Merged: And another QF Roller goes bang
 

Air turn back into Bangkok, another day another Qantas outsourced RB211 gives up.

In the 24 months of 2003-2004 there were a total of 3 SDR reportable engine failures/incidents on the 744 RB211.

If confirmed, this would make 4 for this month alone.

Gotta luv outsourcing.

Amazing how an engine fails, everytime the words 'outsourced maintainence' as automatically mentioned. Isn't 85% maintainence done in Australia?

And the A380 engine also linked to overseas maintainence wasn't it?

nah not a maintenance issue its a media conspiracy :rolleyes:

qantas 787
 

Maint and overhaul can be outsourced but still done in Australia.You are the only one here so far to mention overseas maint.Fed sec said outsourced.

Hard data vs observations.
 

I guess what needs to be done is a forensic level analysis of the data to prove beyond all doubt the raging arguments of outsourcing vs incidents.

If you can match all the data and present it in a graph and hand it to the senate enquiry you might achieve something. Words on pprune just disappear to the bottom of the list and never go anywhere.

ALAEA get KPMG to to it.

I guess an insider can confirm this but my understanding is that with the closure of the engine centre - components are sent overseas in I guess what might be termed sub assemblies - they join the queue to get serviced/overhauled by the manufacturer - and the next set of sub assemblies on the line which have already been overhauled get sent back to be installed.

So instead of all the work being done in Australia - it is merely pre assembled components serviced by the manufacturer which gets re assembled in Australia.

Yet again happy to be corrected - but the returned components may not be Qantas's original parts - but may have been in someone else's engine for a while. So then the reliance is on that particular operator to have a detailed working history of the engine.


In the end Qantas loses true control of the engine components - it only has a partial history (and possibly not entirely true) of the engine components - the end result is a very poor and sad state of affairs.


.....but on the bright side the spin doctors get to say they are still maintained in Australia......

Where once RR would come to QF to find out about their engines, now QF can hardly keep them on the wing without them going bang.

Any facts yet folks?

so are you trying to say that sending engines/components to the OEM isn't as good as doing it in house??? Get real....

Reported from members. OJT inflight shutdown low oil pressure and quantity.

Engine removed from OJI to send up there and when the donk came off JI a crack in the strut was found so that one is rooted as well.

TBM,
That is exactly what is being implied/alleged/imputed/suggested.

At one stage, QF ROS had to institute 100% QC inspection of RR OEM parts.

In the early days of the RR classic B747, as a matter of routine, new delivery engines from RR were dropped of the wing and run through the engine shop.

Early days of delivery of the -438s was not much better, I had 3 shutdowns in 4 months, all very low time engines on new deliveries.

Some of the QC problems with RR OEM spares are the stuff of legend.

Sadly, that overhaul shop has long since been closed by the bean counters, who are now getting plenty of practice counting the full cost of said "savings".

What's that old saw about "knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing".

Tootle pip!!

Welcome to the play on words.

85% of maintenance is done in Australia. Heavy maintenance and A checks and phase checks. Yes it is.

Brisbane does C checks on 767s and A330s.
Sydney does A checks on A330's, 767s, 747s, a380s
Melbourne does A checks on A330s, 737s
Melbourne (tulla) does C checks on the 737's
Avalon does C and D checks on 747's

Other line ports do a random selection of different maintenance, ie line maintenance.

Qantas does not do C checks on A380s.
Qantas does not overhaul the engines fitted to the A380s, 747s, 767s, A330s, 737s.
Qantas will not do C checks on the 787

Engine overhaul was shutdown and outsourced
Sydney heavy maintenance was shutdown

The only 'maintenance' we do on the engines are things that are bolted to the outside and engine replacements. When they go bang, they get shipped off to wherever - and another 'overhauled' one comes back.

The constant failures lately have been completely to do with something going astray in the engine overhauls. The frequency of failures is something that Qantas has never experienced except since the early 747 days with the immature P&W engine design. The RB211 is a mature design. So you can draw you own conclusions like most of the staff have and read between the 'spokesperson' and AJ spin.


Another interesting note, has anyone noticed how many 767 APU's have been dying lately ?

I would be looking at the location of the RB211 overhaul facility and who might own/operate it.... :uhoh: and then think about who hates QF

Best suggestion yet. An indepth analysis should be conducted over the past 10 years to put this argument to bed. Break down (pardon the pun) the engine/component types, maintenannce records, location of repair/maintenance, type of failure, contract organisation (in-house or out-house), incident reports, investigation reports.........you see where I am coming from.
Statistics don't lie.
Yep, pretty obvious how many of these are packing it in around the network, nothing like continualy patching up units that are ready for the grave.

this will be like IT.

everyone outsourced it, and then lots of those companies/govt depts took it all back in house because the service levels were not acceptable and the costs were at least comparable.

if QF have a brain, this might need to happen here. that's too many engines going bang to be co-incidental.

Cactus, I'm surprised the ALAEA haven't done it yet off their own bat to finally prove their point. Anytime anyone argues different all they would need to do is silently hold up the report. Send it straight off to the pollies and the Senate Enquiry and the game is up.

Then again it may highlight the opposite who knows. Public sentiment/opinion highly influenced by what is reported rather than what happened. QF attract attention like no other. In the meantime real issues are totally ignored.

What was the recent one on news.com "Pilot typos causing jets to crash". Typos or Pilots reaching the limits of human performance given their operating environment...

Where is Helmreich and Maurino when you need them..

KPMG's the go.

One fact for certain
 

CASA is scared witless of Big Q legal.

One way or the other, with this much publicity to be used up, the urge to take center stage, be seen as the strong arm of aviation safety would be irresistible to the 'administrator'.

Any other operator would,by now be drowning in paperwork, audits, show cause and safety alerts. Just for show if for naught else. What a photo opportunity, what a political win. If they could only just squeeze past those pesky, clever Big Q legal eagles.

Perhaps 'the big man' is really just a big girls blouse. :Dhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/pukey.gif

BIG Q legal wont pay the wages or lease payments when pax stop flying koalabare airlines. Pax are now starting to really question the airlines claim to fame of safety. Australians are embracing the EK domination and unless there's a serious investigation, esp into the RB211 dramas, then there's going to be no viable airline left.

The days are gone when there were no other options for pax to get out of oz. There's definitely something going on that isn't right. I dont need statistics to tell me the number of failures isnt out of proportion to other airlines.

Sure losing an engine isnt a real big deal UNTIL it happens with other systems failing, bad weather, fuel exhaustion or other contributing factors. Sure there were 178 pilots on the fancy nancy when she exploded but thats not always the case when you are on final at LHR in fog and have to do a go around on 3 engines and then you lose something else and youve suddenly got no fuel left after a 60 minute hold.

So where's the senate enquiry?:ugh: One day, one day the inevitable may well happen:sad:

If the swapping of parts happens as outlined above, are other clients of those facilities having similar problems to the rat??

If that isn't the case, surely there is something else going on here.

Regardless something needs to be done to get to the bottom of what is fast appearing to be a worrying trend.

Re an external review, be careful what you wish for.A lot of things can happen to massage the results and everyone keeps smelling of roses. Surely this is a regulatory matter provided they have the political will and the b....s to do it.

In the meantime, my in laws have abandoned the rat for better service and price on their latest J class sojourn offshore.Add another family to the list and nothing to do with maintenance issues.

[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']Out saucing and contracting important maintenance to other companies is a peculiar Australian tradition. :=It all seems to have started in the seventies and has progressed from then. I worked for a large government owned corporation that decided to contract out all our vehicle maintenance.:ooh: Our vehicle garage had dozens of mechanics and panel beaters and bodybuilders this was all taken over by a single BP garage.:sad: Service definitely improved,:D service times on our cars went from four hours to nearly drive through times over night.:ok: The savings were immense:D but after twelve months of all this quality service it was nearly impossible to get a car or truck or anything with an internal combustion engine as the motive power that worked. :{To an accountant the bottom line is profit at all cost but it is a bit of a worry that unlike cars and trucks aircraft tend to crash when all motive power is lost.:mad:[/font]