough). However they make their money in a manner that can subject people to exteme danger/death. Therefore, an external safety regulator is required to monitor their business operations to ensure compliance with safety matters. To then suggest that the safety regulator, appointed by the peoples government of Australia, should then in turn "make" money is completely ridiculous. It is a cost borne by the people to ensure the 'safety' of the country's aviation industry.
What next - the Defence Force has to turn a profit? What about the Correctional Department?
Rant over.
.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: On the chopping board.
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
"It was a crude but effective repair"
It was a very very sad day in engineering to hear him utter those words. I, and many others sat there in complete disbelief. Is this what he believes world's best practice is? Is this what he wants us to be? I am sharing your pain mate!
