Now Mick, you may choose to bathe in the glow of those who dislike the Skygods, and Qantas staff generally, but you have specifically avoided answering this question that I put to you earlier:

"Even with the boroscope method you mention, even if the check takes even two or three hours, wouldn't that be worth it?" That is the crux of this issue, isn't it? Give me some kind of reason NOT to do it?

If I was advising QF, and the check only takes one hour (if that) then I would advise them to conduct a one off check of all 737-800s, followed by a weekly check of all with > 22k cycles and a monthly check of all with < 22k cycles.

Its cheap to do requiring approximately 1.5x FTE to be allocated, it goes beyond OEM and regulatory requirements, it will give the travelling public reassurance that QF is a safety leader and furthermore, QF can claim world class visibility into the emerging PF cracking issue.

Unless Boeing has isolated the cause to something other than cycle or age related, it's clearly going to be an ongoing issue for some time.

That was precisely the point Mr Purvinas made.

1. Prudent, above reproach and consistent with a safety message.
2. Very little cost
3. Great PR Optics.

That they choose the other legal but minimal approach, denigrate those who suggest otherwise and send an industry hack like Mr David on TV to sell it is disappointing.

Inspections
 

Are there enough experienced Engineers left at QF, to do the inspections, after years of laying off Engineering staff?

Cost cutting and outsourcing of Engineering, looks to be biting QF (and many more Airlines) in the ass. If Engineering numbers were right, there'd be NO issue doing extra inspections to keep everyone Safe!
​​​

Just a quick check in. MickG could not be GT....the points he is posting seem to come from a person with some aviation knowledge.

As for the checks and yes you can get up there with a rag and torch but that would not be recommended for a Pilot, you'd need a new shirt if you tried. Boroscope is the standard method to undertake these inspections. The checks are a nominal 1 hour but our members report that once experienced, you can do them in around 15 minutes.

Like other departments, Engineer numbers have been cut to the bone. They're having all sorts of problems keeping up with their maintenance program, you may have noticed from the state of the cabins. It doesn't mean any of us should turn a blind eye to problems. The state of the fleet is a result of mismanagement, not poor workmanship.

That the industry has descended into a state whereby employees who have as their core responsibility safety are, in the "industrial climate" chastised, sanctioned and threatened is a disgrace.
The industrial relations system is broken, "fair work" is just a name and it is increasingly obvious that everything Little Napoleon touches turns to scrap.
With the exception of his own remuneration.

I'm not bathing in anyone's glow. If there's any glow bathing going on it's the coterie of contributors who operate like a closed-cycle human-caterpillar, endlessly reprocessing the same nonsense.

And I don't have an issue with the 'Skygods' (or anyone else for that matter) so long as they're happy to argue on a factual and logically reasoned basis. As I said earlier facts are facts whether they're put forward by one of the 'Skygods' or someone else.

And I wasn't avoiding the question. I gave you a raft of additional information the other day and had heard nothing back from you. Now you've seen the inspection instructions can you see that the rag and torch thing is just a nonsense?

But anyhow, to your question;

Adding the check for cracks to the next A Check for aircraft with that have met the 22,6000 cycle threshold would be a reasonable course of action but that is now largely moot as all aircraft that meet that criteria have been inspected. Grounding the entire fleet, regardless of age/flight cycles, is a course of action that is simply not supported by the data to hand.

Let me ask you a question, do you support the ALAEA call for all B737s to be immediately grounded pending inspections?

Thank you ... I think. That's a bit like a Steve Bradbury gold but any old how, just to revisit a question that I put to you on Saturday,

Are you still calling for the immediate grounding of all 42 QF B737s that have not yet been inspected? What about Virgin? should they be immediately grounding their currently uninspected B737s?

The demise of Qantas - the Geoff and Alan story
 

Mick,

Virgin have reported to the press that they have completed their B737 inspections..

If that report is correct, they have achieved it with little fanfare, without stress and without denigrating the Engineering world, or the leadership of its Engineering Union.

And while QF Management may be able to win perception when it comes to any Pilot Industrial action by trotting out the old chestnut of Pilot salaries, they may find it a little more difficult when the Engineers are simply arguing on a point of safety.

Anyway, no dog in this fight, so my post is just an observation and opinion..

Now you back right off Bradbury mate

That is exactly what Mr Purvinas was referring to, the AD (inspection) is working off "known knowns": The data is limited presently, suggestive the scope be broadened.
So rather than whinge, they just quietly, expeditiously and prudently did the inspections. That is called airline management, risk minimisation and sound practice.

Fort Fumble couldn't do it without a catchy project name a "team" to administer it and some way to personally profit from doing so.
Given Little Napoleon has spent the last week ordering flowers and attending to high society nuptials with such eminent people like Piggy as guests, the best Fort Fumble could do was send out an industry hack to denigrate the engineers and deny.

Exactly.

The A380 fleet was grounded until it was ascertained which of the aircraft were and were not modified.
It is entirely logical and prudent to do so.
If the head of the engineering union with substantively more experience than any industry hack or duplicitous regulatory idiot, details the inspection takes an hour per aircraft, then what precisely is the downside?

Great value PR with far less BS than filling a delivery aircraft full of hack journalists and claiming "scientific" research was done for an aircraft not yet ordered.