QF11 Eng Failure - Sensationalism journalism with Qantas or truly a trend?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blow-up grounds Qantas flight bound for LA | News.com.au
And now the story goes to news.com.au........ pretty much the same as the OP Yahoo/7 one... but already 108 comments. Interesting reading.
Sadly this is what the punters are saying about our QF.
I agree.... but I don't think this report is as dramatic as some of the others over the past year or so... and I can't help thinking what ampclamp said...
Yeah, certainly starting to look bad if the punters are writing comments like
There seriously is an image problem at QF that must be addressed sooner rather than later.. it's not just going to go away this time.
And now the story goes to news.com.au........ pretty much the same as the OP Yahoo/7 one... but already 108 comments. Interesting reading.
Sadly this is what the punters are saying about our QF.
By teresa green.. The press certainly just love this sort of stuff, which happens every day, somewhere in the world, but as 99.9% of PAX make it to their destination unscathed, we can assume that things are not to bad.
The rollers are having a bad run for sure. Qf will deny any trend or any issue with outsourced maintenance ( or lower LAME v AME ratios) but they will and should be looking very closely at why.
It looks bad regardless of whether the problems are related to any of the above.
It looks bad regardless of whether the problems are related to any of the above.
" Qantas an accident waiting to happen"
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ozmate
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
By teresa green.. "The press certainly just love this sort of stuff, which happens every day, somewhere in the world, but as 99.9% of PAX make it to their destination unscathed, we can assume that things are not to bad."
You're right about that TG.
It does happen every day around the world, but it's not front page news in these countries for some reason? The Aviation Herald
By teresa green.. "The press certainly just love this sort of stuff, which happens every day, somewhere in the world, but as 99.9% of PAX make it to their destination unscathed, we can assume that things are not to bad."
You're right about that TG.
It does happen every day around the world, but it's not front page news in these countries for some reason? The Aviation Herald
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Point of View
Offending plane was OJS built in 1991.
since QF no longer maintain (heavy maintenance) their engines, they no longer have the trend data or historical data for their engines anymore.
The dead wood management that were operating Eng. have gone
This is about the 6th or 7th major engine failure in the last year. How long has engine overhaul been outsourced for now? What steps have QE management taken to address the issue? - Nothing!
My apologies.
Yes OJO not S. Had the build date right as 1991 but had S on the brain.
There are enough pax today that are on all the frequent flyer forums to report engine failures on every EK,UA,DL,SQ,NZ,CX,MH,BA in and out of Australia as well as all the domestic flights and there are just no where near the reports on issues like there are with the QF 744 RR. Where there's smoke there's fire.
Of course QF has the statistics. Yes QF has had a run of bad luck. If these engines are being maintained in the same shop in SIN as engines for other major airlines why are the other airlines not having the same dramas?
Like many I have a godhelpmezillion number of QF shares and I don't want to bring the place undone. I recognise that to survive and compete with the Asian carriers paying peanuts to monkey we have to cut back, work harder and be more efficent. What I dont understand is why the "safest airline" is becoming the
"nearest to disaster airline" in the eys of the media.
Once upon a time all the lovely used QF planes went off to new homes. The 742 fleet were sold off whilst still relatively young and found homes with the likes of VS, UA and CO. We now have 20+ year old 744s . What happened?
Yes OJO not S. Had the build date right as 1991 but had S on the brain.There are enough pax today that are on all the frequent flyer forums to report engine failures on every EK,UA,DL,SQ,NZ,CX,MH,BA in and out of Australia as well as all the domestic flights and there are just no where near the reports on issues like there are with the QF 744 RR. Where there's smoke there's fire.
Of course QF has the statistics. Yes QF has had a run of bad luck. If these engines are being maintained in the same shop in SIN as engines for other major airlines why are the other airlines not having the same dramas?
Like many I have a godhelpmezillion number of QF shares and I don't want to bring the place undone. I recognise that to survive and compete with the Asian carriers paying peanuts to monkey we have to cut back, work harder and be more efficent. What I dont understand is why the "safest airline" is becoming the
"nearest to disaster airline" in the eys of the media.Once upon a time all the lovely used QF planes went off to new homes. The 742 fleet were sold off whilst still relatively young and found homes with the likes of VS, UA and CO. We now have 20+ year old 744s . What happened?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once upon a time all the lovely used QF planes went off to new homes. The 742 fleet were sold off whilst still relatively young and found homes with the likes of VS, UA and CO. We now have 20+ year old 744s . What happened?
G'day
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Orstraylia
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And for some other reason - people think that Australian Maintenance Engineers are the cream of the planet and are invincible. They're still humans and still susceptible to mistakes - which they make
And to use an equally outlandish generalisation
Unlike the Australian pilots who are a very humble group of professionals.
as Empire4 said:
As long as Qantas holds that out as its point of difference .... then it's reasonable that the punters will challenge it. And the perception, if not reality, at the moment is that they're not coming through with the goods.
It's fine to say that "we have to cut costs to compete with others, like the Asian airlines" ... as long as that's what you want your company to be ... just another Asian airline.
But, as I have often said on this forum, I think Qantas' successful future might lie in making its point of difference .... quality ( which it thinks it does now, but doesn't)... and charge accordingly. To achieve this, dollars have to be spent on keeping the product in the air and its service impeccable.
Or ... it could continue to be just another Asian airline.
However I think the reason Qantas gets more neg publicity is due to the fact that the one and only sales pitch they have is the safety record.
It's fine to say that "we have to cut costs to compete with others, like the Asian airlines" ... as long as that's what you want your company to be ... just another Asian airline.
But, as I have often said on this forum, I think Qantas' successful future might lie in making its point of difference .... quality ( which it thinks it does now, but doesn't)... and charge accordingly. To achieve this, dollars have to be spent on keeping the product in the air and its service impeccable.
Or ... it could continue to be just another Asian airline.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Semi rhetorical question but if, as has been suggested quite a few times in this thread, the problem is RB211s and/or older 744s, why do you not see the same trends or reports from BA? I can't remember the last time BA had a snag with their 744 engines and they operate the largest fleet of them in the World.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: KUALA LUMPUR
Age: 45
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
777
Not buying 777's will probably go down in history as one of Q's biggest strategic mistakes.
Having worked in engineering for a long time RR engine failures have definately increased. The creation of specialised boro section helped reduce failures, since boro section is still operating we need to look at what else has changed for the answer.
After the 08 pia, unfortunately Q has recieved intense media scruitiny.
If only G.D had come to an early agreement this may not be happening now.
Obviously anything to do with Q and aircraft safety sells papers.
Having worked in engineering for a long time RR engine failures have definately increased. The creation of specialised boro section helped reduce failures, since boro section is still operating we need to look at what else has changed for the answer.
After the 08 pia, unfortunately Q has recieved intense media scruitiny.
If only G.D had come to an early agreement this may not be happening now.
Obviously anything to do with Q and aircraft safety sells papers.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: On the chopping board.
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Sensationalism journalism with Qantas or truly a trend?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 14 Likes
on
8 Posts
pontius
Hi pontius, I remember one almighty failure on a BA 747 back late 80's early 90's perhaps.It was parked in Sydney and blew , presumably on its way out, not sure.
Shot bits of donk all over the place and just about cut the engine in half.
Shot bits of donk all over the place and just about cut the engine in half.
Last edited by ampclamp; 17th Jan 2011 at 05:55.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 14 Likes
on
8 Posts
yeah mc50 very funny
Things do happen at other airlines as evidenced by the aviation herald site.
Qantas is one of those love hate things we have in OZ.
Qantas dont officially trade on the good safety record but since Rain man the media just launch into everything little thing as if it only ever happens at the rat.
The batch of failures glitches hiccups etc are not a good.
Is the engine failure issue a trend? One is an isolated incident.More than one could indicate a trend depending the area of failure the hours on wing, cycles etc etc.
But in the media and public eye it = a trend without doubt.
Things do happen at other airlines as evidenced by the aviation herald site.
Qantas is one of those love hate things we have in OZ.
Qantas dont officially trade on the good safety record but since Rain man the media just launch into everything little thing as if it only ever happens at the rat.
The batch of failures glitches hiccups etc are not a good.
Is the engine failure issue a trend? One is an isolated incident.More than one could indicate a trend depending the area of failure the hours on wing, cycles etc etc.
But in the media and public eye it = a trend without doubt.
No, engine failures are not related to "Ageing Aircraft".
Almost all of the rotating parts in the engine, plus a lot of the stationary parts (eg, Nozzle Guide Vanes) are "consumable" parts, in that they will eventually wear out and can't be repaired, or will be automatically replaced when they reach their service life limit (e.g Turbine discs).
What that means is that even though in theory an engine may be "twenty years old" most of the critical parts will be no more than four or five years old.
Furthermore, in order to balance out engine shop workloads, it was common practice years ago to take one or more of the brand new engines off a brand new aircraft and fit an older one, or parts of an older one, so as to "average out" the age of the engine pool. Don't know if Qantas does it that way. But if they still do, your "New" Aircraft won't necessarily have "New" engines at all.
As for working out if QF is having more or less engine failures, I would assume that QF keep failures /by type/by module/by engine hours/by cycles data and probably time/temperature/pressure/rpm history as well. It's very simple to apply a Poisson statistical distribution to the data and set confidence limits that will tell you if something really has changed, or if all you are seeing is a set of coincidences.
Not that QF would tell anyone if there was a real change for the worse...
Almost all of the rotating parts in the engine, plus a lot of the stationary parts (eg, Nozzle Guide Vanes) are "consumable" parts, in that they will eventually wear out and can't be repaired, or will be automatically replaced when they reach their service life limit (e.g Turbine discs).
What that means is that even though in theory an engine may be "twenty years old" most of the critical parts will be no more than four or five years old.
Furthermore, in order to balance out engine shop workloads, it was common practice years ago to take one or more of the brand new engines off a brand new aircraft and fit an older one, or parts of an older one, so as to "average out" the age of the engine pool. Don't know if Qantas does it that way. But if they still do, your "New" Aircraft won't necessarily have "New" engines at all.
As for working out if QF is having more or less engine failures, I would assume that QF keep failures /by type/by module/by engine hours/by cycles data and probably time/temperature/pressure/rpm history as well. It's very simple to apply a Poisson statistical distribution to the data and set confidence limits that will tell you if something really has changed, or if all you are seeing is a set of coincidences.
Not that QF would tell anyone if there was a real change for the worse...
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can work it out pretty closely by the SDR reports publically available on the CASA website.
NavigateFrameless
On my account the serious incidents on the 524G that appear to have caused or could have caused inflight shutdowns trend as such -
2001-4
2002-5
2003-2
2004-0
2005-2
2006-5
2007-8
2008-3
2009-8
2010-6
2011-1 (in first month)
List excludes things like bird strikes.
From memory the entire 524G (747-400) fleet had arrived by 2000 with OJU being the last one. By the end of the decade numbers were the same excluding jk that had been parked in the desert.
Breaking down these figures we can have a look at the first half of the decade as opposed to the second. (Before the grammar police pull me up I know my decade is running from 01-10, that is the available data from CASA).
2001-2005 (5 years) 13 incidents.
2006-2010 (5 years) 30 incidents.
130% increase or these type of defect occuring 2.3 x the rate they previously had.
So what happened in the second half of the decade?
2006 Qantas closed Sydney heavy maintenance were many of the defects were detected early and repaired before they progressed to an "incident". Many of the checks were sent overseas.
Shortly after Qantas started sending Engine component overhaul to overseas facilities with the major components of the engines coming back in "module" form and were only assembled in Syd.
2009 Qantas completely closed its RR overhaul facility in Syd.
This is not over reporting, a coincidence, bad luck or a series of unrelated events. They are all linked via management decisions to put profits ahead of safety (IMHO).
Qantas would be aware of this trend. No wonder they have employed a spokesmodel to answer the media questions. An Engineering manager on the box may in some way be compeled to tell the truth.
NavigateFrameless
On my account the serious incidents on the 524G that appear to have caused or could have caused inflight shutdowns trend as such -
2001-4
2002-5
2003-2
2004-0
2005-2
2006-5
2007-8
2008-3
2009-8
2010-6
2011-1 (in first month)
List excludes things like bird strikes.
From memory the entire 524G (747-400) fleet had arrived by 2000 with OJU being the last one. By the end of the decade numbers were the same excluding jk that had been parked in the desert.
Breaking down these figures we can have a look at the first half of the decade as opposed to the second. (Before the grammar police pull me up I know my decade is running from 01-10, that is the available data from CASA).
2001-2005 (5 years) 13 incidents.
2006-2010 (5 years) 30 incidents.
130% increase or these type of defect occuring 2.3 x the rate they previously had.
So what happened in the second half of the decade?
2006 Qantas closed Sydney heavy maintenance were many of the defects were detected early and repaired before they progressed to an "incident". Many of the checks were sent overseas.
Shortly after Qantas started sending Engine component overhaul to overseas facilities with the major components of the engines coming back in "module" form and were only assembled in Syd.
2009 Qantas completely closed its RR overhaul facility in Syd.
This is not over reporting, a coincidence, bad luck or a series of unrelated events. They are all linked via management decisions to put profits ahead of safety (IMHO).
Qantas would be aware of this trend. No wonder they have employed a spokesmodel to answer the media questions. An Engineering manager on the box may in some way be compeled to tell the truth.
Last edited by ALAEA Fed Sec; 18th Jan 2011 at 00:01.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to add to my previous post. Another trend list that has removed my professional discretion that had me only list defects that I considered would lead to a donk shutdown. This list includes all defects on 524G engines over the 10 year period excluding the one birdstrike in 2005.
2001 - 6
2002 - 8
2003 - 2
2004 - 1
2005 - 6
2006 - 8
2007 - 12
2008 - 6
2009 - 19
2010 - 12
2001-2005 (5 years) 23 incidents.
2006-2010 (5 years) 57 incidents.
147% increase or defects occuring at 2.47 x the rate they previously had.
A couple of points for those doubters who think this is just a union beat up.
The year that the ALAEA members undertook Protected Industrial Action, we were accused of going out of our way to find things wrong with aircraft. That was 2008. The lowest figure in the second half of the decade.
The problems we are predominantly highlighting is the poor quality of Qantas Engine maintenance. Engine overhaul Engineers are not and never have been ALAEA members. LAMEs just want to know that the parts that they fit to an aircraft will do the job that they were designed for. I assume that Flight Crew would have a similar expectation.
2001 - 6
2002 - 8
2003 - 2
2004 - 1
2005 - 6
2006 - 8
2007 - 12
2008 - 6
2009 - 19
2010 - 12
2001-2005 (5 years) 23 incidents.
2006-2010 (5 years) 57 incidents.
147% increase or defects occuring at 2.47 x the rate they previously had.
A couple of points for those doubters who think this is just a union beat up.
The year that the ALAEA members undertook Protected Industrial Action, we were accused of going out of our way to find things wrong with aircraft. That was 2008. The lowest figure in the second half of the decade.
The problems we are predominantly highlighting is the poor quality of Qantas Engine maintenance. Engine overhaul Engineers are not and never have been ALAEA members. LAMEs just want to know that the parts that they fit to an aircraft will do the job that they were designed for. I assume that Flight Crew would have a similar expectation.
Last edited by ALAEA Fed Sec; 18th Jan 2011 at 00:02.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 14 Likes
on
8 Posts
Thanks for that Fed Sec.
illuminating to say the least.
illuminating to say the least.
Based on the numbers and assuming constant utilisation, almost, but not quite statistically significant change at the 95% confidence level by my possibly faulty reckoning. Possibly significant at the 90% level, but I may be making the wrong assumptions so don't quote me.
Don't ask me to do it again, I've discarded the spreadsheet and I did it from memory, so don't quote me. The cause might not be maintenance, but instead some operating procedure, maintenance policy, etc. You would have to investigate the whole thing in detail to confirm.
Don't ask me to do it again, I've discarded the spreadsheet and I did it from memory, so don't quote me. The cause might not be maintenance, but instead some operating procedure, maintenance policy, etc. You would have to investigate the whole thing in detail to confirm.