no more pre-flight inspections on the 737-800

[fbrimfield]

Obviously simply stating 'engineers picked up X number of pre flight issues' would not be the way to go, as you're right, ppl (esp unions) will see that in a negative light and proof that jobs need to be brought back to AU...

It's not like the change is getting rid of inspections completely, pilots are still doing a walk around. The ABC article I was reading this morning said that the unions were saying "pilots only fly the aircraft, they don't have the qualifications to be checking the aircraft, an engineer should be doing that"

lolwut.

They don't have the qualifications? Somehow I reckon a pilot who is about to get on an aircraft and take responsibility for 150+ peoples lives might take the state of the aircraft a little more seriously than an engineer, since it's their responsibility if anything goes wrong. the engineer isn't getting on the aircraft, he isn't the one flying the plane, and he isn't the one going to get blamed if something goes wrong, it'll be the pilot who has a duty to make sure the aircraft is fit to fly. The unions are once again throwing their weight around and trying to fling mud at Qantas. Something makes me think if that this was Virgin making these cuts (which they don't need to make anyway since they probably dont do this), then there wouldn't be such a fuss.

 

[drewbles]

its got nothing to do with the jackscrew or its visibility.

my point is about the gradual change, the incremental shift and the additive effects. this small change in practice will have ramifications that are unknown, additive effects that cannot be foreseen. while we argue about who should do what inspection and when, there is a much wider implication in relation to overall safe operations and their continuance.

stop talking about the jackscrew, that has nothing to do with my point. my point is the gradual shift and change in practice, regime, inspections and defence against unwanted outcomes driven by the multiple goals of the organisation.

The AS flight was a clear violation of prescribed manufacturer maintenance by an airline. QF have said they are not doing anything less than what is prescribed. This is a non-event and not relevant to your original argument IMHO.

 

[bigjobs]

The AS flight was a clear violation of prescribed manufacturer maintenance by an airline. QF have said they are not doing anything less than what is prescribed. This is a non-event and not relevant to your original argument IMHO.

lol .. it was only a violation after the event. what about all of the gradual changes made legally by various bodies? ... go back, have a read of what I wrote.

 

[Must...Fly!]

They don't have the qualifications? Somehow I reckon a pilot who is about to get on an aircraft and take responsibility for 150+ peoples lives might take the state of the aircraft a little more seriously than an engineer, since it's their responsibility if anything goes wrong. the engineer isn't getting on the aircraft, he isn't the one flying the plane, and he isn't the one going to get blamed if something goes wrong, it'll be the pilot who has a duty to make sure the aircraft is fit to fly. The unions are once again throwing their weight around and trying to fling mud at Qantas. Something makes me think if that this was Virgin making these cuts (which they don't need to make anyway since they probably dont do this), then there wouldn't be such a fuss.

Engineers are liable if their negligence leads to the downing of a flight.....they care just as much as pilots. Just because they aren't in the cabin does NOT mean they do not feel the responsibility to maintain an aircraft to ensure safety is observed.

 

[bigjobs]

It's not like the change is getting rid of inspections completely, pilots are still doing a walk around. The ABC article I was reading this morning said that the unions were saying "pilots only fly the aircraft, they don't have the qualifications to be checking the aircraft, an engineer should be doing that"

lolwut.

They don't have the qualifications? Somehow I reckon a pilot who is about to get on an aircraft and take responsibility for 150+ peoples lives might take the state of the aircraft a little more seriously than an engineer, since it's their responsibility if anything goes wrong. the engineer isn't getting on the aircraft, he isn't the one flying the plane, and he isn't the one going to get blamed if something goes wrong, it'll be the pilot who has a duty to make sure the aircraft is fit to fly. The unions are once again throwing their weight around and trying to fling mud at Qantas. Something makes me think if that this was Virgin making these cuts (which they don't need to make anyway since they probably dont do this), then there wouldn't be such a fuss.

lololololol

 

[docjames]

lol .. it was only a violation after the event. what about all of the gradual changes made legally by various bodies? ... go back, have a read of what I wrote.

You're persistent with that arguement. We're not debating AS - we're debating ground checks. Explain where pilots doing ground checks made any difference in the AS outcome.

Incremental change is only bad if it has a deliterious outcome. On the "evidence" released on both sides of the QF arguement, there's not enough info to make any judgement on it's prudence / stupidity. but you would have to wonder why the union isnt up in arms about all the other airlines NOT doing the checking if it's such a safety issue.

 

[bigjobs]

You're persistent with that arguement. We're not debating AS - we're debating ground checks. Explain where pilots doing ground checks made any difference in the AS outcome.

Incremental change is only bad if it has a deliterious outcome. On the "evidence" released on both sides of the QF arguement, there's not enough info to make any judgement on it's prudence / stupidity. but you would have to wonder why the union isnt up in arms about all the other airlines NOT doing the checking if it's such a safety issue.

As persistent as others are at missing my point ...

I haven't suggested that a preflight check by pilots would have made a difference in AS261 case. Of course it would not have, it is silly to think it would have. Where did I say such a check would have?

I am saying that this change in ground checks is yet another step, another gradual change with implications no one can state with certainty - which is what you have stated in your final paragraph. We are saying the same thing.

 

[fbrimfield]

Engineers are liable if their negligence leads to the downing of a flight.....they care just as much as pilots. Just because they aren't in the cabin does NOT mean they do not feel the responsibility to maintain an aircraft to ensure safety is observed.

Did I say that the engineers don't take their responsibility seriously? No, I didn't.

And could they be found negligent if it was their fault for not picking something up? Unlikely, their employer would be vicariously liable, and they would be protected by their union.

If an engineer doesn't pick something up, like a pitot tube was blocked, and that plane then crashes, then it wont be attributed to just the engineer because the pilot should have picked it up, and what about all the airlines that don't conduct those checks anyway? The responsibility falls 100% to the pilots walk around, because the purpose of it is to be the final check before that pilot gets in that aircraft, and flies passengers.

It is a pilots fiduciary duty to the passenger to make sure that the vessel in which he/she is flying them in has been inspected by him/her, and it is safe. Engineers only owe a duty contractually to their employer.

 

[drewbles]

I am saying that this change in ground checks is yet another step, another gradual change with implications no one can state with certainty - which is what you have stated in your final paragraph. We are saying the same thing.

The change to the procedures in ground checks are in line with manufacturer recommendations, regardless of how much you (or the LAME's or anyone else for that matter) doesn't like it.

It's not like they're saying "Boeing/Airbus has told us we have to inspect the a/c every 3rd flight but we don't agree so we're making it every 10" or the like. They are fully maintaining compliance with slated procedure from the a/c manufacturer.

AS, did not. Regardless of it being maintenance or a walk around, they failed to comply with manufacturer requirements. Whilst the downfall as you rightly state was only noticed after the fact, it was a failure. The changes you outline are no more than compliance. QF have a good safety culture as jb747 will surely attest. They're not going to suddenly neglect the absolute minimums.

 

[harvyk]

You're persistent with that arguement. We're not debating AS - we're debating ground checks. Explain where pilots doing ground checks made any difference in the AS outcome.

I think the point that bigjobs is making (pretty poorly might I add - sorry bigjobs) that this could be an example of death by a thousand cuts, removing one level of safeguard is not going to be the end of the world, but you will reach a point where it becomes the straw which broke the camels back.

Even if a pilot is trained what to look for, they already have a lot of things to do against a very strict schedule and thus there could be an argument where by delegating some of the responsibility back to an appropriately trained person may prove beneficial if nothing else as a redundancy check.

I know from my own line of work, when two people are working on the same problem, the things which can be missed where it's only the one person are often picked up by the second person.

As for the argument of "others are already doing it this new way" does not necessarily mean that it's the best way of doing it, it just means that others have weighed up the risk of removing that fail safe and have decided it's justified.

Again using an example from work that was said just this morning. If something is a 1 in a billion event, sure you don't spend hours fixing it, but if the problem can be prevented from ever happening via very small amount of work (eg a minute or two's work), then there is no reason why you wouldn't do that work. Likewise, if having an engineer do a redundant check over a plane was going to cost 50% of the total ticket price, then there could be a valid argument against it, but at a grand total of $0.07 per pax, I can't see how that cost can't be justified by having that extra piece of mind that two sets of eyes have confirmed all is good.

 

[docjames]

I am saying that this change in ground checks is yet another step, another gradual change with implications no one can state with certainty - which is what you have stated in your final paragraph. We are saying the same thing.

If this is what you are saying, how does AS come into it?? They went entirely against accepted "minimum standard". In this case, QF are moving in line with "accepted minimum standard".

I agree with your point regarding the collective ability to judge this move, but the AS flight is not an appropriate parallel.

 

[JessicaTam]

As persistent as others are at missing my point ...

I haven't suggested that a preflight check by pilots would have made a difference in AS261 case. Of course it would not have, it is silly to think it would have. Where did I say such a check would have?

I am saying that this change in ground checks is yet another step, another gradual change with implications no one can state with certainty - which is what you have stated in your final paragraph. We are saying the same thing.

I agree, the problem is not stopping engineers from doing a check before every flight, it is about what comes next. Maybe in a few years we will be having the same discussion regarding daily checks being stopped and only having checks every second day, and then weekly checks. Each change is small if looked at in isolation, but if you add all the changes to maintenance schedules together it might tell a different story.

 

[drewbles]

I agree, the problem is not stopping engineers from doing a check before every flight, it is about what comes next. Maybe in a few years we will be having the same discussion regarding daily checks being stopped and only having checks every second day, and then weekly checks. Each change is small if looked at in isolation, but if you add all the changes to maintenance schedules together it might tell a different story.

But QF are not stopping anything that isn't actually required, they're simply falling in line with already accepted practise elsewhere.

 

[I hate Alan]

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.

Your first para would pretty much sum up why no engineer would pick it up, it wasnt evident at inspection and only arised after the bumps of taxi'ing

 

[mannej]

Your first para would pretty much sum up why no engineer would pick it up, it wasnt evident at inspection and only arised after the bumps of taxi'ing

And to add - history has shown that there are issues that don't become apparent during a ground check.

The poorly designed locking mechanism of the DC10 cargo door springs to mind.

 

[I hate Alan]

And to add - history has shown that there are issues that don't become apparent during a ground check.

The poorly designed locking mechanism of the DC10 cargo door springs to mind.

yes that was very nasty

 

[JessicaTam]

But QF are not stopping anything that isn't actually required, they're simply falling in line with already accepted practise elsewhere.

Perhaps Qantas has maintained its enviable safety record in the past by not just doing the minimum.

I hesitate to use a car analogy, however: I drive a new car and the speedo is out by 10%. When I complained I was told that the ADR require accuracy within 10% so it was not going to be adjusted. Because that is the minimum they didn't have to do more.

Obviously the tolerances with aircraft are much much tighter, so please don't flame me for the example!

 

[drewbles]

Perhaps Qantas has maintained its enviable safety record in the past by not just doing the minimum.

I hesitate to use a car analogy, however: I drive a new car and the speedo is out by 10%. When I complained I was told that the ADR require accuracy within 10% so it was not going to be adjusted. Because that is the minimum they didn't have to do more.

Obviously the tolerances with aircraft are much much tighter, so please don't flame me for the example!

My speedo is out by 4kph on my car (verified). In my case my speedo reads 4kph more than what i'm doing. This absolves the manufacturer from legal action in the event I get a speeding ticket, in theory. In reality, no car company could be held accountable for the personal actions of a driver getting a ticket. A car is also capable of doing a lot more than 110kph in most cases, yet the maximum speed limit is 110kph in Australia.

With the advent of newer technologies, maintenance schedules can be reduced thanks to new materials, processes and procedures involved in the manufacture of new/next generation a/c. In a nutshell, the new birds are nowhere near the same as the 'classic' birds. Of course, as aircraft age, more care is required, like anything in life (hence B/C/D checks and how much work is required for them).

My 2c anyway. I see no problem with this. If there were really a problem, CASA would be jumping in.

 

[jpk]

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.

The problem with 747 RR engines has been that there is a directive out from RR to modify them, due to a few inflight shutdowns in recent years. Once apon a time QF had an engine maintenance dept that could have done these mods. But they got rid of that, because "we can get it done cheaper in Asia". But everyone is trying to get it done in Asia at the same time, so the workshops are fully booked for ages, and QF can't get booked in for a while. Meanwhile they have lost a few engines, which probably cost more than keeping that maintenance inhouse in the first place.

This isn't directly related to the issue at hand, but it's one of the things that has shown QF cost cutting does have a downside.

 

[harvyk]

I hesitate to use a car analogy

No, I think car analogy works.

The other question which could be asked is who would be better picking up on those small tell tail signs that something is about to go wrong, a pilot who's first job is to fly the plane, and thus could be distracted by also thinking about the weather, or a difficult part of the flight which is about to come up, or an engineer which does these checks day in day out and doesn't have other things to think about as well?