So guys as you can see the AD is quite detailed. I am sure those who are not bored yet will be able to nut through the technical data, you Pilots are almost as technically minded as us poor cousins. For those who have been following affairs.....the FAA and Boeing have come under heavy criticism for not undertaking proper oversight in relation to the MAX and the new MACS system. Corporate capture is the word I hear being used. This is basically where the regulator goes easy on their friends and as a result in this case, 2 planes have crashed before they acted, and that was only when Donald stepped in. Saying that, we are concerned that FAA are not exactly being as proper as they should be in all dealings they have with Boeing, apparently EASA have the same concerns.

So back to the 738 pickle forks. About 6 weeks ago this issue emerged. 3 x 737NG aircraft had been found with cracks to this primary structure component. Each aircraft had over 35,000 landings. On that basis FAA called for inspections within 7 days for all NGs with over 30,000 landings and within 1000 cycles for those over 22,600 landings. Remember.....those figures were based on 3 cracked aircraft.....over 35,000. If the original 3 aircraft had been aircraft with 27,000 landings, the checks would have been ordered for much younger aircraft.

Qantas had no aircraft with 30,000 landings. They were not "pulling forward" these inspections early because they put safety first. They weren't even undertaking these checks because, as per the AD, they didn't need to. A crack was found inadvertently (and management were angry with the Engineers for finding it). The entire scope of the AD was now in question. FAA had originally thought that the only aircraft with these problems had over 35,000 landings. The first Qantas plane found with the crack was alarming, the second one created a pattern as it also had well under the urgent 30,000 landings.

The issue is serious. The AD does not permit a plane with cracks to fly. Hence, if you don't find cracks, you can still fly and for airlines this means they can continue to generate revenue even if the structure is cracked. So you cannot fly with these cracks.....one may wonder why.....you can see from the posted AD why -

These aren't my words, this is the FAA. In short, your wing could separate from the fuselage. Anyone who still thinks my comments were over the top should stop reading here. If you want to continue to believe the PR from Qantas, feel free to do so but please do not fly a plane or claim to be able to fix one. I want the people entrusted with my safety aware of the consequences of everything we do.

You’re playing the man, not the ball.

So with this issue identified by the FAA as one that could cause loss of aircraft control. With the FAA assuming the only aircraft in danger had over 35,000 cycles (and calling for urgent inspections with those over 30k) and knowing that Qantas had found these cracks on 2 aircraft at 27,000 cycles, we called for immediate checks and planes to not fly until they were checked (a one hour at longest process). This was 0800 Thu 31/10/2019.

There was a lot of press commentary all that day. Mostly by Qantas, as they have more media control than we do. For example, I have not had one call from Sky who keep on rolling out a variety of Aviation experts to support the Qantas PR. As I sit here I see another one, some Captain Byron Bailey who I've never heard of before. And all these experts from CASA, Industry and Qantas keep repeating the same lines put together by the army of people in the Qantas spin department. Let's unpack some of their misleading comments -

I am yet to have one fact successful disputed by anyone. Quite interesting that they would praise the same Engineers who were being admonished the day the first crack was found. (BTW we have a QLink Engineer currently stood down because he lodged a report that he was told by managers that he wasn't permitted to report corrosion on 717 aircraft)

I had an interesting exchange with Friday morning with a member of the public. This guy is a confessed union opponent but seems to consider me a little different from most union leaders. That's probably because I am not Political, never been in a party and never want to be. It came after some events late Thu night. I had completed a BBC World Service radio interview discussing the two Qantas cracked aircraft. That night he had listened to it and sent me this -


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b16cb97a22.jpg

So more than 12 hours after Qantas knew they had 2 cracked planes, they were trying to discredit my accounts by denying a second plane had cracks. Hopefully now some are starting to realise that Qantas are not exactly honest with things they have been saying in public.

It is very clear that all country regulators should act with FAA guidance, with a grain of salt. In the FAA current format.

FAA and Boeing still appear to have a very "protective of each other" cosy relationship.

One would consider that if aircraft have been found with cracking below the inspection cycle limit set by the FAA- the inspection cycle limit needs to be revised urgently.

The FAA were the last to ground the 737 MAX, other regulators made their own decision earlier.

No reason that CASA could not give a 15,000 cycle limit with another 7 day deadline to inspect - if no more cracks are found then great, leave it to upon reaching 15,000 cycles.

It is not a large cost (unless defect is found), increases the safety, no-brainier.

But like Boeing is to the FAA, Qantas is to CASA - what can possibly go wrong?

Fri 1/11/2019

The third cracked aircraft was found early in the morning. Qantas conducted further press including a conference at 10.30 where many of the same incorrect and/or misleading lines were repeated. Andrew David also had a pretty healthy stab at the rogue union person who was blowing out of proportion an issue that posed no safety concern. At that stage they had inspected 33 of 75 aircraft, all the ones over 22,600 cycles (refer AD) I really liked the first questions he was asked -

Why don't you check the other 42 aircraft? …….and after some waffle...….why don't you just check the other 42 aircraft, they one take an hour each...…..followed by more waffle. The waffle was technical in nature and incomprehensible to the reporters. What he basically said was that the AD only required inspections on aircraft over 22,600 cycles and that Qantas would not be going beyond the minimum number of checks required by the AD.

At that stage Qantas would have been well aware that the AD was written on the assumption that cracks were only developing on planes over 35,000 landings. They know their planes are cracking a lot earlier and they still will not lower the threshold for these checks to be undertaken. Calls that our statements to check the planes before they fly have been called irresponsible by Qantas and all those repeating the same PR lines.

These checks take one nominal hour to do. In reality experienced blokes can do the checks in 15 minutes with a torch and a rag. Grounding the other 42 planes to do the checks would not be onerous for the airline, they could be done by 42 Engineers (each day there are a couple of hundred rostered for duty) in one hour. Yet Qantas refuse to go beyond the number specified in what is now an outdated AD and continue to fly 42 planes not knowing if they are cracked or not, cracks that could lead to the loss of control of the airplane.

I'll sign off now with a couple of not so technical comments. I write this openly to you Guys and Gals who fly the planes with the intention of using the content in a notice to our members. I have a partner who I take my directives from, and like most of you I consider the directives from my partner, second to none. Earlier in this thread I was told to have some self respect and shave before going on tele. I can tell you I have been directed by number one, that I am not to shave and as such have not done so for 5 years.

cheers
Steve P

So....if you look for cracks, and they are found, the aircraft is ”grounded” due to safety concerns....but if you don’t look for cracks, that MAY be present..that is not a safety concern. Mmmm!!

Sounds like it could be a good script for Monty Python or Yes Minister!!

Mate I know that all Pilots respect the LAMEs and vice versa. We trust each other implicitly. The problem is, our judgements and decisions are being taken from us by non technical managers who claim to know more about aircraft than we do. Qantas is not the same as it once was. LAMEs now get in trouble if they find defects on planes. I put these things out there because our industry is being destroyed by people who can't look past their own OTP based KPIs and both our groups are suffering from understaffing and other constraints that put too much stress on the safety system. I am not talking out of school and have three clear examples to prove the charge I have outlined here. I also will give an example of something that is incomprehensible to us old school LAMEs that was put upon a member of ours. This is what the Qantas Group has become -

The other day an A380 diverted to Avalon. There was a repeated inspection on an MEL that required LAME certification every transit. The Melbourne LAMEs were called and asked if a LAME in Melbourne could certify for the inspection without going there. That is, sign it from 70km away. Welcome to our world.

As for looking at things like these cracks whilst we are in the vicinity, here are some examples of what happens.

1. Some years back, Sunstate LAMEs noted that the cockpit door locks (that keep you safe from knife wielding terrorists) could be opened with a paddle pop stick. The LAMEs snagged the defects. 7 LAMEs were stood down for 5 months because they reported an issue they weren't asked to look for. They had a work card that said to do a cabin inspection. According to Sunstate, you could only notice the lock issue if you had a card calling for a detailed cabin inspection. They all received first and final warnings for misconduct.

2. A transit check certified by a LAME used to be undertaken before every Qantas flight. They decided to drop the checks and make them daily (they are now every other day). The ALAEA issued a notice for members to continue doing the checks. We were taken to the FWC for unprotected action and the orders were issued.

3. The other example is current. A Qantaslink LAME currently stood down because he lodged a report stating that management told him he was not allowed to report 717 corrosion.

This is why we cannot check the other 42 aircraft without a specific card asking us to do so. Welcome to Qantas guys....oh I almost forgot.....safety is our number one priority.

I think you got that last line wrong, it should be Executive Bonuses is our Number One Priority, followed by Schedule (because it affects our KPI's which affects our Bonuses, followed by Safety (because it affects our KPI's which affects our Bonuses)...

And to all the Engineers reading this thread..thank you from a 73 Line Driver, our trust in your work is, as always, total, our trust in Management..zero.

Judging by the photos that I have seen, cracks might well be visible to both the Engineer on a pre-flight or turn around, as well as the Pilot on his walk around.

And as far as the spin from both sides go, the truth seems to be somewhere in the middle. Seems to me that this was a great PR opportunity for QF that was completely bungled. If QF management think that they are all innocent and not responsible for this fiasco, they need to remember that being at war with one of their unions is a very bad look. A lesson they clearly missed in 2011.

And for those with personal attacks on Steve Purvinas, I would suggest you either grow a set of balls and use your real name on this forum, or keep your vile, gutless comments to yourself. Steve is using his real name, how about you do the same?

So just to be clear, Steve, 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?

Best regards,

​​​​​​​Mick Gilbert

If pilots are in any doubt, can they ask an engineer to show them what to look for?

Kudos Mick, for having the intestinal fortitude to use your real name. Lets hope others have the guts that you clearly have.

Given that the inspection only takes an hour, why should it be an issue? A company management wanting to promote a positive safety culture might even suggest that the best safety outcome would be to inspect every air frame, even one that has 10 cycles, let alone 22,600. Surely Joe public would react positively to that?

I know one thing for sure: Telling the world that your Engineers are irresponsible doesn't make your airline look good. Quite the opposite.

Rodney, the answer is absolutely Yes. Almost every engineer I have had anything to do with in Qantas has been outstanding with their professionalism, sharing their time, and sharing their knowledge. I doubt they'd ever hesitate to help.

Have you seen Boeing's Recommended Inspection Procedure? Without a boroscope the likelihood of even seeing the base of the frame fittings and failsafe straps would be zero. Even with the aid of a boroscope with a 1.5m extension you've still got to thread it past a wiring bundle on the RHS and behind a hydraulic fitting on the LHS.

Mick, I'm a pilot. You're speaking Swahili! I will admit to not having read the procedure. There is a suggestion that it takes an hour, requires a torch and a rag? Is this not the case? Others above have questioned this very point, without much of a reaction.

The photo's that I have seen are taken in the wheel well, and the pickle forks can be clearly viewed, along with the cracks? It has been a number of years since I flew the maggot, but it seems straight forward?

Even with the boroscope method you mention, if it takes even two or three hours, wouldn't that be worth it?

The ALAEA would/could do far better if they had the build up of fighting experience to then take on the "champions".

They seem to choose to neglect that path and in process make the champion stronger.

Going for a knockout is not a good strategy - work the body so the legs are weak.

Many of us sit in the back ground waiting for a reply/proper action from the ALAEA (about 2 years+ or so now) - on simple wining cases, but still out of pocket - I've been busy the reply.

I have heard a number of members are about to cancel membership due inaction.

A public response is welcome, as several members have made complains and no change has been had.

If this is a QANTAS LAME UNION please just let us know.

No, that was English. This is Swahili:
Here it is.

I'm neither an engineer nor currently a pilot.

FFS, I'm not applying for a job. If you have an issue with any of my posts from a factual or logical reasoning perspective, let me know.

Well, if you spot anything that's either incredible or technically deficient, be sure to let me know.

I didn't know there was going to be a vetting process otherwise I would have dressed more smartly.

AD says it all
 

For all of those on here who continue to personally attack Steve,why not spend your time actually reading the AD & understanding the risks the manufacturer is outlining if cracks are present.
​​​​​​It clearly says that loss of control is possible.
If after reading this you still think you know better,go & buy yourself & your family a ticket on 1 of these aircraft & put a copy on here.

Just throwing this out there.

Has any pilot ever been admonished/stood down/sacked for finding and reporting a defect ?

"I know one thing for sure: Telling the world that your Engineers are irresponsible doesn't make your airline look good. Quite the opposite."

And it does nothing for the person doing the telling either

I wonder how many calls were made on Friday from pax asking for refunds.

I wonder what Mr Wirth thinks about the management and their relationship with union officials or is it simply a case now of him having moved on from his former life.

I wonder what the AFAP & AIPA is doing regarding their members.

I wonder what the FAAA is doing regarding their members.

I was out on Saturday for a former staff reunion, all were on the side of the engineers. As one guy said, make sure you tell everyone in the coming days that QANTAS are in the wrong.

I've had detailed discussions on this issue with three different people, all of whom asked me about it as they were quite concerned. They all mentioned his pay and two asked about the wedding. I got a lot of traction from stating that Qantas will be covering themselves to ensure they are 100% legal, but unlike in the past, no more than that. Then I stated the old aviation adage that you have to be both 'safe' AND 'legal' at all times - that they are not always the same thing. The key being not 'wanting' to find a problem that 'could' be there. That hit a very big note. The other thing I mentioned that created interest is that in her wisdom Mr Joyce woke up one morning and took it into his head to ground the entire airline because he felt like proving a pointless point, yet he now deems it 'irresponsible' to spend a single hour looking at each 737 that may have safety issues yet fly continuously..

I think those simple statements sunk in.

Thanks Krusty. I have no great ambition to make a fool of myself here so I'm disinclined to blithely wade into a discussion without doing some research. I'm fortunate to have a good many mates and former colleagues who are currently in the business and have a wealth of experience across a variety of types (and the generosity of time and patience to put up with 20 (generally more) questions from me on a regular basis). And we're all of an age that their experience has been from the left hand seat (except for two mates who fly rotary) for some time now.

I've also been fortunate enough to have developed a cadre of contacts, here and overseas, who have expertise in a variety of related fields. And then there's right here - if I can't find something out elsewhere then I'll pose the question here.

At the end of the day 1 + 1 = 2 is true regardless of whether it's written by someone with four bars on their shoulder or none and no amount of command time can make 1 + 1 = 3 true (although I'm sure someone will have an amusing anecdote on that topic).

Oh FFS! If you think I'm GT, I'm surprised that you'd notice hair missing given the orifice-inserted orientation of your head!