QF Air Turnback - QE Engineering
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF Air Turnback - QE Engineering
I find this one interesting. Qantas Engineering going 'above' the manufactures maintenance recommendations in what I presume was Qantas being 'proactive' and as a result, created a problem that led to an engine mishap. Worse part - Qantas did not inform GE of their practices which seems very odd to me i.e. to confirm if these practices would introduce new issues...
News: Engine surge and vibrations
News: Engine surge and vibrations
Moderator
Caveat - I have no specific knowledge of the referenced matter.
Generally, an operator will run an NTO (No Technical Objection) request by the OEM before implementing a local protocol. If the OEM has a concern, that should be identified back to the operator. If not, the OEM generally will issue an NTO relating to the request.
It may be that the OEM didn't have all the story and made an inadequate call or that the operator didn't go through the usual processes - I would be surprised if that were the case for QF.
Generally, an operator will run an NTO (No Technical Objection) request by the OEM before implementing a local protocol. If the OEM has a concern, that should be identified back to the operator. If not, the OEM generally will issue an NTO relating to the request.
It may be that the OEM didn't have all the story and made an inadequate call or that the operator didn't go through the usual processes - I would be surprised if that were the case for QF.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Idlewild Peake
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the report - " They sought clarification from the engine manufacturer prior to the occurrence, regarding the suitability of individual replacement, but reported they had not received a response."
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've finally read the whole report.
From the ATSB News article in Post #1:
No, it didn't!
What a shocking article.
The investigation found that the operator's proactive replacement of worn bushings had NOTHING to do with the engine incident, as no bushings on that engine had been replaced.
In fact, the ATSB have no idea what caused the incident, nor do they have any idea what caused an identical incident the previous year.
The ATSB went on to criticise the operator for replacing worn bushings, on the grounds that if worn bushings were replaced, the operator would never know when they had reached the 50% threshold of worn bushings required for replacement of a complete set.
Unless, of course, the operator kept a record of bushing replacements...
From the ATSB News article in Post #1:
An operator’s proactive replacement of worn bushings inadvertently contributed to an Airbus A330’s engine experiencing excessive vibration, an ATSB investigation found.
What a shocking article.
The investigation found that the operator's proactive replacement of worn bushings had NOTHING to do with the engine incident, as no bushings on that engine had been replaced.
In fact, the ATSB have no idea what caused the incident, nor do they have any idea what caused an identical incident the previous year.
The ATSB went on to criticise the operator for replacing worn bushings, on the grounds that if worn bushings were replaced, the operator would never know when they had reached the 50% threshold of worn bushings required for replacement of a complete set.
Unless, of course, the operator kept a record of bushing replacements...
