Cathay - fear culture = safety culture?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: U.K
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SPANNERS@CX
Thanks for the confirmation that this was a double eng change on the same wing. CAD may not require it but other airlines demand it !! With regards to the comments about me being a disgruntled ex employee, very very nearly right. I am a disgruntled cathay engineer but not EX (not yet anyway). The man to whom you refer I suspect would consider your comments to be slanderous (why do you not throw caution to the wind and name the guy, probably because you would find yourself in court !!) As I said earlier these posts were to discuss safety not personal issues however it appears that some people feel the need to degenerate to the attack of individuals.
With regards to the gentleman you refer to, he has the support of several large U.K organisations and regulatory bodies. I very much doubt that this support would be forthcoming if he were looking for the "pot of gold"
Thanks for the confirmation that this was a double eng change on the same wing. CAD may not require it but other airlines demand it !! With regards to the comments about me being a disgruntled ex employee, very very nearly right. I am a disgruntled cathay engineer but not EX (not yet anyway). The man to whom you refer I suspect would consider your comments to be slanderous (why do you not throw caution to the wind and name the guy, probably because you would find yourself in court !!) As I said earlier these posts were to discuss safety not personal issues however it appears that some people feel the need to degenerate to the attack of individuals.
With regards to the gentleman you refer to, he has the support of several large U.K organisations and regulatory bodies. I very much doubt that this support would be forthcoming if he were looking for the "pot of gold"
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well you deemed it fit to say that MY standards are abismal, which is personal and also which could be deemed to be slanderous, but I'm quite happy to take it on the chin, because I know it not to be true. I'm not going to get into a slanging match, you've obviously got an axed to grind which you felt should be aired in a public forum.
Have an nice Christmas!
Have an nice Christmas!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spanners@cx
I am the man to which you refer who is taking cx to court. In the U.K any individual can say anything he wants with one proviso : it is the truth. You have never met me let alone worked with me and I have an unblemished work record.
If you wish to make further comments about me then I hope that you can prove what you say. If you cast further doubt on my abilities as an engineer in a public place you will be hearing from me via a different route.
PG
I am the man to which you refer who is taking cx to court. In the U.K any individual can say anything he wants with one proviso : it is the truth. You have never met me let alone worked with me and I have an unblemished work record.
If you wish to make further comments about me then I hope that you can prove what you say. If you cast further doubt on my abilities as an engineer in a public place you will be hearing from me via a different route.
PG
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was don't wannabe who first questioned MY (and others) abilities by stating that WE were abismal. He also stated that we keep our mouths shut due to fear culture, I for one, and many others I might add, do not see it like that. I don't see that I've questioned your abilities, and as you say I don't know you, as don't wannabe or yourself don't know me either. It's kind of difficult when we are a few thousand miles apart I guess.
Perhaps you could be kind enough to explain why you are taking CX to court, I only hear through the grapevine. If not before (due to legal reasons) then perhaps after the event.
Perhaps you could be kind enough to explain why you are taking CX to court, I only hear through the grapevine. If not before (due to legal reasons) then perhaps after the event.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you publish something on the Internet that can be accessed from Australia, it has been published in Australia. Some of our slander laws are very very severe. If you publish something designed to harm someone, that is enough. In Australia the truth or public importance of the material is irrelevant.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If 'www' still stands for World Wide Web, then everything on the internet is accessible in Australia, which leads me to think that their legal system could be very busy. However I suspect that the cost of litigation there together with commonsense will mean very few internet based claims will actually get to court. I wonder what the Flying Lawyer thinks?
Cheers,Y
Cheers,Y
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Asia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DW,
You work at CX so there's no doubt you've heard of an MOR - If you've witnessed something illegal, it may be more pertinent filling one out before going to CAD, you may just one day save a life.. Why not be part of the solution instead of the problem..
To all who doubt CX's Maint Standard's, don't - They're up there with the best. It's quite simple, with around 4 million part's making up a 747, things, from time to time, are gonna break.. Trick is to ensure the levels of system redundancy are maintained.
These days, with aging fleets flying around the clock, passengers wanting to fly from A to B with full inflt svc for next to nothing, Pilots and Engineers not wanting to work for peanuts and Mums and Dad's wanting to invest in something that will still be around at retirement, that Balance between profit and safety isn't easy to maintain, however, I can assure you all that at Cathay, safety remains paramount.
Let's put this one to bed eh?
You work at CX so there's no doubt you've heard of an MOR - If you've witnessed something illegal, it may be more pertinent filling one out before going to CAD, you may just one day save a life.. Why not be part of the solution instead of the problem..
To all who doubt CX's Maint Standard's, don't - They're up there with the best. It's quite simple, with around 4 million part's making up a 747, things, from time to time, are gonna break.. Trick is to ensure the levels of system redundancy are maintained.
These days, with aging fleets flying around the clock, passengers wanting to fly from A to B with full inflt svc for next to nothing, Pilots and Engineers not wanting to work for peanuts and Mums and Dad's wanting to invest in something that will still be around at retirement, that Balance between profit and safety isn't easy to maintain, however, I can assure you all that at Cathay, safety remains paramount.
Let's put this one to bed eh?
Last edited by aeo; 27th Dec 2004 at 21:12.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The British part of the EU
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm afaraid that MORs worldwide are no longer the defence that they used to be. In many airlines the what happens to an MOR, and whether it is acted upon, is entirely in the hands of management. Many never see the light of day again after being filed, and the regulaory authorities have no chance of a proper overview, as they never get to see the whole picture as reflected by all MORs filed. Woe and betide the pilot that goes straight to the CAD.............
....and furthermore, having worked for CX, and still using their engineering services from time to time, I can also confidently assert that the engineering support is second to none.
....and furthermore, having worked for CX, and still using their engineering services from time to time, I can also confidently assert that the engineering support is second to none.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: U.K
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As hangin on correctly puts it MORs raised may never see the light of day again. Thats what happened here. I am not surprised the CX managers out there would like "to put this to bed"- it is rather embarrassing isn't it? especially when the director of engineering has just released a press statement to (self) proclaim CX's high standards. Amazing that other operators do not seem to have the problems with 211's and trents that CX has. No comments on the double engine change on the same wing either. All CX said about it was that there was a single failure and the usual pants about "passengers not at risk blah, blah" a slight ommision I think?
And spanners@cx appears to be getting mixed up between CX standards and his own. I do not comment on individuals abilities here, merely the poor standards that I have witnessed in my few years at CX. I am sure you will read all about it in the papers spanners.
Happy new year to you all.
And spanners@cx appears to be getting mixed up between CX standards and his own. I do not comment on individuals abilities here, merely the poor standards that I have witnessed in my few years at CX. I am sure you will read all about it in the papers spanners.
Happy new year to you all.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Asia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DW,
I really don't want to be involved in this topic anymore but unfortunately, due to the misguided and ill informed comments of your most recent post, I am compelled to set a few things straight - Then thats it..
:I'm not in management - (Wherever that one came from?). I'm just a pleb working within CX Eng supporting the Airline operation 24/7.
:Contrary to your beliefs, It's not uncommon to see 747/RB211 high bypass engines surge in Rev. It can be caused by anything from a sticky bleed valve to adverse crosswinds. To back this comment up, the BOE/RR AMM states that an engine can remain in service with Boro's deferred for main base so long as parameters during/after surge are normal - They deem no other maintenance necessary. In the instance you refer to some weeks ago, the engine o'temped so we changed it - Simple. Surely not the actions of a dodgy organisation - Had we simply penned it off then yes, your comments would be well founded.
I still find it hard to believe that no other RB211 operator has ever experienced a surge in reverse and would love to know where you get your info from.. And why mention the Trent? Do you know of a Trent that also surged?
:MOR's do get followed up, you just may not always get to see or hear what goes on behind the scenes. If you know of one that wasn't, then follow it up with QA. The "I'll be penalised for it" routine is just another excuse to sit on the fence and do nothing.
And yes, speaking as a non manager, I still believe this one has run it's course and should be put to bed. If CX's maint is as bad as you say then surely there must be something more recent we can talk about..
aeo.
I really don't want to be involved in this topic anymore but unfortunately, due to the misguided and ill informed comments of your most recent post, I am compelled to set a few things straight - Then thats it..
:I'm not in management - (Wherever that one came from?). I'm just a pleb working within CX Eng supporting the Airline operation 24/7.
:Contrary to your beliefs, It's not uncommon to see 747/RB211 high bypass engines surge in Rev. It can be caused by anything from a sticky bleed valve to adverse crosswinds. To back this comment up, the BOE/RR AMM states that an engine can remain in service with Boro's deferred for main base so long as parameters during/after surge are normal - They deem no other maintenance necessary. In the instance you refer to some weeks ago, the engine o'temped so we changed it - Simple. Surely not the actions of a dodgy organisation - Had we simply penned it off then yes, your comments would be well founded.
I still find it hard to believe that no other RB211 operator has ever experienced a surge in reverse and would love to know where you get your info from.. And why mention the Trent? Do you know of a Trent that also surged?
:MOR's do get followed up, you just may not always get to see or hear what goes on behind the scenes. If you know of one that wasn't, then follow it up with QA. The "I'll be penalised for it" routine is just another excuse to sit on the fence and do nothing.
And yes, speaking as a non manager, I still believe this one has run it's course and should be put to bed. If CX's maint is as bad as you say then surely there must be something more recent we can talk about..
aeo.
Last edited by aeo; 1st Jan 2005 at 18:34.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: U.K
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The engine in question was overtemped beyond mm limits so had to be changed. When I refer to trents I was talking about the delam issues that cause a lump to fall off. I have never heard of another operator suffer similar. I have never heard of another operator have a double failure on the same wing either. As I have mentioned the last person to stick his head up at cx was sacked (geldap). CX certainly do not help themselves when it comes to being honest about incidents. I have seen technical defects kept out of the log by MC/engineers as they know that if they were added to the log as entries there is no means to defer and any crew in thier right mind would not accept the a/c for flight. Only speaking of what I have seen, and yes it has been reported and burried by qa.
I also do not wish to suggest that cx are the only airline with some engine surges, shutdowns etc. However I think the amount of incidents is way too many for an airline of 70 or so a/c. I also think this is directly linked to the fear culture, many people within cx will not speak out for fear of being next so the problem continues. I have even put entries in the log and had someone "more senior" (so obviously knows more) pen it and then ring mc for them to raise an "MADD" ring any bells?
Well aeo, I have had my say also. I am sure more will be forthcoming on this subject in the near future.
I also do not wish to suggest that cx are the only airline with some engine surges, shutdowns etc. However I think the amount of incidents is way too many for an airline of 70 or so a/c. I also think this is directly linked to the fear culture, many people within cx will not speak out for fear of being next so the problem continues. I have even put entries in the log and had someone "more senior" (so obviously knows more) pen it and then ring mc for them to raise an "MADD" ring any bells?
Well aeo, I have had my say also. I am sure more will be forthcoming on this subject in the near future.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a solution has been devised by aircraft maker Boeing to prevent heat stress and the failure of engine ducts on its B777-300 aircraft. This modification and revised future inspection procedures are now in place across Cathay Pacific's B777-300 fleet.
Boeing Vice President and General Manager for the 747, 767 and 777 programmes, John Quinlivan, has also given his written affirmation that this modification and procedures for future inspection ensure that any similar event "will not occur again". Mr Quinlivan adds: "Boeing strongly believes ... Cathay Pacific's ability to safely operate and maintain its fleet to the highest standards of safety is well-founded."
At the same time, I would like to bring to your attention a letter received from Professor Riti Singh, a world expert on aircraft engines based at Cranfield University in the UK, in which he refers to the "unrealistic reporting on the integrity of Cathay Pacific".
Prof Singh states that press reports of engines "exploding" are "a gross distortion of the facts and unnecessarily alarm the flying public". And continues: "Even in the most severe circumstances, which I understand these events were not, any debris must be contained within the engine envelope to ensure that they do not hazard the aircraft ... I am totally confident in the integrity of both Cathay Pacific and the engines it uses."
I sincerely hope that they reinforce statements made by the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department that Cathay Pacific has been totally professional in maintaining the highest possible aircraft safety standards and forthright in its reporting and handling of incidents that have caused recent concern.
Cathay Pacific is proud of its reputation for maintaining the highest maintenance and engineering standards in the industry. The complete safety of our passengers and crew is, and remains, our overriding priority.
Boeing Vice President and General Manager for the 747, 767 and 777 programmes, John Quinlivan, has also given his written affirmation that this modification and procedures for future inspection ensure that any similar event "will not occur again". Mr Quinlivan adds: "Boeing strongly believes ... Cathay Pacific's ability to safely operate and maintain its fleet to the highest standards of safety is well-founded."
At the same time, I would like to bring to your attention a letter received from Professor Riti Singh, a world expert on aircraft engines based at Cranfield University in the UK, in which he refers to the "unrealistic reporting on the integrity of Cathay Pacific".
Prof Singh states that press reports of engines "exploding" are "a gross distortion of the facts and unnecessarily alarm the flying public". And continues: "Even in the most severe circumstances, which I understand these events were not, any debris must be contained within the engine envelope to ensure that they do not hazard the aircraft ... I am totally confident in the integrity of both Cathay Pacific and the engines it uses."
I sincerely hope that they reinforce statements made by the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department that Cathay Pacific has been totally professional in maintaining the highest possible aircraft safety standards and forthright in its reporting and handling of incidents that have caused recent concern.
Cathay Pacific is proud of its reputation for maintaining the highest maintenance and engineering standards in the industry. The complete safety of our passengers and crew is, and remains, our overriding priority.
By the way it's presently 87 a/c not 70 (not including LD), you really must learn more about the airline you work for!
It's not self proclaimed about our high standards, it's from people outside far more cleverer than me! Of course no other airline self proclaimed to be the worlds favourite did they!
Most airlines I know and have worked for have MADD so what's new there!
Baywatcher and Hangin' on thanking you for your kind words, nice to know somebody likes me!!
Hope you all have a good new year and a prosperous one. I guess this will drag on and on as it doesn't seem we'll ever be in agreement, excepting that we are the best
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North America
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest here, I do not see it as a Cathay problem. More as a Rolls problem. Seems to me when they get some hours and cycles as opposed to GE or Pratts, these engines have a fairly high failure rate.