Steve Purvinas, legend
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So guys as you can see the AD is quite detailed. I am sure those who are not bored yet will be able to nut through the technical data, you Pilots are almost as technically minded as us poor cousins. For those who have been following affairs.....the FAA and Boeing have come under heavy criticism for not undertaking proper oversight in relation to the MAX and the new MACS system. Corporate capture is the word I hear being used. This is basically where the regulator goes easy on their friends and as a result in this case, 2 planes have crashed before they acted, and that was only when Donald stepped in. Saying that, we are concerned that FAA are not exactly being as proper as they should be in all dealings they have with Boeing, apparently EASA have the same concerns.
So back to the 738 pickle forks. About 6 weeks ago this issue emerged. 3 x 737NG aircraft had been found with cracks to this primary structure component. Each aircraft had over 35,000 landings. On that basis FAA called for inspections within 7 days for all NGs with over 30,000 landings and within 1000 cycles for those over 22,600 landings. Remember.....those figures were based on 3 cracked aircraft.....over 35,000. If the original 3 aircraft had been aircraft with 27,000 landings, the checks would have been ordered for much younger aircraft.
Qantas had no aircraft with 30,000 landings. They were not "pulling forward" these inspections early because they put safety first. They weren't even undertaking these checks because, as per the AD, they didn't need to. A crack was found inadvertently (and management were angry with the Engineers for finding it). The entire scope of the AD was now in question. FAA had originally thought that the only aircraft with these problems had over 35,000 landings. The first Qantas plane found with the crack was alarming, the second one created a pattern as it also had well under the urgent 30,000 landings.
The issue is serious. The AD does not permit a plane with cracks to fly. Hence, if you don't find cracks, you can still fly and for airlines this means they can continue to generate revenue even if the structure is cracked. So you cannot fly with these cracks.....one may wonder why.....you can see from the posted AD why -
These aren't my words, this is the FAA. In short, your wing could separate from the fuselage. Anyone who still thinks my comments were over the top should stop reading here. If you want to continue to believe the PR from Qantas, feel free to do so but please do not fly a plane or claim to be able to fix one. I want the people entrusted with my safety aware of the consequences of everything we do.
So back to the 738 pickle forks. About 6 weeks ago this issue emerged. 3 x 737NG aircraft had been found with cracks to this primary structure component. Each aircraft had over 35,000 landings. On that basis FAA called for inspections within 7 days for all NGs with over 30,000 landings and within 1000 cycles for those over 22,600 landings. Remember.....those figures were based on 3 cracked aircraft.....over 35,000. If the original 3 aircraft had been aircraft with 27,000 landings, the checks would have been ordered for much younger aircraft.
Qantas had no aircraft with 30,000 landings. They were not "pulling forward" these inspections early because they put safety first. They weren't even undertaking these checks because, as per the AD, they didn't need to. A crack was found inadvertently (and management were angry with the Engineers for finding it). The entire scope of the AD was now in question. FAA had originally thought that the only aircraft with these problems had over 35,000 landings. The first Qantas plane found with the crack was alarming, the second one created a pattern as it also had well under the urgent 30,000 landings.
The issue is serious. The AD does not permit a plane with cracks to fly. Hence, if you don't find cracks, you can still fly and for airlines this means they can continue to generate revenue even if the structure is cracked. So you cannot fly with these cracks.....one may wonder why.....you can see from the posted AD why -
if not addressed, could result in failure of a Principal Structural Element (PSE) to sustain limit load. This condition could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane and result in loss of control of the airplane.
CEO Joyce cares naught for anyone or for anything but himself. His sole focus in life is about his personal wealth, material desires and certain proclivities, promoting his sexuality, turning the airline into a platform that supports his sexuality, and being as public as he can about his sexuality so as to rub it into the faces of the church. He himself has admitted to wanting to fight churches over their opposition to his sexuality. So, this is what the CEO cares about. This is what drives him and this is what his agenda in life is about. Hence when issues such as the aircraft cracks comes up, he and his minions have absolutely no conscientious objection to spinning, deflecting, watering down and even denying there is any problem, any risk, any safety concerns. And for that, this despicable human being isn’t worth the paper his birth name is written on.
It is almost unfathomable that Joyce has not been pried away from his Qantas throne in the past 10 years. How the hell 30,000 employees of his have not all put in a vote of no confidence in this little man and is quite frankly, remarkable.
This weekend I hope all the hard working people at QF remember that little Napoleon, no doubt dressed in a brown tuxedo, is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars that he has gleaned from the staffs back pockets on a lavish wedding to cardboard cutout Shane, again something that is all about him and his own personal desires, while the rest of the airline tries to focus on the public’s safety and their own personal safety, something Joyce doesn’t give a stuff about. As for his absence during this engineering episode, is it any surprise? Gutless people, cowards and spineless human beings always hide from the big issues in life.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So with this issue identified by the FAA as one that could cause loss of aircraft control. With the FAA assuming the only aircraft in danger had over 35,000 cycles (and calling for urgent inspections with those over 30k) and knowing that Qantas had found these cracks on 2 aircraft at 27,000 cycles, we called for immediate checks and planes to not fly until they were checked (a one hour at longest process). This was 0800 Thu 31/10/2019.
There was a lot of press commentary all that day. Mostly by Qantas, as they have more media control than we do. For example, I have not had one call from Sky who keep on rolling out a variety of Aviation experts to support the Qantas PR. As I sit here I see another one, some Captain Byron Bailey who I've never heard of before. And all these experts from CASA, Industry and Qantas keep repeating the same lines put together by the army of people in the Qantas spin department. Let's unpack some of their misleading comments -
I am yet to have one fact successful disputed by anyone. Quite interesting that they would praise the same Engineers who were being admonished the day the first crack was found. (BTW we have a QLink Engineer currently stood down because he lodged a report that he was told by managers that he wasn't permitted to report corrosion on 717 aircraft)
That's interesting. The FAA says that if present, these cracks could cause the loss of control of the aircraft….why are Qantas saying otherwise?
...and then there is this fantastic quote from for the experts over at CASA -
CASA has the AD, they know the AD was written about 3 x aircraft over 35,000 cycles. The Qantas planes have 27,000 cycles, they are younger aircraft. I had explained this to Shane Carmody in an sms message on the morning of Thu 31/10/2019 but CASA kept repeating their incorrect messages.
There was a lot of press commentary all that day. Mostly by Qantas, as they have more media control than we do. For example, I have not had one call from Sky who keep on rolling out a variety of Aviation experts to support the Qantas PR. As I sit here I see another one, some Captain Byron Bailey who I've never heard of before. And all these experts from CASA, Industry and Qantas keep repeating the same lines put together by the army of people in the Qantas spin department. Let's unpack some of their misleading comments -
"Unfortunately, there were some irresponsible comments from one engineering union yesterday, which completely misrepresented the facts. Those comments were especially disappointing, given the fantastic job our engineers have done to inspect these aircraft well ahead of schedule, and the priority they give to safety every day of the week," Mr David said.
But Qantas head of engineering Chris Snook said the airline would never operate a plane unless it was "completely safe to do so".
The association's call to ground the fleet was "completely irresponsible", Mr Snook said in a statement.
"Even when a crack is present, it does not immediately compromise the safety of the aircraft."
The association's call to ground the fleet was "completely irresponsible", Mr Snook said in a statement.
"Even when a crack is present, it does not immediately compromise the safety of the aircraft."
That's interesting. The FAA says that if present, these cracks could cause the loss of control of the aircraft….why are Qantas saying otherwise?
...and then there is this fantastic quote from for the experts over at CASA -
"There's no evidence at this point of cracks appearing in younger aircraft - obviously if they do, the inspection regime may have to be rethought,' Mr Gibson told AAP.
"People who fly should be very confident that this is evidence of the aviation safety system working."
"People who fly should be very confident that this is evidence of the aviation safety system working."
CASA has the AD, they know the AD was written about 3 x aircraft over 35,000 cycles. The Qantas planes have 27,000 cycles, they are younger aircraft. I had explained this to Shane Carmody in an sms message on the morning of Thu 31/10/2019 but CASA kept repeating their incorrect messages.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had an interesting exchange with Friday morning with a member of the public. This guy is a confessed union opponent but seems to consider me a little different from most union leaders. That's probably because I am not Political, never been in a party and never want to be. It came after some events late Thu night. I had completed a BBC World Service radio interview discussing the two Qantas cracked aircraft. That night he had listened to it and sent me this -
So more than 12 hours after Qantas knew they had 2 cracked planes, they were trying to discredit my accounts by denying a second plane had cracks. Hopefully now some are starting to realise that Qantas are not exactly honest with things they have been saying in public.
So more than 12 hours after Qantas knew they had 2 cracked planes, they were trying to discredit my accounts by denying a second plane had cracks. Hopefully now some are starting to realise that Qantas are not exactly honest with things they have been saying in public.
It is very clear that all country regulators should act with FAA guidance, with a grain of salt. In the FAA current format.
FAA and Boeing still appear to have a very "protective of each other" cosy relationship.
One would consider that if aircraft have been found with cracking below the inspection cycle limit set by the FAA- the inspection cycle limit needs to be revised urgently.
The FAA were the last to ground the 737 MAX, other regulators made their own decision earlier.
No reason that CASA could not give a 15,000 cycle limit with another 7 day deadline to inspect - if no more cracks are found then great, leave it to upon reaching 15,000 cycles.
It is not a large cost (unless defect is found), increases the safety, no-brainier.
But like Boeing is to the FAA, Qantas is to CASA - what can possibly go wrong?
FAA and Boeing still appear to have a very "protective of each other" cosy relationship.
One would consider that if aircraft have been found with cracking below the inspection cycle limit set by the FAA- the inspection cycle limit needs to be revised urgently.
The FAA were the last to ground the 737 MAX, other regulators made their own decision earlier.
No reason that CASA could not give a 15,000 cycle limit with another 7 day deadline to inspect - if no more cracks are found then great, leave it to upon reaching 15,000 cycles.
It is not a large cost (unless defect is found), increases the safety, no-brainier.
But like Boeing is to the FAA, Qantas is to CASA - what can possibly go wrong?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fri 1/11/2019
The third cracked aircraft was found early in the morning. Qantas conducted further press including a conference at 10.30 where many of the same incorrect and/or misleading lines were repeated. Andrew David also had a pretty healthy stab at the rogue union person who was blowing out of proportion an issue that posed no safety concern. At that stage they had inspected 33 of 75 aircraft, all the ones over 22,600 cycles (refer AD) I really liked the first questions he was asked -
Why don't you check the other 42 aircraft? …….and after some waffle...….why don't you just check the other 42 aircraft, they one take an hour each...…..followed by more waffle. The waffle was technical in nature and incomprehensible to the reporters. What he basically said was that the AD only required inspections on aircraft over 22,600 cycles and that Qantas would not be going beyond the minimum number of checks required by the AD.
At that stage Qantas would have been well aware that the AD was written on the assumption that cracks were only developing on planes over 35,000 landings. They know their planes are cracking a lot earlier and they still will not lower the threshold for these checks to be undertaken. Calls that our statements to check the planes before they fly have been called irresponsible by Qantas and all those repeating the same PR lines.
These checks take one nominal hour to do. In reality experienced blokes can do the checks in 15 minutes with a torch and a rag. Grounding the other 42 planes to do the checks would not be onerous for the airline, they could be done by 42 Engineers (each day there are a couple of hundred rostered for duty) in one hour. Yet Qantas refuse to go beyond the number specified in what is now an outdated AD and continue to fly 42 planes not knowing if they are cracked or not, cracks that could lead to the loss of control of the airplane.
I'll sign off now with a couple of not so technical comments. I write this openly to you Guys and Gals who fly the planes with the intention of using the content in a notice to our members. I have a partner who I take my directives from, and like most of you I consider the directives from my partner, second to none. Earlier in this thread I was told to have some self respect and shave before going on tele. I can tell you I have been directed by number one, that I am not to shave and as such have not done so for 5 years.
cheers
Steve P
The third cracked aircraft was found early in the morning. Qantas conducted further press including a conference at 10.30 where many of the same incorrect and/or misleading lines were repeated. Andrew David also had a pretty healthy stab at the rogue union person who was blowing out of proportion an issue that posed no safety concern. At that stage they had inspected 33 of 75 aircraft, all the ones over 22,600 cycles (refer AD) I really liked the first questions he was asked -
Why don't you check the other 42 aircraft? …….and after some waffle...….why don't you just check the other 42 aircraft, they one take an hour each...…..followed by more waffle. The waffle was technical in nature and incomprehensible to the reporters. What he basically said was that the AD only required inspections on aircraft over 22,600 cycles and that Qantas would not be going beyond the minimum number of checks required by the AD.
At that stage Qantas would have been well aware that the AD was written on the assumption that cracks were only developing on planes over 35,000 landings. They know their planes are cracking a lot earlier and they still will not lower the threshold for these checks to be undertaken. Calls that our statements to check the planes before they fly have been called irresponsible by Qantas and all those repeating the same PR lines.
These checks take one nominal hour to do. In reality experienced blokes can do the checks in 15 minutes with a torch and a rag. Grounding the other 42 planes to do the checks would not be onerous for the airline, they could be done by 42 Engineers (each day there are a couple of hundred rostered for duty) in one hour. Yet Qantas refuse to go beyond the number specified in what is now an outdated AD and continue to fly 42 planes not knowing if they are cracked or not, cracks that could lead to the loss of control of the airplane.
I'll sign off now with a couple of not so technical comments. I write this openly to you Guys and Gals who fly the planes with the intention of using the content in a notice to our members. I have a partner who I take my directives from, and like most of you I consider the directives from my partner, second to none. Earlier in this thread I was told to have some self respect and shave before going on tele. I can tell you I have been directed by number one, that I am not to shave and as such have not done so for 5 years.
cheers
Steve P
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So....if you look for cracks, and they are found, the aircraft is ”grounded” due to safety concerns....but if you don’t look for cracks, that MAY be present..that is not a safety concern. Mmmm!!
Sounds like it could be a good script for Monty Python or Yes Minister!!
Sounds like it could be a good script for Monty Python or Yes Minister!!
Steve, couldn’t the Gingerbeers have a look during turnarounds? If it only takes a few minutes, I’d be more than happy for them to check my aircraft. If they find a crack, we get off.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other day an A380 diverted to Avalon. There was a repeated inspection on an MEL that required LAME certification every transit. The Melbourne LAMEs were called and asked if a LAME in Melbourne could certify for the inspection without going there. That is, sign it from 70km away. Welcome to our world.
As for looking at things like these cracks whilst we are in the vicinity, here are some examples of what happens.
1. Some years back, Sunstate LAMEs noted that the cockpit door locks (that keep you safe from knife wielding terrorists) could be opened with a paddle pop stick. The LAMEs snagged the defects. 7 LAMEs were stood down for 5 months because they reported an issue they weren't asked to look for. They had a work card that said to do a cabin inspection. According to Sunstate, you could only notice the lock issue if you had a card calling for a detailed cabin inspection. They all received first and final warnings for misconduct.
2. A transit check certified by a LAME used to be undertaken before every Qantas flight. They decided to drop the checks and make them daily (they are now every other day). The ALAEA issued a notice for members to continue doing the checks. We were taken to the FWC for unprotected action and the orders were issued.
3. The other example is current. A Qantaslink LAME currently stood down because he lodged a report stating that management told him he was not allowed to report 717 corrosion.
This is why we cannot check the other 42 aircraft without a specific card asking us to do so. Welcome to Qantas guys....oh I almost forgot.....safety is our number one priority.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wellington
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you got that last line wrong, it should be Executive Bonuses is our Number One Priority, followed by Schedule (because it affects our KPI's which affects our Bonuses, followed by Safety (because it affects our KPI's which affects our Bonuses)...
And to all the Engineers reading this thread..thank you from a 73 Line Driver, our trust in your work is, as always, total, our trust in Management..zero.
And to all the Engineers reading this thread..thank you from a 73 Line Driver, our trust in your work is, as always, total, our trust in Management..zero.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Judging by the photos that I have seen, cracks might well be visible to both the Engineer on a pre-flight or turn around, as well as the Pilot on his walk around.
And as far as the spin from both sides go, the truth seems to be somewhere in the middle. Seems to me that this was a great PR opportunity for QF that was completely bungled. If QF management think that they are all innocent and not responsible for this fiasco, they need to remember that being at war with one of their unions is a very bad look. A lesson they clearly missed in 2011.
And for those with personal attacks on Steve Purvinas, I would suggest you either grow a set of balls and use your real name on this forum, or keep your vile, gutless comments to yourself. Steve is using his real name, how about you do the same?
And as far as the spin from both sides go, the truth seems to be somewhere in the middle. Seems to me that this was a great PR opportunity for QF that was completely bungled. If QF management think that they are all innocent and not responsible for this fiasco, they need to remember that being at war with one of their unions is a very bad look. A lesson they clearly missed in 2011.
And for those with personal attacks on Steve Purvinas, I would suggest you either grow a set of balls and use your real name on this forum, or keep your vile, gutless comments to yourself. Steve is using his real name, how about you do the same?
So just to be clear, Steve, are you still calling for the immediate grounding of all 42 QF B737s that have not yet been inspected? What about Virgin? should they be immediately grounding their currently uninspected B737s?
Best regards,
Mick Gilbert
Best regards,
Mick Gilbert
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kudos Mick, for having the intestinal fortitude to use your real name. Lets hope others have the guts that you clearly have.
Given that the inspection only takes an hour, why should it be an issue? A company management wanting to promote a positive safety culture might even suggest that the best safety outcome would be to inspect every air frame, even one that has 10 cycles, let alone 22,600. Surely Joe public would react positively to that?
I know one thing for sure: Telling the world that your Engineers are irresponsible doesn't make your airline look good. Quite the opposite.
Rodney, the answer is absolutely Yes. Almost every engineer I have had anything to do with in Qantas has been outstanding with their professionalism, sharing their time, and sharing their knowledge. I doubt they'd ever hesitate to help.
So just to be clear, Steve, are you still calling for the immediate grounding of all 42 QF B737s that have not yet been inspected? What about Virgin? should they be immediately grounding their currently uninspected B737s?
I know one thing for sure: Telling the world that your Engineers are irresponsible doesn't make your airline look good. Quite the opposite.
If pilots are in any doubt, can they ask an engineer to show them what to look for?
Have you seen Boeing's Recommended Inspection Procedure? Without a boroscope the likelihood of even seeing the base of the frame fittings and failsafe straps would be zero. Even with the aid of a boroscope with a 1.5m extension you've still got to thread it past a wiring bundle on the RHS and behind a hydraulic fitting on the LHS.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mick, I'm a pilot. You're speaking Swahili! I will admit to not having read the procedure. There is a suggestion that it takes an hour, requires a torch and a rag? Is this not the case? Others above have questioned this very point, without much of a reaction.
The photo's that I have seen are taken in the wheel well, and the pickle forks can be clearly viewed, along with the cracks? It has been a number of years since I flew the maggot, but it seems straight forward?
Even with the boroscope method you mention, if it takes even two or three hours, wouldn't that be worth it?
The photo's that I have seen are taken in the wheel well, and the pickle forks can be clearly viewed, along with the cracks? It has been a number of years since I flew the maggot, but it seems straight forward?
Even with the boroscope method you mention, if it takes even two or three hours, wouldn't that be worth it?
The ALAEA would/could do far better if they had the build up of fighting experience to then take on the "champions".
They seem to choose to neglect that path and in process make the champion stronger.
Going for a knockout is not a good strategy - work the body so the legs are weak.
Many of us sit in the back ground waiting for a reply/proper action from the ALAEA (about 2 years+ or so now) - on simple wining cases, but still out of pocket - I've been busy the reply.
I have heard a number of members are about to cancel membership due inaction.
A public response is welcome, as several members have made complains and no change has been had.
If this is a QANTAS LAME UNION please just let us know.
They seem to choose to neglect that path and in process make the champion stronger.
Going for a knockout is not a good strategy - work the body so the legs are weak.
Many of us sit in the back ground waiting for a reply/proper action from the ALAEA (about 2 years+ or so now) - on simple wining cases, but still out of pocket - I've been busy the reply.
I have heard a number of members are about to cancel membership due inaction.
A public response is welcome, as several members have made complains and no change has been had.
If this is a QANTAS LAME UNION please just let us know.
No, that was English. This is Swahili:
Here it is.
An hour is what the AD says but as to just a torch and a rag, that would be largely bullsh!t unless the MLG removed is removed and you have a work platform.
I don't know what photos you've seen but what are the chances they were either taken using a boroscope or of an aircraft that had been stripped down for a C or D Check?
Just to be clear, I may have mentioned the method but it's Boeing's Recommended Inspection Procedure.
You were talking about engineers and pilots doing this as part of the walk around, weren't you? It was the practicalities of performing the inspection as part of that that I was querying.
Je! Umeona Utaratibu wa ukaguzi wa Boeing uliopendekezwa? Bila boroscope uwezekano wa hata kuona msingi wa vifaa vya uzio na kamba dhaifu inaweza kuwa sifuri. Hata kwa msaada wa boroscope iliyo na upanuzi wa 1.5m bado unaweza kuibadilisha kifungu cha waya kwenye RHS na nyuma ya usawa wa majimaji kwenye LHS.
You were talking about engineers and pilots doing this as part of the walk around, weren't you? It was the practicalities of performing the inspection as part of that that I was querying.
Last edited by MickG0105; 2nd Nov 2019 at 09:57. Reason: Additional info re time to complete
