Thanks Take five..

ElPerro.. you insinuated that we were committing violations and negligence in the course of our employment; acts that compromise the safety of the aircraft.. And you wonder why we are defensive?

We have had more than our fair share of troublemakers/trolls/manangement stooges in this thread who's sole aim is to stir up strife.

Whilst the majority of us would like to give someone the benefit of the doubt, I think you'll find that most engineers suffer fools lightly. Now I don't know if you fit in one of the aforementioned categories..If you do then your footing in this thread may be a little rocky. If you don't then great; just maybe think about the tone of the language you use in your posts, as you may illicit unwelcome responses should you go like a bull at a gate.

Mate I was happy to read.. until I read Konehead's post saying that he applied workarounds.

I didn't insinuate anything. A violation is when you deliberately ignore / break a rule. Konehead wrote it and backed it up again with some examples.

I find that disturbing. I'm not saying all engineer's commit violations, but Konehead (backed up by Ngineer) has openly admitted it - and published it in what he calls an open letter to the public.

So yes, I question why you are defensive when I further question Koneheads violations. You're directing you anger at the wrong person. Konehead said that engineers where committing violations - I didn't insinuate it, I just took him at his word.

Ok so you are a pilot ElPerro. Good. Know that as LAME's we would never do anything that would compromise the safety of the aircraft!! It's as simple as that.

If something goes wrong and the proverbial hits the fan and people die and it can be proven that it was because of something that the LAME did..who do you think gets charged with manslaughter and spends time behind bars?

We take our work very seriously!! Just as I'm sure, you do.

could someone give the instructions for copy and paste so i can save kh's post. i know how to highlight it and click on edit then click on copy but i am stuffed if i know what to do next. i have set up a file but don't know how to get it into it. any help appreciated as i want to email it on

And ElPerro, I'm not angry at you at all. My heart rate has barely even raised.. I think you may be confusing the issue.

For example: Corporate safety have written a policy with regard to Confined Space Entry (fuel tanks etc) that stipulates the requirements for personnel engaged in this work. The CSE training that we have been undertaking at the company's direction does not comply fully with the requirement set out in the Policy manual. Therefore every time a person enters a confined space they are violating Corporate Safety Policy.

Or.. sometimes the correct access stand may not be available and so we "make do" with what we have available. Yet the company says that without the "correct" stand available the job should not be performed.. Again a violation..

the rules of qantas exist for your safty and the safty of others obey them or you will be history

ok viper (ElPerro) we know no one can win when the safty high ground is taken

Wouldn't the correct thing be to comply with the policy and challenge it?

That's what we are doing now and the company is accusing us of "Going Slow"!

Not driving on a marked roadway on the tarmac is a violation of company procedure, yet everyone does it. Not saying it's right or wrong, but it happens, it's not serious and people will take a shortcut from A to B by taking the shorcut, rather than tripling the distance of their journey by taking the marked roadway.
Many trivial "violations" of company policy happen every day, even by managers who are violating the company's harrassment, discrimination and equal opportunity policies to name a few.
They are not safety related, but they do allow us to do our jobs more efficiently, as can be seen now that we're following them all to the letter.

Here is a top example. Heavy Maintenance management in Brissy, without consultation, made a local are procedure that during movement of flight controls, the "LAME in charge" must be giving clearance from the ground via service interphone. (Forget the exact wording. This procedure didn't last long for obvious reasons).

Now you can imagine how stupid this procedure is, when most crews are manned by one or two LAME's, 2 or 3 apprentices, one or two AME tradesmen and 2 or 3 contractors.

Excellent example of a procedure implimented by an out of touch manager.

Can someone inform ElPasso about the witches hat incident in Cairns? I'm not too familiar but I believe this it a prime example too.

Sorry Oldpaso, I don't buy your 'pilot' story.

I have spent plenty of time discussing maintenance issues and "work around" strategies with pilots during my career and I can't remember coming across one who is so pedantic about semantics as you.

On the history of this thread a 'pilot' has not carried on like you have today.

I do know your style though. Out of the Ash the phoenix has arisen. Haven't you posted as sobast, lamea380, etc, etc, in a previous life.

SMH : Qantas dubbed 'Cancer Kangaroo'
 

Anti-smoking lobby groups have attacked a move by Qantas to resume inflight cigarette sales as a "greedy cash grab" at the expense of good health.
The national airline reintroduced tobacco sales on board this month, almost 10 years after they were stopped.
Legislation prohibits the packs from being advertised in the shopping catalogue but it is legal to stack them on the duty-free trolley and wheel them through the cabin.
A letter recently sent to Qantas staff by management states: "It's vital that duty free carts are taken out into the economy cabin, with the cigarettes displayed prominently on top."
Qantas has defended the move as a response to customer demand, but lobby groups argue it is an unacceptable return to the "bad old days".
"At a time when Australian governments are moving to put tobacco displays out of sight to protect young people in particular, Qantas has gone backwards," said Anne Jones, chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health.
"Retail tobacco display is a powerful form of advertising, especially in association with a highly respected brand name like Qantas, and research shows it normalises and encourages young people to smoke."
She said the group had received several complaints from air host staff concerned they have to "push tobacco as part of their job".
Another group, Quit, joined the criticism, with executive director Fiona Sharkie labelling it a "greedy cash grab".
"International flights are an opportunity for smokers to give up smoking, but having cheap cigarettes promoted to them by Qantas in flight completely undermines this opportunity," Ms Sharkie said.
"Perhaps the flying kangaroo should be renamed the cancer kangaroo, such is their insistence on the inflight sale and display of a product that will ultimately kill more than half of long-term users."
But Qantas Group general manager of customer product and services Lesley Grant defended the move, which she said was motivated by passenger demand.
"The availability of cigarettes reflects customer demand," Ms Grant said.
"Regardless of what the product might be, if we see changes in demand we review our product range."

Short Cuts
 

Here's an example I saw recently of an engineer taking a short-cut, spot the error ........................

He was required to check the engine oil level on #1 engine on a B738.

1) He waited until approximately 10 minutes after shut-down.
2) He went to the right-hand side of #1 engine fan-cowl
3) He opened the oil tank access door
4) He looked at the sight gauge and determined that the engine required two tins of oil
5) He opened two tins of oil
6) He removed the oil cap, noting the restraining chain was intact
7) He tipped the two cans of oil into the tank
8) He looked at the cap o-ring, determined it to be serviceable
9) He refitted the cap, ensuring the cap lever was correctly locked
10) He gave the tank & cap a final look and closed the access door
11) As he walked away with the tins he glanced under the engine to ensure there was not a pool of oil under the engine
12) He entered into the tech-log "2" in the #1 engine space, put a line through #2 and APU to signify he did not look at them, and signed and dated the boxes correctly.


SpannerTwister

Short Cuts
 

Just off the top of my head...........

1) He has not recorded the batch number / GRN of the oil used
2) He has not entered into the tech-log words to the effect..."#1 engine oil level checked in accordance with Boeing Maintenance Manual 12-13-11
3) Had he of done the check correctly, he would of needed to of found the total flight times (check the Trip Record) since the last time oil was added and calculated the oil consumption
3) He did not use the required cloth (Cotton wiper..cheesecloth gauze) to clean the oil scupper prior to removal of the cap. Any clean rag will not do, it MUST be a cheesecloth gauze !!
4) He did not do a check for fuel in the oil
5) He did not use a calibrated (and record the PEO number of) a timer to ensure that the time he checked the oil was indeed between 5 and 30 minutes after shutdown

NOW THE REALLY IMPORTANT STUFF

6) He did not log onto the Qantas ADOC system and access the manual prior to doing this task
7) He did not print out this task and have these printouts with him while he was doing the job
7a) If he had "recently" done the job and was using the printout from last time, he did not access the computer as above and check the currency of his information

Any other examples of those bad engineers taking short-cuts ?



SpannerTwister

Short Cuts
 

I remember the days when just before I'd tow an aircraft, I would get my colleague to throw the gear pins down. I'd then climb on the rim of a wheel or even a wheel itself and then insert the pins.

How silly of me. Now I go upstairs myself and get the pins. I come back down then walk 3 bays to find an appropriate stand. I then return and fit the pins. I then walk the stand back to where I picked it up. Then comes the entry for the pins in the T/L (as I always have).

The whole process has now taken 6 minutes instead of 1. But apparently we are on a go slow.....:{

Multiply this stupidity with the dozens of tasks you are required to do in a day.:D.....Maybe if we had more stands.

Anulus Filler,

Of course you were on a go-slow - you should have been running!

Good to see you're making a stand though Anulus Filler. :E

you might find the engineers will be given redundancy,just that you might have to wait a few years to actual leave.Need to first catch up with the backlog of work first..:ok::ok::ok::ok::ok:








2000 Qantas jobs axed as fuel prices bite

By Geoff Easdown July 17, 2008 12:01am

• Petrol pain causes mass Qantas job losses
• Flight staff, senior management on hit list
• Outlook for airline industry dire, Qantas says

QANTAS will slash about 2000 jobs next week as the national carrier seeks to offset cost pressures caused by the crippling fuel crisis.
The belt tightening also will include cutting loss-making flight routes from both domestic and international schedules.
The economic situation confronting the airline is so grim senior managers, flight crew, engineers and ground staff will be included on the hit list.
The cuts are expected to affect 5 per cent of the carrier's 36,000-strong worldwide workforce.
Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon told workers this week rocketing fuel prices had changed forever the way Qantas did business.
Qantas last month pruned about 100 staff, cut services and agreed to retire four aged 747 jumbos.


Since then, the cost of refined jet kerosene has leapt even higher on the Singapore index, the benchmark for Asia-Pacific airlines, from $US171.45 a barrel to the July 3 record of $US181.43.
Jet fuel yesterday traded at $US175.25.
The fact fuel continues to hover above $US170 a barrel means the Qantas and Jetstar fuel bill will double to more than $2 billion this financial year.
Next week's cuts come as the airline and the International Airline Pilots Association agreed to a new pay deal that will hand long-haul pilots an annual 3 per cent pay rise, plus a 1 per cent increase in company superannuation contributions each year for the next five.
The pay deal is expected to put pressure on the airline's 1500 engineers, who have taken industrial action in support of a 5 per cent pay rise, which Qantas argues is outside its wages policy.
"The overall view of our industry is dire," Mr Dixon said.

I note that it is alleged that a former British American Tobacco executive has just been appointed to the Qantas Board.

If this is true, it is indicative of what to me is a serious breach of corporate ethics.

What type of person would knowingly work for a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes, knowing what they do to people, and the legal shenanigans the industry gets up to to try and avoid responsibility for their actions?

Why would anyone want to associate with someone who has participated in such an industry?

And exactly what would justify employing such a "morally impaired" person on the Board of a public company?

To put it another way, people in the tobacco industry are turds. Why appoint one to the Qantas Board?

Why appoint him to the board? He comes from an industry that promotes untruths in the face of overwhelming contrary data, is used to cover ups, has an alternate set of ethics, outsources, exploits the world's cheapest labour, actively seeks to alter government policy, and is in decline despite of this.

He is perfect for QF.