Because SIA pass their aircraft on before they get too old, plus luck.

Qantas identified that SIAEC were not a high quality facility, but they had already tied their hands behing their backs by closing their most experienced and efficient 747 maintenance facility, and had nowher else to go. They F**ked themselves.

CASA looked at SIAEC but were more interested in the attractions of Singapore than the maintenance facilities and thus gave them the green light for a CAR 30 approval.

What will come out in the end is that no one in the world does the same quality aircraft maintenance as Australian engineers in an Australian facility when it is being run by competent people for tyhe same price. (Avalon is on the border, but the engineers are doing their best in the circumstances).

drpepz, it isn't about a race to see who can have the most accidents

Are you disputing the ALAEA findings or just wishing to deflect attention?

"Some of you dudes out there need to wake up" . . . . and start seeing how much politics is involved in this. Some of you “dudes” need to stop being so naive and start competing on the world stage.

yes your right professor. We should lower Australian standards in order to compete on the world stage.

Correct me if I am wrong. Despite very high Australian standards, Qantas made record profits a few years ago as did SIA but have actually continued to make a profit in the more recent harder times whereas SIA didn't.

So what are you suggesting? We lower standards so we can make a loss as well.

Wake up man.

Competing globally is a myth designed to fool you into accepting less and it works. It is the business model and not maintenance standards that will keep you in a job. Maintain your high standards and the business model will adapt.

Lower your standards and you are on a slippery path to job centre. Its only a question of when.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh: there is one born every minute

The point being if you would open yours eyes enough to view the end of your own nose is that cutting corners gets you nowhere. It won't make the difference between surviving, competing or not.

You actually place an operation at greater risk by trying to be clever and cutting corners because its only a matter of time before

a) something terrible happens or
b) somebody blows the whistle

The main reason operators get away with this nonsense is because NAIVE individuals thinking they are in some way assisting the company. Or maybe they are just egoists wanting promotion, I don't know and don't care.

Wake up for christs sake.

Hey funny one a question just for you
 

The crux of this thread is the length CASA went to to stop an FOI application into their audit of overseas facilities.
Now as the airline's own QA audit found many issues why did CASA give a great big tick?
Secondly, why does CASA continue to spend untold taxpayers' money and not come clean?

Ahhh..... the old "you're a racist" ploy in an attempt to shut down any debate.

hcmcmcclown, rather than personal attacks rowards Mr Safety concerns, how about you provide some worthwhile ideas as to how we can "compete on the world stage" as The Professor put it.

No, what he is suggesting is that Qantas has continued to be profitable without lowering standards.

Without a doubt, a stooge.

:ok:

I'm not even interested in his ideas on how we can "compete on the world stage".... if any ideas were to float above the rhetoric he posts.

All I can say is that both CASA and Qantas have a lot to answer for...........

Safety Concerns,

Sadly, it is rather a leap of faith to assume that Australian "standards" are higher than other aviation significant countries.

In my travels, I see far too many examples of just the opposite, particularly compared with general standards in NZ, Canada, US, and western Europe, with many CIS countries rapidly catching up.

In my considered opinion, training standards for LAMEs have reached lamentable levels, with "face to face" teaching time being about 30% below US levels for an A&P, and only about half the usual western European time --- and this is becoming obvious in a decreasing breadth of competencies in Australia.

We should be looking at upping our standards, so we don't get left behind.

Tootle pip!!

Agree fully with the last post.

If we don't invest in LAME skills we will all be left behind, not just the LAME's.

MP

leadsled.Could not agree more.
I do think there is a crisis coming with lack of expertise in LAME land.

The good ol days are gone.We did have exceptionally high standards and levels of training across the workforce.Fewer people are now trained in fewer courses.
Too much is now done by remote control where you sit comatose in front of a monitor ticking boxes.When boxes are ticked everyone is happy but you are none the wiser.
Having been in the game for 30+ years across a wide variety of employers and workplaces I do think standards have dropped.
Also, aviation is having trouble attracting the young people to maintenance it used to.If you want a hi tech job with a career path aviation aint the way to go.The opportunities for meaningful advancement are so limited and your qualifications mean jack in the world outside where employer choice has dropped markedly.

You've got my vote!

The notion that only Australian engineers can maintain an aircraft to a safe standard is completely unrealistic. Australian LAME's commit maintenance errors and take short cuts just like any other group of their peers. In Melbourne HM (to cite one example) the reality was that maintenance errors were simply being picked up and rectified without any investigation or notification - 2 MEDAs in a three year period bears witness to that. The ALAEA is simply beating the safety drum to wage an indutsrial campaign.

The real longer term issue is the declining and aging LAME workforce which is a demographic time bomb for the industry. Average age of a QF LAME is around the 50 mark. Systems of working, certification, licensing and training will all have to change in a world with less people and lower skill levels.

nutrageous
 

Who said ONLY Australian engineers can maintain aircraft?:)

The ALAEA represents the interests of those who pay their dues and Steve Purvinas is employed to beat that drum. Of course he wants more, better paid jobs in Australia and if that means pointing out stuff ups from overseas so be it.

Mind you there is a culture of arrogance with some people at QF [who are wankers] & think that everything QF is gold.It aint as you point out.

If it means pointing out that training [or lack there of] poor management etc is causing safety issues he will also jump on that issue.They will not publicly criticise their own members unless it is a really big one I'm sure.
Management never admit wrong doing but take all credit for the good times. No point in LAMEs shooting their own people.

The average age of LAMEs is getting ridiculously old.On that we agree 100%. The next gen down from the 50 yo is about 35 and stuff all behind them.Training needs to be done now and widespread.The young ones need to be in the hands of the experienced hands before they shoot through with the next VR or just retire.:(

The real issue is the lack of any regulatory oversight from CASA - hence the story and FOI applications.

The facts of lack of training in all forms and LAME demographics are points that any realist in the industry will readily agree with.

I re-iterate this thread is about the accuracy of CASA audits and the lengths they are prepared to go to prevent public scrutiny - it appears to reveal the true effectiveness of our regulatory body. Now that is food for thought!

We are digressing here or purposefully being led there.

Without sounding aloof, but generally speaking, the standard of aircraft maintenance in AUS is way better than that of Asian MRO's. This is a fact, if you dispute this, you are either blind or ignorant or both.

Racism has nothing to do with any of this. Training, culture, facilities, tooling, resources, logistics, support etc etc and even regulation are the reasons for it.

AUDIT (in part)--The goal of an audit is to express an opinion on the person / organization / system (etc) in question, under evaluation based on work done on a test basis. Due to practical constraints, an audit seeks to provide only reasonable assurance that the statements are free from material error.
There is no gaurentee that an audit by CASA is going to unveil all of an operators deficiencies.The same applies to an operators internal audit process.

The reality is this : There are elements of all operators,CASA,the government and every other aviation alligned entity which are crap ! So stop finger pointing and how about everybody accept their own personal responsibility.

good point gobbledock.
qantas have accepted for their part and moved some maintenance home having found some issues.
Where is casa's mea culpa?

I have been coming here for sometime but after reading this thread I had to join in. As someone with 20 years experience in the industry I cannot believe how this subject, is subject to abuse from those who are directly affected by it.
The aviation industry is no longer what it was, I feel sure we all agree on that. So when someone and it doesn't matter who it is raises an issue, why do those in the industry (accepted its a forum and we have no idea who is posting) fail to pull in one direction. The opinions here are in all directions somewhat like a cluster bomb. It seems to me that if the general consensus is industry is going downhill, why don't you support those who are attempting to push it back up the hill? The subject matter is actually irrelevant in my opinion as long as the overall movement is back up the hill and not further down. Isn't it?