Qantas Twin Dangers~Ben Sandilands
 

Dual dangers hanging over Qantas, as we know it
May 22, 2011 – 8:15 am, by Ben Sandilands
Some alarming questions hang over Qantas because of recent events.
One is the extent to which management decisions have harmed the full service Qantas branded product in order to improve investor perceptions of the value of the Jetstar brand, which many of its full service customers detest.
And another question, and far more important one, is whether or not management disconnection from the operational and standards processes in Qantas carriers has impacted on safety.
Several days ago a Plane Talking reader departed Melbourne for Sydney on a Qantas service on which several rows of business class were occupied by Jetstar crew in uniform.
Yet there was a Jetstar flight from Mebourne to Sydney within 10 minutes of the Qantas flight.
That is just another illustration of massive cross subsidisation of Jetstar operations by the full service brand, which each financial year would run into hundreds of millions of dollars in the transfer of A330s alone.
But to deal with safety.
One of the most willfully stupid things Qantas management ever did was to ban the use of full flap reverse thrust on landings by Boeing 747s in the late ‘90s in order to save a million dollars a year fleet wide.
It was the principal factor in the runway overrun at Bangkok’s older (Don Muang) airport in September 1999, where no attempt was made to use reverse thrust after QF1 touched down much further than desirable along a wet and slippery runway after the captain ‘had a rush of blood to the head’ and countermanded an instruction to go-around to the first officer, who was the pilot flying, and closed the throttles, unfortunately missing one.
This left the 747 in a configuration not even Boeing had contemplated, with three engines shut down, and one spooling up, as the jet with more than 400 people on board fishtailed off the end of the runway at 88 knots and then ploughed through trees and onto a golfing green, from where Bangkok airport sources claimed that a radio call was made for a tug to the terminal, despite the fact that the landing gear had been ripped off, together with an engine.
It is a legal requirement that the management and directors of Qantas take full responsibility for the safety of operations, and this was a gross failure.
The similarities with the near crash of a Jetstar A320 at Melbourne’s Tullamarine Airport in July 2007 are striking. Some weeks before that flight from Christchurch was in the final stages of its approach to a landing in foggy conditions Jetstar had improperly changed the standard operating procedure for a missed approach in the manufacturer’s approved flight manual.
This was contrary to very clear regulations that had been in force since 1998 that prohibited such changes. On top of that the management of Jetstar, then headed by current Qantas CEO Alan Joyce as its founding CEO, failed to conduct a safety systems management analysis of the changes, and also failed to keep any written records that the ATSB could discover in the course of an investigation caused by this reporter after the airline failed to conform to its reporting obligations.
The Jetstar crew elected to conduct a missed approach because of poor visibility but because of the changes made to the missed approach procedure, were required to do other things before checking that the jet’s throttle settings had been advanced to the ‘go around’ detent.
As the ATSB found, this left the pilots in a state of confusion as the jet continued to sink very close to the ground because the throttles had been left in the wrong position. It was a very close call for the 140 people on board the flight.
At the Senate Inquiry into pilot training and airline safety, which among other things, is inquiring into this incident, the ATSB and CASA have been emphatic as to the cause of the serious incident, yet in its submission to the inquiry Qantas fails to mention these findings, and supplied the inquiry with what in this reporter’s opinion is an exercise in humbug.
What was Jetstar’s then head of standards John Gissing, thinking when these changes were made, why did he break the clearest of regulations, and why weren’t records kept, and assuming that Alan Joyce was involved in approving something he is legally responsible for, what was he thinking?
The answers will hopefully be revealed in the inquiry’s final report, due on June 15.
The disconnection of Qantas management from operational realities persisted in the decision to outsource the maintenance of the Rolls-Royce RB211 engines used on most of its remaining 747 fleet to a facility in Hong Kong.
One of these engines failed, quite spectacularly according to eye-witness comments posted here, on QF1 on its departure from Bangkok for London on Friday morning. There has been a series of failures of RB211 engines on Qantas jets since the closure of its specialized engineering shop for these engines in Sydney.
Management did explain, quite logically, that it sent the work offshore because the reduction in 747 fleet size made it uneconomic compared to the cost of using the Hong Kong facility.
But had management considered the technical reality, that Qantas worked its RB211s on its 747s harder and rather differently to any other user, and that these jets and 747s are going to be in service until up to 2020, it might have chosen differently.
The Hong Kong move may well have cost in far more than it saved in a series of incidents that are harmful to the brand’s image and reputation, in addition to the bad mouthing full service long haul Qantas flying is already getting from management hell-bent on diversifying Qantas operations into off shore based entities that will take over some flying now performed by the ‘Spirit of Australia’ Qantas.
Neither British Airways nor Cathay Pacific use RB211 engines on route stages as long, or exposed, as those that Qantas flies non-stop across the Pacific or the sub-Antarctic route to Johannesburg.
Despite the acknowledged need to make certain manufacturer devised modifications to these RB211 engines, Qantas is also taking its own sweet time having this work done, and it apparently had not been done on the engine that failed at Bangkok on Friday, even though Qantas has been aware of the situation for some time.
It may be time for Qantas and Jetstar management to address some operational imperatives with these airlines, rather than trade on a reputation hard earned, or attack those who deliver the product, or keep trotting out inaccurate platitudes about ‘safety being our prime concern.’
Safety is in fact their No 1 responsibility, in law. ‘Safety is our No 1 aim’ might be a much more reassuring slogan for the side of Qantas jets than ‘Spirit of Australia’.

It's time senior management stood up for their serious shortcomings... Stand up and face the music! The fat lady (apologies to fat people) is singing and it's hurting my ears!

Remember that it's these senior managers that justify their excessive salaries because "the buck stops with them..." Or so they keep telling us...:rolleyes:

I want to buy Ben a beer.

The reality of the RB211 fiasco is that there are no spare Rollers at the moment. The rate of failure is so high they have run out of serviceable engines and are now cannibalising the heavy maintenance aircraft again. This is the same for 330 engines. No spares. Well done idiots!

I taxied passed the QF 747 in BKK yesterday, Saturday. It was not a good look with engines and cowling spread out all over the stand-off bay. A nice big red tail for all in the terminal to see :(

Funny how we don't get to see Ben being interviewed on the Qantas sponsored Sunrise or Today shows.


Memo to GT. Study Ben's articles closely. There you will see what a properly informed article on the current situation at Qantas looks like.:D

I am loathe to play the man, as opposed to the ball but knowing GT reads this, I invite him to submit a brief resume - what have you done, where have you been to earn the title " Aviation Expert "
Serious question.
Have you held an SPL? CPL? ATPL, AME license, Loadmaster's certificate? have you operated in any professional capacity in the Armed Forces? an Airline? Travel Agency?
Personally, I'd like to know if you are just a spotter who lucked out with minor gigs that landed you on your feet.
Happy to be educated.
I admit to reading Ben Sandiland's reportage with more respect but know as little of his credentials as I do yours.

Peter Harbison~Another Expert ?
 

What are Harbison's credentials ?

Ben makes an interesting note about the Jetstar (now Qantas) head of saftey. I said it some time ago in the Senate Inquiry thread, who will Joyce and Buchanan make the scapegoat when it finally all comes out?

Personally, I think they should all go to jail!

Centre fo Asia Aviation
 

Harbison is the Chairman and Founder of what is essentially a think tank and provider of data and research.
A point of note is that John "Tubby" Ward is on the advisory board.Ward was a 25 year veteran and CEO of Qantas.He must very disappointed about whats happening to his former charge.As are we all

To Ben Sandilands
 

Ben,
You are a beacon of hope in the world of aviation journalism.
You sir have my respect and that is not easily won.:ok:

I have no idea what Mr Sandilands' credentials are, but there are plenty of 'Aviation Experts' with little or no aviation credentials. Australian Aviation magazine is the perfect example!

Regardless, it's a great article, well written and showing great insight. Well done :ok:

The chap referred to as "Jetstar’s then head of standards John Gissing", wouldnt happen to be related to a former Hazo's Captain with the same moniker, would it??:uhoh:

The Best Qantas CEO
 

John Ward
Non-Executive Chairman
[email protected]

http://wolseley.com.au/content/4/images/profiles/10.jpg
John was the CEO of Qantas Airways where his career spanned 25 years. On retirement from Qantas, John became General Manager Commercial at News Corporation where he spent a further 7 years.
John has been the independent non executive Chairman of Wolseley since inception and is an investor in both Funds.
John is actively involved in all governance and management aspects of Wolseley and Chairs the Wolseley Private Equity Advisory Committee.
John holds a BSc from the University of Sydney and is a graduate of the Advanced Management Program at Harvard. He is a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, the Australian Institute of Management, the Australian Marketing Institute, and the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport.
Current Board Positions: Wolseley Private Equity (Chairman); Wolseley Advisory Committee (Chairman); Research Foundation of IT (Honorary Life Governor); Adelaide Airport Limited (Director); and Brisbane Airport Corporation (Director)
Previous Wolseley Board Positions: Chairman
Intelligent,well credentialled,charming and the inventor of J/C.Wonder if he would like his old job back?

I don't read Australian Aviation much however, I do know of the credendials and background of a couplke of contributors.

Dave Prossor writes the Warbirds section. I knew Dave since the 1970's and 80's where he worked as a journalist and also flew gliders and the tugs at Bacchus Marsh. He also worked at Moorabin as a Charter Pilot and is a Flying instructor.

Owen Zupp was at Ansett as a B737 FO when the music stopped. He is now at QF flying as an FO on something.

Aviation 'commentator' might be the term to apply to Ben Sandilands and Geoff Thomas. This is not meant in a derogatory way, informed commentry is an essential component of news and current affairs coverage.

In the legal arena, the differentiation between a witness and an 'expert' witness is that an expert can provide opinions and conclusions that a jury can be directed to take into account in reaching a verdict; an ordinary witness can only state what they observed.

Ordinarily, an expert witness would be a professional in a particular field. They would hold some formal qualification be it as a Trade qualification or a PhD. The higher the qualification, the stronger the weight of their evidence. However, there are experts and there are "experts"- Lindy Chamberlain was convicted of murder on the flawed evidence provided by a BSc Qualified Lab Technician and by a Professor of Forensic Science.

Of concern:

"Most of us are uncomfortable with the idea of being perceived as experts. In a traditional sense, an expert has engaged in years of research and has likely been published and scrutinized (in an academic sense).


Social networks and new media, such as blogs and Podcasts, have resulted in a new surge of perceived experts. This is because of two things:

• consumer power to make choice is greater now than it has ever been
• people are able to translate their passion into a communicable form for mass consumption

"Rightly or wrongly, the term “expert” is no longer exclusive; it’s now used to describe those who can magnetize an audience. Experts are now designated by niche communities based on an ability to communicate opinions, ideas, experiences and passion. You can do any amount of research, or none at all, and still be seen as an expert..."-M. Blevis.

Management are watching
 

More silly biased Journalist rhetoric pointing fingers at QF. Do these reporters have nothing better to do? Why bring up the Bangkok ‘incident’ now? That was years ago and is well and truly buried in history and was only a minor occurrence anyway, nobody died did they?

Mr Sandilands article does nothing to improve shareholder confidence hence he should keep quiet. Why mention Jetstar staff travelling in Qantas business class? This is actually a good thing. It proves that cohesion, harmony and friendship exists within the core groups – this ultimately leads to an effective cross utilisation of resources, a cohesive synergy and a better outcome for the Shareholders investment. It matters neither way if one wears a Qantas, Jetstar or Asian uniform as the organisation is a diverse brotherhood, it is a symbiotic relationship and we are always seeking to add new members to our family.

Mr Sandilands has no right to question management decisions in relation to outsourcing, offshoring, or questioning ‘safety standards’. Management are incredibly astute, have a finger on the pulse and are always ensuring the upper echelon and the shareholder is appropriately remunerated. Happy shareholders equals a happy management team which in turn ensures that money flows freely, and free flowing profits enables the airline to spend more on safety, worlds best practises and latest technologies, an absolute win win.

So, Mr Sandilands, you would be better off reporting things more accurately to reflect the true facts – QF has never been in better shape. QF has the strongest robust management team ever to be assembled in one airline, the best outsourced maintenance companies, the best outsourced telephone answering services, the best outsourced I.T contractors and some of the newest, brightest and cheapest outsourced Pilots in its subsidiary companies. All of this spells out an exciting, profitable and long future for our all Australian icon.

The Boardroom Beckons

Better Late Than Never
 

The disintegration of Qantas has been going on for ten years.No body in the media paid attention for the first eigth.
Finally the story is seeing the light of day thanks to the likes of Mr.Sandiland.
Whether Qantas is saveable will be borne out by time and the Senate report.

Respect to Ben for a nice editorial.

These need to be published in the mainstream press, not just on blogs which are read mainly by the already converted.

Exactly the problem! Does the majority of the flying public read Mr Sandiland's blog? Nope. Does the majority of the flying public read PPRUNE? Nope.
Ben is just preaching to the converted. Yet GT and others get their stuff published in real publications (and apparently get TV gigs).

I agree with most things Ben says,but he has a seemingly biased view on Qantas. He also has a very limited audience,even though those of us here may like his insight,'Joe Public' will never have heard of him or read his blog. :eek:

I don't believe that any other ASX100 company receives any where near the Alt-M (alternative media) scrutiny that Qantas does, particularity here. Is there any other ASX top 100 company that has a forum with the traffic & scrutiny that DG&P Reporting Points does?

The analysis is much more sophisticated now than for the Ansett collapse and APA bid. Where else do you see a top 100 company's business model dissected so thoroughly by the staff on a public forum. Aviation is a very small and very connected world, particularly for Australians. Not much can be done operationally without the proverbial cat getting out of the bag. PPRuNe is like a spiders web, where the smallest twitch is instantly transmitted to the rest of the web. Management can hide their plans amongst themselves, but when it comes time to actually implement them, we all become aware very quickly. This presents a significant challenge for managers. Why they just don't sit down and work with their employees still astounds me. If all the energy here was directed towards the business things could be so different.

Using Ansett as an example, much of the analysis was post-event, now for QF it is pre-event. This is a small but highly significant It also documents the chronology of events, which may be used later if a forensic investigation is ever undertaken. It must be one of the things that keeps them awake at night.

GT isn't a journalist. He just presents infomercials. Danoz direct is next.

Geoffrey Thomas ? More of a 'John Thomas' I think...........

So if there are question marks over safely operating a four engined jet across the pacific with outsourced maintenance, wouldn't operating a twin engined jet across the pacific with outsourced maintenance be really really dangerous? Maybe I missed it but I don't recall the column from Ben criticising V Australia for doing this and just searched for his comments on the April 15th incident when V had an engine failure at LA, seems it never even warranted a column from Ben. Leaves me wondering if Ben is truly objective.

That's because they didn't have an engine failure. If you want to sh#t stir and play devil's advocate, ensure you're armed with the facts.

For a start QAN S/H, the VA aircraft in LA suffered an engine surge, not an engine failure.

2ndly, a 2 engine aircraft has a bit less than half the chance of suffering an engine failure when compared to a 4-engine aeroplane. Added to this is the requierment for a route/distance limitation, higher standards of inspection and airwothiness for EDTO, additional systems redundancies...

The result is that a new 2-engine aeroplane operating under EDTO is just as safe, if not safer, than a 4 engine on a similar route.

Your lack of knowledge of this sort of thing is a little bit disturbing if you are in airline management, as I and many others suspect you to be.

Anthill,

Ok, happy to stand corrected on the engine failure. But, whether a twin engine is just as safe as a 4 engine jet is not the point. Under normal operating circumstances I entirely agree with you. But the issue here is whether outsourced engine maintenance results in a far higher risk of failure, as Ben's column implies, and if it did then a twin engine jet would be far riskier than a 4 engine jet. And if you were genuinely worried about the dangers of outsourced engine maintenance, as Ben seems to be, then you should surely be most concerned about those using it on twin engine jets.

Dealt with Tubby Ward when he was CEO of QF , a Gentleman in every sense of the word , around the same time I met Peter Harbinson , I found him to be an objecive reporter and a down to earth man . At this time I also met Mr Sandilands , a very pompous self opiniated reporter . Nuff said really!

Wow. A denunciation by unionist is the highest accolade that one could hope for. Well done Mr Sandilands. :ok:

QAN
VA 777 = New engines
QF 747 = 25 year old engines
Apples & coconuts :ugh:

And please tell me where Virgin have All their Engine maintennance and Component maintennance done. Not one bit in Oz!

really
 

Ant I think you would have a hard time convincing most that
a 2 eng plane is safer than a 4 eng plane over the pond ???

The result is that a new 2-engine aeroplane operating under EDTO is just as safe, if not safer, than a 4 engine on a similar route.

QAN, I don't follow you. With 4 engines, there is slighly more than twice the probability of an engine failure than on a 2 engined aeroplane. As the 2 engine aeroplane operating under 180 mins EDTO rules has comparable remaining redundancy (electrical/hydraulic/pressurisation) on a single engine as does a 4 engine aeroplane operating with one inoperative.

If what you mean is that a 2nd engine failure on a 2 engine aeroplane will be catastrophic, then I see where you are going with your train of thought. Without getting too far off topic, new engines, such as the GE90, are extremely reliable. An old engine on a 4 engine aircraft that has been badly maintained will probably not develop full Max Continuous Thrust. Further, operation at MCT may overload the engine to the point where a second (or 3rd and 4th!) engine failure occurs. Assuming terrain clearance is ok, it may be prudent to operate the functioning engines at less than MCT during a diversion or continuation senario.

At high weights, a double engine failure on a 4 engine aeroplane will result in a book figure driftdown to a shockingly low altitude (below 10,000'). Add issues such as increased drag from an old airframe...well, it could get pretty ugly. Due to the reduced performance of 4 engine aircraft compared to twins( see CAO 20.1.7B), a 2 engine approach in a 4 engine aircraft is far more hazardous than a single engine appraoch in a twin. Remember that aircraft performance is based on a book figure derived from testing a brand new aeroplane (even more reason why a quality maintenance provider should always be used). For these reasons, a twin is at least as safe as a 4 engine aeroplane. Probably safer - especially if the Twin is new.

Careful Ben S...
 

I'm glad you're out there asking & saying what others won't, but you too must get your facts straight if seeking to remain credible.

The statement referring to QF1 in BKK "with three engines shut down, and one spooling up" as they ran off the runway is, I believe, patently wrong. It is my understanding that the aircraft captain selected idle thrust on three engines having accidentally missed grabbing one of the thrust levers. That situation was resolved shortly after when the F/O retarded the remaining engine to idle. The rest is history. The final conclusions have been analysed ad nauseum; there were definite procedural lapses, errors and many contributing factors with the most robust criticisms levelled at management.

I trust you will keep chipping at the deceptive veneer and evasive misrepresentation perpetuated by the spin-kings; just keep your cred as you do it please. :ok:

OK:

To calculate the probability of engine failure on a 4 eng. aircraft compared to a twin:

A twin can suffer an engine failure senario in the following ways: Eng 1 can fail, Eng 2 can fail or Eng 1 & 2 can fail. For a 4 engine aircraft, the possible combinations becomes Eng 1, 2, 3, or 4. However, account needs to be taken of 2 engines failing (12 possible combinations), 3 engines failing (4 possible combinations) & all 4 engines failing.

This is why a 4 engine aeroplane has more that twice the chance of engine failure than a twin - assuming that each engine has the same probability of failure..

The failure rate of the QF B747 RB211-524G-T engines is currently over 3 times the failure rate when the engines were overhauled "in-house".

QF management refuse to admit that they've made a mistake, so they are about to introduce a range of procedural changes to pilot operations to make the engines "last", including use of idle reverse thrust on landing (once they convince James Strong, QF Board member & CEO at the time of the QF1 accident). The engines are being treated with "kid gloves" just so management can save face. :ugh:

Saving Face Over Safety
 

How dare these repugnant swine even contemplate saving face when their actions could lead to a smoking crater with a red and white tail protrudung from it.
The day that happens there will be no safe place on this planet for them to hide.
Cost/Risk analysis gone mad.They are willing to trade lives for their bon uses.No business should survive where lives are at stake due to arrogance and stupidity

Anthill,

The failure of both engines is the scenario I was thinking of with the equivalent disaster scenario being the failure of 3 engines on a 4 engine jet. I know the following is very much simplified and exaggerated but if you assume your outsourced maintenance provider starts giving you dud engines periodically such that on average they fail one in every thousand flights. With twin engines one flight in a millions ends in catastrophe whereas for a four engine jet I think it would be one flight in every 250 million.

Hope you are on one of them:ok:

Without wishing to enter the twin vs triple/four engine debate,the change from ETOPS to EDTO is a reflection of the change of emphasis from engine reliability to cargo fire suppression.
EDTO removes twin engine from the equation due modern engine design.
sorry,can't remember the relevant ICAO paper.

I don't see VOz engines disintergrate on a regular basis. I have no proof but the number of RB211s disintergrating suggests that there is a problem with the maintenance or the oversight of the maintenance. Anecdotal evidence seems to be sufficient to prove the point. Jet engines are supposed to be reliable not explode on the wing. The common link to all these failures seems to be the intials RR.