Qantas to establish A380 maintenance facility at LAX
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Amongst the Gum Tree's
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A line ame's perspective-
Confirmed. We are useless in the line environment. The CAT A may change this, I don't know. Not a fan of the scabby wheat-bix box license so haven't considered its scope lately.
Confirmed. We are useless in the line environment. The CAT A may change this, I don't know. Not a fan of the scabby wheat-bix box license so haven't considered its scope lately.
Last edited by QuarterInchSocket; 2nd Feb 2017 at 00:28.
It's much more productive at a Domestic Terminal to have a high LAME/AME ratio. AMEs are basically useless there. Better to send 1 LAME to fix a defect than 1 AME who then also needs a LAME to be there to supervise and certify them. The operation is cheaper with more LAMEs.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Amongst the Gum Tree's
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't take it personally. But you're kinda kidding yourself if you consider an unlicensed AME as critical as a LAME. Certainly, we have our uses, but ultimately, the ramp is best handled by LAME's. This fact is proven.
An unlicensed blue shirt cannot run upstairs to change a light bulb, or slap an MEL on, or cycle a cb etc. He/She must call for a LAME and everyone must wait.
The CAT A will change this.
An unlicensed blue shirt cannot run upstairs to change a light bulb, or slap an MEL on, or cycle a cb etc. He/She must call for a LAME and everyone must wait.
The CAT A will change this.
Last edited by QuarterInchSocket; 2nd Feb 2017 at 04:54. Reason: My English, not so good
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any chance we can get some specs and a few details of the $27M hangar? Seems awful cheap for a shed so large and tall, concrete floor alone would be in the millions. My opinion a finished hangar of required size would certainly be closer to the $100M than the $27M.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post 2 - construction will be under by Superior Build under a different contract + office design and fit out excluded.
Forex alone on the $10 m back in 2012 is + $3.2 m.
Even after inflation adjustments, this is far from an operational hangar with no concrete apron access or massive power supply.
Fit outs are major costs, so I still think a ready to use hangar is closer to $100M in 2017.
Forex alone on the $10 m back in 2012 is + $3.2 m.
Even after inflation adjustments, this is far from an operational hangar with no concrete apron access or massive power supply.
Fit outs are major costs, so I still think a ready to use hangar is closer to $100M in 2017.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: A free wi_fi near you
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen your arguments for more Lames and less AME'S.
I am just wondering if you guys are living in the past?
I have worked as a LAME on line in OZ and many other countries and I have never seen a ratio of 4 to 1 Licensed to unlicensed anywhere else!
In fact the old CAR 100 which I don't know if it even exists any more used to state 1 LAME to 5 AME's, not the other way around as you seem to have it.
Without AME'S the line wouldn't run efficiently! And would be very expensive operation which I think you are finding out now yourselves as work is being sent off shore.
Why send 2 B1's to do a wheel change?
Do all QF aircraft come in with a snag every transit? You must have a very unreliable bunch of aircraft.
The way you are talking I am wondering how your aircraft actually ever fly.
QF domestic is primarily a 737 operation or has it changed recently?
I work for an airline where we operate 60 737 NG'S 24/7 never stop unless they need an A check, engine or APU change or some other maintenance to be carried out.
also please note all our out stations are unmanned.
We also have the lowest amount of defects per airframe on the 737 in the world, so we must be doing something right.
We roughly do 200 transits in a 24 hr period give or take a few dozen.
On Day shift we have on a great day the following staff:
8 B1's
5 B2's
4 A cats
9 mech's/ AME'S.
numbers rarely get to these numbers but that's our optimum level for day shift.
Night shift
10 B1's
6 B2's
25 Mech's
4 A cats.
Once again these are our optimum numbers and are rarely ever met.
We use our A cats for dailies, wheel and brake changes and minor defects and allow them to do simple task MEL applications. They also do ETOPS departures.
Without the A cats we would struggle!
Without Mech's/AMES'S we would require LAMES/LAE or certifiers to all the mundane labour intensive jobs, what a waste of resources and money!
Think of the great expense just having LAMES on line.
A cats are here to stay regardless of what we/you think of them.
We have spent the last 3 years developing a large number of A cats.
We use this as a stepping stone to becoming a B1/B2, and also to ease them into the stress of having no one to turn to once they are a certifier.
In fact the last 18 months we have employed 12 A cats and only 2 B1's.
The comment was made by mr secretary Europe is trying to get rid of A cats, that couldn't be further from the truth. Most people doing their training are only doing their A cat modules.
If EASA was trying to get rid of the A cat then why would they allow it to continue?
For the rules to change in EASA all 27 member states must agree to the change do you realise how hard that would be to get them all to agree?
Do you realise how much and how many companies rely on these A Cats?
LAME'S should only be used for defect rectification and not wasted on the little things.
Get with reality and accept change, maybe then you can be competitive and allow for a once great airline to return to some of the glory days.
Sorry if my comments anger some of you but it's a harsh reality, one we all have to get used to.
I am just wondering if you guys are living in the past?
I have worked as a LAME on line in OZ and many other countries and I have never seen a ratio of 4 to 1 Licensed to unlicensed anywhere else!
In fact the old CAR 100 which I don't know if it even exists any more used to state 1 LAME to 5 AME's, not the other way around as you seem to have it.
Without AME'S the line wouldn't run efficiently! And would be very expensive operation which I think you are finding out now yourselves as work is being sent off shore.
Why send 2 B1's to do a wheel change?
Do all QF aircraft come in with a snag every transit? You must have a very unreliable bunch of aircraft.
The way you are talking I am wondering how your aircraft actually ever fly.
QF domestic is primarily a 737 operation or has it changed recently?
I work for an airline where we operate 60 737 NG'S 24/7 never stop unless they need an A check, engine or APU change or some other maintenance to be carried out.
also please note all our out stations are unmanned.
We also have the lowest amount of defects per airframe on the 737 in the world, so we must be doing something right.
We roughly do 200 transits in a 24 hr period give or take a few dozen.
On Day shift we have on a great day the following staff:
8 B1's
5 B2's
4 A cats
9 mech's/ AME'S.
numbers rarely get to these numbers but that's our optimum level for day shift.
Night shift
10 B1's
6 B2's
25 Mech's
4 A cats.
Once again these are our optimum numbers and are rarely ever met.
We use our A cats for dailies, wheel and brake changes and minor defects and allow them to do simple task MEL applications. They also do ETOPS departures.
Without the A cats we would struggle!
Without Mech's/AMES'S we would require LAMES/LAE or certifiers to all the mundane labour intensive jobs, what a waste of resources and money!
Think of the great expense just having LAMES on line.
A cats are here to stay regardless of what we/you think of them.
We have spent the last 3 years developing a large number of A cats.
We use this as a stepping stone to becoming a B1/B2, and also to ease them into the stress of having no one to turn to once they are a certifier.
In fact the last 18 months we have employed 12 A cats and only 2 B1's.
The comment was made by mr secretary Europe is trying to get rid of A cats, that couldn't be further from the truth. Most people doing their training are only doing their A cat modules.
If EASA was trying to get rid of the A cat then why would they allow it to continue?
For the rules to change in EASA all 27 member states must agree to the change do you realise how hard that would be to get them all to agree?
Do you realise how much and how many companies rely on these A Cats?
LAME'S should only be used for defect rectification and not wasted on the little things.
Get with reality and accept change, maybe then you can be competitive and allow for a once great airline to return to some of the glory days.
Sorry if my comments anger some of you but it's a harsh reality, one we all have to get used to.
Plasticmerc, thanks for that post. I'm not an engineer, but even I thought those ratios Qantas run are disproportional.
Like you said, maybe they should get with the times and then they'd have less work going overseas!
It's 2017 guys, not 1970.
Like you said, maybe they should get with the times and then they'd have less work going overseas!
It's 2017 guys, not 1970.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As per LAME vs AME, it must also be note there are a few AME's out there that are far better than certain LAME's but for one reason or other are not licenced.
In house training and approval lets more "marginal" LAME's into the system.
In house training and approval lets more "marginal" LAME's into the system.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Amongst the Gum Tree's
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm always fascinated by international person's views on company maintenance, external to the company and within.
All too happy to hang sh*t on our practices, but basically happy to take company money and enjoy its hard fought for terms and conditions. Tosser's!
No other airline has our reputation; if we accept world practices, which our largely European executives seem to think is the way, the truth and the light, then we accept world accident and incident rates, standards etc. we will see a crash in the jet era the more cuts we make if we are accepting of those standards.
We may have incidents to this day due to in-house mx, sure, I don't think they are as bad as they could be thanks to 96 years worth of continuous operational experience.
All that is about to be and has been trashed; our image is to be this - Qantas - the same as any other airline - accidents and all!
All too happy to hang sh*t on our practices, but basically happy to take company money and enjoy its hard fought for terms and conditions. Tosser's!
No other airline has our reputation; if we accept world practices, which our largely European executives seem to think is the way, the truth and the light, then we accept world accident and incident rates, standards etc. we will see a crash in the jet era the more cuts we make if we are accepting of those standards.
We may have incidents to this day due to in-house mx, sure, I don't think they are as bad as they could be thanks to 96 years worth of continuous operational experience.
All that is about to be and has been trashed; our image is to be this - Qantas - the same as any other airline - accidents and all!
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qinch,
Years back Qantas "brought out" Australian Airlines, all the book work said it should have been the other way around - A merger to survive with the most wounded elected the winner. I don't remember the year this happened but slowly staying with the same wounded "winner" all will be lost its just dragging out the death +20 years now. Anyone in a rush to buy more mums and dads Qantas shares?
Qantas has never lost a hull reputation?
Years back Qantas "brought out" Australian Airlines, all the book work said it should have been the other way around - A merger to survive with the most wounded elected the winner. I don't remember the year this happened but slowly staying with the same wounded "winner" all will be lost its just dragging out the death +20 years now. Anyone in a rush to buy more mums and dads Qantas shares?
Qantas has never lost a hull reputation?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Castle NastySwine
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as CASA is concerned:
The C of R holder is Australian, employing Australian or local LAMEs under an Australian System of Maintenance, so the CASR's apply. Under the System of Maintenance and the CASRs the B1 or B2 LAME is required to supervise the work of AMEs.
And the definition of "supervision" is given in CASR 1998 Vol 5 as:
The Part 66 AMC/GM provides additional guidance on the meaning of supervision. It makes for an interesting read. In particular:
As Fed Sec has described, many of these AMEs are green, very green. With the LAME:AME ratio in LAX, can someone please tell me how the LAME can in good conscience and in accordance with his statutory obligation, "supervise" as defined above and certify for the work of such a large workforce of AMEs of a skill and experience level that he/she knows is woefully inadequate compared to Australian AMEs?
Now in LAX the C of R holder employs inexperienced AMEs, knowingly allows a LAME:AME ratio such that not all work can be adequately supervised, and bears no responsibility for the quality of the maintenance performed, only the quality of the certification.
The LAMEs in LAX walk a particularly fine line - as anyone who has worked under the LA regime knows, and I think they know in their heart of hearts it is a matter of not if but when the lack of adequate supervision comes back to bite him/her on the ar$e. Anyone who's done a bit of contract work in Asia can tell you it's the same in some facilities there too. But just because everyone else is turning a blind eye to air safety doesn't mean we should.
We have air safety and maintenance regulations for a reason. Over the course of decades, they have been written in the blood of the victims of countless air accidents. We as LAMEs can choose to pay lip service to them like some in our management do, or we can choose to obey them.
For the record, the LAME:AME ratio in QF company-wide is 55:45. The reason given for not training up AMEs to be LAMEs is that they don't want to exceed the ratio. That's what the company wants, and that's what they've got. It's a ratio I'm somewhat comfortable with, as it allows the company the flexibility to put AMEs where the manpower, the level of supervision, the system of maintenance and the company procedures manual allows, and it provides me a level of assistance from AMEs I require to get my job done, while meeting my obligation to my employer and to the law to adequately supervise the AME.
We will only get the level of safety we demonstrate we want. So please, for the sake of your LAME colleagues upline in the unenviable position of being unable to adequately supervise and unable to raise their concerns out of fear for their jobs: if you find poor quality work, report it.
AC-66-5 v1.2
15.7 Certification of Australian aircraft outside of Australian Territory.
In accordance with regulation 42ZN, the Certificate of Registration holder of the aircraft is responsible for ensuring that all maintenance performed on the aircraft outside of Australian Territory is certified in accordance with the system for certification of the maintenance organisation performing the maintenance or; alternatively, in accordance with Schedule 6 of the CAR’s by:
• the pilot-in-command, for maintenance they have been authorised to perform;
• the holder of a valid appropriate Australian aircraft engineer licence;
• the holder of a valid appropriate Australian maintenance or welding authority;
• the holder of a valid appropriate aircraft maintenance licence issued by the appropriate authority in the Contracting State in which the maintenance is being performed; or
• an employee appropriately authorised by an organisation to perform maintenance on the aircraft, engine or system type as approved by the appropriate authority in the Contracting State in which the maintenance is being performed; and that the maintenance has been performed in accordance with the Certificate of Registration holder's System of Maintenance.
15.8 The Certificate of Registration holder or the pilot-in-command is responsible for ensuring that certification for the completion of maintenance has been correctly made in the appropriate log book, maintenance release or alternative document prior to flight.
15.7 Certification of Australian aircraft outside of Australian Territory.
In accordance with regulation 42ZN, the Certificate of Registration holder of the aircraft is responsible for ensuring that all maintenance performed on the aircraft outside of Australian Territory is certified in accordance with the system for certification of the maintenance organisation performing the maintenance or; alternatively, in accordance with Schedule 6 of the CAR’s by:
• the pilot-in-command, for maintenance they have been authorised to perform;
• the holder of a valid appropriate Australian aircraft engineer licence;
• the holder of a valid appropriate Australian maintenance or welding authority;
• the holder of a valid appropriate aircraft maintenance licence issued by the appropriate authority in the Contracting State in which the maintenance is being performed; or
• an employee appropriately authorised by an organisation to perform maintenance on the aircraft, engine or system type as approved by the appropriate authority in the Contracting State in which the maintenance is being performed; and that the maintenance has been performed in accordance with the Certificate of Registration holder's System of Maintenance.
15.8 The Certificate of Registration holder or the pilot-in-command is responsible for ensuring that certification for the completion of maintenance has been correctly made in the appropriate log book, maintenance release or alternative document prior to flight.
And the definition of "supervision" is given in CASR 1998 Vol 5 as:
30 Meaning of supervising
A person (the supervisor) is supervising the carrying out of maintenance done by another person if the supervisor:
(a) is physically present at the place that the maintenance is being carried out; and
(b) is observing the maintenance being carried out to the extent necessary to enable the supervisor to form an opinion as to whether the maintenance is being carried out properly; and
(c) is available to give advice to, and answer questions about the maintenance from, the person carrying it out.
A person (the supervisor) is supervising the carrying out of maintenance done by another person if the supervisor:
(a) is physically present at the place that the maintenance is being carried out; and
(b) is observing the maintenance being carried out to the extent necessary to enable the supervisor to form an opinion as to whether the maintenance is being carried out properly; and
(c) is available to give advice to, and answer questions about the maintenance from, the person carrying it out.
Actual physical observation of the maintenance by the supervisor is required “to the extent necessary to enable the supervisor to form an opinion as to whether the maintenance is being carried out properly”. This means that the level of observation, and the resulting opportunity for the supervisor to intervene, is variable and can take into account the current competence, knowledge, skill sets and maturity of the aircraft maintainer being supervised.
An apprentice/new AME will necessarily work under direct/close supervision and the supervisor would be expected to attentively watch the work being performed. The supervisor would be expected to make sure the apprentice is aware of and is conducting themselves such that they are safe from hazards, undertaking the maintenance correctly, using the correct tools, following the appropriate instructions for continued airworthiness.
An apprentice/new AME will necessarily work under direct/close supervision and the supervisor would be expected to attentively watch the work being performed. The supervisor would be expected to make sure the apprentice is aware of and is conducting themselves such that they are safe from hazards, undertaking the maintenance correctly, using the correct tools, following the appropriate instructions for continued airworthiness.
Now in LAX the C of R holder employs inexperienced AMEs, knowingly allows a LAME:AME ratio such that not all work can be adequately supervised, and bears no responsibility for the quality of the maintenance performed, only the quality of the certification.
The LAMEs in LAX walk a particularly fine line - as anyone who has worked under the LA regime knows, and I think they know in their heart of hearts it is a matter of not if but when the lack of adequate supervision comes back to bite him/her on the ar$e. Anyone who's done a bit of contract work in Asia can tell you it's the same in some facilities there too. But just because everyone else is turning a blind eye to air safety doesn't mean we should.
We have air safety and maintenance regulations for a reason. Over the course of decades, they have been written in the blood of the victims of countless air accidents. We as LAMEs can choose to pay lip service to them like some in our management do, or we can choose to obey them.
For the record, the LAME:AME ratio in QF company-wide is 55:45. The reason given for not training up AMEs to be LAMEs is that they don't want to exceed the ratio. That's what the company wants, and that's what they've got. It's a ratio I'm somewhat comfortable with, as it allows the company the flexibility to put AMEs where the manpower, the level of supervision, the system of maintenance and the company procedures manual allows, and it provides me a level of assistance from AMEs I require to get my job done, while meeting my obligation to my employer and to the law to adequately supervise the AME.
We will only get the level of safety we demonstrate we want. So please, for the sake of your LAME colleagues upline in the unenviable position of being unable to adequately supervise and unable to raise their concerns out of fear for their jobs: if you find poor quality work, report it.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know orgs that have been approved by CASA to us SKYPE as direct supervision, also there is a massive difference to an appy and an AME. I am a LAME of 30 years and at times I am a AME for employment reasons.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Castle NastySwine
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silverado, excellent point. And what might be the average years of service of those non-certifying LAMEs working off-type? Certainly alot more than those AMEs in LAX.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think as far as employment (not CASA) you are a AME if the company you work for only operates aircraft types you are not licenced on.
An A380 LAME will still be paid as a LAME even if the A380 can not land at his base, same as any above type listed.
An A380 LAME will still be paid as a LAME even if the A380 can not land at his base, same as any above type listed.