737H Doco and a darker side to it that you didn't know (or want to know)...

[gumpy]

Why is this not a bigger issue? I have 2 more flights this month... got out of one but two cannot be changed... =(

Sent an email to the Prime Minister's office... Pray and hope something is done about this. I just want a full and proper investigation...

 

[samh004]

Why is this not a bigger issue? Jesus I have 2 more flights this month... got out of one but two cannot be changed... =(

I think you're overreacting. The issue was perceived to be that the structural integrity might not last the expected lifetime of the airframe, was it not? Thought the oldest of these airframes are only 10 years old this year, so I could understand your worry in another 10 years, but right now I'm not phased.

 

[gumpy]

I think you're overreacting. The issue was perceived to be that the structural integrity might not last the expected lifetime of the airframe, was it not? Thought the oldest of these airframes are only 10 years old this year, so I could understand your worry in another 10 years, but right now I'm not phased.

For this i'd rather overreact and be safe than to just assume it's ok for now... I'd have an issue if it were a car at alone a freakin plane... Would you drive a car with your family in it knowing there's potentially a structural or design defect in it (based on manufacturing evidence) so it may not quite behave as it should, should you be in an accident?

 

[gumpy]

Re: Boeing whistleblowers allege faulty 737 construction on SBS dateline

Scroll to the top of the merged thread and you'll see an answer by me with the numbers. Also numbers for Virgin Australia.

found it thanks...

seems about 60% of the QF 737-800 are from that time period... I'd rather go to Vegas...

 

[samh004]

Re: Boeing whistleblowers allege faulty 737 construction on SBS dateline

For this i'd rather overreact and be safe than to just assume it's ok for now... I'd have an issue if it were a car at alone a freakin plane... Would you drive a car with your family in it knowing there's potentially a structural or design defect in it (based on manufacturing evidence) so it may not quite behave as it should, should you be in an accident?

Actually, on that point, yes. We have a Toyoa Prado that has been identified as possibly having a defect where driving under severe conditions on winding mountain roads could break the rear axle shaft. We've yet to have the time to take it in for a free repair. We still use it.

found it thanks...

seems about 60% of the QF 737-800 are from that time period... I'd rather go to Vegas...

Never took the time to look at the percentage, quite high then!

 

[medhead]

For this i'd rather overreact and be safe than to just assume it's ok for now... I'd have an issue if it were a car at alone a freakin plane... Would you drive a car with your family in it knowing there's potentially a structural or design defect in it (based on manufacturing evidence) so it may not quite behave as it should, should you be in an accident?

That's a completely false analogy. No amount of structure is going to help in a proper plane crash unlike in a car. Surely the issue with the aircraft is not what happens in a crash but what happens before the crash, that might cause a crash. Anyway, would you drive a new car if the design life should be 25 years but some bad parts were used and the design life is now likely to be 22 years?

 

[Sprucegoose]

Would NEVER fly on any Chinese or Indonesian airline though.

I used to say that until I had to get from A to B !! Amazing how necessity changes your outlook on positions you have previously taken.

 

[gumpy]

That's a completely false analogy. No amount of structure is going to help in a proper plane crash unlike in a car. Surely the issue with the aircraft is not what happens in a crash but what happens before the crash, that might cause a crash. Anyway, would you drive a new car if the design life should be 25 years but some bad parts were used and the design life is now likely to be 22 years?

No it isn't, the planes in the doco overshot their landings and where they shouldn't have broken in to pieces they did. The expert said the injuries would have been less if it didn't break.

2ndly, with planes 8 years in showing bad signs of stress and rust, that's hardly 22 years from 25... So if the structural defect in your car would make you car last only 10 of the 20 years what would you do? You'll probably just say you only keep your cars for 3 years anyway.

 

[gumpy]

Re: Boeing whistleblowers allege faulty 737 construction on SBS dateline

Actually, on that point, yes. We have a Toyoa Prado that has been identified as possibly having a defect where driving under severe conditions on winding mountain roads could break the rear axle shaft. We've yet to have the time to take it in for a free repair. We still use it.

I'd sell the car or get it fixed. I might take risks with myself but I wouldn't be able to live with it if my family got hurt because I pushed on knowing the defect was there.

 

[medhead]

You'll probably just say you only keep your cars for 3 years anyway.

No, not really, bit longer than that. Actually regret trading in my 1997 car in 2007.

 

[mannej]

Why is this not a bigger issue? Jesus I have 2 more flights this month... got out of one but two cannot be changed... =(

Sent an email to the Prime Minister's office... Pray and hope something is done about this. I just want a full and proper investigation...

Why would Julia Gillard care about something like that? She does not even reply to people who have raised legitimate issues with her

 

[gumpy]

Why would Julia Gillard care about something like that? She does not even reply to people who have raised legitimate issues with her

\

1. it is a ligitimate issue.
2. She won't care
3. there will be evidence that she had it brought to her attention if bad things happen.

 

[medhead]

\

1. it is a ligitimate issue.

3. there will be evidence that she had it brought to her attention if bad things happen.

1. Not really in risk terms. The risk of running off a runway is much lower that the risk of a car crash, for example. It seems to me that you are focussing on the [major] consequence and ignoring the [very small] risk.

3. So what? The Australian PM has no responsibility for manufacturing standards in the USA. The government, and hence the PM, have put in place legislation and an agency to deal with air safety. The aircraft have been certified for operation in australia by that agency. The government's cough is covered as they have systems in place to deal with these risks. She will simply refer your email/letter to CASA. If anything ever happened that was traced back to this then CASA will carry the can if they haven't responded appropriately to your email.

 

[mannej]

\

1. it is a ligitimate issue.
2. She won't care
3. there will be evidence that she had it brought to her attention if bad things happen.

I was not inferring that it was not legitimate, however she (or her PR/Communication Team) really don't care to respond to concerns raised to them, even following the appropriate communication pathways.

With your third point, is it a government issue, or CASA?

 

[medhead]

I was not inferring that it was not legitimate, however she (or her PR/Communication Team) really don't care to respond to concerns raised to them, even following the appropriate communication pathways.

that isn't 100% correct, it is more that the PM's office doesn't really have the knowledge to respond. Issues like this are normally referred to the minister/department responsible for the area to draft a response. This is logical as the department has the knowledge to provide a fact based response. In making the referral to the department the PM's office will nominate who will send the reply. For politically important issues a draft reply will go back to the PM to send. Otherwise, as I suspect on this issue the department will reply.

At least that has been my experience when writing to government and also when drafting replies to public enquiries

 

[UP4014]

Everyone should read this if you're concerned about bogus parts.
Flying Blind, Flying Safe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You're kidding yourself if you think Airbus/Embraer/Bombardier is better, even Air Force One was found fitted with bogus parts when the FAA investigated.

Matt

 

[gumpy]

Everyone should read this if you're concerned about bogus parts.
Flying Blind, Flying Safe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You're kidding yourself if you think Airbus/Embraer/Bombardier is better, even Air Force One was found fitted with bogus parts when the FAA investigated.

Matt

I don't for a second think that there aren't issues else where, i acknowledged that around the first post I made for this thread...

 

[gumpy]

1. Not really in risk terms. The risk of running off a runway is much lower that the risk of a car crash, for example. It seems to me that you are focussing on the [major] consequence and ignoring the [very small] risk.

3. So what? The Australian PM has no responsibility for manufacturing standards in the USA. The government, and hence the PM, have put in place legislation and an agency to deal with air safety. The aircraft have been certified for operation in australia by that agency. The government's cough is covered as they have systems in place to deal with these risks. She will simply refer your email/letter to CASA. If anything ever happened that was traced back to this then CASA will carry the can if they haven't responded appropriately to your email.

Yeah my line of work is in risk management.

The issue if it eventuates is a very major issue. Risk is small but you or I are not in a position how small that risk is. The more these planes age the more risk there is. Can you tell me at which point it will become a medium risk? With out an investigation no one knows. Therefore it's a legitmate issue until the unknown areas are cleared. At the moment it's causing issues when the planes are not landing properly when will that transfer into issues on a rough landing and then a normal landing or bad turbulence? You don't understand risk management very well.

3. PM is ultimately responsible for all government agencies. There is a government agency that is directly linked to Air Safety in Australia. Yes it's CASA's issue but the failure of CASA in their duties ultimately falls on the PM. Just like all the issues for QF end up on Joyce's shoulder.

 

[medhead]

Yeah my line of work is in risk management.

The issue if it eventuates is a very major issue. Risk is small but you or I are not in a position how small that risk is. The more these planes age the more risk there is. Can you tell me at which point it will become a medium risk? With out an investigation no one knows. Therefore it's a legitmate issue until the unknown areas are cleared. At the moment it's causing issues when the planes are not landing properly when will that transfer into issues on a rough landing and then a normal landing or bad turbulence? You don't understand risk management very well.

At the moment we do know that the risk is limited to the risk of a plane running off the end of a runway. Even if these allegedly poorly construction aircraft fall apart 100% of the time when the aircraft goes bush. We still know that the risk of that happening is the same as the risk of the aircraft going bush. I know enough about risk to understand the Swiss cheese concept and to the focus on the limiting risk factors rather than the consequence.

I talk to people everyday who are concerned about dying from cancer (the consequence) and want thousands of dollars thrown at them. But forget the risk of that happening is the same as the risk of them having a car accident when driving 30 km.

3. PM is ultimately responsible for all government agencies. There is a government agency that is directly linked to Air Safety in Australia. Yes it's CASA's issue but the failure of CASA in their duties ultimately falls on the PM. Just like all the issues for QF end up on Joyce's shoulder.

That's a massive assumption that CASA has failed in their duties. Remember this is a world wide issue and Australia is not the odd one out by any stretch of the imagination.

Can I say that you don't seem to understand how responsibilities fall. The PM is head of our government but responsibilities are assigned to various ministers. The ministers can then devolve responsibility downwards, to say CASA. They then become responsible for ensuring that the delegated party have the capability and systems in place to discharge their responsibilities on behalf of the minister. The person at the top is only responsible of proving the next person down failed in their delegated duties and responsibilities. This applies to the PM or to Joyce.

You can talk about the ideal world as much as you wish but don't ignore the reality of governance systems.

 

[mannej]

that isn't 100% correct, it is more that the PM's office doesn't really have the knowledge to respond. Issues like this are normally referred to the minister/department responsible for the area to draft a response. This is logical as the department has the knowledge to provide a fact based response. In making the referral to the department the PM's office will nominate who will send the reply. For politically important issues a draft reply will go back to the PM to send. Otherwise, as I suspect on this issue the department will reply.

At least that has been my experience when writing to government and also when drafting replies to public enquiries

Without the context yes you are correct in stating that. Even with that in mind, my response rate still sits at 0