Another day, another QF incident
Didn’t think QF had many modern aircraft. Still operating Years old A330 and tired old B737s.
Where are the 330 NEO/A350/ A321 NEO , or even new B737s?
Bit late in the ordering queue!
Where are the 330 NEO/A350/ A321 NEO , or even new B737s?
Bit late in the ordering queue!
The basic question that first needs to be asked at Qantas is “Are we seeing a trend here?”. Fortunately there is a definitive way of answering this question that is not subject to bar or Board room debate; that method is statistical process control. I would be very surprised if QF was not recording the number of occurrences (doesn’t matter how severe or not) by fleet, as well as probably by ATA Chapter and possibly even finer classifications. For each classification one calculates say monthlly averages as well as standard deviation using the normal distribution.
By definition, plus or minus three standard deviations covers 99.95% of averages. If the number of occurrences falls outside average plus 3 X standard devs, then you can be 99.95% sure that “something” has happened to your performance. Inside three standard deviations you can consign the peaks and troughs to “noise”.
Once you have determined that “something” has happened to your performance, then of course it is then, and only then, that you can start debating and investigativng what it is that has changed. Until you have done this statistical test, you are just speculating.
I would be very surprised if Qantas did NOT have a very. sophisticated system that tracks and evaluates occurrences this way right across each fleet. I would also expect that a summary of the monthly output from such monitoring systems was not routinely shared with CASA and ATSB, as the stuff I generated for Ansett was in the 1970’s.
‘’If QF, ATSB or CASA do not already have this data and associated tools and already know the answer about. these occurrences then God help us.
https://asq.org/quality-resources/st...rocess-control
* The website is wrong about the history of SPC, it goes back to the first world war and torpedo production problems.
By definition, plus or minus three standard deviations covers 99.95% of averages. If the number of occurrences falls outside average plus 3 X standard devs, then you can be 99.95% sure that “something” has happened to your performance. Inside three standard deviations you can consign the peaks and troughs to “noise”.
Once you have determined that “something” has happened to your performance, then of course it is then, and only then, that you can start debating and investigativng what it is that has changed. Until you have done this statistical test, you are just speculating.
I would be very surprised if Qantas did NOT have a very. sophisticated system that tracks and evaluates occurrences this way right across each fleet. I would also expect that a summary of the monthly output from such monitoring systems was not routinely shared with CASA and ATSB, as the stuff I generated for Ansett was in the 1970’s.
‘’If QF, ATSB or CASA do not already have this data and associated tools and already know the answer about. these occurrences then God help us.
https://asq.org/quality-resources/st...rocess-control
* The website is wrong about the history of SPC, it goes back to the first world war and torpedo production problems.
I have heard from a contact within the ATSB that there are basically no investigators with any real experience beyond light singles and a human factors degree. I wouldn’t hold my breath with regard to a thorough investigation. The trend may not be anything more than an unlucky set of coincidences…I’ll leave it at that.
That said more immediate frequency of occurrences can also highlight an issue that may not immediately come to light within some longer term statistical calcs. One would hope that the system in use is capable of at least raising a flag should there be a marked short-term increase in frequency (or location/source) of events.
Aside from that I'm not sure I quite agree with what I read as the inference from the above comment. Experience in light singles + HF degree does not necessarily mean a less than thorough investigation. While I have no idea how your ATSB is run I'd expect that a good manager would contract in appropriate experience on specific matters where it was lacking in house, and that a competent person with the aforementioned qualifications could make a good fist of utlising that experience and/or results within an investigation.
FP.
The following users liked this post:
Not-very-bright Australian journalism getting a global airing on the Jet Blast forum:
https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/650...e-land-oz.html
https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/650...e-land-oz.html
Do you have any statistical data of this “trend, compared to post Covid or worldwide rates?
Usually we don’t call something a trend until we see the numbers actually indicating that.
Qantas calls for calm after engine failure and three flight turnbacks
There are more than 10,000 “turnbacks” across the aviation industry every year, with Australia’s largest carrier Qantas averaging 60.
So QF averages a “turnback” every 6 days. What’s the latest trend for the month, the last 3 months etc? Will there be more for the last 12 months than next?
It’s why you can’t rely on tabloid media for statistical safety trends.
Usually we don’t call something a trend until we see the numbers actually indicating that.
Qantas calls for calm after engine failure and three flight turnbacks
There are more than 10,000 “turnbacks” across the aviation industry every year, with Australia’s largest carrier Qantas averaging 60.
So QF averages a “turnback” every 6 days. What’s the latest trend for the month, the last 3 months etc? Will there be more for the last 12 months than next?
It’s why you can’t rely on tabloid media for statistical safety trends.
Again as I said before from what I have seen with my own eyes the media reports are barely the tip of the events, most have gone by un-noticed seemingly by everyone except those who have witnessed them.
I would be very surprised if Qantas did NOT have a very. sophisticated system that tracks and evaluates occurrences this way right across each fleet. I would also expect that a summary of the monthly output from such monitoring systems was not routinely shared with CASA and ATSB, as the stuff I generated for Ansett was in the 1970’s.
Yep. The recent invention of ATSB’s ‘long standing’ policy not to investigate mid-air collisions of the kind near Gympie in late 2022 was not the product of an unwillingness of government to fund investigations. It was the product of ATSB’s inability to attract and keep the people it needs to do timely and expert investigations of even the incidents ATSB says are its priority.
Yet another reason to pray even harder for no VH-registered RPT hull loss and that this week has been a random group of unrelated, non-systemic events.
Yet another reason to pray even harder for no VH-registered RPT hull loss and that this week has been a random group of unrelated, non-systemic events.
VA, Rex and the other airlines non QF group are being investigated for engine failures and they have internal procedures, why is QF group removed from external scrutiny? I think the ATSB needs to bring back a short list of all events, regardless of whether they are investigating so that we as the public can judge ourselves. As it is now we have seen a number of turnbacks and engine failures and no one can scrutinize whether or not there is a trend or not, other than the the ones that could be intentionally running at a higher risk. Then you ask how can you claim the mantle of safest operator when you have no transparency of incidents for outsiders to compare with other airlines.
It’s one thing to have the data gathering system and the data at hand, it's another to act on that data and respond appropriately. Right now there is a turf war going on for QF to maintain its 60% market line in the sand, which requires all available aircraft and crew doing probably more than the system can handle, the result is more engineering issues.
Unfortunately I sniff corruption with the current system of reporting.
It’s one thing to have the data gathering system and the data at hand, it's another to act on that data and respond appropriately. Right now there is a turf war going on for QF to maintain its 60% market line in the sand, which requires all available aircraft and crew doing probably more than the system can handle, the result is more engineering issues.
Unfortunately I sniff corruption with the current system of reporting.
You have a tiny dataset based on rumours and hearsay. You have no idea how many incidents are being reported by Qantas or any other airline in this country. You have no insight into why the ATSB are investigating one occurrence and not another. You are cobbling together a few stories you’ve heard into a vast corrupt ATSB/Qantas conspiracy with no proof whatsoever.
Why aren’t you clamouring for VA and Rex to publicly publish all their reportable incidents? I thought you wanted transparency? Only from Qantas eh?
As for “claiming the mantle of safest operator”, just because some stupid website puts them on top of an arbitrary list does not make it a claim by Qantas.
And on the 737 (current focus of media attention) they are certainly not “requiring all crew and aircraft to do more than they can handle”. Capacity is still below pre-COVID hours and pilot divisors are well down, possibly too low.
Most professional pilots understand the issues currently in the news occur nearly every day of the year. In a large fleet it is statistically inevitable and just part of running an airline. Every few years an event thrusts an occurrence into the media spotlight and for the following week(s) every minor event gets heightened attention. Most pilots see the folly of this sensationalist reporting, but evidently some jump on this bandwagon to push their own gripes.
Actually I haven't said that VA and Rex should not be open as well, I said they appear on the ATSB site for such events. The rumor and heresay I'm presenting is first hand from my own eyes and ears, as I have pointed out already. I have many mates in the industry and hear whenever there is an air return, failure or such as well as being present for many due to my work.
The plain fact is QF group incidents and such, especially engine failures are not open to the public, the ATSB does not publish any account of these let alone investigate them, yet the airline claims it is the safest.
What I'm calling for is that all events be listed on the ATSB website, QF, VA, Rex whatever. Then we can really see what trends are happening. This used to be the case, but now appears that everything is hidden within each companies safety system, which can be effectively hidden until one has a spectacular ending.
Right now I KNOW of 10 engine failure events at QF group that happened in the last 12 months and rumors of more, none of which have any public listing. The 717 events all seam to be consistent issues of hot section failures, so a trend. I know QLink Dash 8s had a torrid run most of last year due to schedule overload and lack of parts, which ended up in a few incidents. I'm not going to divulge the individual sources, but we'll just say I know people everywhere, and may even work for some of said companies.
I used to work for an industry magazine, ratings are usually not independent rather a result of corporate interactions. Most of the awards you see issued to companies in insurance etc etc are not genuine, but paid for in some way, even the magazine might be linked to the company it awards. Its how these groups run websites and magazines and make a profit. By the way the chief editor of Airlineratings.com is none other than GT.
The plain fact is QF group incidents and such, especially engine failures are not open to the public, the ATSB does not publish any account of these let alone investigate them, yet the airline claims it is the safest.
What I'm calling for is that all events be listed on the ATSB website, QF, VA, Rex whatever. Then we can really see what trends are happening. This used to be the case, but now appears that everything is hidden within each companies safety system, which can be effectively hidden until one has a spectacular ending.
Right now I KNOW of 10 engine failure events at QF group that happened in the last 12 months and rumors of more, none of which have any public listing. The 717 events all seam to be consistent issues of hot section failures, so a trend. I know QLink Dash 8s had a torrid run most of last year due to schedule overload and lack of parts, which ended up in a few incidents. I'm not going to divulge the individual sources, but we'll just say I know people everywhere, and may even work for some of said companies.
As for “claiming the mantle of safest operator”, just because some stupid website puts them on top of an arbitrary list does not make it a claim by Qantas.
Last edited by 43Inches; 21st Jan 2023 at 23:11.
The plain fact is QF group incidents and such, especially engine failures are not open to the public
yet the airline claims it is the safest.
What I'm calling for is that all events be listed on the ATSB website, QF, VA, Rex whatever.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...rt/ao-2023-007
The point was made earlier that failures that make sensational headlines seem to get investigated, even if its less of an event than others. The dash 8 brake fire being one that had no investigation until it garnered a lot of media attention.
The following users liked this post: