no more pre-flight inspections on the 737-800

[haggiscat]

The decision to cease some pre-flight inspections on the -800 is bull****.

"The latest decision to do away with the checks will reduce costs and follows
the planemakers’ recommendations and standard industry practice, Thomas
Woodward, a spokesman for the carrier, said today."

SO WHAT?

QANTAS Rolls-Royce engines used to be maintained to better-than-factory standard. Now they are maintained according to 'standard industry practice' and they fail at twice the manufacturer's recommended rate.

QANTAS has historically regarded its 'over servicing' of aircraft as a source of some considerable pride.

Routine inspections pick up faults. Plain and simple. At $.07 extra per ticket, I'd even pay a levy.

So would most of us.

Standard industry practice does not mean best practice.

I'm not a socialist, I'm told by many employees that the baggage handlers and engineers are ham fisted bully boys and probably overpaid, I know many of the cabin crew are narky old bags or queens and I know the pilots are on a good wicket, but I'm sick to the cough of being told there are good reasons for decreasing safety margins.

There aren't.

As a WP who only ever flies QANTAS, wherever in the world I might be going and at whatever extra cost - Alan Joyce & Co, I think you are a joke.

 

[fbrimfield]

First, manufacturer set standards set the bar extremely high, because manufacturers know that in reality with a lot of those carriers, even the minimum standards wont be met.

Second, over servicing makes no sense in todays economy. When the fuel prices are as high as they are, this is one area that Qantas should be able to cut back without rubbing too many people the wrong way (or at least that's what I would have thought until now).

Thirdly, if you're saying that RR engines are failing at twice the normal rate (according to?) when Qantas abides by the manufacturer recommended servicing intervals, how is that Qantas' problem? That's a problem with Rolls Royce, and if that were true then I imagine a lot of airlines would have a lot to say about it.

I understand where you're coming from, but your frustrations are a little harsh I think. Would you service your car more than the manufacturer set intervals? Probably not, the garages would happily take more money off you but would do so thinking "what an idiot! we're making ****loads of this guy". To me, the same principle applies here. The standards are already high, they're set high because the manufacturer expects them not to be followed by all carriers, and you're getting angry at an airline which is bleeding funds for cutting costs where they can quite honestly without increasing ticket prices, without making meals worse, without laying off jobs, without lowering salaries, etc etc.

 

[haggiscat]

Seven cents per passenger, per flight?

QANTAS is eliminating inspections to save that much?

Like I said, I'd rather pay a surcharge and know that someone - shock, horror, even two people - had given the bird a once-over before it took off.

Since most plane crashes are due to human error at some stage in proceedings, I can handle the fact of having a 'redundant' inspection pre-take off.

Your analogy about motor cars is hardly relevant. This affordable 'over-servicing', while perhaps unnecessary on a car tootling round the burbs, is perfectly sensible on a machine that hurtles through air at a height of 11km and speeds of 900km/h.

 

[jono88888]

7c per passenger, with approx 200 passengers works out at $14.

I'm not sure what sort of inspection you get for $14, but my local garage would charge more than that to check my wiper blades were functioning correctly.

 

[fbrimfield]

Your analogy about motor cars is hardly relevant. This affordable 'over-servicing', while perhaps unnecessary on a car tootling round the burbs, is perfectly sensible on a machine that hurtles through air at a height of 11km and speeds of 900km/h.

Yet flying is 62 times safer than driving.

And it's not about how much it's going to save, Qantas would be making operational changes like this all the time, in an effort to reduce costs broadly.

 

[straitman]

It would be good to get the full story about this.

On the surface I cannot say that I'm impressed but let's get all the facts.

IMHO a preflight walk around is essential prior to every flight and I have personally had my butt saved more than once by inspections between flights.

 

[JessicaTam]

I find it reassuring to see the pilot doing a walkaround before each flight. They may not be engineers, but at least someone is taking responsibility for the aircraft.

I believe reducing the engineering checks is a retrograde step. Surely maintaining Qantas' safety record would be worth a little extra cost.


Sent from my iThing.
Why, because iCan.

 

[NM]

I find it reassuring to see the pilot doing a walkaround before each flight. They may not be engineers, but at least someone is taking responsibility for the aircraft.

And of course the pilot doing the "walk-around" has some "skin in the game", giving some incentive for him to be reasonably thorough :shock:

I believe reducing the engineering checks is a retrograde step. Surely maintaining Qantas' safety record would be worth a little extra cost.

The 1980's car I used to own had a manufacturer's recommended time between services of 5000km (or 6 momths). My mid-2000s car has a manufacturer's recommended service period of 12,000km. I am sure there are cars with even longer recommended service periods. One of the benefits of the enhancements in technology is reduced service requirements, which comes at the cost of increased capital investment. B738 and A330 aircraft have been in use around the world for many years now. It would be very interesting to know the statistics surrounding how many faults have been found by engineer's pre-flight checks that were not identified by the manufacturer's automated systems. Without knowing these statistics its impossible for me to understand the "value" of the manual engineer's inspections.

 

[amaroo]

Follow a Union ordered direction or an independent certified manufacturers procedure that has been sanctioned by the Worlds aviation authorities?

Seems a no brainer to me!

 

[cmon0005]

From what I heard on the news today, they will do checks every 30 hours, rather than every flight..

Hardly 'neglecting' the aircraft, its about time things changed. It's silly checking a domestic common modern aircraft every flight (so a MEL-SYD 738 would get checked every 1 1/2 hours - 2 hours? thats just overkill).

 

[vitagen]

30 hrs of flight time or 30 'normal' hours? 30 hrs of flight time is ages! It's like 4 return flights Per-Syd/Mel!

I do an oil change every 6,000km, even though the manufacturer recommends it at 12,500km and I don't think I'm the only one!

 

[ric_melb]

Seems to me Qantas 737-800 has GE CFM56 engines. Maybe these are more reliable than Rolls Royce engines.

 

[VHOEJ]

Other airlines don't do these checks anymore - why isn't the union claiming the likes are Virgin are unsafe and are putting profits ahead of safety? The union spin is being lapped up without any thought.

 

[bigjobs]

have a read of the AS261 disaster for an example of how this is a 'safety' issue, and I don't mean what happened on the day. you've got to go back years to see the changes that the regulators, airlines, government and other players made for a variety of reasons. This is a classic example of incremental change in a complex system that has an additive effect over time leading towards collapse of the system at some point in time.

The analogy drawn to motor vehicle servicing is delusional. flight operations are a tightly coupled and complex system. Driving your motor vehicle is a much more loosely coupled system.

we can't possibly fathom the effects of a decision such as this on the overall system over a lengthy period of time.

 

[docjames]

I dont think AS261 isd a fair analogy - the issue causing the demise of AS261 would not have been picked up on an "in service" maintenance check. The elevator screw on MD80s arent checked routinely prior to every flight....

QF are not proposing to stop maintenance altogether....

 

[cmon0005]

30 hrs of flight time or 30 'normal' hours? 30 hrs of flight time is ages! It's like 4 return flights Per-Syd/Mel!

I do an oil change every 6,000km, even though the manufacturer recommends it at 12,500km and I don't think I'm the only one!

30 hours is quite short whether its flight time or normal 30 hours.
Most airlines do it the same or even longer. I've flown many different airlines in Asia/India including budget airlines and never had a problem or felt unsafe. Or even on DJ for that matter.
The pilot will still have to do his/her visual walk around the plane looking for visible damage/cracks/tyres.etc. the pilot would not let the plane take off if they noticed anything, and with all the electronic sensors and warnings these days any failures would be noticed before takeoff, then once per day or 2 days the plane will get an engineer check. This is just unions trying to save the status quo.
Even if they ammended the new policy to once every 15 hours that would be a better compromise. but once per flight especially for newer short haul planes is overkill.

Lastly, this time is recommended by the manufacturer, and has been approved by CASA!
http://www.theage.com.au/business/qantas-embroiled-in-another-labour-row-20120614-20cfh.html

 

[userlame]

I was on QF551 last night. Was delayed for an hour and a half while they tried to resolve a problem with the cargo door. We were taxiing to take off when the fault was discovered and had to return to the gate.

I'm assuming that this flight (767-300) was inspected thoroughly by the engineers before it was cleared to go. Given that these highly regarded experts in all things mechanical failed to identify the issue before departure, perhaps we should be doubling the amount of time they spend inspecting the aircraft, not cutting it back.

For the record, it was the aircraft's automatic sensors which identified the problem, not the engineers.

 

[SeatBackForward]

All that needs to happen is for one single passenger per flight to pay the 7c for an inspection..think about it...

 

[browski]

Not sure what these walk-arounds hope to find.....

 

[harvyk]

I understand where you're coming from, but your frustrations are a little harsh I think. Would you service your car more than the manufacturer set intervals?

I know loads of people who do service their cars far more frequently than the manufacturers recommendations. My current car requires a service every 15,000KM, and yet I know of people who own the same make and model who do a service every 5,000KM (so three times more frequently than the manufacturers recommendation).

I personally believe they are putting a lot of trust into their sensors, which they themselves can and do fail from time to time.

As for an inspection only costing $14 per plane, well I'd believe that. AFAIK, their inspections involve looking for things like leaking fluids and obvious problems with the plane which can be done within a few minutes. They don't have a workshop to maintain (as the plane is sitting at the gate), they simply have personnel to pay, and if they do find a problem then it switches from inspection to a fix, and I expect the fix comes out of a different bucket of money.