65,000 Maintenance Problems Have Taken Off Anyway
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can we just get the Qantas thing factual
Qantas have had accidents and have had fatalities in their long history, they have just never had a jet engined aircraft tragedy.
Qantas have had accidents and have had fatalities in their long history, they have just never had a jet engined aircraft tragedy.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not disputing that but one needs to be careful because there is a big difference between never having an accident and having an accident, no fatalities and fatalities.
One of the problems is that aviation ends up believing its own safety propaganda which isn't factually correct. We just need to be honest.
Qantas has an excellent record but they have suffered accidents and fatalities
One of the problems is that aviation ends up believing its own safety propaganda which isn't factually correct. We just need to be honest.
Qantas has an excellent record but they have suffered accidents and fatalities
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Quahog
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
65,000 defects there may have been, but I wouldn't class an inspection overflown by a day or a mechanic with a stray NAS screw in his toolbox in the same league as departing with a failed or mis-rigged flight control. We are pretty good at preventing one but people will still point to the other as a problem. Neither is acceptable of course but there is a difference in the magnitude of risk they present.
It's sloppy too, to point the finger at "foreign" repair stations. If the BEA report on the Concorde crash is correct there is no room for sitting back and suggesting the problem lies abroad - whatever the cost of foreign repair stations that may lead some to question their standards.
The same standards apply to all of us and there is no room for protectionism.
It's sloppy too, to point the finger at "foreign" repair stations. If the BEA report on the Concorde crash is correct there is no room for sitting back and suggesting the problem lies abroad - whatever the cost of foreign repair stations that may lead some to question their standards.
The same standards apply to all of us and there is no room for protectionism.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in the article it mentions american eagle operating 20 further flights although they were aware that the aircraft was suffering vibration. The fine was $30,000 per flight or $600,000.
Hasn't anybody got a comment or opinion on that?
Hasn't anybody got a comment or opinion on that?
There has a a concerted effort over the years to de-skill aircraft maintenance.
We are now told that we cannot defer anything without being able to reference manufacturers maintenance data.
So captains coffee cup holder cracked, no maintenance data for this item, aircraft grounded. No engineer in his right mind would deck an aircraft for this yet not to do so would be to breach EASA rules according to our technical department.
We are now told that we cannot defer anything without being able to reference manufacturers maintenance data.
So captains coffee cup holder cracked, no maintenance data for this item, aircraft grounded. No engineer in his right mind would deck an aircraft for this yet not to do so would be to breach EASA rules according to our technical department.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sc,
I don't think Eagle was operating unsafely. 30,000 per flight seems pretty severe. Did the vibration problem source ever get resolved? A loose fitting on a cowling? AA had an engine fall off a 727 over El Paso and continued to LAX and they were legal. Three engines you can continue if it is safe. They didn't know they were down to two until they landed.
I don't think Eagle was operating unsafely. 30,000 per flight seems pretty severe. Did the vibration problem source ever get resolved? A loose fitting on a cowling? AA had an engine fall off a 727 over El Paso and continued to LAX and they were legal. Three engines you can continue if it is safe. They didn't know they were down to two until they landed.
We've all used commonsense in the past, but it's getting to the point where even if there's a smudge of paint, ground the aircraft until it's sorted..
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can we just get the Qantas thing factual
Qantas have had accidents and have had fatalities in their long history, they have just never had a jet engined aircraft tragedy.
Are they safe? or have they been lucky?
I have been driving a car for thirty years and never had an accident, am I a safe driver or have I been lucky?.......answer I have been lucky.
That can be said for any airline or MRO...
C
Qantas have had accidents and have had fatalities in their long history, they have just never had a jet engined aircraft tragedy.
Are they safe? or have they been lucky?
I have been driving a car for thirty years and never had an accident, am I a safe driver or have I been lucky?.......answer I have been lucky.
That can be said for any airline or MRO...
C
Last edited by HeryBird; 14th Feb 2010 at 07:15.
Folks,
Safety Concerns is correct, the only claim about Qantas safety is that QF have never has a fatality in the jet era.
There have been jet accidents and major incidents, but none resulted in a fatality to a passenger or a crew member. Unsurprisingly, most of the injuries have been from in flight turbulence, with a small number from evacuations.
The excellent Qantas histories by John Gunn have comprehensive appendices of all accidents and major incidents (up to the date of publication of the last volume), all made available to Gunn from Qantas records.
In considering the QF jet record, they were the first non-US operator of the B707 ( the unique to QF B707-138, which was NOT a B707-120, although 38 has remained the QF Boeing customer number).
Tootle pip!!
Safety Concerns is correct, the only claim about Qantas safety is that QF have never has a fatality in the jet era.
There have been jet accidents and major incidents, but none resulted in a fatality to a passenger or a crew member. Unsurprisingly, most of the injuries have been from in flight turbulence, with a small number from evacuations.
The excellent Qantas histories by John Gunn have comprehensive appendices of all accidents and major incidents (up to the date of publication of the last volume), all made available to Gunn from Qantas records.
In considering the QF jet record, they were the first non-US operator of the B707 ( the unique to QF B707-138, which was NOT a B707-120, although 38 has remained the QF Boeing customer number).
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 64
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF here.
QANTAS have the unusual situation of many long haul flights, so a lot of mileage, but relatively low overall numbers of takeoffs / landings compared to just about all other players in the field. So this may skew figures.
OTOH, major accidents like Bangkok overrun (which was not a hull loss only due to a massive repair to save that reputation) are likely to continue , in line with current company policy / SOPs . The outsourcing of heavy maintenance from Sydney , my patients tell me, has seen a huge change in the past philosophy of "safety at any expense". Other than that, there was nothing else all that special about QANTAS. Good ole Aussie scepticism / egalitarianism and finely tuned bullsh!tometers also avoided some of the "loss of face" Asian accidents.
I may be wrong about the above and stand ready to be corrected by you professionals. I do enjoy the fora !
QANTAS have the unusual situation of many long haul flights, so a lot of mileage, but relatively low overall numbers of takeoffs / landings compared to just about all other players in the field. So this may skew figures.
OTOH, major accidents like Bangkok overrun (which was not a hull loss only due to a massive repair to save that reputation) are likely to continue , in line with current company policy / SOPs . The outsourcing of heavy maintenance from Sydney , my patients tell me, has seen a huge change in the past philosophy of "safety at any expense". Other than that, there was nothing else all that special about QANTAS. Good ole Aussie scepticism / egalitarianism and finely tuned bullsh!tometers also avoided some of the "loss of face" Asian accidents.
I may be wrong about the above and stand ready to be corrected by you professionals. I do enjoy the fora !
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: VIENNA
Age: 58
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coming back to the headline and leaving the Aussies for a moment on the side.
For more than 15 years I am doing 145/135/91 audits, all over the world. You find on each continent good ones and some, which you know after the audit, never fly with them.
But, subjective from my experience, the standard in the USA is definitely lower as in most Europe and several countries in Asia / Oceania.
It is unacceptable for a lot of countries to allow airlines to continue flying after finding major maintenance discrepancies just with a "financial penalty". We you drive too bad or drunken, you loose your licence. The same should apply, as a minimum, for aviation in all respects.
And to all who question the safety record of Quantas: Just go their and look on the maintenance they operate. Not perfect, but far exceeeding the most done in 121's in USA.
For more than 15 years I am doing 145/135/91 audits, all over the world. You find on each continent good ones and some, which you know after the audit, never fly with them.
But, subjective from my experience, the standard in the USA is definitely lower as in most Europe and several countries in Asia / Oceania.
It is unacceptable for a lot of countries to allow airlines to continue flying after finding major maintenance discrepancies just with a "financial penalty". We you drive too bad or drunken, you loose your licence. The same should apply, as a minimum, for aviation in all respects.
And to all who question the safety record of Quantas: Just go their and look on the maintenance they operate. Not perfect, but far exceeeding the most done in 121's in USA.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.pprune.org/engineers-tech...aledonian.html
http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airpo...agle-fine.html
It is interesting looking at all the threads on this forum particularly in the aftermath of a tragedy. With SMS and human factors at least trying to show us the correct way forward the unfortunate reality is that humans are unable to learn from their mistakes.
The list and the warnings are growing as the business minded manager gradually replaces the safety minded manager. You will ignore this thread which is actually about prevention but you will post like crazy after the next preventable accident.
When you stand back, remove all the excess baggage and politics surrounding flying, and think about the situation, how sad is that?
http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airpo...agle-fine.html
It is interesting looking at all the threads on this forum particularly in the aftermath of a tragedy. With SMS and human factors at least trying to show us the correct way forward the unfortunate reality is that humans are unable to learn from their mistakes.
The list and the warnings are growing as the business minded manager gradually replaces the safety minded manager. You will ignore this thread which is actually about prevention but you will post like crazy after the next preventable accident.
When you stand back, remove all the excess baggage and politics surrounding flying, and think about the situation, how sad is that?
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Age: 49
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The hype here is something else as people are not capable of comprehending aviation safety.
" 65,000 Maintenance Problems Have Taken Off Anyway "
Yeah, so what? How many of these were safety of flight, I have read some of the above examples.
Fact is every aircraft in existance has a maintenance problem right now, at this moment!
May be a loose rivit, spot of corrosion OR could be a crack in primary structure that is getting ready to let loose and kill hundreds of people that was an inspection card or AD not accomplished at overhaul 200 legs ago.
Draws focus away from creating better maintenance programs and oversight. Bottom line is control. When airlines use MRO's forign or domestic they loose control as the MRO's prime initiative is to make as much money while still staying in business. Airlines who elect to do business in house drive to shorten check time and cut corners to save money but the system is stronger as they have employees who have to look out for their personal welfare first. This means generating more work by looking a bit harder, questioning processes to ensure what they sign for has been performed and doccumented correctly etc.
Lazyness is the human factor that causes most if not allmost all safety events from all aspects of the business.
" 65,000 Maintenance Problems Have Taken Off Anyway "
Yeah, so what? How many of these were safety of flight, I have read some of the above examples.
Fact is every aircraft in existance has a maintenance problem right now, at this moment!
May be a loose rivit, spot of corrosion OR could be a crack in primary structure that is getting ready to let loose and kill hundreds of people that was an inspection card or AD not accomplished at overhaul 200 legs ago.
Draws focus away from creating better maintenance programs and oversight. Bottom line is control. When airlines use MRO's forign or domestic they loose control as the MRO's prime initiative is to make as much money while still staying in business. Airlines who elect to do business in house drive to shorten check time and cut corners to save money but the system is stronger as they have employees who have to look out for their personal welfare first. This means generating more work by looking a bit harder, questioning processes to ensure what they sign for has been performed and doccumented correctly etc.
Lazyness is the human factor that causes most if not allmost all safety events from all aspects of the business.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: VIENNA
Age: 58
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is that known maintenance problems had been ignored and records had been faked. And just have a look, where it happened: Most of the time in the own maintenance basis.
So stop only complaining about outsourced maintenance, the black sheeps can be found everywhere.
So stop only complaining about outsourced maintenance, the black sheeps can be found everywhere.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the real issue is not outsourcing or in house but that these incidents are steadily increasing. Thats the issue. Anyone trying to defend or belittle the situation does not comprehend safety.
Flying is perfectly safe when everybody does what they are supposed do. Any deviance is unwanted and increases the risk unnecessarily.
Flying is perfectly safe when everybody does what they are supposed do. Any deviance is unwanted and increases the risk unnecessarily.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kiltrash
Kiltrash - Your preferential carriers are low cost, so do you imagine your £10 fare pays for excellent standards of maintainence? FR, for example, have had many incidents for such a new airline, and many of their employees are bitching about their practices (see pilots conerns in The Times) All airlines face a very difficult balance between what is best possible practice and what is economically realistic "It will do a trip" is a common ethos, because the public look for the lowest fare - yet buying, operating and maintaining aircraft to the highest possible standard is very expensive. In an ideal world, no aircraft would ever take off without a totally clear tech log and a committee checking every nut and bolt. Sadly, no commercial organisation could afford to operate that way and the public would not pay the cost through fares. Luckily, our industry is mainly staffed by highly responsible and well trained people who make it the safest form of travel there is. The low cost travel revolution is potentially the greatest threat to safety because it drives income down to levels where best practice is too expensive.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Quahog
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HeryBird: I hold to the doctrine that you make your own luck.
Muduckace: Don't underestimate outsourced MROs. They are as focused on safety as the airline's own facilities. The same requirements and oversight apply to them all. Arguably the independent MRO should be even more focused on service and safety as one major incident could lose them the contract, while the airline's in-house staff know they have a tied customer. The airline's MRO are no stranger to economic pressures either. I've seen good and bad from both types of provider and I don't believe one has any real safety advantages over the other.
Muduckace: Don't underestimate outsourced MROs. They are as focused on safety as the airline's own facilities. The same requirements and oversight apply to them all. Arguably the independent MRO should be even more focused on service and safety as one major incident could lose them the contract, while the airline's in-house staff know they have a tied customer. The airline's MRO are no stranger to economic pressures either. I've seen good and bad from both types of provider and I don't believe one has any real safety advantages over the other.