The Future Of Ansett, Post Election?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I took a look back through the archives to find something I’d said earlier on this subject before Sept 13th. Here it is, from the “Dunnunda & Godzone AN-ANZ-VB thread rebooted’ thread. page 8, dated 10 September 2001:
I think I said as much on a earlier thread, long before this crisis brewed to its current boiling point - you can rest assured that the Oz Govermnet will come up with some spectacularly half-arsed, convoluted and almost unworkable solution that will end up costing the long-suffering Oz taxpayer a fortune and leave them with nothing in their hands, but plenty of egg on their faces.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mon "AFR"
PM makes Ansett priority as Fox, Lew set deadline
Nov 12
Jane Boyle and Jason Koutsoukis
A two-week deadline to resolve key conditions of the sale of Ansett has been set by Melbourne businessmen Mr Lindsay Fox and Mr Solomon Lew and the airline's administrators as they seek urgent talks with the Federal Government to press for financial aid.
The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, said yesterday he would consider the Ansett proposal as a matter of priority, but refused to indicate what sort of assistance the Government was prepared to grant the financially ailing airline.
"I don't have any discussions arranged, but I imagine I would get a few phone calls seeing as I've been re-elected," he said.
Ansett's administrators are to meet the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr John Anderson, tomorrow and expect to put the Fox-Lew proposal to acquire Ansett's trunk route operations to a committee of creditors on Wednesday. Mr Fox and Mr Lew are seeking broad assistance, including the conversion of a
$195 million Government loan for worker entitlements to a grant.
Before Saturday's election, Mr Anderson had said that such a request was "a pretty big ask". Government officials said yesterday that they expected to meet the administrators, Mr Fox and Mr Lew and the Victorian Government as a group after the committee of creditors.
"At this stage we don't have any exact details of what the proposal is and we need to have those before we can provide any decision," a spokesman for Mr Anderson said.
He said that while the Government was very reluctant to provide any direct equity into Ansett Mark II, the Government would leave open the possibility of providing further targeted assistance of the sort given to regional airlines such as Kendell and Hazelton.
The spokesman said that a final decision could not be expected until next week at the earliest.
A source close to the process said that while the two-week deadline for satisfaction of the conditions could be renegotiated, failure to reach agreement with the Government within that timeframe "could affect the outcome of the bid".
In a submission to the Government, the administrators are understood to have projected that the conversion of the $195 million loan to a grant could allow a return to the airline's unsecured creditors of up to 20¢ in the dollar for the $1.2 billion they are collectively owed.
They argue this would help ensure the viability of the new airline as creditors who got a return would be more likely to support Ansett Mark II.
While the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, has been reluctant to provide the $195 million as a grant, or subordinate its loan behind unsecured creditors, a source close to the process said there was another option that could meet the administrators' objectives and reduce the Government's financial commitment.
This would involve the Government's subordinating part of its claim to ensure smaller unsecured creditors get paid a return ahead of the Government, but the Government would get some of its money back ahead of larger creditors such as the banks.
The option would help alleviate financial distress facing creditors that are small and least able to absorb the losses on Ansett.
Sources close to the process have also raised the possibility that the next full meeting of creditors to vote on the outcome could be delayed until January because of the range and complexity of issues to be resolved in relation to the Fox-Lew bid and other asset sales.
Meanwhile, one of the administrators, Mr Mark Mentha, said the Fox-Lew airline would have a capitalisation in the "hundreds of millions of dollars", making it about 10 times Virgin Blue's start-up capital, which was about $40 million.
"What Mark Korda and I have done is to make sure that the new airline is properly capitalised, and we think the capitalisation of the new airline will be something in the order of 10 times of Virgin's start-up capital," he told Nine's Business Sunday program.
"We wanted to make sure that Ansett Mark II would be viable in the long term," he said.
Mr Mentha rejected the suggestion that the re-election of the Coalition could make it more difficult to get the financial support necessary for the Fox-Lew deal.
He said the decision to announce the deal last Thursday had been commercially rather than politically driven.
It is understood that of the $1.1 billion value put on the deal, the Fox-Lew syndicate will pay about $400 million for assets including the airline's terminals and maintenance facilities and plant and equipment.
It will also commit working capital of about $400 million and take on liabilities, mainly staff entitlements, of about $200 million.
Mr Mentha said that parts of the deal, including the future of Ansett's Global Rewards program and associated liabilities on frequent-flyer points, were still "work in progress".
He admitted that the airline that had been conditionally sold to Mr Fox and Mr Lew was much smaller than the operation left behind, which includes the regional airlines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM makes Ansett priority as Fox, Lew set deadline
Nov 12
Jane Boyle and Jason Koutsoukis
A two-week deadline to resolve key conditions of the sale of Ansett has been set by Melbourne businessmen Mr Lindsay Fox and Mr Solomon Lew and the airline's administrators as they seek urgent talks with the Federal Government to press for financial aid.
The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, said yesterday he would consider the Ansett proposal as a matter of priority, but refused to indicate what sort of assistance the Government was prepared to grant the financially ailing airline.
"I don't have any discussions arranged, but I imagine I would get a few phone calls seeing as I've been re-elected," he said.
Ansett's administrators are to meet the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr John Anderson, tomorrow and expect to put the Fox-Lew proposal to acquire Ansett's trunk route operations to a committee of creditors on Wednesday. Mr Fox and Mr Lew are seeking broad assistance, including the conversion of a
$195 million Government loan for worker entitlements to a grant.
Before Saturday's election, Mr Anderson had said that such a request was "a pretty big ask". Government officials said yesterday that they expected to meet the administrators, Mr Fox and Mr Lew and the Victorian Government as a group after the committee of creditors.
"At this stage we don't have any exact details of what the proposal is and we need to have those before we can provide any decision," a spokesman for Mr Anderson said.
He said that while the Government was very reluctant to provide any direct equity into Ansett Mark II, the Government would leave open the possibility of providing further targeted assistance of the sort given to regional airlines such as Kendell and Hazelton.
The spokesman said that a final decision could not be expected until next week at the earliest.
A source close to the process said that while the two-week deadline for satisfaction of the conditions could be renegotiated, failure to reach agreement with the Government within that timeframe "could affect the outcome of the bid".
In a submission to the Government, the administrators are understood to have projected that the conversion of the $195 million loan to a grant could allow a return to the airline's unsecured creditors of up to 20¢ in the dollar for the $1.2 billion they are collectively owed.
They argue this would help ensure the viability of the new airline as creditors who got a return would be more likely to support Ansett Mark II.
While the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, has been reluctant to provide the $195 million as a grant, or subordinate its loan behind unsecured creditors, a source close to the process said there was another option that could meet the administrators' objectives and reduce the Government's financial commitment.
This would involve the Government's subordinating part of its claim to ensure smaller unsecured creditors get paid a return ahead of the Government, but the Government would get some of its money back ahead of larger creditors such as the banks.
The option would help alleviate financial distress facing creditors that are small and least able to absorb the losses on Ansett.
Sources close to the process have also raised the possibility that the next full meeting of creditors to vote on the outcome could be delayed until January because of the range and complexity of issues to be resolved in relation to the Fox-Lew bid and other asset sales.
Meanwhile, one of the administrators, Mr Mark Mentha, said the Fox-Lew airline would have a capitalisation in the "hundreds of millions of dollars", making it about 10 times Virgin Blue's start-up capital, which was about $40 million.
"What Mark Korda and I have done is to make sure that the new airline is properly capitalised, and we think the capitalisation of the new airline will be something in the order of 10 times of Virgin's start-up capital," he told Nine's Business Sunday program.
"We wanted to make sure that Ansett Mark II would be viable in the long term," he said.
Mr Mentha rejected the suggestion that the re-election of the Coalition could make it more difficult to get the financial support necessary for the Fox-Lew deal.
He said the decision to announce the deal last Thursday had been commercially rather than politically driven.
It is understood that of the $1.1 billion value put on the deal, the Fox-Lew syndicate will pay about $400 million for assets including the airline's terminals and maintenance facilities and plant and equipment.
It will also commit working capital of about $400 million and take on liabilities, mainly staff entitlements, of about $200 million.
Mr Mentha said that parts of the deal, including the future of Ansett's Global Rewards program and associated liabilities on frequent-flyer points, were still "work in progress".
He admitted that the airline that had been conditionally sold to Mr Fox and Mr Lew was much smaller than the operation left behind, which includes the regional airlines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ned Kelly doesnt need his iron mask thingy to "relieve" Ansett creditors of their real assets.
All he needs is good media PR spin doctor, an awful brown jumper, a dodgy rag merchant and a compliant administrator backed up by a bunch of union thugs to provide a little encouragement when necessary.
So the key strategic, best sited and equipped terminal and maintenance facilities at the major airports with a 1,000 year lease negotiated ?? between the fat man and the bodgie, is worth only $400 million.
When you look at the figures being paid for the airports this is lose change.
You couldn't replace the buildings and equipment for THREE times this and THEN there's the underlying lease value.
I haven't seen the lease agreements but if they don't revert to the Govt/owner then they should do.
Wake up and smell the coffee AN staff and creditors. There is a highway robbery taking place under you very noses right now.
Oh and BTW does anybody want to tell me now that '89 isn't part of this whole fiasco.
I just can't believe how short the corporate memory is.
All he needs is good media PR spin doctor, an awful brown jumper, a dodgy rag merchant and a compliant administrator backed up by a bunch of union thugs to provide a little encouragement when necessary.
It is understood that of the $1.1 billion value put on the deal, the Fox-Lew syndicate will pay about $400 million for assets including the airline's terminals and maintenance facilities and plant and equipment.
When you look at the figures being paid for the airports this is lose change.
You couldn't replace the buildings and equipment for THREE times this and THEN there's the underlying lease value.
I haven't seen the lease agreements but if they don't revert to the Govt/owner then they should do.
Wake up and smell the coffee AN staff and creditors. There is a highway robbery taking place under you very noses right now.
Oh and BTW does anybody want to tell me now that '89 isn't part of this whole fiasco.
I just can't believe how short the corporate memory is.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monday, 12 November 2001
(C) The Australian Financial Review
Qantas Airways and Virgin Blue could feel the wrath of a "wronged" Singapore
Airlines as it looks for its chance to hold the management leash of what Mr
Lindsay Fox referred to last week as an "underdog Ansett".
The fact that Mr Fox and his would-be partner in a revived Ansett, fellow
Melbourne businessman Mr Solomon Lew, bet their political connections on a
Labor win is beside the point.
Singapore Airlines has a consulting role with the administrators and hasn't
tried to pick a winner between the Lew/Fox or ANstaff groups.
It is just aching for a chance, any chance, to savage Qantas.
On Wednesday, in a move termed "entirely coincidental" by Singapore
Airlines, it raised a $S800million ($855 million) bond issue in Hong Kong
for the purpose of working capital.
After replacing the cash spent on a $S600 million share buyback, there is
more than enough money left over to inject some serious bite into a new
Ansett.
Singapore Airlines has been aggressively planning for a management or future
equity role with whoever gets to buy the core assets of the carrier.
It is seething over the role of the Australian Government in the Ansett
collapse, privately arguing that it destroyed a $400-million plus investment
in parent company Air New Zealand by accepting the Qantas view that
unrestricted competition in aviation was not in the national interest.
The Government stymied moves that would have increased the Singapore equity
in the Air NZ/Ansett group and lead to a progressive recapitalisation and
expansion of their operations.
Singapore is also furious with the role Sir Richard Branson played through
his refusal to sell budget carrier Virgin Blue to Ansett, which would have
averted the situation in which Ansett was written off the books at Air NZ to
the tune of more than $1 billion.
But Singapore Airlines has far more at stake in its partnership with Sir
Richard in Virgin Atlantic than it has so far lost in Australia.
Some form of reconciliation with Virgin Blue to goad a blue heeler of an
airline into ripping the Qantas share price to shreds is verging on being a
possibility.
Only in Australia have the ambitions of both players clashed, and where Sir
Richard, at least initially, has succeeded with his classless brand of cheap
jet flights.
The Singapore Airlines team that has been shuttling between the
administrators and their home base has a double brief. It has to "protect"
Singapore Airlines' interests from the consequences of Australia becoming a
one-airline State, and also create product differentiation.
The strategic brilliance of Qantas chief Mr Geoff Dixon is making that very
hard. Mr Dixon is occupying Virgin territory with up to 40 tight-fit
all-economy 737s in budget service by the end of next year, as well as
offering full-service flights in more than 20 wide-bodied 767s on interstate
routes.
But the Fox-Lew and ANStaff plans have a common redeeming feature.
They use brand new Airbuses, and the single-aisled A320 family is inherently
more comfortable than any 737 because the seats can be 2.5cms wider per
economy-class bottom, and over 5cms wider in first class, where the big ends
of town like to sit.
They also come with seat-back video screens, individual telephones and docks
for computer power and internet connections.
Qantas has resisted the cost of connecting its customers to e-mail access in
flight.
But in the Airbuses, originally for delivery to United Airlines,
connectivity will be universally available, without the hundreds of millions
of dollars that retrofitting would cost Qantas to bring its entire fleet
into the information age.
(C) The Australian Financial Review
Qantas Airways and Virgin Blue could feel the wrath of a "wronged" Singapore
Airlines as it looks for its chance to hold the management leash of what Mr
Lindsay Fox referred to last week as an "underdog Ansett".
The fact that Mr Fox and his would-be partner in a revived Ansett, fellow
Melbourne businessman Mr Solomon Lew, bet their political connections on a
Labor win is beside the point.
Singapore Airlines has a consulting role with the administrators and hasn't
tried to pick a winner between the Lew/Fox or ANstaff groups.
It is just aching for a chance, any chance, to savage Qantas.
On Wednesday, in a move termed "entirely coincidental" by Singapore
Airlines, it raised a $S800million ($855 million) bond issue in Hong Kong
for the purpose of working capital.
After replacing the cash spent on a $S600 million share buyback, there is
more than enough money left over to inject some serious bite into a new
Ansett.
Singapore Airlines has been aggressively planning for a management or future
equity role with whoever gets to buy the core assets of the carrier.
It is seething over the role of the Australian Government in the Ansett
collapse, privately arguing that it destroyed a $400-million plus investment
in parent company Air New Zealand by accepting the Qantas view that
unrestricted competition in aviation was not in the national interest.
The Government stymied moves that would have increased the Singapore equity
in the Air NZ/Ansett group and lead to a progressive recapitalisation and
expansion of their operations.
Singapore is also furious with the role Sir Richard Branson played through
his refusal to sell budget carrier Virgin Blue to Ansett, which would have
averted the situation in which Ansett was written off the books at Air NZ to
the tune of more than $1 billion.
But Singapore Airlines has far more at stake in its partnership with Sir
Richard in Virgin Atlantic than it has so far lost in Australia.
Some form of reconciliation with Virgin Blue to goad a blue heeler of an
airline into ripping the Qantas share price to shreds is verging on being a
possibility.
Only in Australia have the ambitions of both players clashed, and where Sir
Richard, at least initially, has succeeded with his classless brand of cheap
jet flights.
The Singapore Airlines team that has been shuttling between the
administrators and their home base has a double brief. It has to "protect"
Singapore Airlines' interests from the consequences of Australia becoming a
one-airline State, and also create product differentiation.
The strategic brilliance of Qantas chief Mr Geoff Dixon is making that very
hard. Mr Dixon is occupying Virgin territory with up to 40 tight-fit
all-economy 737s in budget service by the end of next year, as well as
offering full-service flights in more than 20 wide-bodied 767s on interstate
routes.
But the Fox-Lew and ANStaff plans have a common redeeming feature.
They use brand new Airbuses, and the single-aisled A320 family is inherently
more comfortable than any 737 because the seats can be 2.5cms wider per
economy-class bottom, and over 5cms wider in first class, where the big ends
of town like to sit.
They also come with seat-back video screens, individual telephones and docks
for computer power and internet connections.
Qantas has resisted the cost of connecting its customers to e-mail access in
flight.
But in the Airbuses, originally for delivery to United Airlines,
connectivity will be universally available, without the hundreds of millions
of dollars that retrofitting would cost Qantas to bring its entire fleet
into the information age.
Guest
Posts: n/a
ANSETT TAKEOVER MAY GET GOVERNMENT NOD
ANSETT Australia's administrator said yesterday that he was hopeful of gaining government approval and assistance for a Melbourne consortium to take over the failed airline despite the conservative coalition's election triumph.
Administrator Mark Mentha of Andersen told Nine Network's Business Sunday programme that the Liberal/National coalition's win would not necessarily make it more difficult to get the deal over the line.
The administrators announced last week that Melbourne businessmen Solomon Lew and Lindsay Fox would take over the Ansett business early next year in a deal worth A$3.6 billion (S$3.4 billion). --Reuters
ANSETT Australia's administrator said yesterday that he was hopeful of gaining government approval and assistance for a Melbourne consortium to take over the failed airline despite the conservative coalition's election triumph.
Administrator Mark Mentha of Andersen told Nine Network's Business Sunday programme that the Liberal/National coalition's win would not necessarily make it more difficult to get the deal over the line.
The administrators announced last week that Melbourne businessmen Solomon Lew and Lindsay Fox would take over the Ansett business early next year in a deal worth A$3.6 billion (S$3.4 billion). --Reuters
Guest
Posts: n/a
*Ansett workers confront PM*
Prime Minister John Howard has spoken to a group of Ansett employees
picketing his Kirribilli House in Sydney this morning.
As he left home for his morning walk, the workers informed Mr Howard of
the dire financial situation hundreds of Ansett employees have been in
since the airline's collapse two months ago.
Spokesman Dave Lumpton says Mr Howard has given a committment to do
everything he can to keep Ansett flying and will look at legislation to
protect workers' entitlements.
"He spoke to us about the current Ansett situation," he said.
"He said he would have to get all the facts in front of him first, he'd
have to speak to the administrator but he would do as much as he
possibly could for Ansett.
"He wanted to see Ansett flying again and he said that he didn't want to
see Qantas as a monopoly."
Prime Minister John Howard has spoken to a group of Ansett employees
picketing his Kirribilli House in Sydney this morning.
As he left home for his morning walk, the workers informed Mr Howard of
the dire financial situation hundreds of Ansett employees have been in
since the airline's collapse two months ago.
Spokesman Dave Lumpton says Mr Howard has given a committment to do
everything he can to keep Ansett flying and will look at legislation to
protect workers' entitlements.
"He spoke to us about the current Ansett situation," he said.
"He said he would have to get all the facts in front of him first, he'd
have to speak to the administrator but he would do as much as he
possibly could for Ansett.
"He wanted to see Ansett flying again and he said that he didn't want to
see Qantas as a monopoly."
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: OZ
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are AN staff picketing the PM. He is the only one who has indicated that the staff will get any of their entitlements.
The ACTU and the two Marks have not offered the staff anything except false hopes.
If I was in the ranks of the AN staff I would be pushing the two Marks to wind up the whole sorry mess so that I may get what is left of the scraps and get on with life.
Remember the longer this sorry mess goes on the less will be left for the staff entitlements.
The ACTU and the two Marks have not offered the staff anything except false hopes.
If I was in the ranks of the AN staff I would be pushing the two Marks to wind up the whole sorry mess so that I may get what is left of the scraps and get on with life.
Remember the longer this sorry mess goes on the less will be left for the staff entitlements.
Guest
Posts: n/a
*Deputy PM confident about Ansett's future*
The Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson has emerged from a meeting with
Ansett's administrators saying he is much more confident about the
airline's future.
The administrators, Mark Mentha and Mark Korda, used the meeting to
bring Mr Anderson up to date with developments, including their
preference for the bid of Melbourne businessmen Lindsay Fox and Solomon
Lew.
Mr Anderson says he has a clearer idea of where the Government will
stand as a creditor upon the sale of Ansett.
He says the financial support the Fox-Lew syndicate is seeking will be
discussed in Canberra tomorrow, but there are areas where the Government
is prepared to help.
"Some of them relate to competition policy and just making certain that
the environment is fair for all players and those sort of things," he
said.
"Those are entirely reasonable. Trying to make certain that air operator
certificate issues and so forth are worked through expeditiously... many
of those things are not so much if you like a financial ask but an
entirely reasonable ask that I think, broadly speaking, we can
accommodate."
The Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson has emerged from a meeting with
Ansett's administrators saying he is much more confident about the
airline's future.
The administrators, Mark Mentha and Mark Korda, used the meeting to
bring Mr Anderson up to date with developments, including their
preference for the bid of Melbourne businessmen Lindsay Fox and Solomon
Lew.
Mr Anderson says he has a clearer idea of where the Government will
stand as a creditor upon the sale of Ansett.
He says the financial support the Fox-Lew syndicate is seeking will be
discussed in Canberra tomorrow, but there are areas where the Government
is prepared to help.
"Some of them relate to competition policy and just making certain that
the environment is fair for all players and those sort of things," he
said.
"Those are entirely reasonable. Trying to make certain that air operator
certificate issues and so forth are worked through expeditiously... many
of those things are not so much if you like a financial ask but an
entirely reasonable ask that I think, broadly speaking, we can
accommodate."
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CANBERRA, Nov 13 (Reuters) - The future of collapsed Australian airline Ansett remained bleak on Tuesday, with the newly re-elected conservative government expected to knock back a proposal to step in with taxpayer funds for a rescue package.
Ansett administrators have asked the government to provide the financial backing needed to finalise a A$3.6 billion ($1.9 billion) takeover bid by Melbourne businessmen Solomon Lew and Lindsay Fox for the nation's second-largest airline.
The business partners, who have no experience running airlines, need to secure support for their plan before administrators present the Ansett proposal to a committee of creditors later this week.
But analysts said the government will likely refuse a request to convert a A$195 million loan into a one-off grant -- funds said to be crucial to the deal -- and instead limit its aid to offering or underwriting loans and guaranteeing employee entitlements.
"The government is going to take a lot of convincing at the very least, and do it in a way that minimises the risks to the taxpayer," Deutsche Bank senior economist Bruce Hockman said.
Ansett administrators and the Fox-Lew consortium were set to meet with government advisors in Canberra on Wednesday, following a meeting between administrator Mark Mentha of Andersen and Transport Minister John Anderson in Sydney on Tuesday.
Wednesday's meetings are expected to include officials from the transport and treasury department and the department of prime minister and cabinet, which advises Prime Minister John Howard.
But Howard, re-elected on Saturday to a third-term majority, said on Tuesday the only thing the government had guaranteed was the entitlements of Ansett's 16,000 workers, funded by a special A$10 tax on domestic air tickets.
"I said that we would give a guarantee of the entitlements ... and that remains, that has not changed," he said.
"Obviously we have got to consider what the Fox/Lew bid involves and the taxpayers' point of view, I can't give a blank cheque on that. We will consider it," he said, adding that it was
"not healthy" to have a Qantas monopoly.
TAXPAYER RESCUE UNLIKELY
Dominant carrier Qantas Airways and discount carrier Virgin Blue [VA.UL] have both threatened legal action if the revitalised Ansett gains an unfair advantage.
Australian media has reported the Lew-Fox plan is contingent on the government converting a A$195 million loan for Ansett's employees into a one-off grant plus other incentives, concessions and loan guarantees totalling about A$600 million.
Subject to government and court approval, the consortium intends to fly Australia's main trunk routes with 29 new Airbus Industrie [ARBU.UL] planes worth A$2.5 billion, reinstating up to 8,000 of Ansett's employees.
The airline collapsed over two months ago after it was ditched by owner Air New Zealand who cut the loss-making group adrift in a bid for its own survival.
But Deutsche's Hockman said he doubted the government, under pressure to protect its razor thin A$500 million budget surplus, would offer much more than a guarantee for the entitlements -- which will be funded by the A$10 ticket tax, not the budget.
"I think they'll stay where they are in terms of guaranteeing the redundancies out of the tax, (and) they may be prepared in the short term to loan the monies to Ansett at commercial rates, or offer some sort of guarantees for Ansett to borrow -- but all at commercial arrangements," Hockman said.
Politically, the government is seen having an easy out in refusing the request for a one-off grant -- since it would go directly to increasing the private equity stake of Fox and Lew -- aiding millionaire businessmen rather than struggling employees.
The government would also be hardly setting a precedent in refusing to fund a rescue package, with the Canadian, Belgian and Swiss governments all recently refusing to bail out failed airlines Canada 3000, Sabena, and Swissair, Hockman said.
"And it's a very different thing that is happening in Australia, where potential new owners are asking the government to kick in money to their ownership position. I don't think the government is going to fall for that," he added.
Ansett administrators have asked the government to provide the financial backing needed to finalise a A$3.6 billion ($1.9 billion) takeover bid by Melbourne businessmen Solomon Lew and Lindsay Fox for the nation's second-largest airline.
The business partners, who have no experience running airlines, need to secure support for their plan before administrators present the Ansett proposal to a committee of creditors later this week.
But analysts said the government will likely refuse a request to convert a A$195 million loan into a one-off grant -- funds said to be crucial to the deal -- and instead limit its aid to offering or underwriting loans and guaranteeing employee entitlements.
"The government is going to take a lot of convincing at the very least, and do it in a way that minimises the risks to the taxpayer," Deutsche Bank senior economist Bruce Hockman said.
Ansett administrators and the Fox-Lew consortium were set to meet with government advisors in Canberra on Wednesday, following a meeting between administrator Mark Mentha of Andersen and Transport Minister John Anderson in Sydney on Tuesday.
Wednesday's meetings are expected to include officials from the transport and treasury department and the department of prime minister and cabinet, which advises Prime Minister John Howard.
But Howard, re-elected on Saturday to a third-term majority, said on Tuesday the only thing the government had guaranteed was the entitlements of Ansett's 16,000 workers, funded by a special A$10 tax on domestic air tickets.
"I said that we would give a guarantee of the entitlements ... and that remains, that has not changed," he said.
"Obviously we have got to consider what the Fox/Lew bid involves and the taxpayers' point of view, I can't give a blank cheque on that. We will consider it," he said, adding that it was
"not healthy" to have a Qantas monopoly.
TAXPAYER RESCUE UNLIKELY
Dominant carrier Qantas Airways and discount carrier Virgin Blue [VA.UL] have both threatened legal action if the revitalised Ansett gains an unfair advantage.
Australian media has reported the Lew-Fox plan is contingent on the government converting a A$195 million loan for Ansett's employees into a one-off grant plus other incentives, concessions and loan guarantees totalling about A$600 million.
Subject to government and court approval, the consortium intends to fly Australia's main trunk routes with 29 new Airbus Industrie [ARBU.UL] planes worth A$2.5 billion, reinstating up to 8,000 of Ansett's employees.
The airline collapsed over two months ago after it was ditched by owner Air New Zealand who cut the loss-making group adrift in a bid for its own survival.
But Deutsche's Hockman said he doubted the government, under pressure to protect its razor thin A$500 million budget surplus, would offer much more than a guarantee for the entitlements -- which will be funded by the A$10 ticket tax, not the budget.
"I think they'll stay where they are in terms of guaranteeing the redundancies out of the tax, (and) they may be prepared in the short term to loan the monies to Ansett at commercial rates, or offer some sort of guarantees for Ansett to borrow -- but all at commercial arrangements," Hockman said.
Politically, the government is seen having an easy out in refusing the request for a one-off grant -- since it would go directly to increasing the private equity stake of Fox and Lew -- aiding millionaire businessmen rather than struggling employees.
The government would also be hardly setting a precedent in refusing to fund a rescue package, with the Canadian, Belgian and Swiss governments all recently refusing to bail out failed airlines Canada 3000, Sabena, and Swissair, Hockman said.
"And it's a very different thing that is happening in Australia, where potential new owners are asking the government to kick in money to their ownership position. I don't think the government is going to fall for that," he added.
Minister buoys Ansett hopes
Picture: John Grainger. FACE to face ... Prime Minister John Howard speaks to Ansett worker David Lupton outside Kirribilli House yesterday.
Neale Maynard and agencies
14nov01
ANSETT'S hopes for a fresh start have been buoyed by a "constructive" meeting with federal Transport Minister John Anderson and some surprise support from former owner Air New Zealand.
Mr Anderson, who met Ansett administrators Mark Mentha and Mark Korda in Sydney yesterday, emerged from the meeting saying he believed "we are going to be able to put things together".
While stressing the Government had not yet accepted the administrator's preferred bid by millionaires Lindsay Fox and Solomon Lew, Mr Anderson indicated they were not seeking massive taxpayer funding.
"We are not talking about open cheque books here," he said.
He hinted, however, that there were demands for some tax concessions as part of the purchase.
In a separate development, former owner Air New Zealand announced yesterday it had struck a deal expected to provide Ansett with its first direct access to international travellers since the carrier's collapse.
Air New Zealand – widely criticised for abandoning the airline two months ago – has struck a so-called "interline agreement" with Ansett.
Air NZ will sell Ansett domestic tickets to its New Zealand and international customers, providing Ansett with a valuable offshore source of passengers.
After yesterday's meeting with the administrators, Mr Anderson said the meeting had been "constructive" and "I can certainly see now a series of real options and constructive ways forward".
Mr Fox and Mr Lew will meet senior Government officials in Canberra today to outline their $3.6 billion bid and seek support. The pair are trying to finalise the specifics of Commonwealth support ahead of tomorrow's Ansett committee of creditors meeting.
That meeting has to endorse the Fox-Lew bid before it can proceed.
Mr Anderson said he had not accepted the Fox-Lew bid but had "a much better understanding of it".
"And I have a better understanding of where the administrator is coming from," he said.
The Fox-Lew plan is dependent on the Government converting a $195 million loan for Ansett employees entitlements into a one-off grant.
Mr Mentha would not confirm if the $195 million was now considered a government grant or a loan.
"We can't answer that until we get through the various departments, which will be transport, finance, treasury, and the Prime Minister's Department tomorrow in Canberra," he said.
Also today, regional airline Flight West will resume twice daily Brisbane-Gladstone flights after a Federal Government assistance package helped the airline recommence services.
Flight West staff will visit Gladstone's central business district urging businesses to support the airline and the competition it had brought back to the Brisbane-Gladstone route.
{url]http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,3245448%255E15488,00.html[/url]
Picture: John Grainger. FACE to face ... Prime Minister John Howard speaks to Ansett worker David Lupton outside Kirribilli House yesterday.
Neale Maynard and agencies
14nov01
ANSETT'S hopes for a fresh start have been buoyed by a "constructive" meeting with federal Transport Minister John Anderson and some surprise support from former owner Air New Zealand.
Mr Anderson, who met Ansett administrators Mark Mentha and Mark Korda in Sydney yesterday, emerged from the meeting saying he believed "we are going to be able to put things together".
While stressing the Government had not yet accepted the administrator's preferred bid by millionaires Lindsay Fox and Solomon Lew, Mr Anderson indicated they were not seeking massive taxpayer funding.
"We are not talking about open cheque books here," he said.
He hinted, however, that there were demands for some tax concessions as part of the purchase.
In a separate development, former owner Air New Zealand announced yesterday it had struck a deal expected to provide Ansett with its first direct access to international travellers since the carrier's collapse.
Air New Zealand – widely criticised for abandoning the airline two months ago – has struck a so-called "interline agreement" with Ansett.
Air NZ will sell Ansett domestic tickets to its New Zealand and international customers, providing Ansett with a valuable offshore source of passengers.
After yesterday's meeting with the administrators, Mr Anderson said the meeting had been "constructive" and "I can certainly see now a series of real options and constructive ways forward".
Mr Fox and Mr Lew will meet senior Government officials in Canberra today to outline their $3.6 billion bid and seek support. The pair are trying to finalise the specifics of Commonwealth support ahead of tomorrow's Ansett committee of creditors meeting.
That meeting has to endorse the Fox-Lew bid before it can proceed.
Mr Anderson said he had not accepted the Fox-Lew bid but had "a much better understanding of it".
"And I have a better understanding of where the administrator is coming from," he said.
The Fox-Lew plan is dependent on the Government converting a $195 million loan for Ansett employees entitlements into a one-off grant.
Mr Mentha would not confirm if the $195 million was now considered a government grant or a loan.
"We can't answer that until we get through the various departments, which will be transport, finance, treasury, and the Prime Minister's Department tomorrow in Canberra," he said.
Also today, regional airline Flight West will resume twice daily Brisbane-Gladstone flights after a Federal Government assistance package helped the airline recommence services.
Flight West staff will visit Gladstone's central business district urging businesses to support the airline and the competition it had brought back to the Brisbane-Gladstone route.
{url]http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,3245448%255E15488,00.html[/url]
Guest
Posts: n/a
*Ansett talks continue as union demands full commitment from Govt*
Ansett administrators will meet Government officials in Canberra today
to try to work out a deal to keep the airline flying.
The administrators have reached an in-principle agreement with Melbourne
businessmen Lindsay Fox and Solomon Lew to buy Ansett's trunk route
operations but that deal is contingent on a number of factors.
The administrators Mark Mentha and Mark Korda met Deputy Prime Minister
John Anderson in Sydney yesterday to bring him up to date with
developments, but the nuts and bolts of what the Fox/Lew consortium are
seeking in assistance from the Government have been left for today's
discussions.
Mr Mentha says the deal relies on financial support from the Government.
"It's a condition precedent in the agreement between the parties," he
said.
Mr Anderson says the Government is not prepared to make a grant to the
consortium of the $195 million it is raising to cover workers'
entitlements but will look at other areas.
Unions are calling on the Federal Government to do everything it can to
guarantee the future of Ansett Mark II.
The NSW secretary of the Australian Services Union, Martin Foley, says
up to 9,000 jobs at Ansett are at risk if the Government does not
support the airline.
"We're asking that the Federal Government be part of the Ansett
solution," he said.
"That needs some support for the administrators' plan, we're confident
that the discussions between Fox-Lew and the administrators and the
Government can deliver a package that secures jobs and that's got to be
foremost on the Government's agenda."
Ansett administrators will meet Government officials in Canberra today
to try to work out a deal to keep the airline flying.
The administrators have reached an in-principle agreement with Melbourne
businessmen Lindsay Fox and Solomon Lew to buy Ansett's trunk route
operations but that deal is contingent on a number of factors.
The administrators Mark Mentha and Mark Korda met Deputy Prime Minister
John Anderson in Sydney yesterday to bring him up to date with
developments, but the nuts and bolts of what the Fox/Lew consortium are
seeking in assistance from the Government have been left for today's
discussions.
Mr Mentha says the deal relies on financial support from the Government.
"It's a condition precedent in the agreement between the parties," he
said.
Mr Anderson says the Government is not prepared to make a grant to the
consortium of the $195 million it is raising to cover workers'
entitlements but will look at other areas.
Unions are calling on the Federal Government to do everything it can to
guarantee the future of Ansett Mark II.
The NSW secretary of the Australian Services Union, Martin Foley, says
up to 9,000 jobs at Ansett are at risk if the Government does not
support the airline.
"We're asking that the Federal Government be part of the Ansett
solution," he said.
"That needs some support for the administrators' plan, we're confident
that the discussions between Fox-Lew and the administrators and the
Government can deliver a package that secures jobs and that's got to be
foremost on the Government's agenda."
Guest
Posts: n/a
And then there is this... 
(QUOTE)
We don't want hand-outs: Ansett duo
From AAP
14nov01
BUSINESSMAN Lindsay Fox has denied he and his partner Solomon Lew are asking for Government handouts in their bid to relaunch Ansett.
Instead, Mr Fox said he and Mr Lew are asking for a new infrastructure that would benefit both the troubled airline and its competitors.
Prime Minister John Howard yesterday said Mr Fox and Mr Lew had asked for hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds to help revive Ansett.
Mr Howard said the Government could not afford to meet the request and it would be unfair to other competitors to do so.
But Mr Fox told Sydney radio 2GB today: "At no time have we sought equity from the Government with regards to Ansett Mark II.
"Secondly, the aspects of what we ask for is certainly in line with some of the things that should be probably placed on behalf of Qantas and maybe Virgin.
"There is no request for hundreds of millions, or as the media speculated, $600 million."
He said the Government needed to recognise air travel as part of the transportation system between capital cities, like trains and roadways.
Mr Fox said he proposed to overhaul the airline's structure, such as offering the workforce five per cent of profits and representation of the board.
"If we don't get Ansett up in the air in a hurry, the chance of survival is very remote," he said.
"If we don't have a good two or three airline policy the cost to the community will be tremendous, lots of people have to pay outrageous fares because of a singular position of only one carrier..."
Mr Fox and Mr Lew were today holding talks with Government officials to outline their plan to get Ansett back up and running.
The pair were believed to be talking with the head of the prime minister's department, Max Moore-Wilton, and officials from the departments of treasury, finance and transport.
The businessmen have put a $3.6 billion plan before administrators to revive the airline, but want Government support before it is presented to a committee of creditors tomorrow.
The plan is contingent on the Government converting a $195 million loan for Ansett employees' entitlements into a one-off grant.
(QUOTE)
We don't want hand-outs: Ansett duo
From AAP
14nov01
BUSINESSMAN Lindsay Fox has denied he and his partner Solomon Lew are asking for Government handouts in their bid to relaunch Ansett.
Instead, Mr Fox said he and Mr Lew are asking for a new infrastructure that would benefit both the troubled airline and its competitors.
Prime Minister John Howard yesterday said Mr Fox and Mr Lew had asked for hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds to help revive Ansett.
Mr Howard said the Government could not afford to meet the request and it would be unfair to other competitors to do so.
But Mr Fox told Sydney radio 2GB today: "At no time have we sought equity from the Government with regards to Ansett Mark II.
"Secondly, the aspects of what we ask for is certainly in line with some of the things that should be probably placed on behalf of Qantas and maybe Virgin.
"There is no request for hundreds of millions, or as the media speculated, $600 million."
He said the Government needed to recognise air travel as part of the transportation system between capital cities, like trains and roadways.
Mr Fox said he proposed to overhaul the airline's structure, such as offering the workforce five per cent of profits and representation of the board.
"If we don't get Ansett up in the air in a hurry, the chance of survival is very remote," he said.
"If we don't have a good two or three airline policy the cost to the community will be tremendous, lots of people have to pay outrageous fares because of a singular position of only one carrier..."
Mr Fox and Mr Lew were today holding talks with Government officials to outline their plan to get Ansett back up and running.
The pair were believed to be talking with the head of the prime minister's department, Max Moore-Wilton, and officials from the departments of treasury, finance and transport.
The businessmen have put a $3.6 billion plan before administrators to revive the airline, but want Government support before it is presented to a committee of creditors tomorrow.
The plan is contingent on the Government converting a $195 million loan for Ansett employees' entitlements into a one-off grant.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABC News Net:
Meetings fail to resolve Ansett ownership
Ansett's administrator says matters critical to reviving the collapsed airline still have not been resolved.
The administrator and representatives of the Fox-Lew consortium held separate meetings with government officials in Canberra today.
Last week, the administrator reached an in-principle agreement with businessmen Lindsay Fox and Solomon Lew, for a $1.1 billion takeover of Ansett.
The bid partly relies on the conversion of a $195 million government loan to a grant.
However, the Prime Minister has ruled out a taxpayer-funded investment in the airline.
Administrator Mark Korda says the issue is crucial to Ansett's resurrection and negotiations are continuing.
"I think what's happening is the government is very keen to see an appropriate Ansett solution," Mr Korda said.
"All the stakeholders, including the government, Fox-Lew, employees and the administrators, are working together to get that Ansett solution."
Meetings fail to resolve Ansett ownership
Ansett's administrator says matters critical to reviving the collapsed airline still have not been resolved.
The administrator and representatives of the Fox-Lew consortium held separate meetings with government officials in Canberra today.
Last week, the administrator reached an in-principle agreement with businessmen Lindsay Fox and Solomon Lew, for a $1.1 billion takeover of Ansett.
The bid partly relies on the conversion of a $195 million government loan to a grant.
However, the Prime Minister has ruled out a taxpayer-funded investment in the airline.
Administrator Mark Korda says the issue is crucial to Ansett's resurrection and negotiations are continuing.
"I think what's happening is the government is very keen to see an appropriate Ansett solution," Mr Korda said.
"All the stakeholders, including the government, Fox-Lew, employees and the administrators, are working together to get that Ansett solution."
Guest
Posts: n/a
*Ansett administrators confident about airline's future*
Ansett's administrators are confident the company will again become
Australia's second biggest airline after creditors yesterday voted to
support the sale bid by businessmen, Lindsay Fox and Solomon Lew.
The ANstaff consortium has withdrawn its bid.
That withdrawal left only the takeover bid by Lindsay Fox and Solomon
Lew who outlined their plans to creditors who gave it conditional
support.
Creditors want the Federal Government to declare itself an unsecured
creditor meaning it would have to wait its turn for getting money back,
but allow Ansett Mark II to build its business.
Co-administrator Mark Korda expects Ansett to be transferred to the
Lew-Fox bid on January 31.
"We're full steam ahead . All the creditors, all the stakeholders are
full steam ahead with the Fox-Lew bid," he said.
Mr Fox says Ansett Mark II needs to return to normal service levels
soon.
"They want to see those people back in work. They don't want to have a
Christmas where they've got no money to buy toys for their kids."
Ansett's administrators are confident the company will again become
Australia's second biggest airline after creditors yesterday voted to
support the sale bid by businessmen, Lindsay Fox and Solomon Lew.
The ANstaff consortium has withdrawn its bid.
That withdrawal left only the takeover bid by Lindsay Fox and Solomon
Lew who outlined their plans to creditors who gave it conditional
support.
Creditors want the Federal Government to declare itself an unsecured
creditor meaning it would have to wait its turn for getting money back,
but allow Ansett Mark II to build its business.
Co-administrator Mark Korda expects Ansett to be transferred to the
Lew-Fox bid on January 31.
"We're full steam ahead . All the creditors, all the stakeholders are
full steam ahead with the Fox-Lew bid," he said.
Mr Fox says Ansett Mark II needs to return to normal service levels
soon.
"They want to see those people back in work. They don't want to have a
Christmas where they've got no money to buy toys for their kids."
short flights long nights
I have got a great idea, give me the 195 million, and I will start a a brand new airline from scratch. That must be a good idea? Yes or no? Comments please.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Sunday Telegraph":
Ansett's five steps to failure exposed
Chris Griffith
17nov01
APPRENTICES worked unsupervised on Ansett planes and a Boeing 767 flew for two days with its escape slides inoperative.
The inside story of why half of Ansett's fleet was grounded last Easter emerged yesterday with a disturbing report showing authorities had lost confidence in Ansett's practices.
The Civil Aviation and Safety Authority's decision to ground Ansett Boeing 767 aircraft on Easter Thursday ruined the holidays of thousands of families and put Ansett's then owner Air New Zealand in conflict with CASA and the Federal Government.
The report was released by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau yesterday. Initially the bureau wanted to examine why an Ansett 767 operated on seven sectors on April 8 and 9 with four emergency escape slides not operating.
CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said that issue alone might not have seemed major, but the discovery of the underlying maintenance breaches had led it to lose confidence in Ansett's ability to fly safe aircraft.
The transport safety bureau investigation revealed five major maintenance flaws.
The first was by an apprentice who removed the aircraft's escape slides for repainting and maintenance, but did not record the fact.
The second was by his less-than-vigilant supervisor, an aircraft maintenance engineer who failed to keep track of the work that his apprentice had carried out.
"Supervision of the apprentices involved was inadequate to detect paperwork and maintenance irregularities at the time they occurred," the bureau's report said. There was an opportunity for later maintenance work to discover the anomaly, but the report said the 767's hangar maintenance was prematurely interrupted to get the plane back in service.
"Delays in completion of the inspection resulted in maintenance personnel deviating from accepted practices to return the aircraft to flight status as quickly as possible to avoid further slippage in the maintenance schedule," the bureau's report said.
The fourth flaw was when inspectors performing the final post-maintenance check on the aircraft misinterpreted the manual and "this led to maintenance personnel not noting the stowage of the (escape slide) girt bars".
The last hope was for air crew to discover the inoperative slides. The aircrew did so and reported the problem.
But the report said the ground crew had misinterpreted what the air crew had reported.
They had diagnosed the problem as "a weak cable spring", and placed the repairs on a deferred maintenance schedule.
Mr Gibson said that this – the fifth flaw – was "the straw that broke the camel's back".
"It came on top of all the other problems that Ansett had starting from Christmas last year. But it was not isolated," he said.
Mr Gibson said CASA later had insisted that Ansett properly train and supervise its apprentices.
A spokesman for Ansett administrators did not return calls yesterday. The cut-back Ansett no longer flies Boeing 767 aircraft.
The safety bureau issued a second report yesterday, on a malfunctioning escape slide on an international Qantas flight that arrived in Darwin from Singapore on April 22. The report said the Qantas Boeing 747P had completed 12 sectors over three days with the problem.
But the escape slide would have functioned in an emergency.
Ansett's five steps to failure exposed
Chris Griffith
17nov01
APPRENTICES worked unsupervised on Ansett planes and a Boeing 767 flew for two days with its escape slides inoperative.
The inside story of why half of Ansett's fleet was grounded last Easter emerged yesterday with a disturbing report showing authorities had lost confidence in Ansett's practices.
The Civil Aviation and Safety Authority's decision to ground Ansett Boeing 767 aircraft on Easter Thursday ruined the holidays of thousands of families and put Ansett's then owner Air New Zealand in conflict with CASA and the Federal Government.
The report was released by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau yesterday. Initially the bureau wanted to examine why an Ansett 767 operated on seven sectors on April 8 and 9 with four emergency escape slides not operating.
CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said that issue alone might not have seemed major, but the discovery of the underlying maintenance breaches had led it to lose confidence in Ansett's ability to fly safe aircraft.
The transport safety bureau investigation revealed five major maintenance flaws.
The first was by an apprentice who removed the aircraft's escape slides for repainting and maintenance, but did not record the fact.
The second was by his less-than-vigilant supervisor, an aircraft maintenance engineer who failed to keep track of the work that his apprentice had carried out.
"Supervision of the apprentices involved was inadequate to detect paperwork and maintenance irregularities at the time they occurred," the bureau's report said. There was an opportunity for later maintenance work to discover the anomaly, but the report said the 767's hangar maintenance was prematurely interrupted to get the plane back in service.
"Delays in completion of the inspection resulted in maintenance personnel deviating from accepted practices to return the aircraft to flight status as quickly as possible to avoid further slippage in the maintenance schedule," the bureau's report said.
The fourth flaw was when inspectors performing the final post-maintenance check on the aircraft misinterpreted the manual and "this led to maintenance personnel not noting the stowage of the (escape slide) girt bars".
The last hope was for air crew to discover the inoperative slides. The aircrew did so and reported the problem.
But the report said the ground crew had misinterpreted what the air crew had reported.
They had diagnosed the problem as "a weak cable spring", and placed the repairs on a deferred maintenance schedule.
Mr Gibson said that this – the fifth flaw – was "the straw that broke the camel's back".
"It came on top of all the other problems that Ansett had starting from Christmas last year. But it was not isolated," he said.
Mr Gibson said CASA later had insisted that Ansett properly train and supervise its apprentices.
A spokesman for Ansett administrators did not return calls yesterday. The cut-back Ansett no longer flies Boeing 767 aircraft.
The safety bureau issued a second report yesterday, on a malfunctioning escape slide on an international Qantas flight that arrived in Darwin from Singapore on April 22. The report said the Qantas Boeing 747P had completed 12 sectors over three days with the problem.
But the escape slide would have functioned in an emergency.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is the ATSB report, refered to above (Ansett)......
Occurrence Number: 200101606
Occurrence Type: Serious-Incident
Location: Sydney, Aero.
State: New South Wales (NSW)
Occurrence Date: 09/04/2001
Time/Zone: 0830 hours EST
Highest Injury Level: None
Investigation Category: 3
Injuries: Fatal Serious Minor None Total
Crew 0 0 0 0 0
Passenger 0 0 0 0 0
Ground 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0
Aircraft Details
Aircraft Manufacturer: Boeing Co
Aircraft Model: 767-204
Aircraft Registration: VH-RMO
Serial Number: 23807
Type of Operation: Air Transport Domestic High Capicity Passenger Scheduled
Damage to Aircraft: Nil
Departure Time: 0700 hours EST
Departure Point: Melbourne, VIC
Destination: Sydney, NSW
Crew Details: Role Class of Licence Hours on Type Hours Total
Pilot-In-Command
FACTUAL INFORMATION
ANALYSIS
SIGNIFICANT FACTORS
SAFETY ACTION
FACTUAL INFORMATION
Following the Boeing 767 (B767) aircraft's second flight after scheduled maintenance, a pilot maintenance log entry noted that the cabin door L1 slide bustle was hanging down. A line engineer on duty examined and certified that the cause was a weak cable spring. The discrepancy was then placed on deferred maintenance as it was not considered to be an airworthiness defect. The following day, prior to departure, the cabin crew of the aircraft reported the cabin door L1 (forward entry door) bustle was lower than normal. Inspection revealed that the girt bar was not attached to the escape slide girt bar carrier, but was instead in the stowed for maintenance position, rendering the slide inoperative. The line engineer on duty correctly installed the girt bar, thereby returning the L1 door escape slide to operational capability. No maintenance log entry was made concerning the discrepancy, or of the corrective actions.
When maintenance personnel conferred following the L1 door escape slide girt bar rectification, a decision was made to inspect the remaining aircraft door slides for condition. The inspection revealed that cabin doors R1 (forward service door), R2 (rear service door), and L2 (rear entry door) emergency escape slides were inoperative, with the door girt bars also in the stowed position.
Consequently, during 8 and 9 April 2001, the aircraft was operated seven sectors with four cabin door mounted escape slides inoperative. During 9 April 2001, the aircraft was operated one sector with three slides inoperative. If required, the cabin crew could not have successfully activated the escape slides of those doors, nor the automatic opening of the doors during those flown sectors.
B767 cabin door configuration
The cabin door configuration of this aircraft was one forward door and one rear door per side. The doors were arranged in sequential order, numbered from the nose of the aircraft. The doors were identified as per side by lettering indicating `L' for the left side of the cabin looking towards the nose, and `R' for right.
Previous maintenance
Further investigation revealed that the last known maintenance of the escape slides, bustles, and girt bars of doors R1, R2, L1, and L2 was performed sixteen days earlier, during a recent 2C scheduled maintenance check. The C check on B767 aircraft, a major scheduled maintenance check, was performed at 6,000 flight hour intervals, and normally planned for 30 days elapsed time (total days out of service). The incident aircraft was out of service for the 2C check for 41 days.
During that maintenance, the escape slide bustles of doors L1, L2, R1, and R2 were disabled and removed by an apprentice Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (AME) under supervision, to allow repainting, other maintenance in the area, and zone inspections. During disabling and removal of the bustles, the girt bars were removed from the carriers and stowed using special straps on the side of the slide packs.
Door mounted slide normal operation
During normal operation, door arming by the cabin crew would lock the girt bar carrier to the aircraft floor fittings. The girt bar would engage the girt bar carrier, whether the slide was ARMED or DISARMED. The ARMED or DISARMED status of the door-mounted slides was indicated to the cabin crew by witness marks, visible at floor level. The arming witness marks reflected the girt bar carrier position in the floor fittings, not the location of the girt bar itself. Thus, the ARMED indication presented to the cabin crew was the same, whether the girt bar was properly installed in the girt bar carrier or stowed on the slide pack.
When a cabin door was unlocked from the inside while in the ARMED condition, the girt bar (engaged with the carrier) initially caused the slide to release from the door. The unladen door would then open under the influence of heavy springs. The subsequent action of the slide pack falling out of the doorway activated the slide inflation sequence.
Door mounted slide operation with girt bar stowed on the slide pack
With the girt bar stowed on the slide pack, each door would have unlocked if opened from the inside in the ARMED condition, however the girt bar carrier would have remained (disconnected from the door) in the floor fittings. The slide pack would have remained intact and attached to the door. The doors would have needed opening manually (as though disarmed), as the emergency auto-opening feature of the cabin door, before slide deployment, relied on the weight of the slide releasing from the door as the door was unlocked. Manual operation was only applicable if the slide had released from the door, but failed to inflate.
Maintenance documentation (removal of the escape slide)
The maintenance facility's normal practice was to use the company's Maintenance Supplementary Report (MSR) form to document tasks involving removal of items from an aircraft for access and inspection purposes. The removal of four escape slide bustles was noted on the aircraft's MSR form for the maintenance event, however, the apprentice who completed the removal of the bustles did not personally document details of the removal in the MSR form. The apprentice did annotate on a Supplementary Report Card (SRC) the bustles removal in accordance with the company's maintenance manual procedures.
The senior Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME) responsible for the cabin during the scheduled inspection, and supervising the apprentice, stated that his normal practice was to annotate in the Heavy Maintenance Discrepancy Report (HMDR) form, deactivation of the escape slides. On that occasion, he noted the removal of the slide bustles but not the deactivation of the escape slides. There was no evidence that a hand-over log was employed documenting the work.
Installation of the escape slide
Following completion of the zone maintenance in the area of the slides, another apprentice was tasked with reinstallation of the slide bustles to allow the aircraft to be moved outside for engine runs. The engine runs were normally performed three days before maintenance check completion to identify and resolve any engine related anomalies. Normal Heavy Maintenance practices required the slides be installed and operational during engine runs. The slide bustles, including the girt bars, were not completely installed because of on-going work in the area. It was reported that the aircraft's inspection completion was behind schedule by approximately one week.
The bustles of the four doors were partially installed by a second apprentice and annotated on the SRC as completed in accordance with the applicable maintenance manual section. The installation was not completed as per the maintenance manual at that time, as the girt bars were still stowed and the inflation cylinder regulator safety pins were still fitted. No other documentation was utilised to annotate the partial installation.
Post maintenance inspection of the escape slide
According to aircraft maintenance documentation, two LAMEs conducted independent inspections of the slides following maintenance to the slide during the scheduled check. Both conducted and certified the inspection with the knowledge that slide R1 was not yet fully operational. An independent inspection was not carried out for maintenance actions performed on escape slide bustles at the L1, L2 and R2 doors. No additional entries were annotated in the aircraft documentation to note the non-operational condition of the slides.
Prior to release from the 2C check, the B767 Flight Readiness Schedule, an engineering check list, was used to ensure aircraft completion. The check list contained a requirement to check over-wing emergency exits for correct arming, but for door mounted slides the inspection was only to verify that the escape slides were installed.
Human factors issues
The LAME responsible for cabin certification during the 2C check, reported that this was the first time he had been tasked with such duties.
ANALYSIS
The four escape slides were deactivated during the 2C check without any record on approved maintenance documentation as per requirements of the Heavy Maintenance Manual. The apprentice who deactivated the escape slides did not personally record the details of the maintenance performed. The senior LAME supervising the apprentice later noted the maintenance performed by the apprentice in the aircraft documentation. The entry did not reflect the total scope of the work preformed by the apprentice. Supervision of the apprentices involved was inadequate to detect paperwork and maintenance irregularities at the time they occurred.
Unrelated work in the area of the slides interrupted completion of the slides installation before removal of the aircraft from the hangar for engine runs. Delays in completion of the 2C inspection resulted in maintenance personnel deviating from accepted practices to return the aircraft to flight status as quickly as possible to avoid further slippage in the maintenance schedule.
The independent inspection requirements for escape slides of the B767 Flight Readiness Schedule were misinterpreted as there was no specific requirement to check girt bar installation. The check of door mounted escape slides on the B767 Flight Readiness Check List did not include a check of the girt bar. This led to maintenance personnel not noting the stowage of the girt bars.
Lack of a thorough inspection by line maintenance personnel following a report from cabin crew of problems with the bustle at main cabin door L1, resulted in continued operation of the aircraft with inoperative slides. Inadequate troubleshooting by line maintenance personnel following the discovery of the discrepancy with the slide girt bar at cabin door L1, resulted in continued operation of the aircraft with additional inoperative slides.
Note: This report is specific to the issues of girt bars on Boeing 767 aircraft. A separate investigation examining Class A aircraft issues was ongoing at the time of printing this report.
SIGNIFICANT FACTORS
1. Maintenance documentation for escape slide activation/deactivation and inspection was inadequate.
2. Maintenance personnel utilised unauthorised short cuts and work arounds.
3. Maintenance personnel signed off inspections and installations not yet completed.
4. Line maintenance personnel did not initially detect the door/slide anomaly.
SAFETY ACTION
Local safety action
As a result of their investigation into the incident, the operator implemented the following changes:
1. Introduced new task cards into all Heavy Maintenance B767 major check packs that require the routine deactivation of all door slides at the start of every check and the return to normal configuration on completion.
2. Amended independent inspection requirements to clearly indicate that all parts of the appropriate maintenance manual slide installation task are included.
3. Amended the section of the Flight Readiness Schedule to include door slides for correct flight configuration (girt bar and inflation cylinder regulator safety pin correctly located).
4. Commenced implementing mandatory attendance of the company's Human Factors/Error and Maintenance Resource Management program for all staff.
In addition to these changes, the operator has initiated or completed the following actions related to this occurrence:
1. Reviewed the practice of Senior LAMEs raising discrepancy/supplementary cards for work that has not been performed or supervised by them personally. Additionally, a study is in progress to attempt to identify possible improvements in documentation procedures to include staged signoffs of work completed.
2. Reviewed the supervision level for apprentices and AMEs working on B767 aircraft during Heavy Maintenance checks and briefed staff on the need for focused supervision of less experienced engineers.
3. Notified all Heavy Maintenance staff of the requirement to accurately record all maintenance actions performed, using the appropriate document.
RECOMMENDATIONS
As a result of this investigation, and occurrence investigation number 200101866, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has identified a safety deficiency related to Boeing jet aircraft cabin door escape slide maintenance documentation. The ATSB therefore issues the following recommendation.
R20010168
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority conduct a review of maintenance documentation for the Australian Boeing jet aircraft fleet to ensure completeness of cabin door escape slide deactivation and reactivation maintenance procedures.
Occurrence Number: 200101606
Occurrence Type: Serious-Incident
Location: Sydney, Aero.
State: New South Wales (NSW)
Occurrence Date: 09/04/2001
Time/Zone: 0830 hours EST
Highest Injury Level: None
Investigation Category: 3
Injuries: Fatal Serious Minor None Total
Crew 0 0 0 0 0
Passenger 0 0 0 0 0
Ground 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0
Aircraft Details
Aircraft Manufacturer: Boeing Co
Aircraft Model: 767-204
Aircraft Registration: VH-RMO
Serial Number: 23807
Type of Operation: Air Transport Domestic High Capicity Passenger Scheduled
Damage to Aircraft: Nil
Departure Time: 0700 hours EST
Departure Point: Melbourne, VIC
Destination: Sydney, NSW
Crew Details: Role Class of Licence Hours on Type Hours Total
Pilot-In-Command
FACTUAL INFORMATION
ANALYSIS
SIGNIFICANT FACTORS
SAFETY ACTION
FACTUAL INFORMATION
Following the Boeing 767 (B767) aircraft's second flight after scheduled maintenance, a pilot maintenance log entry noted that the cabin door L1 slide bustle was hanging down. A line engineer on duty examined and certified that the cause was a weak cable spring. The discrepancy was then placed on deferred maintenance as it was not considered to be an airworthiness defect. The following day, prior to departure, the cabin crew of the aircraft reported the cabin door L1 (forward entry door) bustle was lower than normal. Inspection revealed that the girt bar was not attached to the escape slide girt bar carrier, but was instead in the stowed for maintenance position, rendering the slide inoperative. The line engineer on duty correctly installed the girt bar, thereby returning the L1 door escape slide to operational capability. No maintenance log entry was made concerning the discrepancy, or of the corrective actions.
When maintenance personnel conferred following the L1 door escape slide girt bar rectification, a decision was made to inspect the remaining aircraft door slides for condition. The inspection revealed that cabin doors R1 (forward service door), R2 (rear service door), and L2 (rear entry door) emergency escape slides were inoperative, with the door girt bars also in the stowed position.
Consequently, during 8 and 9 April 2001, the aircraft was operated seven sectors with four cabin door mounted escape slides inoperative. During 9 April 2001, the aircraft was operated one sector with three slides inoperative. If required, the cabin crew could not have successfully activated the escape slides of those doors, nor the automatic opening of the doors during those flown sectors.
B767 cabin door configuration
The cabin door configuration of this aircraft was one forward door and one rear door per side. The doors were arranged in sequential order, numbered from the nose of the aircraft. The doors were identified as per side by lettering indicating `L' for the left side of the cabin looking towards the nose, and `R' for right.
Previous maintenance
Further investigation revealed that the last known maintenance of the escape slides, bustles, and girt bars of doors R1, R2, L1, and L2 was performed sixteen days earlier, during a recent 2C scheduled maintenance check. The C check on B767 aircraft, a major scheduled maintenance check, was performed at 6,000 flight hour intervals, and normally planned for 30 days elapsed time (total days out of service). The incident aircraft was out of service for the 2C check for 41 days.
During that maintenance, the escape slide bustles of doors L1, L2, R1, and R2 were disabled and removed by an apprentice Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (AME) under supervision, to allow repainting, other maintenance in the area, and zone inspections. During disabling and removal of the bustles, the girt bars were removed from the carriers and stowed using special straps on the side of the slide packs.
Door mounted slide normal operation
During normal operation, door arming by the cabin crew would lock the girt bar carrier to the aircraft floor fittings. The girt bar would engage the girt bar carrier, whether the slide was ARMED or DISARMED. The ARMED or DISARMED status of the door-mounted slides was indicated to the cabin crew by witness marks, visible at floor level. The arming witness marks reflected the girt bar carrier position in the floor fittings, not the location of the girt bar itself. Thus, the ARMED indication presented to the cabin crew was the same, whether the girt bar was properly installed in the girt bar carrier or stowed on the slide pack.
When a cabin door was unlocked from the inside while in the ARMED condition, the girt bar (engaged with the carrier) initially caused the slide to release from the door. The unladen door would then open under the influence of heavy springs. The subsequent action of the slide pack falling out of the doorway activated the slide inflation sequence.
Door mounted slide operation with girt bar stowed on the slide pack
With the girt bar stowed on the slide pack, each door would have unlocked if opened from the inside in the ARMED condition, however the girt bar carrier would have remained (disconnected from the door) in the floor fittings. The slide pack would have remained intact and attached to the door. The doors would have needed opening manually (as though disarmed), as the emergency auto-opening feature of the cabin door, before slide deployment, relied on the weight of the slide releasing from the door as the door was unlocked. Manual operation was only applicable if the slide had released from the door, but failed to inflate.
Maintenance documentation (removal of the escape slide)
The maintenance facility's normal practice was to use the company's Maintenance Supplementary Report (MSR) form to document tasks involving removal of items from an aircraft for access and inspection purposes. The removal of four escape slide bustles was noted on the aircraft's MSR form for the maintenance event, however, the apprentice who completed the removal of the bustles did not personally document details of the removal in the MSR form. The apprentice did annotate on a Supplementary Report Card (SRC) the bustles removal in accordance with the company's maintenance manual procedures.
The senior Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME) responsible for the cabin during the scheduled inspection, and supervising the apprentice, stated that his normal practice was to annotate in the Heavy Maintenance Discrepancy Report (HMDR) form, deactivation of the escape slides. On that occasion, he noted the removal of the slide bustles but not the deactivation of the escape slides. There was no evidence that a hand-over log was employed documenting the work.
Installation of the escape slide
Following completion of the zone maintenance in the area of the slides, another apprentice was tasked with reinstallation of the slide bustles to allow the aircraft to be moved outside for engine runs. The engine runs were normally performed three days before maintenance check completion to identify and resolve any engine related anomalies. Normal Heavy Maintenance practices required the slides be installed and operational during engine runs. The slide bustles, including the girt bars, were not completely installed because of on-going work in the area. It was reported that the aircraft's inspection completion was behind schedule by approximately one week.
The bustles of the four doors were partially installed by a second apprentice and annotated on the SRC as completed in accordance with the applicable maintenance manual section. The installation was not completed as per the maintenance manual at that time, as the girt bars were still stowed and the inflation cylinder regulator safety pins were still fitted. No other documentation was utilised to annotate the partial installation.
Post maintenance inspection of the escape slide
According to aircraft maintenance documentation, two LAMEs conducted independent inspections of the slides following maintenance to the slide during the scheduled check. Both conducted and certified the inspection with the knowledge that slide R1 was not yet fully operational. An independent inspection was not carried out for maintenance actions performed on escape slide bustles at the L1, L2 and R2 doors. No additional entries were annotated in the aircraft documentation to note the non-operational condition of the slides.
Prior to release from the 2C check, the B767 Flight Readiness Schedule, an engineering check list, was used to ensure aircraft completion. The check list contained a requirement to check over-wing emergency exits for correct arming, but for door mounted slides the inspection was only to verify that the escape slides were installed.
Human factors issues
The LAME responsible for cabin certification during the 2C check, reported that this was the first time he had been tasked with such duties.
ANALYSIS
The four escape slides were deactivated during the 2C check without any record on approved maintenance documentation as per requirements of the Heavy Maintenance Manual. The apprentice who deactivated the escape slides did not personally record the details of the maintenance performed. The senior LAME supervising the apprentice later noted the maintenance performed by the apprentice in the aircraft documentation. The entry did not reflect the total scope of the work preformed by the apprentice. Supervision of the apprentices involved was inadequate to detect paperwork and maintenance irregularities at the time they occurred.
Unrelated work in the area of the slides interrupted completion of the slides installation before removal of the aircraft from the hangar for engine runs. Delays in completion of the 2C inspection resulted in maintenance personnel deviating from accepted practices to return the aircraft to flight status as quickly as possible to avoid further slippage in the maintenance schedule.
The independent inspection requirements for escape slides of the B767 Flight Readiness Schedule were misinterpreted as there was no specific requirement to check girt bar installation. The check of door mounted escape slides on the B767 Flight Readiness Check List did not include a check of the girt bar. This led to maintenance personnel not noting the stowage of the girt bars.
Lack of a thorough inspection by line maintenance personnel following a report from cabin crew of problems with the bustle at main cabin door L1, resulted in continued operation of the aircraft with inoperative slides. Inadequate troubleshooting by line maintenance personnel following the discovery of the discrepancy with the slide girt bar at cabin door L1, resulted in continued operation of the aircraft with additional inoperative slides.
Note: This report is specific to the issues of girt bars on Boeing 767 aircraft. A separate investigation examining Class A aircraft issues was ongoing at the time of printing this report.
SIGNIFICANT FACTORS
1. Maintenance documentation for escape slide activation/deactivation and inspection was inadequate.
2. Maintenance personnel utilised unauthorised short cuts and work arounds.
3. Maintenance personnel signed off inspections and installations not yet completed.
4. Line maintenance personnel did not initially detect the door/slide anomaly.
SAFETY ACTION
Local safety action
As a result of their investigation into the incident, the operator implemented the following changes:
1. Introduced new task cards into all Heavy Maintenance B767 major check packs that require the routine deactivation of all door slides at the start of every check and the return to normal configuration on completion.
2. Amended independent inspection requirements to clearly indicate that all parts of the appropriate maintenance manual slide installation task are included.
3. Amended the section of the Flight Readiness Schedule to include door slides for correct flight configuration (girt bar and inflation cylinder regulator safety pin correctly located).
4. Commenced implementing mandatory attendance of the company's Human Factors/Error and Maintenance Resource Management program for all staff.
In addition to these changes, the operator has initiated or completed the following actions related to this occurrence:
1. Reviewed the practice of Senior LAMEs raising discrepancy/supplementary cards for work that has not been performed or supervised by them personally. Additionally, a study is in progress to attempt to identify possible improvements in documentation procedures to include staged signoffs of work completed.
2. Reviewed the supervision level for apprentices and AMEs working on B767 aircraft during Heavy Maintenance checks and briefed staff on the need for focused supervision of less experienced engineers.
3. Notified all Heavy Maintenance staff of the requirement to accurately record all maintenance actions performed, using the appropriate document.
RECOMMENDATIONS
As a result of this investigation, and occurrence investigation number 200101866, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has identified a safety deficiency related to Boeing jet aircraft cabin door escape slide maintenance documentation. The ATSB therefore issues the following recommendation.
R20010168
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority conduct a review of maintenance documentation for the Australian Boeing jet aircraft fleet to ensure completeness of cabin door escape slide deactivation and reactivation maintenance procedures.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Although this thread is about Ansett, I will post the other ATSB report mentioned above re Qantas, so as not to be accused of anti anybody..... 
Occurrence Number: 200101866
Occurrence Type: Incident
Location: Darwin, Aero.
State: Northern Territory (NT)
Occurrence Date: 22/04/2001
Time/Zone: 0930 hours CST
Highest Injury Level: None
Investigation Category: 3
Injuries: Fatal Serious Minor None Total
Crew 0 0 0 0 0
Passenger 0 0 0 0 0
Ground 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0
Aircraft Details
Aircraft Manufacturer: Boeing Co
Aircraft Model: 747SP-38
Aircraft Registration: VH-EAA
Serial Number: 22495
Type of Operation: Air Transport High Capicity International Passenger Scheduled
Damage to Aircraft: Nil
Departure Time:
Departure Point: Singapore
Destination: Darwin, NT
Crew Details: Role Class of Licence Hours on Type Hours Total
Pilot-In-Command
FACTUAL INFORMATION
ANALYSIS
SAFETY ACTION
FACTUAL INFORMATION
During door disarming of the Boeing 747SP aircraft after landing, the cabin crew notified the flight crew that although the levers of main cabin doors L3 and L4 had been moved to the disarm position, the doors failed to disarm. The captain directed the flight attendants to remain at the doors and advised ground engineering to limit catering access. The flight engineer was directed to ensure a safe disarm. The flight engineer found the door slide girt bars still partially engaged into the girt bar receivers. He then used tools to safely disengage the girt bars and disarm both doors.
Line maintenance personnel examined the doors and, after repeated arm/disarm cycles, were unable to duplicate the anomaly. The flight crew elected to continue operations with additional precautions, referred to as "girt bar disengagement inspection", taken to ensure the operational status of the doors. That action included the flight engineer confirming arming of the doors before departure and disarming following arrival. That precaution was taken to prevent inadvertent activation of the slide during normal door opening.
Following landing at the next sector airport, the cabin crew again could not disarm main cabin doors L3/L4. The flight engineer again used tools to physically disengage the girt bars from the girt bar receivers in order to disarm both doors. A maintenance entry was made in the aircraft technical log requiring visual confirmation of the door arming/disarming during each transit. The Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) was reviewed and the aircraft returned to service without restrictions.
Over the next three days, the aircraft completed twelve sectors with the girt bars of main cabin doors L3/L4 requiring the girt bar disengagement inspection. Following the last of those twelve sectors, the operator's maintenance department issued an Authority To Proceed (ATP), stating a requirement that the doors not be opened from the outside or left unattended until maintenance personnel confirmed the girt bar was completely disengaged from the girt bar receiver. The ATP was applicable for two sector overwater flights only. Upon completion of those sectors, maintenance personnel corrected the girt bar discrepancy by adjusting the escape slide skirts and returned the slides and doors to normal operation.
B747SP main cabin door configuration
The aircraft's main cabin was configured with four doors per side. The doors were arranged in sequential order, with numbering starting at the nose of the aircraft. The doors were identified by lettering indicating `L' for the left side of the cabin looking towards the nose, and `R' for right.
Discrepancy history of main cabin doors L3/L4
Five days prior to girt bar disengagement inspection implementation, the technical log noted an entry that said, "L4 unable to move mode select to auto". Corrective action stated that an obstruction was found in the girt bar and had been removed, with door operations now normal.
Four days prior to disengagement inspection implementation, the technical log noted an entry, "Door L4 selector switch handle will not engage arm position or sweep seal is remaining outside the door sill". Corrective action stated that the lower skirt aft side was found fouling the girt bar, and that the skirt appeared to be distorted. The skirt was repositioned and operations reported as normal.
Two days prior to girt bar disengagement inspection implementation, the technical log noted an entry, "L4 lower bustle has skirt damage". Corrective action stated that the lower bustle sweeper seal was trimmed.
Door mounted escape slide normal operation
When the crew selected the door to the armed mode (automatic), the girt bar mechanism positioned the girt locks into the floor brackets. As the door handle was moved towards the open position (at approximately 45 degree's of rotation) it lifted the lower gate and girt lift mechanism. When the girt lift mechanism separated from the girt lock, the girt bar springs protruded, locking the girt bar to the floor brackets. The escape pack was then attached to the floor. The door was then forced open by use of an emergency pressure cylinder. That opening of the door, with the girt still attached to the aircraft, caused the slide to release from the door and initiate the inflation sequence of the slide.
Authority to proceed
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) issued authorisation under Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 37 to delegates of the operator permitting those individuals to authorise continued operation of aircraft with known discrepancies. That authorisation was designed to address aircraft discrepancies not covered by the MMEL or other documentation and was subject to the conditions outlined in the ATP. Such discrepancies must not constitute a concession against an operational requirement of a CAR nor conflict with the design standard of the aircraft. An authorised delegate of the operator who annotated the discrepancy, signed the ATP. A copy of that ATP was provided to the local CASA office.
ANALYSIS
As the doors could be armed correctly, and the girt bars were engaged in the girt bar floor brackets following door closure, no application of the aircraft MMEL was required. In the event of an emergency, the slides of doors L3/L4 would have been capable of activation and the doors capable of emergency opening.
Initial interviews with maintenance personnel indicated that the escape slide skirt strap had been misrouted on the girt bar carrier, 180 degrees opposite of the correct routing. That condition may have caused skirt strap interference with the bustle access cover and restricted girt bar travel of doors L3/L4.
However, the operator's Maintenance Error Decision Aid report stated that during recent maintenance to the aircraft, the main cabin doors were adjusted while the aircraft was on jacks. That was an acceptable practice according to the maintenance manual, if certain weight restrictions were adhered to during the operation. Those restrictions were met. Additionally, it was reported that while the doors were being adjusted, the jacks might have been raised and lowered to relieve skin stresses in order to implement structural repairs. That action may have lead to the door misalignment and girt bar travel restrictions.
The Bureau was unable to conclusively determine the reason for the girt bar anomalies.
SAFETY ACTION
Local safety action
The operator conducted a review of maintenance practices and documentation but could not identify any significant discrepancies.
RECOMMENDATIONS
As a result of this investigation, and occurrence investigation number 200101606, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has identified a safety deficiency related to Boeing jet aircraft cabin door escape slide maintenance documentation. The ATSB issued the following recommendation with occurrence report 200101606.
R20010168
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority conduct a review of maintenance documentation for the Australian Boeing jet aircraft fleet to ensure completeness of cabin door escape slide deactivation and reactivation maintenance procedures.
Occurrence Number: 200101866
Occurrence Type: Incident
Location: Darwin, Aero.
State: Northern Territory (NT)
Occurrence Date: 22/04/2001
Time/Zone: 0930 hours CST
Highest Injury Level: None
Investigation Category: 3
Injuries: Fatal Serious Minor None Total
Crew 0 0 0 0 0
Passenger 0 0 0 0 0
Ground 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0
Aircraft Details
Aircraft Manufacturer: Boeing Co
Aircraft Model: 747SP-38
Aircraft Registration: VH-EAA
Serial Number: 22495
Type of Operation: Air Transport High Capicity International Passenger Scheduled
Damage to Aircraft: Nil
Departure Time:
Departure Point: Singapore
Destination: Darwin, NT
Crew Details: Role Class of Licence Hours on Type Hours Total
Pilot-In-Command
FACTUAL INFORMATION
ANALYSIS
SAFETY ACTION
FACTUAL INFORMATION
During door disarming of the Boeing 747SP aircraft after landing, the cabin crew notified the flight crew that although the levers of main cabin doors L3 and L4 had been moved to the disarm position, the doors failed to disarm. The captain directed the flight attendants to remain at the doors and advised ground engineering to limit catering access. The flight engineer was directed to ensure a safe disarm. The flight engineer found the door slide girt bars still partially engaged into the girt bar receivers. He then used tools to safely disengage the girt bars and disarm both doors.
Line maintenance personnel examined the doors and, after repeated arm/disarm cycles, were unable to duplicate the anomaly. The flight crew elected to continue operations with additional precautions, referred to as "girt bar disengagement inspection", taken to ensure the operational status of the doors. That action included the flight engineer confirming arming of the doors before departure and disarming following arrival. That precaution was taken to prevent inadvertent activation of the slide during normal door opening.
Following landing at the next sector airport, the cabin crew again could not disarm main cabin doors L3/L4. The flight engineer again used tools to physically disengage the girt bars from the girt bar receivers in order to disarm both doors. A maintenance entry was made in the aircraft technical log requiring visual confirmation of the door arming/disarming during each transit. The Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) was reviewed and the aircraft returned to service without restrictions.
Over the next three days, the aircraft completed twelve sectors with the girt bars of main cabin doors L3/L4 requiring the girt bar disengagement inspection. Following the last of those twelve sectors, the operator's maintenance department issued an Authority To Proceed (ATP), stating a requirement that the doors not be opened from the outside or left unattended until maintenance personnel confirmed the girt bar was completely disengaged from the girt bar receiver. The ATP was applicable for two sector overwater flights only. Upon completion of those sectors, maintenance personnel corrected the girt bar discrepancy by adjusting the escape slide skirts and returned the slides and doors to normal operation.
B747SP main cabin door configuration
The aircraft's main cabin was configured with four doors per side. The doors were arranged in sequential order, with numbering starting at the nose of the aircraft. The doors were identified by lettering indicating `L' for the left side of the cabin looking towards the nose, and `R' for right.
Discrepancy history of main cabin doors L3/L4
Five days prior to girt bar disengagement inspection implementation, the technical log noted an entry that said, "L4 unable to move mode select to auto". Corrective action stated that an obstruction was found in the girt bar and had been removed, with door operations now normal.
Four days prior to disengagement inspection implementation, the technical log noted an entry, "Door L4 selector switch handle will not engage arm position or sweep seal is remaining outside the door sill". Corrective action stated that the lower skirt aft side was found fouling the girt bar, and that the skirt appeared to be distorted. The skirt was repositioned and operations reported as normal.
Two days prior to girt bar disengagement inspection implementation, the technical log noted an entry, "L4 lower bustle has skirt damage". Corrective action stated that the lower bustle sweeper seal was trimmed.
Door mounted escape slide normal operation
When the crew selected the door to the armed mode (automatic), the girt bar mechanism positioned the girt locks into the floor brackets. As the door handle was moved towards the open position (at approximately 45 degree's of rotation) it lifted the lower gate and girt lift mechanism. When the girt lift mechanism separated from the girt lock, the girt bar springs protruded, locking the girt bar to the floor brackets. The escape pack was then attached to the floor. The door was then forced open by use of an emergency pressure cylinder. That opening of the door, with the girt still attached to the aircraft, caused the slide to release from the door and initiate the inflation sequence of the slide.
Authority to proceed
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) issued authorisation under Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 37 to delegates of the operator permitting those individuals to authorise continued operation of aircraft with known discrepancies. That authorisation was designed to address aircraft discrepancies not covered by the MMEL or other documentation and was subject to the conditions outlined in the ATP. Such discrepancies must not constitute a concession against an operational requirement of a CAR nor conflict with the design standard of the aircraft. An authorised delegate of the operator who annotated the discrepancy, signed the ATP. A copy of that ATP was provided to the local CASA office.
ANALYSIS
As the doors could be armed correctly, and the girt bars were engaged in the girt bar floor brackets following door closure, no application of the aircraft MMEL was required. In the event of an emergency, the slides of doors L3/L4 would have been capable of activation and the doors capable of emergency opening.
Initial interviews with maintenance personnel indicated that the escape slide skirt strap had been misrouted on the girt bar carrier, 180 degrees opposite of the correct routing. That condition may have caused skirt strap interference with the bustle access cover and restricted girt bar travel of doors L3/L4.
However, the operator's Maintenance Error Decision Aid report stated that during recent maintenance to the aircraft, the main cabin doors were adjusted while the aircraft was on jacks. That was an acceptable practice according to the maintenance manual, if certain weight restrictions were adhered to during the operation. Those restrictions were met. Additionally, it was reported that while the doors were being adjusted, the jacks might have been raised and lowered to relieve skin stresses in order to implement structural repairs. That action may have lead to the door misalignment and girt bar travel restrictions.
The Bureau was unable to conclusively determine the reason for the girt bar anomalies.
SAFETY ACTION
Local safety action
The operator conducted a review of maintenance practices and documentation but could not identify any significant discrepancies.
RECOMMENDATIONS
As a result of this investigation, and occurrence investigation number 200101606, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has identified a safety deficiency related to Boeing jet aircraft cabin door escape slide maintenance documentation. The ATSB issued the following recommendation with occurrence report 200101606.
R20010168
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority conduct a review of maintenance documentation for the Australian Boeing jet aircraft fleet to ensure completeness of cabin door escape slide deactivation and reactivation maintenance procedures.