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

Defect Reports

Old 9th Nov 2012, 08:35
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 53
Posts: 2,767
There would have been a fault Arnold, where the fault occurred is the question. If it happened on the return sector then there is no problem as the crew ( or Engineer) wrote EIE.
framer is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2012, 08:37
  #22 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,789
If it is just a paperwork issue, and the fault occurred on the return sector, you have most likely caused someone a whole lot of grief in order to push your point
If the crew who wrote this know it is a paperwork issue, why would they have any grief?
ALAEA Fed Sec is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2012, 08:49
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 53
Posts: 2,767
Maybe they won't. But if it was me I would be annoyed if a tech log entry I wrote ended up being posted on the Internet by a union as an example of dodgy practices. I would be even more annoyed if I then had to explain myself during any type of investigation, an investigation that wouldn't have happened if it had'nt been posted on the Internet as a prop for the Union/ Management dust up that never seems to end.
Why don't you identify the Engineers that left the flight control rigging pins in or the ones that didn't reconnect the pitot static lines while you're at it?
( I was being facetious then, please don't)
framer is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2012, 09:13
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 1,371
I would be annoyed if a tech log entry I wrote ended up being posted on the Internet
If it was fair dinkum WHY???

Actually dont worry, there wont be any [email protected]#$king engineers left soon so you wont have to worry

Last edited by Arnold E; 9th Nov 2012 at 09:15.
Arnold E is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2012, 09:18
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 41,000'
Posts: 278
Why turn this into an engineers vs pilots debate over work practices? Some of u guys are pathetic and it makes me sick.
piston broke again is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2012, 09:25
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 141
Can the moderater close this down please!!!!!
soldier of fortune is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2012, 09:31
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 53
Posts: 2,767
If it was fair dinkum, and being used as an example of "bending rules" , then I would be annoyed as it was not " bending rules" .....it was fair dinkum.

This was posted and given as an example of
employees", digging our own graves by bending rules
. Ie , it is saying that this crew acted illegally, they were flying aircraft XYZ on such and such a date to this location. So if my entry was fair dinkum and that was posted, I'd most likely hop in my car and drive around to Steves house and ask for an apology.

None of us actually know what the result of any investigation into this was or will be. As Fed Sec said, it could just be a paperwork error. The tech log itself might be normal and the information was entered into the data base incorrectly. it wouldn't be the first time someone has made a data entry error.
It was not appropriate to post the scanned document on the Internet.
That's my two cents worth anyway.
Have a good day.

Last edited by framer; 9th Nov 2012 at 09:33.
framer is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2012, 09:37
  #28 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,789
Why don't you identify the Engineers that left the flight control rigging pins in or the ones that didn't reconnect the pitot static lines while you're at it?
You have obviously read my press release. Take note that I am the first to point out that Engineers are making mistakes now too because of understaffing, lack of training and excessive tasks in the wee hours.

I've made mistakes too and we all have to be big enough to admit them in what is meant to be a no blame culture environment. I can tell you my biggest stuff up, and it was such a small issue that you would think it almost trivial. It caused a rejected take off on a 767 when the takeoff warning horn starting blaring away on the runway.

I'd put a diode in back to front. I got the polarity wrong on a component so small you almost need a magnafying glass to see it. The bloke who did the back up check on my wiring job (with mutimeter) didn't detect it because he had the red and black leads orientated so as not to detect the problem. All this casued a RTO with 300 people on board.

We can't protect each other by not reporting errors (paperwork or real) because we don't want someone to get in trouble. We need to learn from mistakes to make our industry safer. I did not post this to embarass the crew and will take it down for a bit whilst I blank out the flight numbers and dates.

I am of a mind to post a few more serious issues we have reported to CASA though. This system is failing and it will end in an accident. 500 less Engineers will make it worse.
ALAEA Fed Sec is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2012, 09:42
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 40
Originally Posted by ALAEA Fed Sec View Post
I'd like to highlight a small snippet from a previous comment.
Too close to the bone was I? The reality is you have almost zero influence within Qantas and how it operates. This one off paperwork issue can hardly be called systemic.

I find it sad that someone of your smarts and passion resorts to these cheap stunts.

Your better than that. The engineers are better than this. The proud Qantas brand and tradition is built on great engineers who didn't resort to cheap stunts that demean their profession.
golfjet744 is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2012, 09:43
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Not Syderknee
Posts: 1,008
It was not appropriate to post the scanned document on the Internet.
I agree.
I am of a mind to post a few more serious issues we have reported to CASA though. This system is failing and it will end in an accident.
I also agree that making issues public is useful, however not the way this was done.
rmcdonal is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2012, 09:46
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,898
Steve,

If you were a Pilot and you were flying something like an Airbus and had to do a reset on a sector to an outport with no engineering, would you write it up at the outport? Or on the way back to base to be signed off?

It isn't black and white out there, just shades of gray.
The Green Goblin is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2012, 09:47
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Vladivostok
Posts: 55
I've sat on the fence for long enough now I might lose my job because I turned a blind eye or wouldn't put my hand up and report for fear of upsetting the boss. My reward is that my job is on the line (I only have 2 tickets).
From now on its black or white right or wrong.
Oh Me Oh My is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2012, 09:53
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vodka
Posts: 36
Can you post a Virgin tech log, a Tiger one, Rex, or maybe Skywest or Alliance.......oh that's right it's just a Qantas thing.....right?
Wellwellwell is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2012, 09:58
  #34 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,789
If you were a Pilot and you were flying something like an Airbus and had to do a reset on a sector to an outport with no engineering, would you write it up at the outport? Or on the way back to base to be signed off?

It isn't black and white out there, just shades of gray.
There are no shades of grey in Engineering. That's why we are Engineers and not artists. You have rules. You follow them. If you disagree with the rule, you question it.

So a reset on an airbus would depend if there was a flt ops procedure to cover it. If not and you reset a CB (not sure what you would want to reset), there is a procedure to follow. Circuits break for a reason remember, the source of the fault may need to be investigated.

Again if you trivialise this simple task of resetting a circuit, you may think it can be done to any circuit. So I'd have to know. Why would a pilot be resetting something at a non manned port in the first place?
ALAEA Fed Sec is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2012, 09:59
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 804

From now on its black or white right or wrong.
Its to late now the ship has sailed .
Jethro Gibbs is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2012, 10:08
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2
If licenced professionals are breaching laws, losing income/jobs should be the least of their worries. As a recent event has high-lighted, it seems not to matter in the eyes of CASA who was at fault, it all lies with the licenced PIC.

Like being issued a drivers licence has responsibilities, so too does an Engineer/Pilots licence, at the higher end of penalty being potential criminal action for breaches of legislation. An older Captain gave me the advice "on the tarmac there are only two groups with licences - the engineers and the pilots. We are the ones held to that standard and as such comes the responsibility of the licence."

This information could have been obtained under FOI rules if someone knew to ask for it. Perhaps censoring of the flight number and date would prevent employee investigators determining the personnel involved. If they have followed the rules there would be no issue in regards to defending their actions. This potentially raises questions of whether this is limited to QF or more widespread?

If an MEL grounds an aircraft at a non-maintenance port then so be it. After all it is the company who has elected to make it a non-maintenance personnel port and are the signatory authority on what is included in the MEL book.
A_Vinculo_Terrae is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2012, 10:09
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 53
Posts: 2,767
You have obviously read my press release. Take note that I am the first to point out that Engineers are making mistakes now too because of understaffing, lack of training and excessive tasks in the wee hours.
To clarify my position on this....I am not anti Engineers or pro pilots.

I've made mistakes too and we all have to be big enough to admit them in what is meant to be a no blame culture environment.
There is not an adult alive who doesn't make mistakes, we all know that.
No blame cultures don't work. That's why the whole concept of them has been dropped in most modern industries. I'd be surprised if it was still in vogue in Australia, and even more surprised if it was still the way in Australian Aviation.

I agree with you that reporting of incidents is critical if we as an industry are going to create error tolerant systems. By publicly posting potential examples of errors (yet to be investigated) you will not create a strong safety culture, you will weaken it, and you will not get the reporting trends you are after with a weak safety culture.
In short, you are shooting yourself in the foot if your goal is a strong reporting culture.
framer is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2012, 10:25
  #38 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,789
Maybe I started this thread knowing too much from the inside.

By publicly posting potential examples of errors (yet to be investigated) you will not create a strong safety culture, you will weaken it, and you will not get the reporting trends you are after with a weak safety culture.
In short, you are shooting yourself in the foot if your goal is a strong reporting culture.
Just imagine if some fool posted an aviation error publically. It scared people from future reporting and things were constantly hidden by aviation employees in case this fool posted something else. - I think it get it.

What we have is this - things are being reported and nothing gets done. How are we to break this cycle?
ALAEA Fed Sec is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2012, 10:31
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 1,371
What we have is this - things are being reported and nothing gets done. How are we to break this cycle?
It looks to me that Q is breaking the cycle by getting rid of engineers, and it would appear to me that some people here are happy with that.
Arnold E is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2012, 10:38
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Airborne
Posts: 201
A plausible explanation: Crew operate into ADL with NIL defects. It is common to fill out all sections of the coupon during flight and leave the report section blank until after shutdown. Before MOD, the crew would fill out NIL defects prior to passing the tech log out the window.

Since MOD, the tech log doesn't get passed out the window, so it is conceivable that during this transition period the crew forget to write NIL defects, and as they are transiting on the same aircraft they don't check that the tech log is complete before departing on the same aircraft.

On the next sector to SYD they have an MMR failure. The other pilot is PNF this time, so he opens the tech log to write it up. Before MOD it was not normal to see the white copy of the previous coupon because it had always been pulled by the engineers at the previous port. The PNF sees that the coupon has already been partly filled out and assumes the other guy did it earlier in that sector. He reports the failure in that coupon and at some stage later on or after shutdown they realise that they have reported the defect on the wrong coupon. They correct the error in the correct way: that is, they use the EIE protocol so that it doesn't look like anyone is trying to cover anything up.

This is a very probable scenario, particularly while the crew are still coming to terms with this MOD stuff.

Last edited by HF3000; 9th Nov 2012 at 10:39.
HF3000 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.