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

Qantas Maintenance Changes

Old 30th Apr 2014, 00:43
  #101 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,789
Thnx guys -


ALAEA Fed Sec is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 01:48
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Syd, NSW
Posts: 351
Post It's official

New FSO promulgated to reflect min oil required....


I take it starting in Sydney with 12 litres, everything is Kosher?
Yes. Use your professional judgement to decide if an engineer in SYD to top up would be prudent to save possible costs to the company at a following non maintenance port. It's what a competent FCM would do....

Last edited by CaptCloudbuster; 30th Apr 2014 at 01:59.
CaptCloudbuster is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 02:31
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 834
Does anyone else marvel at the attendant irony of the Oscar Wilde quote?

For an organisation that prizes blind adherence to procedure and doctrine that is surely a piss-take?

Does Joyce dispense those bon mot with the morning management pep talk? (There is a shared nationality and proclivity. Not that there is anything wrong with that). Much.
Australopithecus is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 02:41
  #104 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,789
This from a company that punished 6 blokes who wrote up defects on cockpit doors that could be opened with paddle pop sticks. Oscar Wilde would have been proud of them.
ALAEA Fed Sec is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 02:51
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 834
The difference of course, is that Wilde was a man of both principle and logic. He had the misfortune of being born 120 years too early, yet left enduring mirrors that still reflect today. Our Joyce will be more akin to his ancient cousin James, famous for gibberish too, but artful gibberish.
Australopithecus is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 02:52
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,014
Interesting. Must be a management thing. We get the same "quotes" from our management pilots....
porch monkey is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 02:57
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 43
Posts: 104
The NG oil qty is dispalyed in quarts not litres so if its QF policy to dispatch at 12 litres then the the indication will read 13!
MELKBQF is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 03:29
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 834
This entire episode reminds me of when American Airlines decided, in the 1980's, that 727s could economically power-back from gates, eliminating all but one ground crew member, tractors and tow-bars. The arithmetic proved that a 12 Million US manpower savings would only be offset by, on average, 9 million dollars worth of engine damage due to FOD, sand etc. Yay! 3 million fun tickets for management parties! And all for only one or two revenue engine failures. Pffft!

The idea that you can quantify public perception of carelessness did not work in 1984, and I'll bet that thirty years later it will only take a little bit more convincing before the travelling public demands responsible behaviour from airline management. If we still flew JT-8s this would already be apparent.
Australopithecus is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 03:38
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Syd, NSW
Posts: 351
The NG oil qty is dispalyed in quarts not litres
Incorrect on QF 737-800's from the Pilots perspective for whom this FSO is written.
CaptCloudbuster is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 03:42
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Outofoz
Posts: 669
Capt cloud buster, agreed sort of. I used the example of flying to a non maintenance port a long way off.
We still don't have a figure for oil consumption. So dispatching with 12, what can we expect after a 5 hour sector?
No engineers on the ground there. Again we are talking compliance.
Of course no one should leave with that amount, but I'd bet the stuff would hit the fan if you dispatched with 12 and got to the other side of the country and found the oil levels below 12 for the next sector.
The place has gone nuts.
hotnhigh is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 04:13
  #111 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,789
Just remember guys and gals. If you start at 12 and it drops to 9 (with engines running) prior to takeoff on your Bme-Syd-Bme flights and return to the bay in Sydney for more oil, the company could view that as unprotected industrial action. You can protect yourself from such a claim by calling for more oil when you get to Broome. If you make it of course.


This whole scenario is absolute madness.
ALAEA Fed Sec is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 04:22
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Syd, NSW
Posts: 351
Compliance

Based on current information available....

As a professional FCM I have anticipated the possibility of transit through non Maint ports and have made enquiries of engineers to ascertain normal oil consumption rates expected.

If I had inadvertently dispatched ex Syd to a non maint port some 5 hours away with the min promulgated 12 litres then subsequently discovered an indication less than 12 litres I would manage the situation by

1: contact Maint Watch and advise oil qty indication less that required by SOP

2: I would convey what rate of consumption observed over the previous sector along with pressure and temp indications.

3: As there is no actual limitation on oil qty and if temp / pressure indications over the previous sector were normal I would reasonably expect Maint Watch to authorise dispatch whereby oil could be uplifted at the next port.

Last edited by CaptCloudbuster; 30th Apr 2014 at 07:08.
CaptCloudbuster is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 05:43
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Syd, NSW
Posts: 351
If you make it of course.
And this comment undoes all the otherwise well intentioned dialogue you provide FEDSEC.

It is precisely this penchant you have to go one step too far (now demonstrated on more than one occasion) that has rendered the remainder of your message impotent where it counts.
CaptCloudbuster is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 09:13
  #114 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,789
You are pretty right Capt. It's so hard to watch these layers of safety being removed by managers who are only thinking of profit. You raise your concerns as legitimately as you can (as you can see from the letters to CASA), then nothing happens. It's frustrating and sometimes my comments are as frank and damning as they possibly can be in order to try and get someone to wake up and do something. My apologies if I push the boundaries at times, I suspect I may do so again.


A blog issued by some check Captain telling your that 12 is ok for oils is not the answer to this issue. We shouldn't even be discussing the problem on here as a group of Engineers and Pilots attempting to work out what the safe oil levels for departure should be. It should be clear to everyone.


The call to Maintenance Watch is also not the answer. The LAMEs up there have no clear guidelines either. We are all just stabbing in the dark hoping the operation will be safe. They aren't authorised to give you a "she'll be right mate" answer but I suspect commercial pressure will require them to do that anyway. The engine oils is just the tip of the iceberg here. We could be having the exact same conversation about tyres or brakes.


Sorry again for the sarcasm.
ALAEA Fed Sec is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 09:49
  #115 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,789
This may help demonstrate how inept Qantas are. 11.4 litres is 12.05 Quarts. From the maintenance manual -







They have now issued instructions (if this guidance blog could be considered that) to dispatch the aircraft with less than the required minimum oil. They have forgotten to add the expected oil usage over the sector to the guidance.


Now we have a situation where Pilots may feel comfortable following the incorrect message from the Check Captain and CASA sitting on their hands. This whole situation is fraught with danger, particularly considering that both engines would be consuming oil simultaneously at roughly the same rate.
ALAEA Fed Sec is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2014, 21:57
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,012
CASA? Where are you CASA????? Please put an end to this foolishness on the part of Qantas with a few quick and concise sentences.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 1st May 2014, 00:57
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 26
Minimum oil Qty is not just a bold figure of 12qrts for takeoff (this is so low oil press light does not come on during takeoff, oil gulp) there is also calculations to made to ensure at the end of flight leg there is a minimum for a go around.
Also if traveling to un-maned ports like Mt Isa calculations should be made to include the return flight, including the minimum go around figure.

I'm not sure the crews are aware of such calculation which they now have to consider.

Also oil checks should be made 5-30min after shutdown. So if the crew turn up to an A/c that has been sitting at the gate for longer they will have to run engine before departure. This can not be done on push back unless the crew are happy to shut the engine down and wait min 5mins to check oil.
blackbook is offline  
Old 1st May 2014, 01:14
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: In the Trees
Posts: 155
Just wondering is this a Qantas issue only? What are VA procedures with regard to this? Or do they do line maintenance differently? I thought they had a similar system to Jetstar's, which is the way maintenance on the 738 seems to be going at Qantas.

Last edited by ANCDU; 1st May 2014 at 01:15. Reason: Awful spelling!
ANCDU is offline  
Old 1st May 2014, 04:03
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: In the Trees
Posts: 155
Thanks Silverado, I have to agree with you on QF reaction compared with VA.

Your post does raise some interesting questions, if VA have been using this maintenance system for a while and there are obviously questions in regard to checking oil levels and other items why haven't these issues been raised earlier?

I thought Fed Sec might have been onto something here but I find it confusing that he hasn't seemed to mention anything regarding VA using the same system, or does VA have a different requirement for checking Boeing oil levels before operation ? Comparing how the two major 738 operators in Australia do such checks might just show the shortcomings in the Qantas system.
ANCDU is offline  
Old 1st May 2014, 04:52
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 43
Posts: 104
As I stated in an earlier post, VA have gone back to 24hr checks at most ports. A small number of aircraft that overnight at some remote ports can have up to a 48 hour daily.
MELKBQF 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.