‘Home Handyman Maintenance’
The pen is mightier than the spanner!!
Look at the history of these MROs. Staples to rejoin an emergency exit light ribbon on the floor, a check requiring around 2 shifts signed off over 1 night when it is physically impossible to have more men on the job to speed it up - it just goes on. CASA has all the paperwork in order though.
Look at the history of these MROs. Staples to rejoin an emergency exit light ribbon on the floor, a check requiring around 2 shifts signed off over 1 night when it is physically impossible to have more men on the job to speed it up - it just goes on. CASA has all the paperwork in order though.
Is it not CASA's role to oversee in some manner the maintenance of VH registered aircraft? They must have at some stage approved the overseas maintenance shop. If the work is being done by shoddy overseas shops should CASA not be saying enough is enough? Or don't political relationships allow that?
No problem with criticising CASA, no problem with suggesting they should do more inspections but that doesn't obviate the responsibility of an operator who has declared via their exposition that they will maintain compliance or exclude them from any blame. My only objection is how people are saying "blame CASA".
Remember the DC-10 accident at Chicago when the engine sheared off an AA DC-10 and it crashed??? It was because AA were using a non-approved/non-recommended shonky engine change procedure which weakened the structure that held the engine in place. Going by the logic of some of these comments, that's not AA's fault (who were purely doing it to save money and increase profit) but rather the FAA is totally to blame because it's their job to regulate... as if they are supposed to have an Inspector watching over every process. No, part of the approval process is that organisations like AA agree to abide by manufacturer procedures for things like Engine Changes. You can't blame the regulator because some shoddy shop decided they'd do it a different way - that's AA's fault just like sending aircraft to places known to have problems is TT/VA's fault. Credit to VA for doing what QF did though and ceasing to use that facility. As for their approval by CASA, I'm guessing the facility is Part 145 approved so who issued that certificate originally and didn't check it met ICAO requirements???
A wise post Aerial.
That is why when I look for an AMO for my GA aeroplane I do not look for cheapest, as the airlines do, I look for someone who is capable of doing the job to 1) My standards 2) The authorities standards and 3) His standards. I always expect the last to be the highest of the three.
I have found these guys over the years, and they are stars. They are rare, and when the word gets around who they are they have a hangar full of work, whereas the guys at a field 100k away can go out of business. I wonder why.
It is up to the owner of the aircraft to ensure that his aircraft is serviceable for flight. Not CASA, they are on the boundary picking up shots that cover point missed. You the owner are the infield.
I mentioned this before a couple of years ago but if you think you have a bad deal with CASA, try the the others. I have worked with several CAAs around the world and for all their faults CASA are better than most. Frustrating, but capable.
That is why when I look for an AMO for my GA aeroplane I do not look for cheapest, as the airlines do, I look for someone who is capable of doing the job to 1) My standards 2) The authorities standards and 3) His standards. I always expect the last to be the highest of the three.
I have found these guys over the years, and they are stars. They are rare, and when the word gets around who they are they have a hangar full of work, whereas the guys at a field 100k away can go out of business. I wonder why.
It is up to the owner of the aircraft to ensure that his aircraft is serviceable for flight. Not CASA, they are on the boundary picking up shots that cover point missed. You the owner are the infield.
I mentioned this before a couple of years ago but if you think you have a bad deal with CASA, try the the others. I have worked with several CAAs around the world and for all their faults CASA are better than most. Frustrating, but capable.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASAs job is to review the carriers operation, not the procedures of Manila. Regardless of where the maintenance is done they are only digging here in Australia. It’s up to the operator to ensure it’s up to standard. They want to take risks on cheap engineering well that’s up to them, end result is accidents/fatalities/bad pr/casa oversight.
Blame the regulator when no action is taken to known serious events. Tiger was grounded for many reasons, not all were publicly known, but they pushed the envelope and showed zero interest in spending money on safety. A continued disregard to acceptable engineering standards without any sort of rectification ends in penalties. Tiger was grounded.
Tiger grounded this jet for 3 weeks to resolve the issue. The Tiger back in the pommy era would not have done this, would keep pushing on, the issues would keep growing, and the regulator dealt with that swiftly.
Blame the regulator when no action is taken to known serious events. Tiger was grounded for many reasons, not all were publicly known, but they pushed the envelope and showed zero interest in spending money on safety. A continued disregard to acceptable engineering standards without any sort of rectification ends in penalties. Tiger was grounded.
Tiger grounded this jet for 3 weeks to resolve the issue. The Tiger back in the pommy era would not have done this, would keep pushing on, the issues would keep growing, and the regulator dealt with that swiftly.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Florida USA
Age: 61
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HAHAHA Tiger was grounded because Australia will only allow two airlines.. Ansett was also grounded for political reasons. HMMM why was QF not grounded, oxy bottle through side of 747, crashed in Thailand, 767 air returns hydraulic and engine failures, multiple 747 engine explosions out of LAX, A380 with a river of water running down the pax isle ? The list at the time goes on and on ?
1) Ansett was grounded so QF and government could stop SQ and get market share.
2) Tiger was grounded for eating into QF revenue and being owned by SQ and thus merged into Virgin as their low cost carrier. See back to two airlines weak Virgin and QF, If Virgin became bigger they would also be grounded by CASA.......
See as I say Remote socialist Island in Southwest Pacific.
As long as Alliance and others fly for the only two airlines in Australia they will be allowed to stay. So behave and be quiet or "they will get you ".
Bye Bye for now.
1) Ansett was grounded so QF and government could stop SQ and get market share.
2) Tiger was grounded for eating into QF revenue and being owned by SQ and thus merged into Virgin as their low cost carrier. See back to two airlines weak Virgin and QF, If Virgin became bigger they would also be grounded by CASA.......
See as I say Remote socialist Island in Southwest Pacific.
As long as Alliance and others fly for the only two airlines in Australia they will be allowed to stay. So behave and be quiet or "they will get you ".
Bye Bye for now.
Tiger was grounded because it didn’t have a safety department. It didn’t maintain its aircraft. It didn’t fix the engineering problems. It flew aircraft that should never have been allowed to. Serious components were failing mid flight. If never conducted investigations. Incidents were not being reported. Serious Failures (even Airbus were scratching their heads) were not being reported. There was no paperwork. There was no Training Department at one stage. People were making their own executive decisions around safety. Rules were made of one self. There was no rules.
You can’t compare it to anything. The aircraft were at risk of serious failures during flight. The whole operation was just non existent.
It was shut down.
Where is Tony these days?
You can’t compare it to anything. The aircraft were at risk of serious failures during flight. The whole operation was just non existent.
It was shut down.
Where is Tony these days?
Last edited by PoppaJo; 25th Sep 2018 at 15:52.
No argument from me AP as to what you say. And yes, remember the DC-10 accident very well, a work colleague who I used to fly to and from his work site was a pax on the flight.
