Qantas Maintenance Changes
Management .........?
If you knew anything about Qantas and it's promulgation of documentation then you would know that the company supplied documentation is the only reference to be used by pilots. Company manuals and Jeppesen supplied info only for operational requirements. No need to be a smart arse. There was specific oil consumption and minimums published for the classic 737 but not the NG. If this is anything like the enroute LDR calculations changes then there will be memos standing orders and intams to totally confuse everyone and in six months they will back peddle.
If you knew anything about Qantas and it's promulgation of documentation then you would know that the company supplied documentation is the only reference to be used by pilots. Company manuals and Jeppesen supplied info only for operational requirements. No need to be a smart arse. There was specific oil consumption and minimums published for the classic 737 but not the NG. If this is anything like the enroute LDR calculations changes then there will be memos standing orders and intams to totally confuse everyone and in six months they will back peddle.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA basically sit back and watch each airline self regulate it's own operations.
They know full well that it's the advance notification that prompts operators to check their books and get their houses in order in time for the check that is the main driver for compliance.
In the end, operators ARE self regulating, and policing of compliance is difficult at best.
What to do about it, but what's fair as well?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry SRM, I suggest you keep reading the new regulations and the associated CASA guidance material.
Pilot Maintenance training may be carried out by a Part 145 Maintenance Organisation OR a Part 147 Maintenance Training Organisation (Aviation Australia for example).
The purpose of the training is to impart the knowledge and skill necessary to carry out the maintenance. The regulation does not specify the level and scope of the training. This will depend on the type of maintenance for which the pilot or the flight engineer is being authorised and the prior knowledge and skill of the individual in relation to carrying out the maintenance. The training may need to include both theoretical and practical elements or just practical. If a pilot or flight engineer currently holds the privilege to carry out a particular maintenance, the scope of required training for the maintenance may be minimum.
The training may be carried out by either:
an AMO that holds the privileges to carry out the maintenance; or
a maintenance training organisation approved under Part 147 that is approved to provide training for the maintenance; on the relevant aircraft type.
After the required training, the pilot or the flight engineer must be assessed by the AMO or the maintenance training organisation for competency. Before the CAMO issues an authorisation under regulation 42.630 for a particular maintenance, the CAMO must ensure the pilot or the flight engineer holds written statement from the AMO or the maintenance training organisation to
verify that the pilot or flight engineer is competent to carry out the maintenance. Under regulation 42.660, the CAMO is required keep a copy of the statement for 2 years after the authorisation ceases to be in force.
Pilot Maintenance training may be carried out by a Part 145 Maintenance Organisation OR a Part 147 Maintenance Training Organisation (Aviation Australia for example).
The purpose of the training is to impart the knowledge and skill necessary to carry out the maintenance. The regulation does not specify the level and scope of the training. This will depend on the type of maintenance for which the pilot or the flight engineer is being authorised and the prior knowledge and skill of the individual in relation to carrying out the maintenance. The training may need to include both theoretical and practical elements or just practical. If a pilot or flight engineer currently holds the privilege to carry out a particular maintenance, the scope of required training for the maintenance may be minimum.
The training may be carried out by either:
an AMO that holds the privileges to carry out the maintenance; or
a maintenance training organisation approved under Part 147 that is approved to provide training for the maintenance; on the relevant aircraft type.
After the required training, the pilot or the flight engineer must be assessed by the AMO or the maintenance training organisation for competency. Before the CAMO issues an authorisation under regulation 42.630 for a particular maintenance, the CAMO must ensure the pilot or the flight engineer holds written statement from the AMO or the maintenance training organisation to
verify that the pilot or flight engineer is competent to carry out the maintenance. Under regulation 42.660, the CAMO is required keep a copy of the statement for 2 years after the authorisation ceases to be in force.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE][If none of these documents exist because CASA has not approved the changes,we ask that CASA ground the Qantas fleet of 738 aircraft until such time as the previous system of maintenance are restored and corrective actions taken to complete any maintenance that may have been neglected/QUOTE]
Steve,
I agree with the sentiment, but I think that CASA will feel that your request is too much to ask. I think you might do better with a more "middle ground" approach. More to the point, they will do nothing of substance when pushed to the front Of the crowd.
On the other hand, it might be said that the "if you don't ask, you don't get" approach might yield something of value.
Steve,
I agree with the sentiment, but I think that CASA will feel that your request is too much to ask. I think you might do better with a more "middle ground" approach. More to the point, they will do nothing of substance when pushed to the front Of the crowd.
On the other hand, it might be said that the "if you don't ask, you don't get" approach might yield something of value.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Aero, we tossed up over the final ask and decided that we better take the second hand car advert approach. Always ask for more than the price you would be willing to accept.
Thnx MP for the post. Wondering how many Pilots reading this hold the necessary approval for maintenance after receiving the appropriate training???
Thnx MP for the post. Wondering how many Pilots reading this hold the necessary approval for maintenance after receiving the appropriate training???
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MP you are correct.
The document covers a lot more than you or I have mentioned.
As it stands at the moment and as far as I am aware, there has been NO training provided to Pilots.
This being the case then Pilots are no longer permitted to carry out ANY maintenance as I have previously stated, if they do then penalties apply!
The document covers a lot more than you or I have mentioned.
As it stands at the moment and as far as I am aware, there has been NO training provided to Pilots.
This being the case then Pilots are no longer permitted to carry out ANY maintenance as I have previously stated, if they do then penalties apply!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Star online
Netizens split over MAS incident.
Venubalan Rajaram said the incidents could be due to sheer coincidence or other factors. “Could it be due to low employee morale, complacency and incompetence at MAS’ repair and maintenance division? Or inferior quality parts and skipped processes to help meet the struggling financial bottom line?”
Dan Capper offered this perspective: “So five incidents, three relatively minor, out of how many flights exactly? Not bad luck or anything, probably comparable to any airline around the world actually.”
What netizens agreed upon was the need for stringent aircraft maintenance, with the incidents needing to be taken as a wake-up call for the highest professional standards to be employed in aircraft maintenance.
Netizens split over MAS incident.
Venubalan Rajaram said the incidents could be due to sheer coincidence or other factors. “Could it be due to low employee morale, complacency and incompetence at MAS’ repair and maintenance division? Or inferior quality parts and skipped processes to help meet the struggling financial bottom line?”
Dan Capper offered this perspective: “So five incidents, three relatively minor, out of how many flights exactly? Not bad luck or anything, probably comparable to any airline around the world actually.”
What netizens agreed upon was the need for stringent aircraft maintenance, with the incidents needing to be taken as a wake-up call for the highest professional standards to be employed in aircraft maintenance.
SRM and others:
Correct. Pilots are not allowed to touch anything. Circuit breakers, lightbulbs - almost anything.
It seems silly, but as with everything aviation a little knowledge can often be a very dangerous thing and a lot worse than no knowledge at all.
And that is strangely enough why most pilots have the GREATEST respect for Engineers, because it is a very rare pilot who has not been saved from huge embarrassment (or worse) by Engineers.
Correct. Pilots are not allowed to touch anything. Circuit breakers, lightbulbs - almost anything.
It seems silly, but as with everything aviation a little knowledge can often be a very dangerous thing and a lot worse than no knowledge at all.
And that is strangely enough why most pilots have the GREATEST respect for Engineers, because it is a very rare pilot who has not been saved from huge embarrassment (or worse) by Engineers.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots, a jet, a lightbulb and a crash
FL 401, an L1011 that crashed into the Florida Everglades. Complete hull loss, 99 dead, and one of the causal factors - Pilots trying to change a bulb for which they had not been trained for the task. Starting to sound familiar?
Take a look at Training Inadequacies Event Number 3:
http://flightsafety.org/ap/ap_jan91.pdf
People are forgetting something, and that is this; In our aviation industry there are both outcome based and prescriptive compliance. There are processes and procedures that an organisation can implement of its own accord so as to attain compliance, however there are still prescriptive processes and procedures that are set by manufacturers and regulators which must be followed so as to attain and maintain compliance. What has occurred at QF in this instance is going to be a very interesting case to follow.
Steve, well done with the Observation letter sent to the Skull, and the FOI request you sent. Good luck on both counts. I have no doubt that both of these organisations will be feeling somewhat uncomfortable at the moment with how this is unfolding. It would appear that yet another half baked money saving decision that has been poorly rolled out has backfired. And as for CASA, well, say no more.
FOOTNOTE: I trust the Miniscules department, as well as Senators Xenophon and Fawcett are taking a cursory interest in this and the Virgin ATR incident?
Take a look at Training Inadequacies Event Number 3:
http://flightsafety.org/ap/ap_jan91.pdf
People are forgetting something, and that is this; In our aviation industry there are both outcome based and prescriptive compliance. There are processes and procedures that an organisation can implement of its own accord so as to attain compliance, however there are still prescriptive processes and procedures that are set by manufacturers and regulators which must be followed so as to attain and maintain compliance. What has occurred at QF in this instance is going to be a very interesting case to follow.
Steve, well done with the Observation letter sent to the Skull, and the FOI request you sent. Good luck on both counts. I have no doubt that both of these organisations will be feeling somewhat uncomfortable at the moment with how this is unfolding. It would appear that yet another half baked money saving decision that has been poorly rolled out has backfired. And as for CASA, well, say no more.
FOOTNOTE: I trust the Miniscules department, as well as Senators Xenophon and Fawcett are taking a cursory interest in this and the Virgin ATR incident?
Last edited by Paragraph377; 23rd Apr 2014 at 11:50.
Ladies and Gents,
Regarding this oil fiasco, everybody on this forum has been quoting min/max oil figures, oil consumption figures etc, etc.
As oil is the lifeblood of YOUR engine, do you really trust what the oil quantity gauge is telling you, or do you trust what your engineer is telling you? Is that oil gauge reading min 16 or full 18 correct and exact??? We have been caught out before with faulty oil gauges!!!
The ONLY way to ensure you have enough oil is to physically check the oil level in the SIGHTGLASS situated beside the oil tank fill cap. Easy as pie to check on a pilots walkaround, just open the oil fill access door and voila, the oil sightglass is right there staring you in the face. If you can't see oil in the sightglass, I'd be screaming for an engineer, no matter what that bloody gauge tells me upstairs!!!
McHale.
Regarding this oil fiasco, everybody on this forum has been quoting min/max oil figures, oil consumption figures etc, etc.
As oil is the lifeblood of YOUR engine, do you really trust what the oil quantity gauge is telling you, or do you trust what your engineer is telling you? Is that oil gauge reading min 16 or full 18 correct and exact??? We have been caught out before with faulty oil gauges!!!
The ONLY way to ensure you have enough oil is to physically check the oil level in the SIGHTGLASS situated beside the oil tank fill cap. Easy as pie to check on a pilots walkaround, just open the oil fill access door and voila, the oil sightglass is right there staring you in the face. If you can't see oil in the sightglass, I'd be screaming for an engineer, no matter what that bloody gauge tells me upstairs!!!
McHale.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah you know what they say, a little knowledge can be dangerous. Yes Capt. you can easily open the access panel and check the sight glass to tell if there is oil in the tank. Well sometimes you can.
That physical check must be done between 5 and 30 minutes after engine shutdown otherwise the oil will likely have crept back into cavities in the oil system and read incorrectly.
Your well intentioned post is an absolute demonstration of the whole issue at play here. No Pilot or Engineer should follow your, or my instructions on how to service or check engine oil levels. This needs to be taught properly and recorded as per the Regs. I only wish the numpties out at Qantas could understand this.
That physical check must be done between 5 and 30 minutes after engine shutdown otherwise the oil will likely have crept back into cavities in the oil system and read incorrectly.
Your well intentioned post is an absolute demonstration of the whole issue at play here. No Pilot or Engineer should follow your, or my instructions on how to service or check engine oil levels. This needs to be taught properly and recorded as per the Regs. I only wish the numpties out at Qantas could understand this.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Castle NastySwine
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ONLY way to ensure you have enough oil is to physically check the oil level in the SIGHTGLASS situated beside the oil tank fill cap.
A little knowledge is indeed a VERY dangerous thing.
Even if I was a LAME turned pilot, I don't have tools or a ladder. The only oil checking I do is on a display. And +1 on sightglasses. All of my life I have been checking them, on boilers, machine tools, various internal combustion things. They are routinely stained and can easily lead the untrained astray.
Steve, Monster, SRM and Austro.....,
Indeed, you are all correct. My post was not meant to lead people astray. Submitted perhaps out of frustration with a system (in my view) that is total madness. Apologies.
McHale.
Indeed, you are all correct. My post was not meant to lead people astray. Submitted perhaps out of frustration with a system (in my view) that is total madness. Apologies.
McHale.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Downunda
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are a very game QF pilot if you think it's a good idea to open an engine panel and carry out a physical oil check. If any half decent LAME sees you doing it the $hit will hit the fan in a big way I can promise you. There's a list of CASA regs and QF policies you've just broken and you no longer have a valid CRS so your aircraft is not airworthy. And don't forget to smile as you are being filmed on almost every Australian domestic ramp the whole time.