|
So it looks like this is becoming a big pickle for Boeing! How many worldwide failures have there been on top of the cracks? Will there become a fix? Whats that thread? QF needs a new fleet? More like Boeing need a new 737! What next? |
It was explained to me when I joined Ansett back in the old days of the two airline policy, that there were two schools of aviation maintenance philosophy; the Australian way which was proactive and had its core idea the maintenance of aircraft resale value and operational reliability throughout its long ownership - which was forced on us by depreciation and other tax rules, and the American way. The American way was christened “buy it and fly it” - the Boeing maintenance system was the legal minimum maintenance requirement to meet statutory requirements during the life of the aircraft in the hands of an American airline. This was a lot shorter than in Australia. American fleets were kept much younger so they rarely saw the high time problems we did. I don’t know if this applies today, but it’s axiomatic that Boeing is specifying the minimum inspection regime at present and I would have thought a prudent airline would be looking deeper as Steve Purvinas recommended. |
Originally Posted by Sunfish
(Post 10610854)
It was explained to me when I joined Ansett back in the old days of the two airline policy, that there were two schools of aviation maintenance philosophy; the Australian way which was proactive and had its core idea the maintenance of aircraft resale value and operational reliability throughout its long ownership - which was forced on us by depreciation and other tax rules, and the American way. The American way was christened “buy it and fly it” - the Boeing maintenance system was the legal minimum maintenance requirement to meet statutory requirements during the life of the aircraft in the hands of an American airline. This was a lot shorter than in Australia. American fleets were kept much younger so they rarely saw the high time problems we did. I don’t know if this applies today, but it’s axiomatic that Boeing is specifying the minimum inspection regime at present and I would have thought a prudent airline would be looking deeper as Steve Purvinas recommended. |
Commercial pressure over ruling safety me thinks. Lack of data and make stab in the dark assumptions with regards to potential structural degradation of critical airframe components on the 737 is asking for more trouble. Safety first! What’s going to happen when a wing departs an airframe inflight due to a pickle fork failure? There is enough evidence out there now to give good reason to inspect every airframe that hasn’t just come out of the factory. I also note from a previous post by Steve that the inspection normally only takes about one hour. Could be done on a overnight layover or even a turn around in some cases. |
Neville Shute No Highway. A good read. |
|
Waiting for the phlegm flecked vitriol directed at Mr Purvinas and others to be retracted by the usual band.
Mr Purvinas apparently realised what the commercially driven regulator, besieged manufacturer, idiot airline management and low wattage followers didn't.. https://www.smh.com.au/business/comp...06-p53828.html |
This was only a matter of time. I just had some questions about Virgin/Qantas. I had spoke about Virgin last week and their aircraft, I think those comments had mainly been cut from the final comments that appeared in news outlets. Yes Virgin should do the same as Qantas. Current situation as we speak as posted on our facebook page -
…..only a matter of time before these checks will have to be done. If a LCC in Indonesia can go over and above...there are no excuses for our airlines. FYI Qantas refuse to check planes below 22,600 cycles.....Virgin have checked all their planes above 18,000. https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....da3cf3d0a0.png |
Kudos to you Mr Purvinas.
In times of universal deceit truth telling becomes a lost art. Geoffrey Dell, an aviation safety expert at the Central Queensland University and a former senior safety manager at Qantas, said he expected the FAA's directive would be updated to mandate inspections of younger aircraft and that airlines should be proactive with their own inspections. "You might just have an aircraft that has done three hours that has the symptoms, because you don’t know what is causing it," Dr Dell said. |
Virgin has checked 19 aircraft in its fleet that were above the 22,600 flight threshold, and six additional jets that had above 18,000 flights, leaving 50 aircraft that have not been inspected. Qantas has inspected 33 aircraft above 22,600 flight cycles, leaving 42 which have not been inspected. Qantas said it does not have any planes that have operated between 18,000 and 22,600 flights. Virgin are ahead of the game and were so some weeks ago. |
|
Originally Posted by Beer Baron
(Post 10613443)
So it would appear that Qantas and Virgin are in lock-step with each other in having inspected all airframes above 18,000 cycles. Not disagreeing with Mr Purvinas’s call for broader scope to the inspections, it is well justified on the evidence. However it is hard to see the validity of comments like this when both airlines have inspected all their aircraft with over 18,000 cycles; https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a6f5d4ac86.jpg https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....38d303674a.jpg |
Touché. That certainly is interesting. Lying to the media about a safety issue is terribly poor form and deserves to be called out. |
Originally Posted by Beer Baron
(Post 10613443)
Qantas has inspected 33 aircraft above 22,600 flight cycles, leaving 42 which have not been inspected. Qantas said it does not have any planes that have operated between 18,000 and 22,600 flights.
Qantas has inspected 33 aircraft above 22,600 flight cycles, leaving 42 which have not been inspected. Qantas said it does not have any planes that have operated between 19,000 and 22,600 flights. |
Originally Posted by ALAEA Fed Sec
(Post 10613464)
Qantas are telling fibs again. Nothing new.
|
Now why would you want to know that... |
Originally Posted by j3pipercub
(Post 10613589)
Now why would you want to know that... |
Was just querying the as of what 'date and time' comment. Seems strange to request those details down to the date and time. As of this week, end of last week, sure. Why would you need that level of detail? Not trying to be an ass, just seems strange.
|
Originally Posted by MickG0105
(Post 10613570)
Where did you get that quote from? The SMH article doesn't say that. It says,
(My bolding) Where did it come from? Our members about 2 weeks ago when we were told the first crack had been found. |
Originally Posted by MickG0105
(Post 10613591)
We're talking about a dynamic dataset. Why wouldn't you want to know that?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 13:48. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.