|
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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 15:07. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.