Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

QF Strike threat may ground planes.

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

QF Strike threat may ground planes.

Old 8th Nov 2009, 00:30
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 73
Posts: 1,406
Unhappy

as airsupport pointed out shifts of 24 hours in duration
Actually I did not say that exactly, I have NEVER been rostered for a 24 hour long SHIFT, that would obviously NOT be legal.

Just that is how it has worked out, many times a scheduled check or rectifications have gone on much longer than "planned", and then although I was sometimes literally falling asleep on my feet, have had to keep going as there was nobody else there that could release the aircraft.

I have been flying with Pilots that have had to go slightly over their ''normal'' limits to complete a flight in progress, but nothing like is expected of LAMEs.

I will never understand why there is NO hard limit for LAMEs, even if was say a ridiculous figure of maybe 20 or even 24 hours straight.
airsupport is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2009, 00:34
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 73
Posts: 1,406
PS........ Just thought I should mention, I am NOT having a go at Qantas here, I was never with them, just the Industry in general and the lack of duty time limits for LAMEs, and other Technical Staff.
airsupport is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2009, 01:03
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 57
Posts: 1,437
Clarification

G'day airsupport. Sorry mate if my response sounded as if I was saying that you were rostered for 24 hours. I certainly didnt mean for that to be read that way. For other readers of this thread please be aware that any figures I gave mentioned are not in reference to airsupport actually working those hours. And as with airsupport, I too am not saying that QF undertakes this practise, but it is a problem that is widespread.
My meaning was that some people in the industry are working double's or shifts up to 24 hours duration. And yes, its not rostered but it is ADHOC occurences which happen from time to time, but the outcome remains the same - fatigue.
Every person's role in Aviation is integral to the safe operation,regardless of position.
Cheers
gobbledock is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2009, 01:06
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 135
Many companies of today will try to run the worker into the ground with excessive workloads so they can make a profit,but in the aviation industry the end result might be an aircraft been run into the ground.
satos is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2009, 01:47
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 73
Posts: 1,406
G'day airsupport. Sorry mate if my response sounded as if I was saying that you were rostered for 24 hours. I certainly didnt mean for that to be read that way.
NO worries, and NO need to apologise, it is just some people here can be very picky let's say, and I just didn't want to be misquoted.

I personally have never been rostered for 24 hours or more, just it has often turned out that way, and it has been ''expected'' that I would do it, with nothing official on paper.

I also have NO problems with Flight Crews having strict limits on their duty hours, a VERY GOOD idea, just I have never seen the logic in the new thoroughly refreshed Flight Crew turning up in the morning to operate the aircraft, when sometimes the person responsible for the safety of their aircraft (prior to them accepting it) has NO limits on his duty, and may have been on duty for 24 hours or more and might not be sure what day it is, let alone what on Earth they are talking about.

Crazy.........
airsupport is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2009, 22:21
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Over the Rainbow
Posts: 148
I attended a CASA human factors course in Adelaide about 4 years ago and the subject of fatigue effects on engineers was thoroughly discussed. We were presented with some pretty scary figures on the maintenance error rate escalation in comparison to hours of duty. We were pretty much told we had a duty of care to ensure fatigue was managed.

When we asked CASA why, if it is such a glaring safety issue, they would not take steps to regulate engineer duty times as they do for pilots, SILENCE.

Off the record I was informed that there wasnt a lobby strong enough for it, given that the Majors ( Q et al ) would fight tooth and nail against it.
Socket is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2009, 23:08
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 73
Posts: 1,406
When we asked CASA why, if it is such a glaring safety issue, they would not take steps to regulate engineer duty times as they do for pilots, SILENCE.
Therein lies the problem.

Individual LAMEs (and I am guessing these other Engineers) cannot do anything about it themselves, and even the Safety Regulator, KNOWING it is a safety issue, will do NOTHING.

As I said before even if it cannot be like the Pilots, with a maximum duty time of 11 or 12 hours (or whatever it is now), surely there should be some limit, even if it was 20 or 24 hours or even longer, SOMETHING.
airsupport is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2009, 00:54
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 72
Posts: 20
The PE's have a legitimate claim , they are so undervalued, compared to the overpaid , over valued , egotistical LAME's. The LAMEs won't F..rt without a clearance from a PE.They suffered from being represented at one stage by David Cox . Nuff said. Good luck guys .
OlAME is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2009, 01:28
  #29 (permalink)  
IAW
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Over there
Posts: 167
Couldn't you have made your point without a broad swipe at LAMEs? Seems like you injected that bit in there purely to ruffle some feathers.
IAW is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2009, 02:26
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 73
Posts: 1,406
The PE's have a legitimate claim , they are so undervalued, compared to the overpaid , over valued , egotistical LAME's. The LAMEs won't F..rt without a clearance from a PE.They suffered from being represented at one stage by David Cox . Nuff said. Good luck guys .
I don't know where this is coming from, unless you are one of the PEs as you call them?

I have never worked for Qantas, so I don't know what it is like there and thus would NOT comment about the situation there, but I was an LAME for some 35 years with Australian registered aircraft, throughout Australia and Worldwide.

I am sure these PEs do a job, however I have never ever consulted one regarding problems with an aircraft, maybe it is different at Qantas, especially maybe in heavy maintenance?

In fact one place I worked it was the opposite, one of them I knew personally used to be always phoning me up on the Line asking about how to do something, much to the amusement of everyone else on the Line. Also I will never forget when I was an Apprentice back in the early 1960s, and the LAMEs went on strike, we had to work with these PEs who were replacing the LAMEs, and we Apprentices had to show these highly paid PEs what to do, they couldn't even do things like change bulkheads etc.

I am sure they serve a purpose, and they should have some limits on their duty hours, as definitely LAMEs should too.
airsupport is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2009, 02:35
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Amongst the weeds and the dust
Posts: 82
Like so many "good ideas" in aviation, all that happens is that the academics come up with the data from research, other academics review it and say "hmm, there's something in this", they present their findings, and occasionally it even gets turned into a safety seminar. Attendees of the seminar also come away thinking "hmmm, a lot of sense in that", and all walk away and duely disregard it on cost basis.
Then years down the track, lo and behold, an incident happens, gets investigated and the subject of that seminar that everyone's forgotten about turns out to be a contributing factor. Questions get asked, public gets swayed and only then does it get legislated, although often in watered-down form after "industry consultation", read commercial interests...
Or is my understanding of "affordable safety" off the mark?
gutso-blundo is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2009, 03:50
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Over the Rainbow
Posts: 148
The PE's have a legitimate claim , they are so undervalued, compared to the overpaid , over valued , egotistical LAME's. The LAMEs won't F..rt without a clearance from a PE.They suffered from being represented at one stage by David Cox . Nuff said. Good luck guys .
Christ OIAME,
I have gone back and had a read of all your posts here on PPRuNe.What happened to you.
Couldnt pass the basics?
A LAME screwed your wife?
Get sacked for incompetence by a LAME?
Must have been something serious because I have never seen so much hate filled bile directed at LAME's by one person before.

Do us all a favour and just FUKC OFF.
Socket is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2009, 04:57
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: earth
Posts: 71
airsupport

I am sure these PEs do a job, however I have never ever consulted one regarding problems with an aircraft

Just curious, what did you do when your maintenance manual said no?
Or when there was no approved manual for your particular fix?

Honest question, (from a pilot) I thought this was where LAME's needed to get technical authorisation from a CASA delegate? (PE)
novice110 is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2009, 06:37
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 73
Posts: 1,406
Just curious, what did you do when your maintenance manual said no?
Or when there was no approved manual for your particular fix?

Honest question, (from a pilot) I thought this was where LAME's needed to get technical authorisation from a CASA delegate? (PE)
As I said before I have never ever worked for Qantas, so I don't know what they do, maybe they do this all the time, especially in heavy maintenance.

I have never had a problem that we couldn't either fix on site or get around somehow, like with an MEL.

Much of the time it wasn't a practical option anyway even IF we had of needed their help, especially in places like Saigon, Taipei, Moscow or even New York.

Sure it is not a problem at Qantas Sydney, maybe as someone suggested the LAMEs there rely on these PEs too much, I don't know.
airsupport is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2009, 07:01
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: under a rock
Posts: 144
How much does these Engineers get paid? I don't blame them, given how much Dixon recieved for just a few months worth of work last year. I am sure most employee of this company would ask why are we getting paid peanuts, while our CEO et al are taking home the fat bacon!
bubble.head is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2009, 07:42
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: earth
Posts: 71
airsupport

I have never had a problem that we couldn't either fix on site or get around somehow, like with an MEL.

Ok so maybe when you're dealing with over one hundred airframes it is possible to imagine a few situations where the MEL gives no joy.

How did you get the aircraft back from the outports?
novice110 is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2009, 08:36
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 73
Posts: 1,406
Ok so maybe when you're dealing with over one hundred airframes it is possible to imagine a few situations where the MEL gives no joy.

How did you get the aircraft back from the outports?
As I said (several times) I don't know anything about Qantas, so will NOT comment on your hundreds of airframes.

Most of the situations I have been involved with and was referring to (both about fixing them and also ridiculous hours on duty) were Overseas where we only had the one airframe, IF we couldn't fix it or get around a problem, it didn't operate until it was fixed. We had no what you call PEs on site or even in the Countries involved.

On a few occassions we had outside help, from other Airlines, or people from Airbus one time with a major problem in Canada, but most of the time you just have to get by.
airsupport is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2009, 08:47
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: au
Posts: 126
Also I will never forget when I was an Apprentice back in the early 1960s, and the LAMEs went on strike, we had to work with these PEs who were replacing the LAMEs, and we Apprentices had to show these highly paid PEs what to do, they couldn't even do things like change bulkheads etc.
It doesn't surprise me in the least that they couldn't change bulkheads - it isn't their job. I'm reasonably sure that if you sat a typical LAME in front of a simple first year Engineering Mathematics exam, they'd struggle as well.

PE's and LAMEs do two different jobs that complement each other.
superdimona is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2009, 09:14
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 73
Posts: 1,406
PE's and LAMEs do two different jobs that complement each other.
YES, very true, and I didn't say any different.

Just that personally, luckily I have never had to use one.

Another difference too that many may not know, these PEs are able to approve certain modifications and/or repairs to an aircraft that an LAME cannot approve, HOWEVER when the modification or repair has been done to the aircraft ONLY an LAME can certify for it and release the aircraft to service, NOT a PE unless he is also an LAME.

So YES they do complement each other.
airsupport is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2009, 10:53
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: earth
Posts: 71
airsupport

As I said (several times) I don't know anything about Qantas, so will NOT comment on your hundreds of airframes.

And I read that you don't work for qantas (several times). Either do I. I guess I'm just exploring why you care to have input on something you really have nothing to do with. And further, you add weight to your posts by boasting your 30+ years experience... In relation to this issue you might aswell have 30 years as check in staff.

Please I'm not having a shot at you, just trying to provide some balance.

And I agree, LAME's work bloody hard, and for too long.

Cheers
novice110 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.