Cathay and Dragon not maintaing their aircraft-Haeco
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hemisperes
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathay and Dragon not maintaing their aircraft-Haeco
Lately it seems that maintanence has become a pretty serious issue. Multiple MELs being despatched from HKG on multiple flights, some a long distance from HKG, are being operated. The MEL, as I understand it, is to get the airplane BACK to base to be fixed NOT used as an operational tool!
There is another thread on here about a skills shortage. Wasn't it Cathay that sacked all the engineers years ago as a cost savings move?
We have the right, and an obligation, to refuse these aircraft. Simply NOT sign the tech log and call the Duty Ops Manager to explain why. Fill out an ASR and tick MOR. The CAD must know about this. The CAD has an obligation with oversight.
I was under the impression, and think I read somewhere, about an initiative to make sure mx was being looked after. It does NOT appear to be the case right now.
With so much expansion, how will CX and KA cope? Build the infrastructure first, then expand.
There is another thread on here about a skills shortage. Wasn't it Cathay that sacked all the engineers years ago as a cost savings move?
We have the right, and an obligation, to refuse these aircraft. Simply NOT sign the tech log and call the Duty Ops Manager to explain why. Fill out an ASR and tick MOR. The CAD must know about this. The CAD has an obligation with oversight.
I was under the impression, and think I read somewhere, about an initiative to make sure mx was being looked after. It does NOT appear to be the case right now.
With so much expansion, how will CX and KA cope? Build the infrastructure first, then expand.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eire/HK
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MEL is there to allow the aeroplane to continue operating for a period of time depending on the seriousness of the deficiency. Cat A,B,C,D. It is standard practice to operate with MEL items that have been deferred as per the Cat. So that aircraft are not grounded when a spare part is not available.
Were the issue comes in is that multiple write-ups might be legal for dispatch under the MEL but not safe in reality. The MEL often does not link items.
Were the issue comes in is that multiple write-ups might be legal for dispatch under the MEL but not safe in reality. The MEL often does not link items.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MEL, as I understand it, is to get the airplane BACK to base to be fixed NOT used as an operational tool!
We have the right, and an obligation, to refuse these aircraft.
As Itchydog says, good luck with the MOR.
STP
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: VHHH
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But you have to admit there is a problem of planes coming into HK and not getting fixed, due to a number of reasons. The usual one being we don't have enough time to fix the problem. Which is bollocks because the plane I was just on sat on the ground for 24 hours and no engineers came to work on it.....
Or is it the fact that we have no engineers to fix the planes because as D&N said, CX got rid of them.
Everywhere you look at CX and the airport they are lacking good staff because they want to be cheap and not pay people what they are worth. They want to hire 10 cheap guys/gals to do something where 1 good guy/gal could do the job but at a higher cost.
Sometime in the very near future someone in HK is going to be a big smoking hole in the ground. Its getting close.
Now excuse me I have to spend the next 30 min's going through the AML defects before my next flight, only 7 to deal with.... but thank goodness not all related
Or is it the fact that we have no engineers to fix the planes because as D&N said, CX got rid of them.
Everywhere you look at CX and the airport they are lacking good staff because they want to be cheap and not pay people what they are worth. They want to hire 10 cheap guys/gals to do something where 1 good guy/gal could do the job but at a higher cost.
Sometime in the very near future someone in HK is going to be a big smoking hole in the ground. Its getting close.
Now excuse me I have to spend the next 30 min's going through the AML defects before my next flight, only 7 to deal with.... but thank goodness not all related
Last edited by CokeZero; 24th Aug 2013 at 04:17.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The usual one being we don't have enough time to fix the problem. Which is bollocks because the plane I was just on sat on the ground for 24 hours and no engineers came to work on it.....
So what we see is CX not doing this ($$$) and hoping HAECO can fix it in the hour before departure which often can't be done so out comes the MEL.
They then try to get CX engineers at outports to fix the problem as its a no cost item, however CX no longer keeps spares in outports these days so the MEL lives on.
LCC anyone?
I've done quite a few sectors lately on both brand new A330's and older ones and can honestly say its no better OR worse than I've seen in the last 10 years.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hemisperes
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it is
Sorry Nitpicker, but disagree. It's the worse I have ever seen including the cadre of S/O's coming through, but that is another story!
I don't think it was ever the intent to use the MEL as a get out of jail free card. I believe the MMEL eludes to the fact that the MEL is used to get an aircraft to a place where it can be repaired, NOT fly multiple sectors with two pages of write ups. It's just totally unacceptable!
What is happening to CX and KA?
I don't think it was ever the intent to use the MEL as a get out of jail free card. I believe the MMEL eludes to the fact that the MEL is used to get an aircraft to a place where it can be repaired, NOT fly multiple sectors with two pages of write ups. It's just totally unacceptable!
What is happening to CX and KA?
Last edited by Didacts and Narpets; 24th Aug 2013 at 07:54.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didacts and Narpets, sorry, you're wrong again. Have a read of the of the introduction of the MEL, specifically "How to use - MEL Purpose and Scope". I think it's pretty clear as to the intent of the MEL frankly. Also, I agree with Nitpicker330 as to the state of the aircraft being about the same as they have been historically.
You speak of the MMEL as though it has a different purpose than the MEL. My understanding is that the manufacturer publishes the MMEL for the type but not all operators have the same equipment options fitted. Consequently, the operator has to produce its own MEL, based on the MMEL and its equipment fit, but it must be at least as restrictive. The intent of the 2 documents is identical.
STP
You speak of the MMEL as though it has a different purpose than the MEL. My understanding is that the manufacturer publishes the MMEL for the type but not all operators have the same equipment options fitted. Consequently, the operator has to produce its own MEL, based on the MMEL and its equipment fit, but it must be at least as restrictive. The intent of the 2 documents is identical.
STP
See in my opinion you are wrong again.
The brand new S/O's I regularly fly with do their job to a standard you'd expect of brand new guys/girls and show themselves ready willing and able to learn their trade. Only a couple have a "different" attitude and this needs adjusting. Something that time will solve, if not a more direct approach should do the trick!!
The brand new S/O's I regularly fly with do their job to a standard you'd expect of brand new guys/girls and show themselves ready willing and able to learn their trade. Only a couple have a "different" attitude and this needs adjusting. Something that time will solve, if not a more direct approach should do the trick!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hemisperes
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen If I may
Firstly, I am NOT having the same experience with S/O's but again that thread has been discussed.
Secondly, I have cut and pasted from research on MELs;
Limitations, procedures and substitutions may be used to provide conditions under which the inoperative equipment will not make the operation unsafe or the aircraft unairworthy. This is not a philosophy which permits reduced safety in order to fly to a base where repairs can be made, but rather a philosophy which permits safe operations for a take off from a maintenance base or en-route stop.
One of the practices I have seen is referred to as "pencil whipping". This is where a component was inopeartive, then cleared only when YOU push pack, low and behold the item breaks again thus allowing another, say 10 day period, to get it REALLY fixed. I have seen this with my own eyes and could not believe it. Additionally, If you ask why not fixed; "No parts". Really? How do we not have parts?This is how companies like Air Atlanta and Southern Air/Kalitta Air operate NOT CX/KA.
Maintanence is supposed to be pro active NOT reactive. Any major airline needs a parts inventory also called stores. The program, I believe, to abide by, is preventative maintanence.
On the subject that it has been this way for the last ten years, well, I disagree. Ten years ago the aircraft were old and orders were made for new aircraft which have been arriving for about 3-5 years. These new aircraft should NOT be having as many problems AS THEY ARE NEW! I point again to skills shortage and financial issues.
SAFETY IS PRIORITY ONE NO? So why are we having this discussion? I do understand that aircraft break. I understand the need and use for the MEL but, there are extremes and THAT, is what I am witnessing.
Secondly, I have cut and pasted from research on MELs;
The operator must establish procedures whereby the maintenance control personnel
periodically review the deferred items. This is done to ensure that any accumulated
deferred items neither conflict with each other nor present an unacceptable increase in crew workload.
periodically review the deferred items. This is done to ensure that any accumulated
deferred items neither conflict with each other nor present an unacceptable increase in crew workload.
Notwithstanding the categorisation of item repair intervals, it should be the aim of each operator to ensure that inoperative items are repaired as quickly as possible.
Limitations, procedures and substitutions may be used to provide conditions under which the inoperative equipment will not make the operation unsafe or the aircraft unairworthy. This is not a philosophy which permits reduced safety in order to fly to a base where repairs can be made, but rather a philosophy which permits safe operations for a take off from a maintenance base or en-route stop.
One of the practices I have seen is referred to as "pencil whipping". This is where a component was inopeartive, then cleared only when YOU push pack, low and behold the item breaks again thus allowing another, say 10 day period, to get it REALLY fixed. I have seen this with my own eyes and could not believe it. Additionally, If you ask why not fixed; "No parts". Really? How do we not have parts?This is how companies like Air Atlanta and Southern Air/Kalitta Air operate NOT CX/KA.
Maintanence is supposed to be pro active NOT reactive. Any major airline needs a parts inventory also called stores. The program, I believe, to abide by, is preventative maintanence.
On the subject that it has been this way for the last ten years, well, I disagree. Ten years ago the aircraft were old and orders were made for new aircraft which have been arriving for about 3-5 years. These new aircraft should NOT be having as many problems AS THEY ARE NEW! I point again to skills shortage and financial issues.
SAFETY IS PRIORITY ONE NO? So why are we having this discussion? I do understand that aircraft break. I understand the need and use for the MEL but, there are extremes and THAT, is what I am witnessing.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Somewhere out there...
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few questions that may provoke discussion (the answers may be surprising and instructive - I am just asking questions):
Who owns CX? Who owns HX/TX? What do the changes in shareholding levels tell you about the owners' long term strategy?
Who owns the spares, and what is the incentive for spares availability/service levels?
Who does the line maintenance at home base, and on what basis is the aircraft turnaround paid for (is it fixed cost per turnaround for example)?
How well does CX engineering really know the fleet?
HX has a well publicized skill shortage. Why? Where are the resources being directed? To CX aircraft? Or to 'true' third party customers?
Is it normal practice for an airline to feel the need for a permanent 'quality control' team presence in an MRO?
Is the relationship between HX/TX and CX just a bit too chummy? Look at recent movements of senior personnel. Will the 'hard discussions' take place in such an interconnected social context - Hong Kong is a small place? Is there an identifiable cohort, and if so how are they motivated? Moreover, will mid level staff feel secure in raising concerns without the fear of retribution?
How well positioned is the HK CAD to regulate effectively - remember that any 'normalization of deviance' would have happened under their watch? Are individuals immune from tendrils of a powerful and influential presence?
Who owns CX? Who owns HX/TX? What do the changes in shareholding levels tell you about the owners' long term strategy?
Who owns the spares, and what is the incentive for spares availability/service levels?
Who does the line maintenance at home base, and on what basis is the aircraft turnaround paid for (is it fixed cost per turnaround for example)?
How well does CX engineering really know the fleet?
HX has a well publicized skill shortage. Why? Where are the resources being directed? To CX aircraft? Or to 'true' third party customers?
Is it normal practice for an airline to feel the need for a permanent 'quality control' team presence in an MRO?
Is the relationship between HX/TX and CX just a bit too chummy? Look at recent movements of senior personnel. Will the 'hard discussions' take place in such an interconnected social context - Hong Kong is a small place? Is there an identifiable cohort, and if so how are they motivated? Moreover, will mid level staff feel secure in raising concerns without the fear of retribution?
How well positioned is the HK CAD to regulate effectively - remember that any 'normalization of deviance' would have happened under their watch? Are individuals immune from tendrils of a powerful and influential presence?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear oh dear. A few things to discuss. Firstly, we're not regulated by CASA. Secondly, I think you've misunderstood the Wikipedia quote as it specifically refers to "a philosophy which permits safe operations for a take off from a maintenance base or en-route stop". Clearly, this doesn't refer to a "get home" philosophy. Finally, you say:
You might want to take that up with the manufacturers then.
Mountains and molehills come to mind.
STP
These new aircraft should NOT be having as many problems AS THEY ARE NEW!
Mountains and molehills come to mind.
STP
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the practices I have seen is referred to as "pencil whipping". This is where a component was inopeartive, then cleared only when YOU push pack, low and behold the item breaks again thus allowing another, say 10 day period, to get it REALLY fixed.
Is it normal practice for an airline to feel the need for a permanent 'quality control' team presence in an MRO?
How well does CX engineering really know the fleet?
Maintanence is supposed to be pro active NOT reactive
Who does the line maintenance at home base, and on what basis is the aircraft turnaround paid for (is it fixed cost per turnaround for example)?
If you ask why not fixed; "No parts". Really? How do we not have parts?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spanners,
Just wondering whether the practice of taking a broken part off one plane and installing it into another "For trouble-shooting" is an industry-wide one. It certainly happens here.
Just wondering whether the practice of taking a broken part off one plane and installing it into another "For trouble-shooting" is an industry-wide one. It certainly happens here.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the reply. So what is stopping airlines from timing out ADDs then transferring to other aircraft for troubleshooting until the ADD runs out there, then transferring the broken part again...and again etc...?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well first of all that wouldn't do your ADD levels any wonders or will it look great for a whole series of metrics that matter to engineering.
Although the thought of wilfully transferring broken parts around aircraft to save a small amount of $$$ is a nice conspiracy theory, the removed part is instantly considered unserviceable and must be sent to the repairer. It takes several people of authority to change the status back, the people with this authority will only do so if they see valid reasons.
If a new part gets installed and breaks on push back, either you have a rogue part (not that likely) or they replaced the wrong part to fix the defect.
Although the thought of wilfully transferring broken parts around aircraft to save a small amount of $$$ is a nice conspiracy theory, the removed part is instantly considered unserviceable and must be sent to the repairer. It takes several people of authority to change the status back, the people with this authority will only do so if they see valid reasons.
If a new part gets installed and breaks on push back, either you have a rogue part (not that likely) or they replaced the wrong part to fix the defect.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although the thought of wilfully transferring broken parts around aircraft to save a small amount of $$$ is a nice conspiracy theory, the removed part is instantly considered unserviceable and must be sent to the repairer
Parts do get interchanged for trouble shooting, sometimes it's the only way to prove one way or the other.
If Crew control can pull someone off tomorrows flight to crew a flight today, thereby moving their crew shortage problem back by one day, why should we not suspect that engineering can use the same tactic? Getting a few more days here and there out of spare parts, x100+ aircraft, x365 days a year no doubt equals a lot of money. I would be far more surprised to hear that this wasn't going on!
Sounds like CX is just another shonky operator! Where do their drivers get the superior attitudes from? Plenty of problems at CX as I see it - a lot of very unhappy puppies, and constant bitching. What a place to work!