Qantas ground 6 x B737-400's
 

Issued by Qantas Corporate Communication (3802)

Who didn't see this coming?

Its a paperwork / compliance problem concerning mods to the Sta 178 bulkhead. A quite complex 100 plus page modification, it appears a certain part of the modification may not have been completed because it was not called up in the original paperwork.

Unfortunately, the media will have a field day with this..............

So why shouldn't the press have a field day with this one?

Here we have an airline who imports a wagon load of ex Ansett Engineering Managers who have already helped bring down one airline and they are trying to implement the same cost saving models at QF. The system has failed bloke.

6 planes may be on the ground safely tonight but what else have they stuffed up that we don't know about?

Regardless if the media have a field day or not, it is a non compliance and there is a problem, and I can guarantee there will be more! Management have delayed it for a few months now it comes back to bite!! Sad but true those goons should not even have a sniff of a bonus because of what is going on..... I wish! ^^;

It sure is a problem if it's a non-compliance. You'd expect theat CASA would have picked up something like this earlier on during all of the surveillance that it's supposed to have been conducting on QF according to its media spokesperson.

Another example of why things at both QF and CASA need to be changed so that they work as advertised for shareholders, SLF, and last but not least, Australian taxpayers. :ugh:

The problem is that QF is monitoring CASA - it should be the other way round.:ugh:

Isn't this how the Ansett disaster started??

I am guessing with the tone, you were not accepted by Qantas?

No not really, AN were in a bad shape [Thanks to AirNZ] before CASA grounded the 767-200's

Was CASA playing a part in Ansett's demise, ABSOLUTELY! - we couldn't see the Red Kangaroo go bust could we?

Im with you skystar poor Qantas watch everyone jump up in support of the red rat. At least they didnt have the whole 767 fleet grounded on good friday!
A few small jets on a tuesday night wont hurt as much as the media beat up.
About time CASA did thier job to the same standard thay applied to An years ago.
Serves them right!

You can't blame engineers for more than $1 billion in liabilities (excluding employee entitlements) that Ansett had on collapse. Ansett owed over $500 million to two banks, and a similar amount to trade suppliers.

Teal,

I agree though AirNZ played a part in putting massive amounts of bills through AN's accounts.

However this is a thread about Qantas not Ansett....

What a pity we can't blame MAS for this one.:rolleyes:

Not really. Now QF management can't pass the buck. They have to be held accountable.

Within the safety culture of most airlines, admitting a mistake publicly and taking the blame is a sign of strength..not weakness!

QF should be congratulated on their culture and humility and not dragged through the weekly beatings of PPrune on this one. I'm sure we can all learn a lot from this mistake and be better prepared to be even more careful with our paperwork and regulatory compliance.

No; I don't work for QF, but I still love the airline.

Hey Guys....

This whole thing is created to publicly see the resolve of QF, to smooth the bumps of the past couple of very public 'incidents'.

Just to 'show' that someone is home at QF...which may or may not be true, especially with this specific manager.

Now we've all seen that QF is still 'caring' about safety of it's pax, we can now rest easy riding in their airplanes!!

At least that's the intent of the underlying message!!

Cheers...FD...:)

Wonder if they knew about this and have been sitting on it since say......about Easter!!

I think Casa have communicated to QF that they will move and QF have jumped in before to save as much face as is possible.

My question is how long have they known and how many people have been put at risk in aircraft with unknown safety standards?
What else is wrong with their maintenance?
How can Casa be sure that the company is complying and that it is safe to carry passengers?This compliance is a requirement of their AOC.
Surely Casa must take steps to ensure total compliance via a complete survey of their maintenance.
What happens to the AOC in the meantime?
If there is an accident ( sorry no accidents on QF ,just incidents...sometimes) and there is injury or loss of life due to proven suspect maintenance standard, what will the insurers and courts say?

So, bits fall off aircraft, it's ok
Electrical Problems, it's the cabin crew pouring water or coffee ( You'll know that's crap if you ever tried to get a cup of coffee on a QF flight)
Holes in planes....?
Subcontract maint probs .... not our fault. Do we really need to check it's done?

OOOHH! ...A paper discrepancy....what should we do? Ummm?...dunno....oh, that's right we ground the aircraft...just in case something ever happens.


Does Skytraks include safety in their surveys?

The "Red Rat" is a good title

Forgot to add that this would be a perfect opportunity to scrap the 737s and move the services to ....Jetstar!
More than a maint problem solved!

Nothing to do with safety, (unless an oxygen cylinder lets go and you have a pressure spike that compromises the bulkhead) but that almost never ever happens, so how could it be a safety issue?:ugh:

Not a safety issue. No it never is David when your bonus is at stake but what do FAA say about this particular mod (FAA AD 2001-02-01 Amdt 39-12085).

That was in 2001.

As being reported in Airline Transport World

Beleaguered Qantas withdraws six 737s over paperwork 'irregularity'

Wednesday August 13, 2008

Qantas's safety record likely will fall under further scrutiny after it announced the withdrawal of six 737-400s from service while it cross-checked maintenance records relating to modification work carried out in one of its Australian facilities.

Qantas Engineering Executive GM David Cox said the issue was one of procedure and there were no safety implications. "Qantas discovered an irregularity with paperwork for these aircraft during an internal integrity check of maintenance records," he said. "In line with our prudent response to any maintenance issue, however minor, we have elected to suspend the operation of the six aircraft while we ensure all our records are 100% accurate and we have advised the Civil Aviation Safety Authority."

Cox confirmed that staff "regularly check our records and detect a record-keeping anomaly on average once a year." The latest hiccup comes during a special audit by Australia's aviation safety regulator that was prompted by a series of incidents involving the carrier (ATWOnline, Aug. 12).

by Geoffrey Thomas

Unheeded Lessons from ANSETT Debacle
 

Perhaps QANTAS neglected to learn the lessons spelled out by ATSB’s investigation into the Ansett debacle - http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2002/sir200211_001.aspx.
In particular concerning resource allocation and workload issues:
“Deficiencies in the Ansett engineering and maintenance organisation
The ATSB investigation found that similar deficiencies within the Ansett engineering and maintenance organisation led to the withdrawal from service of the B767 aircraft in December 2000 and April 2001. Those deficiencies were related to:

• organisational structure and change management
• systems for managing work processes and tasks
• resource allocation and workload.

However, the investigation found no evidence to suggest that Ansett had deliberately breached airworthiness regulations.
Ansett had undergone considerable change over a number of years. Many of the Ansett systems had developed at a time when the company faced a very different aviation environment. Over time, efficiency measures were introduced to improve productivity but the introduction of modern robust systems did not keep pace with the relative reduction in human resources and loss of corporate knowledge.
Risk management and implementation of change within the Ansett engineering and maintenance organisation were flawed. Inadequate allowance was made for the extra demand on resources in some key areas during the change period.
The Ansett fleet was diverse and the point had been reached where some essential aircraft support programs were largely dependent on one or two people. Hence it was possible for an error or omission by a particular specialist to go undetected for a number of years.
Resource allocation and workload issues had been evident within some areas of the Ansett engineering and maintenance organisation for a considerable period of time. The investigation found that measures aimed at achieving greater productivity had been introduced throughout the organisation without sufficient regard to the different circumstances and criticality of the different work areas. Insufficient consideration had been given to the possible consequences of resource constraints on the core activities of some safety-critical areas of the organisation.
People and robust systems are two of the prime defences against error. Therefore, a combination of poor systems and inadequate resources has the potential to compromise safety. If a failure by one or two individuals can result in a failure of the system as a whole, then the underlying problem is a deficient system, not simply human fallibility.”
Read too what ATSB says about CASA deficiencies in Chapter 7 of their investigation report. Not much seems to have improved.

Yes,that's why qantas removed them from service.......because it wasn't a safety issue. Huh? That makes sense doesn't it?
Of course you are going to pull your aircraft from revenue service because it is not a safety issue.
At least if you are going to tell bull:mad:, make it a little believable.

casa spokesman or qf spokesman?
 

Why is it that a certain CASA spokesman appears to be more batting for QF everytime there's an issue?
Could be wrong but the impression is there and it does not look good imho even if they are just re-assuring the public.

I'm sure there are some ex-AN people working at Qantas scratching their heads thinking, am I in the twilight zone or something?

But more to the point. It's nice to see that Tullamarine Heavy are not perfect either. They are very quick to point out when someone at Avalon makes a mistake and what a blight on the engineering world those Forstaff Contractors are.

Karma perhaps? :ouch:

Hey Ampclamp,

I have noticed that too - every time I hear from that particular CASA spokes person he is towing the QF line and making obviously reassuring and sickly sweet positive statements.

I want a regulator that is manned by people who are standing up for the public's interest, rather than that of the airline.

I want to hear "CASA will do everything to ensure that Qantas maintains standards to guarantee the safety of the public"

rather than the standard "we are sure it's all good even though it doesn't look that way"

In a small industry where your next potential employer after CASA is Qantas then who would dare offend the red rat ?

to torqeman
 

Oh there are plenty of ex AN folks at qf and they are shaking their heads.
Their stories have a bit of deja vu about them now.

The reaction of the regulator is somewhat different in this spacial dimension !

It does not matter where the eng managers come from they need to to be able to say no to these people running the show.Unfortunately if you do say no it cant be done they'll find another up and comer who'll say yes to anything and around the circle we go again and again.

At least when BD left I heard he told them they could not do it (cut tens of millions out of QE) without stuffing it up. Looking like he maybe right.

CASA spokesperson on SBS news tonight stating that the AD had hundreds on pages and it was a small oversight that could easly have been made.

WHAT THA!

Sorry I missed the "OUTFLOW VALVE CLOSE" part of my QRH RECALLS and totally F%^KED up my memory items. I could imagine CASA stating that it was a small oversight in the hundreds of pages the pilots have to read through.

This countries Airline Industry has lost the plot. We have self regulation, a massive shortage of Airtraffic Controllers, a shortage of engineers, rapid and dangerous cost cutting, a media that has become sensationalist, baggage handlers doing push backs, what is next? I hate to think. Hope its not on my watch!:bored::ouch::ouch::ouch:

Torqueman, are you one of the AVV that was slagged ? it seems so
An AD and it's subsequent paperwork is driven not by LAMEs but Maint. Services the LAMEs just follow the paperwork they are given, I suspect there will be a fallguy in all of this and guess what ?
He won't be a LAME !

Don't the LAMEs read the AD.That is part their job.

It appears that someone is not doing his job by not reading the paper work for the job and that included the reading AD.

At least the system for catching this kind of ovesight works.

No, LAME's don't get to read the AD (at QF anyway). They are provided with an Engineering Instruction that engineering produce under their car 35 instrument and carry out the EI that is derived from the AD or Service Bulletin.

Standards, standards and pro-active Quality Assurance Audits are the only way. All of these to be performed by an external agency (not QF, not CASA), if QF values it's ISO accreditation, then it has to learn to 'SUCK EGGS' just like me Granny did!

April 2001


Doesn't this all sound too familiar

Ozaub:

= they gutted the maintenance planning department and got rid of type specialists as well, as I understand it.

These were very senior ex Lames who knew each aircraft type intimately, read and pondered each AD and possible mod., and then decided what would be done by whom, with what and when, all presided over by the very capable, funny and Gentlemanly, LH.

My observation is that the money these intelligent Gentlemen saved AN over the years vastly outweighed their salaries many times over. For some of them , I spent many pleasant hours forensically examining IPC's, tracking down pathways of mods to save older spares. But of course all a new manager could see would be old farts sitting in cubicles pushing paper.

Ultimately the loss of these few fine men cost the airline it's AOC and it's life in my opinion.

But that was back in another world.

It doesn't take a highly paid bureaucrat to know by now that self regulation just does not work.
Self regulation is an oxymoron. You would think, that the times it has been proven not to work, it would have been a historically know, but these people just know better.
CASA has passed the ball to the airlines, but they missed the catch and it is fast moving to the outer.

Basically CASA has to tow the line. Reason being: The knowledge and experience level in QF far supercedes any that is available at CASA.

CASA dictating to QF is like the school child chastising the Teacher.

Ridiculous.

A Qantas spokesman confirmed there was an issue involving the lubrication of a jack screw on a Boeing 747-400.

"Qantas found this through a routine check of our maintenance records," the spokesman said.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...46-421,00.html

another damned once in a year anomaly?

I like this article more for the way SP calls a spade a spade. He's never been one to mix his words and wears his heart on his sleeve (unlike QF management)

Turmoil for Qantas as aircraft grounded - Travel - smh.com.au



Dont hold back Steve...Tell 'em what you really think! :ok:

From The Age website:

Found that quite amusing at a time when customers are starting to question their choice of Qantas as the safer alternative. To paraphrase: "Acutally, we're always having issues - you just don't normally find out about them".

Hmmmm..........UTR

UTH: I think he is referring to how the media is constantly looking for minor incidents and finding them, and referring to them as major failures (which could cause an aircraft to crash, even if it's the seatbelt lights not working)