|
But Boeing said they are safe!!!
What about this QF comment; “Qantas fleet safety captain Debbie Slade said she understood how the word "crack" could concern passengers. She said Boeing had "assured" Qantas the aircraft were safe to be flown for the next 1,000 cycles, even if there is a crack present in one of the components”. Boeing!!! Yeah, of course you can trust us, and the 737 Max is a safe aircraft too, right? I wouldn’t believe a word that Boeing utters, or CASA, or Qantas Management. |
No Boro required if you have the landing gear out and have a mirror
|
Originally Posted by Paragraph377
(Post 10608040)
What about this QF comment; “Qantas fleet safety captain Debbie Slade said she understood how the word "crack" could concern passengers. She said Boeing had "assured" Qantas the aircraft were safe to be flown for the next 1,000 cycles, even if there is a crack present in one of the components”. Boeing!!! Yeah, of course you can trust us, and the 737 Max is a safe aircraft too, right? I wouldn’t believe a word that Boeing utters, or CASA, or Qantas Management. |
Originally Posted by MickG0105
(Post 10608038)
Simply astounding work by these fellows to just notice something that cannot be seen without the aid of a boroscope! I guess Boeing wasted their time knocking up a 19 page Memo and Inspection Procedure to deal with this.
|
Originally Posted by ALAEA Fed Sec
(Post 10608027)
Will be back later George.....hoping by then you can explain what the false information was.
|
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10608052)
Does it matter how and when they found it? |
Originally Posted by MickG0105
(Post 10608056)
In this case it goes to the credibility of the account, so, yes, it does matter.
|
Originally Posted by George Glass
(Post 10608055)
Qantas is responding appropriately. You know that. You are responding hysterically for reasons know only to yourself. Are you seriously arguing that 7000 B737-800 world-wide should be grounded? Your foam flecked interviews on media are not a rational response that would be expected from a responsible organization.
Nothing to see here, move along! :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10608066)
Im a simple person you have lost me , what account? |
If a crack is found the aircraft is grounded, period. What Boeing is basing its inspection schedule on is probability based on what they have found so far. This probably will change as reports accumulate. The three day reporting requirement should indicate how seriously Boeing views the issue. Qantas is perfectly legal in it’s maintenance I’m sure. Whether it’s being prudent, I wouldn’t know. I would have thought if it was an easy inspection in passing it’s worth doing. If it’s cracked it shouldn’t be flying. Im surprised that Qantas has “seven months” to look on low time aircraft. I would have thought 3000 cycles per year, but I could be wrong. 1000 cycles is roughly 4 months at that rate. |
Originally Posted by Sunfish
(Post 10608079)
I would have thought 3000 cycles per year, but I could be wrong. |
Purely hypothetically of course...
How many RPT aircraft are involved in a heavy landing each day? Of each of the aircraft involved in a heavy landing each day, how many of those landings are entered in the maintenance release or approved equivalent? How many of the aircraft involved in a heavy landing are subject to a heavy landing inspection before the aircraft is returned to service? The travelling public will of course take great comfort from the fact that (1) heavy landings are always recorded, (2) heavy landing inspections are consequentially carried out and (3) that the ‘safety’ authority is confirming that (1) and (2) have happened. |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 10608114)
Purely hypothetically of course...
How many RPT aircraft are involved in a heavy landing each day? Of each of the aircraft involved in a heavy landing each day, how many of those landings are entered in the maintenance release or approved equivalent? How many of the aircraft involved in a heavy landing are subject to a heavy landing inspection before the aircraft is returned to service? The travelling public will of course take great comfort from the fact that (1) heavy landings are always recorded, (2) heavy landing inspections are consequentially carried out and (3) that the ‘safety’ authority is confirming that (1) and (2) have happened. There’s no escaping it. |
The travelling public could care less about 1 and 2, they cant even be bothered to find out how long their crew have been awake for and how long they have been on duty. A hard landing (its either an overweight landing or a hard landing no such thing as a heavy landing) is a landing that experiences greater than 2 g vertical acceleration at touchdown. As BSM stated the information is immediately available to maintenance. If the hard landings I have experienced in the sim are anything to go by a hard landing will be felt through your spine. up through the neck and explode in your cranium.
|
Mick, maybe 3000 hrs, not 3000 cycles. |
Mick, maybe 3000 hrs, not 3000 cycles. Year of Manufacture 2001. Approximately 27,000 cycles in 18 years or 1500 per year average or 28.8 cycles per week. 25 sectors for this aircraft in this week. https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/ro...of-boeing-737/ |
Sunfish, I would guess around 4 to 5 cycles per day would be average for QF 737’s. They’ll do more some days, less others, but that would be about the average, |
Lot of posters on here wanting to bash QF Management for the sake of bashing QF Management. It's understandable from the past history.
But IAW with the directive issued QF have acted prudently. The ALAEA Fed Sec has tried to score points, and has come out looking childish. Very, very disappointing from what until now has always been a very good score sheet. |
Originally Posted by mmmbop
(Post 10608524)
Lot of posters on here wanting to bash QF Management for the sake of bashing QF Management. It's understandable from the past history.
But IAW with the directive issued QF have acted prudently. The ALAEA Fed Sec has tried to score points, and has come out looking childish. Very, very disappointing from what until now has always been a very good score sheet. That would be a prudent and wise strategy. As Mr Purvinas also explained, such a check takes an hour or so. Of course following the strict edict of the directive limits the inspection sample. Perhaps QF management would rather not know if other aircraft have problems until they are mandated to check them. |
Is the bride wearing white?
At least now Little Napoleon's absence is explained as the couple conduct their nuptials. https://www.smh.com.au/culture/celeb...30-p535ls.html |
Originally Posted by Rated De
(Post 10608544)
What is missed is Mr Purvinas stated that unchecked aircraft ought be grounded pending an inspection.
That would be a prudent and wise strategy. As Mr Purvinas also explained, such a check takes an hour or so. Of course following the strict edict of the directive limits the inspection sample. Perhaps QF management would rather not know if other aircraft have problems until they are mandated to check them. So Purvinas has more wisdom than the rest of the industry. So everyone who planned to fly on a B737 over the next week has their plans thrown into turmoil because Purvinas is smarter than the rest of the aviation community. Dont think so. So Everyone who planned to fly on a B737 over the next week has their plans thrown into turmoil so that Purvinas can damage Qantas in an attempt to get square. I think so. His performance on the ABC news last night was pathetic. His distorted answers are that of a sulking brat adolescent. Not that Of someone who is purporting to be the leader of a very professional bunch of people. |
Originally Posted by JamieMaree
(Post 10608598)
So Purvinas has more wisdom than the rest of the industry.
I believe in Boeing, I trust Engineers. I've been lied to on just about everything by Management - why not this? Even seeing Debbies Laid(:)) in a silly uniform on TV didn't change my mind - even if she wasn't wearing a hat! |
Originally Posted by JamieMaree
(Post 10608598)
So Purvinas has more wisdom than the rest of the industry.
So everyone who planned to fly on a B737 over the next week has their plans thrown into turmoil because Purvinas is smarter than the rest of the aviation community. Dont think so. So Everyone who planned to fly on a B737 over the next week has their plans thrown into turmoil so that Purvinas can damage Qantas in an attempt to get square. I think so. His performance on the ABC news last night was pathetic. His distorted answers are that of a sulking brat adolescent. Not that Of someone who is purporting to be the leader of a very professional bunch of people. The thread should be retitled Steve Purvinas - Drama Queen. And show some self respect man - have a goddamn shave for chrissakes... |
What is the problem with checking the entire fleet as a matter of immediate urgency? I haven't seen Steve P suggest anything else (unless I've missed it?)
If I was told by my car manufacturer that there may be chassis cracking and I should get it checked, I would make that an immediate priority. Why wouldn't I do that with a jet? Perhaps QF management would rather not know if other aircraft have problems until they are mandated to check them. |
QF Management
Looks like QF Management are hard out trying to discredit Steve on this forum!
|
I know who I’d trust, been trusting the engineers for 30+ years.... |
Well this has been an interesting read. Pretty much every critical piece here reverts to personal attacks rather than anything based on the facts in relation to the cracks themselves. Even when I asked for George Glass to highlight anything I said that was false information, nothing was forthcoming, just more personal attacks. FYI, I do not know more than the entire industry, but I do know a lot more than I have been able to explain publicly as you get limited air time to present a case. I place a high price on my own credibility and for that reason will expand in some greater detail here, with documents and explanations so anyone who doubts the genuine nature of our (ALAEA) concerns can continue with their personal attacks, attacks that will be meaningless unless supported themselves with some counter evidence.
Our Association has not had one complaint from our members who are at the coal face of this matter. They are existing in a workplace where Engineers are threatened and bullied by managers to turn a blind eye to aircraft defects. I worked on Qantas planes for 20 years, in the days when people would receive service awards for finding unusual defects that prevented aircraft incidents. Now, this practice is frowned upon. The entire safety first mantra has been turned on it's head in the pursuit of profit. We see this in our workplace. Pilots see this particularly with the fatigue issues as do the Hosties with planned short crewing and similar fatigue problems. There is a cancer spreading within the Qantas group that needs to be cut out and if this crack issue is the one thing that in some way draws attention to the wider concerns, profit before safety, it will only benefit us all. |
Thu 24/10/2019
The ALAEA was advised as follows by a member in Bne Heavy Maintenance - "VXM may be grounded..... airframe blokes were looking out of interest and found a crack. Will update when I get some more info....Ops manager XXX XXXXX on the warpath. Wants to know who was looking there and why." The Engineers were changing the landing gear, this is where the pickle forks are located. We are all of course aware of the 737Max problems but a month earlier, there were also some press reports about growing concerns in relation to stress fractures in the Boeing 738 worldwide fleet. For us Engineers, this prompts interest as we dedicate our lives to protecting those who fly. It is in our nature. As a result whilst working in the area, the blokes looked and found VXM cracked, and lodged the appropriate reports. This prompted anger from the local manager, something not unusual from many recent experiences. The ALAEA did not go public with this, instead we did the research behind the cracks to determine how concerning this was. The AD which will follow shortly had some history and directives for Operators. For us it was a wait and see situation although I had called my countepart in the US to relay the Qantas finding and find out what latest developments were occuring in the States. |
Wed 30/10/2019
It was Qantas who first put this matter into the press, not the ALAEA. The following article was printed in the SMH without any comment from us. https://www.smh.com.au/business/comp...30-p535xo.html Qantas at that stage said they would "speed up that time-frame" of their checks. Not much a commitment really considering Virgin had already completed theirs. Especially so when Qantas had found a cracked one. The concerning parts of the article were these parts where Qantas downplayed the severity of the problem. I will come back to these comments when we analyse the AD. "The cracks - which Qantas said do not immediately compromise safety" "Detailed analysis by Boeing shows that even where this crack is present, it does not immediately compromise the safety of the aircraft" and "A Qantas spokesman said that out of “an abundance of caution” the airline was inspecting the remaining 33 jets with more than 22,6000 cycles in its fleet this week during ground time, rather than over the next seven months." From these comments Qantas had already started to downplay the severity of the concern. The comments are in conflict with the actual AD issued by the FAA. Qantas can pull out a Pilot with an AD in their hand, some PR people, Andrew David, or anyone they like to try and add credibility to their statements, but this is not what the FAA have said about these cracks. It is made up spin by the same people who profit from aircraft that are not grounded with maintenance problems. Despite watching this play out, the ALAEA still made no comments and issued no press releases to grab attention. The next morning I received 2 calls from radio who had remembered the article I had written about the ageing Qantas fleet and wanted to discuss pickle forks and if they were related to aircraft age. I did so without calling for Qantas to ground their 738 fleet because at that stage, although an aircraft with 27,000 cycles (below the urgent 30,000 threshold I will show in the AD) was unusual, it may have been a one off. Immediately after the two radio interviews.....we were informed of a second aircraft that was cracked. This prompted some calls and in consultation with some of our Executives, it was agreed that for the interest of safety, we had to go public with the growing concern. Why would we go public and not directly to Qantas? Well that comes down to history. Qantas has not addressed one concern we have taken directly to them in the past 10 years. They brush our concerns aside with disregard and disdain, quite often delivered by people who have no Engineering knowledge, simply HR people with clipboards and lean six sigma black belts. Something Qantas employees in other departments may identify with. |
Here's a link to the AD....hopefully I can post the pages as well.
https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...pany-airplanes https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....2923643bf9.png |
|
This situation could have created some really good Qudos for the airline if handled appropriately.
IE; The airline inspected all 737 aircraft immediately after the first crack was discovered. Their engineers found cracks on a further 2 aircraft that were subsequently grounded. The airline and its engineers were able to mitigate the problem, and possible consequences, above the expectations and timeframes decided by Boeing and the issued AD. This airline and its employees place safety as its highest priority. But no. Instead we have spin doctors working against employees to create what seems a media circus. A view, through media, that management make decisions on when aircraft are deemed airworthy, whilst those sounding alarms are fobbed off, criticised, or labelled & targeted as having an industrial agenda, irressponsible or drama queens. It seems the only thing that Coward Street and most of the Australian public could give 2 hoots about is the miraculous job management did in turning around the business, profits, premium upgrades, and AJ's 24mill. And of course the impeccable safety record built on old foundations, that everyone seems to take for granted. There are way too many warning bells that have been ringing for a while now. What will it take? |
You know what it’ll take. But hey, don’t want to appear ‘irresponsible’ or to be a ‘drama queen’ do we?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bride in waiting......why the silence?
CEO Joyce cares naught for anyone or for anything but himself. His sole focus in life is about his personal wealth, material desires and certain proclivities, promoting his sexuality, turning the airline into a platform that supports his sexuality, and being as public as he can about his sexuality so as to rub it into the faces of the church. He himself has admitted to wanting to fight churches over their opposition to his sexuality. So, this is what the CEO cares about. This is what drives him and this is what his agenda in life is about. Hence when issues such as the aircraft cracks comes up, he and his minions have absolutely no conscientious objection to spinning, deflecting, watering down and even denying there is any problem, any risk, any safety concerns. And for that, this despicable human being isn’t worth the paper his birth name is written on. It is almost unfathomable that Joyce has not been pried away from his Qantas throne in the past 10 years. How the hell 30,000 employees of his have not all put in a vote of no confidence in this little man and is quite frankly, remarkable. This weekend I hope all the hard working people at QF remember that little Napoleon, no doubt dressed in a brown tuxedo, is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars that he has gleaned from the staffs back pockets on a lavish wedding to cardboard cutout Shane, again something that is all about him and his own personal desires, while the rest of the airline tries to focus on the public’s safety and their own personal safety, something Joyce doesn’t give a stuff about. As for his absence during this engineering episode, is it any surprise? Gutless people, cowards and spineless human beings always hide from the big issues in life. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:21. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.