Qf 6 air turn back
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not work for SIAEC so I do not know what engine failures SIA has ever had, except those that are reported in the press.
However the point of my post was how SIA keeps full control over its mx through SIAEC and its JVs. One would think that having such control and the expertise in and around their HQ would enable them to respond far quicker to maintenance issues than an airline which outsources these functions to several different suppliers thousands of miles away in all directions.
Another problem with all these ad hoc contracts with MROs is that the MROs would give preferences to their long-term customers, rather than customers which send them an odd plane here and there. SIAEC is known to drop everything to attend to SIA aircraft should they have problems (unsurprisingy) HAECO probably gives CX preference in resource allocation, over customers which send them an odd plane once a year.
Not sure about the mx standards in third world countries, but 40 years ago when SIN was a third world country, QF imparted its knowledge and skills to SIA technicians and engineers - for those keen on trivia, QF and BOAC had a small stake in MSA/SIA, and the SIA CEO rotated between a BOAC guy and a QF guy. It is a pity for QF to have imparted these skills 40 years ago, and 40 years on.... slowly lose their ability to maintain planes.
There are many airlines too, which outsource their mx with no problems eg DL. ST Aero for example , has purpose-built facilities in the US to maintain DL aircraft within America. The supplier-airline relationship in this case is much closer, and it is almost like a partnership rather than just a one-off supplier-airline contract for mx.
QF should pursue something like that, instead of what they've done in the past 5 years.
However the point of my post was how SIA keeps full control over its mx through SIAEC and its JVs. One would think that having such control and the expertise in and around their HQ would enable them to respond far quicker to maintenance issues than an airline which outsources these functions to several different suppliers thousands of miles away in all directions.
Another problem with all these ad hoc contracts with MROs is that the MROs would give preferences to their long-term customers, rather than customers which send them an odd plane here and there. SIAEC is known to drop everything to attend to SIA aircraft should they have problems (unsurprisingy) HAECO probably gives CX preference in resource allocation, over customers which send them an odd plane once a year.
Not sure about the mx standards in third world countries, but 40 years ago when SIN was a third world country, QF imparted its knowledge and skills to SIA technicians and engineers - for those keen on trivia, QF and BOAC had a small stake in MSA/SIA, and the SIA CEO rotated between a BOAC guy and a QF guy. It is a pity for QF to have imparted these skills 40 years ago, and 40 years on.... slowly lose their ability to maintain planes.
There are many airlines too, which outsource their mx with no problems eg DL. ST Aero for example , has purpose-built facilities in the US to maintain DL aircraft within America. The supplier-airline relationship in this case is much closer, and it is almost like a partnership rather than just a one-off supplier-airline contract for mx.
QF should pursue something like that, instead of what they've done in the past 5 years.
DrPepz
I was always under the impression that there was no stake at all, the Brits nasturally offered support to the colonies, The Australians still had links to the Malay Peninsula after WW2 so were there to help MSA, as it was known, not MSA/SIA. I recall being told by Ted Goodall, was that his 1st name? about the QANTAS engineers up there who helped with the setup and training etc and then when Singapore broke away from the Federation they 'took' the planes with them. The Malaysian side of the venture were none to pleased with that.
Doesn't matter though, may be all wrong but yes, it was the expertise of the QANTAS guys who got those guys on the road just like other QANTAS guys have been shafted since 1993
QF and BOAC had a small stake in MSA/SIA
Doesn't matter though, may be all wrong but yes, it was the expertise of the QANTAS guys who got those guys on the road just like other QANTAS guys have been shafted since 1993
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cloud9
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VH OJD Ex FRA
This aircraft may have had the engine replaced but the cabin is a mess.
EX FRA yesterday:
4 toilets forward of doors 2 not working.
No IFE at all.
Worlds best airline.?..ROFLMAO !!!!!
Qantas:the most entertaining airline in the world
EX FRA yesterday:
4 toilets forward of doors 2 not working.
No IFE at all.
Worlds best airline.?..ROFLMAO !!!!!
Qantas:the most entertaining airline in the world
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 5th Dimension
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas ATSB Report
ATSB delivers final report on Qantas 744 engine incident
Australian investigators have traced the cause of last November's Qantas Boeing 747-400 contained engine failure to the engine's high pressure compressor (HPC) blade, which had broken off at the root.
The aircraft, VH-OJD, had departed Singapore for Sydney on 5 November 2010 when its number one Rolls-Royce RB211-524G engine failed while it was climbing through 2000 ft.
The aircraft returned to Singapore after the flight crew dumped fuel.
Inspections of the engine showed that the powerplant's HPC stage one blade had "liberated at the blade root", said the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in its final report into the incident.
The liberated blade resulted in severe damage to all stages of the HPC.
The blade root failure and subsequent damage to the HPC were "consistent with previous HPC stage one root failures", said the ATSB.
Including the November 2010 incident, Qantas had experienced nine such blade root failures, it added.
Engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce had previously issued three service bulletins for the engine to address blade issues prior to the incident, said the Bureau.
The latest of the three service bulletins, issued in February 2009, had introduced a modified blade "with a revised geometry" which "could provide protection against root failures".
"The revised geometry was designed to be more tolerant to stresses induced by blade tip rub," said the ATSB.
This modified blade had not been incorporated into the engine that failed in the Qantas incident.
Currently, about 18 per cent of Qantas' RB211-524G engines have been modified to the latest standard, said the ATSB and in response to the incident, Qantas is continuing to modify its engines to the latest standard at engine shop visits.
reader comments
Australian investigators have traced the cause of last November's Qantas Boeing 747-400 contained engine failure to the engine's high pressure compressor (HPC) blade, which had broken off at the root.
The aircraft, VH-OJD, had departed Singapore for Sydney on 5 November 2010 when its number one Rolls-Royce RB211-524G engine failed while it was climbing through 2000 ft.
The aircraft returned to Singapore after the flight crew dumped fuel.
Inspections of the engine showed that the powerplant's HPC stage one blade had "liberated at the blade root", said the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in its final report into the incident.
The liberated blade resulted in severe damage to all stages of the HPC.
The blade root failure and subsequent damage to the HPC were "consistent with previous HPC stage one root failures", said the ATSB.
Including the November 2010 incident, Qantas had experienced nine such blade root failures, it added.
Engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce had previously issued three service bulletins for the engine to address blade issues prior to the incident, said the Bureau.
The latest of the three service bulletins, issued in February 2009, had introduced a modified blade "with a revised geometry" which "could provide protection against root failures".
"The revised geometry was designed to be more tolerant to stresses induced by blade tip rub," said the ATSB.
This modified blade had not been incorporated into the engine that failed in the Qantas incident.
Currently, about 18 per cent of Qantas' RB211-524G engines have been modified to the latest standard, said the ATSB and in response to the incident, Qantas is continuing to modify its engines to the latest standard at engine shop visits.
reader comments
.....And why the **** is there blade tip rub? Don't RR use a tip grinder or even a stone? How can this be a current problem in an engine that has been around for 20+ years?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could be as a result of a compressor stall or surge, not necessarily a blade that tip rubs all the time, could also be tied with other known anomalies, it may not be an isolated symptom.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Land of Idiocy
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what an embarrassment to say the least....for a once proud group of individuals..we all know why and where this is heading. Lets hope for all our sakes it does not cost any ones life....to satisfy the greed and disgusting agenda of a group of industrial psychopaths.
QF/RR/K-Mart.................spot the difference
QF is made up of people, like any other Co. Sadly those dedicated folk are getting tarred with the same brush as what's making the Co fail. Off shore Maint, Management etc.
Wmk2
QF is made up of people, like any other Co. Sadly those dedicated folk are getting tarred with the same brush as what's making the Co fail. Off shore Maint, Management etc.
Wmk2
