safety at qantas

[anat0l]

...why aren't they jumping up and down?

Cynically, one could argue that they were not jumping up and down because of poor working conditions, and hence it is QF's fault for not fostering an environment where they could do their jobs better (e.g. with better pay, better facilities, better working conditions, etc.)

 

[farmer]

I think perhaps you should become a LAME. You clearly know a lot about how it all works. You have come to the conclusion that because there is oil there it's immediately known where it came from?

Here is the ATSB quote:



If you go to the report and read page 16 again, you'll see the picture of the part in question.

here is a copy of the Rolls Royce AD:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/4b846c8b3d5675ba8625726d006e3668/bd36c747996b02d78625777e00523051/$FILE/2010-16-07.pdf

Which explains what they believe at the time to be causing issues and what to do to address it.

Again I'm asking, if you think that QF engineers could have done a better job, why aren't they jumping up and down? they know full well it would have been near impossible to spot unless you had x-ray vision.

Its very simple the prescence of the oil in a place it should not have been in the engine as noted by Airbus, was caused by the manufacturing fault you identify at page 16 of the ATSB report. I.e A regular inspection should have lead to the question as to why the oil was there and a more rigourous exmination undertaken until its was determined why it was there. The manufacturing fault would have been detected prior to the incident. Faults of this nature are not directly detected they are found by secondary indications of a problem. Clearly if the inspections had been made the oil would have been found.

it would bet based on qantas past long record that a Qantas engineer who had found this oil in the wrong place would have asked many more questions and not released the engine for oepration until they were fully answeared. That is the failure of Power by the Hour. Profit compromises safety.

 

[anat0l]

farmer, amongst all your cynicism and pessimism, do you have any suggestions (not one liners either) of what should be a more adequate and/or comprehensive model/structure for QF with respect to procurement, safety and maintenance? Especially one that you would describe would actually put safety ahead of profits and would proactively identify all faults before they ever get a chance to manifest themselves as incidents?

 

[nlagalle]

Cynically, one could argue that they were not jumping up and down because of poor working conditions, and hence it is QF's fault for not fostering an environment where they could do their jobs better (e.g. with better pay, better facilities, better working conditions, etc.)

They were quick to jump on it as soon as it happened but back down very quickly.

here's a recap.. note there has been nothing since...

QF32 sparks outsourcing debate | Australian Aviation Magazine

 

[Smackbum]

And so could any member of the "farmer" bashing gang please explain to me why the ATSB identified the suspected fault very quickly ("hey look - here's a cracked oil pipe") and then instructed Qantas to inspect their "A" and "B" variant engines, but don't worry about "C" variants?

Don't answer that one - they said that because Roll Royce told them there was no problem with the "C" variant. Why did RR say this and the ATSB believe them?

Don't answer that one - they said it because they knew about the problem and had fixed it on the production line.

The question that the gang might like to ask themselves is .... did the situation where RR supplies the engine and is also responsible for guaranteeing its safe operation lead to a conflict of interest when this manufacturing fault was discovered?

My concern is that the "Power by the Hour" arrangement has allowed RR to shirk their responsibility of disclosure, and that if they were purely the supplier of the equipment they would have no choice but to inform the customer of this fault.

Please don't feel obliged to answer the question, BTW. I'll think no less of you ...

 

[medhead]

Its very simple the prescence of the oil in a place it should not have been in the engine as noted by Airbus, was caused by the manufacturing fault you identify at page 16 of the ATSB report. I.e A regular inspection should have lead to the question as to why the oil was there and a more rigourous exmination undertaken until its was determined why it was there. The manufacturing fault would have been detected prior to the incident. Faults of this nature are not directly detected they are found by secondary indications of a problem. Clearly if the inspections had been made the oil would have been found.

it would bet based on qantas past long record that a Qantas engineer who had found this oil in the wrong place would have asked many more questions and not released the engine for oepration until they were fully answeared. That is the failure of Power by the Hour. Profit compromises safety.

That's not right. Say you take you car in for a service and they tell you we've found a some oil. We now have to strip down your engine and you can't use it for 2 weeks.

 

[anat0l]

And so could any member of the "farmer" bashing gang please explain to me why the ATSB identified the suspected fault very quickly ("hey look - here's a cracked oil pipe") and then instructed Qantas to inspect their "A" and "B" variant engines, but don't worry about "C" variants?

Don't answer that one - they said that because Roll Royce told them there was no problem with the "C" variant. Why did RR say this and the ATSB believe them?

Don't answer that one - they said it because they knew about the problem and had fixed it on the production line.

The question that the gang might like to ask themselves is .... did the situation where RR supplies the engine and is also responsible for guaranteeing its safe operation lead to a conflict of interest when this manufacturing fault was discovered?

My concern is that the "Power by the Hour" arrangement has allowed RR to shirk their responsibility of disclosure, and that if they were purely the supplier of the equipment they would have no choice but to inform the customer of this fault.

Please don't feel obliged to answer the question, BTW. I'll think no less of you ...

So can you link this back to the culpability of QF and suggest what would be the alternative, more optimal operational model for maintenance and equipment procurement?

 

[simongr]

I would bet based on Qantas' past long record that a Qantas engineer who had found this oil in the wrong place would have asked many more questions and not released the engine for operation until they were fully answered. That is the failure of Power by the Hour. Profit compromises safety.

1 - We don't know whether RR were doing sufficient regular inspections
2 - We don't know when the oil would have been first "leaked" into the relevant space so we don't know if the oil would have been found with daily or weekly inspections
3 - We don't know that RR engineers saw the oil and didn't raise questions

 

[nlagalle]

Its very simple the prescence of the oil in a place it should not have been in the engine as noted by Airbus, was caused by the manufacturing fault you identify at page 16 of the ATSB report. I.e A regular inspection should have lead to the question as to why the oil was there and a more rigourous exmination undertaken until its was determined why it was there. The manufacturing fault would have been detected prior to the incident. Faults of this nature are not directly detected they are found by secondary indications of a problem. Clearly if the inspections had been made the oil would have been found.

it would bet based on qantas past long record that a Qantas engineer who had found this oil in the wrong place would have asked many more questions and not released the engine for oepration until they were fully answeared. That is the failure of Power by the Hour. Profit compromises safety.

Farmer.. you are still suggesting that Rolls Royce were not conducting proper checks? I've given you plenty of documents and information but you still don't listen.

Again, there has been no evidence that either RR did not service the engine correctly (do you know which service it had prior?), or that any other engineer would have discovered the faulty part. There was no suggestion anywhere that I have read that says that there was an oil leak noted and not actioned.

Do you know how many parts are in an engine? how many different places such a leak may have occurred? they wouldn't go, "oh hey oil leak, it must be this faulty part".

You are simply getting your facts wrong farmer.

If power by the hour is a failure (if you even understand exactly how it works - I'll give you a hint, I'm in aviation and I don't fully grasp the technicalities of it). But if it is so bad, why are many airlines and engine companies doing it?

 

[medhead]

My concern is that the "Power by the Hour" arrangement has allowed RR to shirk their responsibility of disclosure, and that if they were purely the supplier of the equipment they would have no choice but to inform the customer of this fault.

Please don't feel obliged to answer the question, BTW. I'll think no less of you ...

Easy to answer; someone has already mentioned the legal requirement to issue AD if RR know there is a fault. Are you saying the legal penalties are not enough to enforce compliance? Say RR did ignore the legal requirements it would come out after an incident like this and then RR would have trouble fining new customers. Are you saying that RR is not interested in remaining a viable business?

 

[anat0l]

If power by the hour is a failure (if you even understand exactly how it works - I'll give you a hint, I'm in aviation and I don't fully grasp the technicalities of it). But if it is so bad, why are many airlines and engine companies doing it?

If so many people are doing it, it doesn't necessarily make it a good system. It is probably 'good' in as so far that it can be argued there is no inherent fault with the system, but it has been argued as 'bad' because it has had such an incident slip through the cracks (if it can be argued like that).

The fact that many people are using it does not also imply that there is possibly a better system, perhaps one not yet implemented. Mind you - none of us, including me - know of a better system (or are not in any position to think they can suggest a better system).

 

[nlagalle]

And so could any member of the "farmer" bashing gang please explain to me why the ATSB identified the suspected fault very quickly ("hey look - here's a cracked oil pipe") and then instructed Qantas to inspect their "A" and "B" variant engines, but don't worry about "C" variants?

Don't answer that one - they said that because Roll Royce told them there was no problem with the "C" variant. Why did RR say this and the ATSB believe them?

Don't answer that one - they said it because they knew about the problem and had fixed it on the production line.

The question that the gang might like to ask themselves is .... did the situation where RR supplies the engine and is also responsible for guaranteeing its safe operation lead to a conflict of interest when this manufacturing fault was discovered?

My concern is that the "Power by the Hour" arrangement has allowed RR to shirk their responsibility of disclosure, and that if they were purely the supplier of the equipment they would have no choice but to inform the customer of this fault.

Please don't feel obliged to answer the question, BTW. I'll think no less of you ...

It still took the ATSB a few weeks to discover the fault. it wasn't found straight away

Smackbum, IIRC if the part in questions failure was attributed to a manufacturing fault then:

The part will be built in a batch. That batch is deemed suspect. batch is used in Models A and B. New parts for Model C are built with different batch numbers, and are unaffected.

And no one has suggested RR knew the part was faulty prior to the accident

Do you also know Engine alliance do power by the hour too?

 

[straitman]

[Mod hat on]

It has been suggested that this thread be closed. I am not going to do this at this point but believe that it is time for a few people to stand back and look at what they are posting and also to read and pay attention to what others are posting.

There is a lot of opinion and little fact and a lot of waffle made to look like fact. I say this from the perspective of excess of 40 years in the aviation industry including operating turbine engines and teaching turbine engine theory including engines that have had this type of issue or similar issues. This is not the first time this sort of thing has arisen and most certainly will not be the last.

[Mod hat off]

 

[anat0l]

[Mod hat on]

It has been suggested that this thread be closed. I am not going to do this at this point but believe that it is time for a few people to stand back and look at what they are posting and also to read and pay attention to what others are posting.

To be frank, most of this thread has been dominated by a key discussion which kind of impinges on the discussion on another thread.

The thread title itself suggests a more general discussion.

If anything, a thread rename or split would probably be a more appropriate course of action, if one is necessary.

 

[Smackbum]

It still took the ATSB a few weeks to discover the fault. it wasn't found straight away

Smackbum, IIRC if the part in questions failure was attributed to a manufacturing fault then:

The part will be built in a batch. That batch is deemed suspect. batch is used in Models A and B. New parts for Model C are built with different batch numbers, and are unaffected.

And no one has suggested RR knew the part was faulty prior to the accident

Do you also know Engine alliance do power by the hour too?

Spoken like a true RR PR rep. I hope they're paying you!

This isn't the case of a suspect "batch" in a constant production line. This is a case of "variants" with different production specs. They were changed for a reason, but only RR knew why until one of their "A" variants blew up.

If car manufacturers can do the right thing and issue re-call notices, then I would have thought that RR could too. Or is it all about the money?

 

[nlagalle]

Spoken like a true RR PR rep. I hope they're paying you!

This isn't the case of a suspect "batch" in a constant production line. This is a case of "variants" with different production specs. They were changed for a reason, but only RR knew why until one of their "A" variants blew up.

If car manufacturers can do the right thing and issue re-call notices, then I would have thought that RR could too. Or is it all about the money?

No.. I have an involvement in aviation. I do know how a lot of it works. So please don't resort to calling me names because you don't like the facts I present.

Your post suggests you are saying that Rolls Royce have lied and deceived it's customers and aviation authorities. that's enough to literally put them out of business. Can you explain what the variants are between the three engine models? my guess is that you can't. You are simply making things up.

They do - it's called an AD - Airworthiness Directive(of which I have mentioned several times already) you will also see in the AD that the checks are required on all Trent 900 engines.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

It's interesting that it is only after an incident that they discover that it was due to such minuscule but critical detail.

+1
Happens so often. (There are so many examples, l wouldn't know where to start....Concorde, Toyota Prius, Ford etc etc...)


This thread is great, l'm loving it from the sidelines.

 

[oz_mark]

Its very simple the prescence of the oil in a place it should not have been in the engine as noted by Airbus, was caused by the manufacturing fault you identify at page 16 of the ATSB report. I.e A regular inspection should have lead to the question as to why the oil was there and a more rigourous exmination undertaken until its was determined why it was there. The manufacturing fault would have been detected prior to the incident. Faults of this nature are not directly detected they are found by secondary indications of a problem. Clearly if the inspections had been made the oil would have been found.

Not necessarily. Oil smearing was found on more engines than faulty pipes were found. I would suggest that this is because there are different issues at play. The cause of the smearing that was found does not seem to me to be due the part that failed.

 

[anat0l]

Your post suggests you are saying that Rolls Royce have lied and deceived it's customers and aviation authorities. that's enough to literally put them out of business.

Well RR could very well do that...because until someone actually does bring an accusation of deceit, tries them in court and wins, then in the eyes of the public (represented by society and the law) they are not doing anything 'wrong' in that regard.

We are taking the assumption here that RR are doing the right thing. In fact, we are assuming that all parties here - RR, QF and the regulatory bodies - are all doing the right thing.


What I'd like to hear is whether the said companies actually are putting profits before safety, because there is no good argument so far that increased investment would have actually assured the discovery of the fault and thus preventing the incident from happening.

 

[Moody]

.... Your post suggests you are saying that Rolls Royce have lied and deceived it's customers and aviation authorities. that's enough to literally put them out of business. Can you explain what the variants are between the three engine models? my guess is that you can't. You are simply making things up. ....

Nope - only Rolls Royce truly knows if it has lied and deceived it's customers and aviation authorities. The rest of us have to make do with the circumstantial evidence whilst they and their sycophants try to deflect the interesting questions, like :-

How did RR manage to fix a problem in the early variants without actually knowing about it? Does that make any sort of sense to you? Please give us your inside knowledge about how this is remotely possible.