Flying Blind story- CASA & Qantas maintenance investigation
 

The Today Tonight investigation continues.
Unfortunately the video is only available on the TT website video archive, follow this link, click through to the Flying Blind story.

And here I was more concerned about flying domestic US legacy airlines :uhoh:

My server wouldn't deliver the link. Would some kind soul please post a summary?

Well, what a surprise - not!

I've often said that the travelling public is more that happy to travel on an aircraft for bus fare, because they believe that the regulator will ensure their safety.

And I have also said that thay have no idea that regulator will not ensure their safety. In fact, in the current climate they cannot ensure their safety. Continuous cost cutting by governments leading to increasing self regulation & the deterioration of experience & skill in the regulator's staff has seen to that.

And when they are dealing with maintenance organisations & airlines from overseas, it is really easy to say that they have already been approved by the regulator in their country & just give them a quick once over. Not only does it save money, it also is politically correct. You don't want to embarrass your counterpart. And you don't want them retaliating to save face either.

While there are other important areas that also need addressing for pilots, engineers & cabin crew, such as training, fatigue & even terms & conditions; adequate, competent oversight by the regulator leading to strict compliance is a major part of the very foundation of airline safety.

It appears that maybe - just maybe - the travelling public is starting to wake up from their 'low fare dreaming' & questions are starting to be asked.

It's true - you really do only get bus fare on busses. If you want to be safe on an aircraft, you need to pay airfare. And if the airlines are charging bus fare to travel with them, something is being cost-cut to the edge of safety or beyond.

Well done to those who continue to keep these issues alive in the public arena. It is only through your tenacity that the travelling public will begin to comprehend that the old adage 'you get what you pay for' also holds true for air travel.

3 days "checking" and overseas maintainence facility but TWO weeks doing over one in Brisbane. CASA. Cares About Stuff All (except themselves).

I remember the idiot's comment about the electrical cable being joined/held together by a staple when it first came to light in 2007. Was flabberghasted then with his answer and I haven't changed.

Fly By Wire and now we have Fly By Staples.

What a load of tosh this report is.

In the name of balance, can we see a report on engineering oversights coming from Australian maintenance organizations? I would hate to think that the Australian public mistakenly believes that engineering in Australia is squeaky clean.

And can Steve really look at himself in the mirror after trying to draw a parallel between a flap failure in BNE and a Garuda 737 crash in Indo?

And why is it that heavy maintenance is so much cheaper overseas. What is the Australian engineering fraternity going to do to compete, apart from scaring the public.

This should be seen for what it is, industrial scare tactics.

Some of your questions are not even worthy of a response but I think I should explain this one.

In Australia we have a target of releasing aircraft with no hold items or defects out of a heavy maintenance facility. A 737 recently undertook a c check in Sin, some Aussie LAMEs go up there, they do not partake in the work but randomly check some of the tasks after completion. During this process they found 450 defects and maintenance errors. When the 737's last went up there, upon arrival at home aircraft landed with over 90 defects. These were only the ones we know of.

Let's compare the facilities.

Australia. More expensive yes (about 15% more so) but there is no location in the world that can complete a c check in as fast a time and generally aircraft departs defect free. Facility runs with 2 crews. Total LAMEs are about 80 Mechanical and 15 Avionic.

Singapore. Cheaper and as far as I am aware, not one aircraft has come out on sched. The line doing the 737 check runs with 4 Mechanical LAMEs and 2 Avionics. One of the Avionic LAMEs resigned early on during the 450 defect aircraft leaving just one covering the 2 shifts. I don't know how many unlicenced guys there are. I suspect that the numbers are so low up there that some things are being missed and CASA have spent a fortune preventing us accessing their audit reports.

So that is what we are competing with. Scare campaign? Call it whatever you want bloke. The f****n big bolt that jammed the flaps on the first flight out of an overseas facilty may not have lead to a Garuda type accident but who knows what it will be next time. Let's hope it is not a loose set of wires that are arching and sparking inside your fuel tank.

Interesting. Things must have changed. The airline I worked for in oz sent A320's to eastern Canada for C checks because it was quicker and cheaper than in oz.

Well said Titan.

ALAEA Fed Sec,

I'm not having a dig here. I'm a skipper on 73's. Out of interest could you enlighten me (and the rest) on some of the 450 defects and maintenance errors you mention. I find it incredulous that an aircraft could be released, and that the company would actually pay the bill, if it came back with 450 problems. Obviously it wasn't put back into service. Do you know if any:mad: pudgy mid level managers lost their bonus over it?????? Not likely, eh? Once again this is genuine interest.

Nope, No Idea Either.............

Qantas always knows before CASA is going to do an inspection of Avalon so there is always a big clean up prior.

"Qantas always knows before CASA is going to do an inspection of Avalon so there is always a big clean up prior"

Which is generally how it is done. Not many major flag carriers are subject to surprise inspection by the governing authority. Otherwise they would all be grounded.

So whats the point of an inspection I would say none except an excuse to have a catered lunch.:ok:

.

1) OH&S. We have it here in Ausralia, they generally don't overseas.
2) Full service in Australia. Many overseas facilities complete routine work only for the "fixed price" then charge like a wounded bull for non-routine work. Thus, on paper, they appear very cheap.
3) Using qualified personnel in Australia. As an Aircraft maintenance engineer in Australia, you are taught about the complete aircraft; not just one specific system / area as is the case in many countries.

I'm sure there would be a similar report were it warranted.
What I find hard to understand is how people who seem to support cheap, dodgey maintenance when it comes to aircraft, would not consider taking their car to a cheap dodgey mechanic.

A big question for you to consider; Why did CASA spend so much time, effort and tax payers dollars to stop the report on the overseas facility being released?

ANSWER: Because the NPRM hadn't become regulation yet, which was written in the ACT before being rectified in the CAO. All this could of been sorted in a CAAP but because of the new class D debate, CASA still didn't have the right to stop it, the NPRM is now being fast forwarded to save tax payers dollars, just as soon as the re writing of the 189th amendment is complete.:uhoh:

Whilst the show did compose of a heap of sensationalist, half truth comments that anyone in the industry could poke holes through in a second, it does present a very pertinent point: Is Qantas using it's good name and Australian staff to paint the appearance of an Australian airline with a first class safety record whilst doing the shifty and employing cheap overseas labour? and if it is what are we going to do about it?

Steve Purvinas,
Is comments such as "it's only a matter of time till an aeroplane hits the side of a hill" really necessary? Honest question, is it a calculated give to make your message 'media worthy'?, I highly doubt your professional opinion would associate a Flap Transit Failure to the Garuda Jogjakarta unstable approach runway overrun however I also have my doubts as to wether TT would have picked up the segment without these 'claims'.

Steve, have you considered talking to and joining fronts with AIPA? It would seem both AIPA and ALEA have a very similar agenda. With your media awareness and a united front, even without the legal ground to prevent jobs going overseas, together the unions could send a very clear message to the Qantas board about keeping the Australian Spirit, Australian. I feel media awareness has been very effective in keeping Qantas maintenance onshore (evidenced by the amount of media attention Qantas gave the Brissy 330 base) and only hope that it would be as effective in ensuring pilots jobs are kept onshore as well.

Cheers,
MHA

G'day all,

I have a few post to reply to and hope to one at a time. I hope it gives my fellow professionals some insight into why we do what we do as an aviation union.

In a nut shell, yes. When I have filmed with TT or any other outlet for that sake, all they want you to do is mention one word - crash. It gives them their sensationalism and a story. By talking about the side of a hill, it may be the difference between a story that lasts 3 minutes or one that runs for 10. The underlying story that those in the industry would understand needs to be told in as simple terms as possible. Talking about the migration of the fastenings for the flap torque tube that had been lockwired with the incorrect gauge lockwire doesn't really resonate with the public. I will do what it takes to get these extremely serious issues aired publically however I can.

We work extremely close with Barry and his team, had dinner with him and Graeme a couple of weeks back and will be going out to dinner with Barry and Dave B Thu night. Our President Paul Cousins and I are already penned in to attend the next AIPA Comm meeting in a couple of weeks. Woodsie showed up in the Fed court a couple of weeks back over my election dramas and the Ex General Manager Peter Somerville is now our General Manager. We do work together very closely, have common foes and challenges and both groups have to deal with our biggest bugbear - CASA.

This aircraft was in Sin earlier this year. The Qantas LAMEs who escort the check do so because of an agreement we reached with Qantas 2 years ago after the first TT episodes were aired. If it was not for those shows, it may be the case that no Qantas LAMEs could have been there and the events I will describe below could have went totally unnoticed.

I had a call from a LAME who told me the boys up there had picked up 450 faults or breaches in Qantas procedure. I thought this must be a mistake or perhaps 450 armrests had been installed on the wrong seats or a similar duplicated error. I was amazed when I saw the actual list, they were 450 odd individual errors, documented and reported to the airline. They were found by the Qf blokes up there after they had been certified by locals and before the aircraft release.

I would be happy to post the entire list here if that would be seen as worthy. Just a couple of things that come to mind -

-aircraft towed without any person in the flight deck.
-doors rigged without the calibrated counterweights that substitute for removed bussels, they used people as weights instead.
- corrosion missed in many locations.

I don't have list here but as i said, full list can be posted.

The Canadians have always been good with the 320's. I think they do them in Halifax.

The latest dramas have been with 738's. The blokes in Melb HM are the experts in this field. They have been working on nothing except 73's since the first c check in 89. I reckon they could turn one out blindfolded. They know where the problems are and how to fix them. That's what you get when you have long term loyal employees who love their jobs (they aren't in love with their managers). If the love of their jobs is overriden by the mistreatment by management, the blokes will leave. I suspect that this is one of the goals of Australian managers, it makes it very easy for them to claim that they have no choice other than send the work overseas.

All this being said, Qantas aren't the worst employer here. There are good managers and there are absolute pr**ks. Four years ago 20% of Qantas maintenance was sent offshore. It is now down to around 5% so that is the good news story here. It will jump up when the 380's go to Lufty but long term, I am confident that we can maintain the industry here with a little argy bargy and an occasional run in the press.

The real story here guys is CASA. What they are letting all operators get away with and the disregard they show to any union or person who makes a complaint. The ALAEA commenced this case 2 1/2 years ago under the good hand of our Assistant Federal Secretary Wayne Vasta. The change in CASA leadership have made no difference, they could have knocked this on the head but chose not to. From the TT episode one can't really describe the events but I will sum them here for those who have an interest.

Wayne sought under FOI, copies of all CASA audits of overseas facilities. At the same time without our knowledge, channel 7 lodged for FOI seeking details of any aircraft defect reported to CASA over a similar period. The judge combined the cases after we decided to work with Ch7 and share costs.

CASA would not release the reports essentially claiming that they are commercially sensative and if the findings were released may damage the reputation of airlines and MRO's.

2 1/2 years later and lots of dollars, the judge has ordered them to release the majority of reports sought. He also ordered CASA to pay all our costs.

From what I have seen, the CASA audit reports aren't damaging at all to the MROs and airlines. They predominantly show that CASA found nothing wrong when they went up there for a day or two here or there. We have Qantas internal reports from the same periods that recommend Engineering seriously consider the ongoing use of a facility in Sin because of a large number of adverse findings.

What we have uncovered is a regulator that needs to pull their sox up, or you could use some more crude terms if you like. Full decision and reasons here -

Vasta and Anor and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2010] AATA 499 (6 July 2010)

ALAEA,

“The Canadians have always been good with the 320's.”

Maybe, but this is not why they went there. At the time, AN had been operating 320’s for longer than AC.

"The f****n big bolt that jammed the flaps on the first flight out of an overseas facilty may not have lead to a Garuda type accident but who knows what it will be next time."

Then why did you make such an implication?

Also, for your info, this exact oversight has occurred before on Australian registered aircraft following maintenance work completed in Australia.

To clarify your position, are you against all foreigners conducting work on Australian registered aircraft? Would you be happier if 737’s were sent to Southwest for example?

When viewed within the wider context considering the choice of airlines available to the Australian travelling public, this is a non-story.