safety at qantas

[oz_mark]

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.

My hypothesis here is that there were different problems (and given the statements, or, rather, lack of them one has to read a bit between the lines). One they were fixing, probably based on operational experience. The second was the found manufacturing defect,

I suspect also, that initially they though the known design problem was the main factor, but later came to foucs on the previously undetected manufacturing problem.

Bottom line - there was more than one problem. Hopefully, the final report will untangle all this, but who knows.

 

[jb747]

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

I don't understand why you would consider that surprising. Indeed, in this digital age, a problem doesn't even have to have a physical manifestation.....

 

[nlagalle]

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.

As I pointed out, my guess is that it was a faulty batch of that particular piece is limited to those engines made at that time. You also have to remember they would have been made a few years apart too. Also if you read and understand the AD you will see it is addressing other issues of abnormal wear.

 

[drron]

So Rolls Royce a company with a revenue stream 0f 11 billion pounds last year,4.9 billion from aircraft engines would risk their reputation and business over a fault that at most was present in 40 engines.The last large RR engine to suffer an uncontained failure was in 1994.There is at least 1 of these events per year so the RR results are not suggesting that they have a policy of lying about problems with their engines.
They also had revenues of 3 billion pounds from maintenance contracts suggesting that their are a lot more airlines than QF using their maintenance facilities.
When I was active in politics I was given a wise piece of advice-"ron if there is ever a choice between a conspiracy and a stuff up the stuff up wins every time".The stuff up in this case is very probably a faulty batch of the suspect part.

 

[jb747]

I must admit to being bemused by much of this thread. As best I can tell, the mod state of the engine (A, B, C) has a total of nothing to do with whether any given engine was made with a machining fault.

 

[Smackbum]

I must admit to being bemused by much of this thread. As best I can tell, the mod state of the engine (A, B, C) has a total of nothing to do with whether any given engine was made with a machining fault.

But this story ATSB focuses on "mod A" and "mod B" Trent 900s seems to contradict this. Also RR certified the "A" mod for 2000 cycles, the "B" mod for about 14000, and the "C" mod for an unlimited number of cycles. Test in production anyone?

 

[Craigie]

The last large RR engine to suffer an uncontained failure was in 1994.There is at least 1 of these events per year so the RR results are not suggesting that they have a policy of lying about problems with their engines.
They also had revenues of 3 billion pounds from maintenance contracts suggesting that their are a lot more airlines than QF using their maintenance facilities.

So as far as safety at Qantas goes, how far did they go to make sure that they were operating the safest possible planes?

From what information is currently available to the public, it shows that Q did everything that you would expect(plus anything unpublished) from this "safety conscious" airline.

After reading this entertaining discussion from the sidelines thats the conclusion i've reached anyways

 

[oz_mark]

But this story ATSB focuses on "mod A" and "mod B" Trent 900s seems to contradict this. Also RR certified the "A" mod for 2000 cycles, the "B" mod for about 14000, and the "C" mod for an unlimited number of cycles. Test in production anyone?

As noted in that article, the misaligned boring stopped at a certain point, and there was no reason to believe that any of the affected pipes were in the mod 'c' variants.

 

[jb747]

The ATSB could not say what differentiated "mod A" and "mod B" versions from the "mod C" version.
Rolls-Royce had earlier said "there has been no design change relevant to this failure between A, B and C versions of the engine".

The upshot is that they stopped making flawed stub pipes at some point, but, that isn't related to the engine mod state....although it does seem to be related to some unspecified time scale.

 

[straitman]

Also RR certified the "A" mod for 2000 cycles, the "B" mod for about 14000, and the "C" mod for an unlimited number of cycles. Test in production anyone?

That sort of upgrading is quite normal in aviation. The initial certification is based upon a very pessimistic outlook of what can go wrong. As components prove themselves their certification lives are increased.
(That is the short non technical version of course.)

 

[farmer]

Hi all,
Just back from my weekly trip to Melbourne on Qantas 767's.. At the risk of starting another subtopic, as the thread is Safety at Qantas including Jetstar, some very interesting edvidence being given at the Senate Inquiry into airline safety and ooerating standards. Suggests issues with aircraft maintenance are not the only area that requires a great deal more attention from and resources for the ATSB.

Posted a link below.

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rat_ctte/pilots_2010/submissions.htm

The evidence by Captain Richard Woodward, item 6, makes very interesting reading.

Farmer

 

[nlagalle]

Hi all,
Just back from my weekly trip to Melbourne on Qantas 767's.. At the risk of starting another subtopic, as the thread is Safety at Qantas including Jetstar, some very interesting edvidence being given at the Senate Inquiry into airline safety and ooerating standards. Suggests issues with aircraft maintenance are not the only area that requires a great deal more attention from and resources for the ATSB.

Posted a link below.

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rat_ctte/pilots_2010/submissions.htm

The evidence by Captain Richard Woodward, item 6, makes very interesting reading.

Farmer

I'm failing to see what that has to do with the ATSB? Being that they only deal with incidents and accidents and this is something CASA would be investigating.

 

[jb747]

.....as the thread is Safety at Qantas including Jetstar

Well, no, the thread is safety at QANTAS.

Jetstar, Jetconnect, and various others are all topics unto themselves.

Put it this way. Safety is a culture that grows over many years. A CEO can put in place many things to help, but its much easier for them to put hurdles in the way. A safe culture will not be created because a CEO decrees it, or marketing say it. I can think of no recently created airlines that I would consider have a safe culture, and given the management practices of the day, they will not gain one either.

Legacy airlines cost extra for lots of reasons. One is that the pilots are normally trained to somewhat above the minimum standard required. Sadly, execs look at the incidents that happen around the world, especially those that are well handled, and conclude that they could have been done by anyone, and so anything above the bare minimum is simply not necessary or affordable. Of course said execs aren't actually qualified to make any such decisions, but as a rule they hate pilots. Pilots look at anyone in management who doesn't have a pair of wings (almost everyone) with almost total disregard. The two views mix well....

 

[farmer]

Well, no, the thread is safety at QANTAS.

Jetstar, Jetconnect, and various others are all topics unto themselves.

The last time I looked, Jetstar in Australia is wholly owned by Qantas. In fact on the aircraft the logo is "Jetstar" a Qantas Group Airline." Safety at Qantas includes safety at Jetstar.

In fact given Jetstars growth, there is a distinct possibility over time that the Jetstar standards will become the Qantas standard! The question is does low cost airline, mean lower safety standards including pilot training and incident report?

Farmer

 

[Nigelinoz]

Of course said execs aren't actually qualified to make any such decisions, but as a rule they hate pilots. Pilots look at anyone in management who doesn't have a pair of wings (almost everyone) with almost total disregard. The two views mix well....

Interesting comments jb747,can I ask you about the chief pilots position? does the QF chief pilot report to the board ? and if he does do the board generally pay requisite respect to his knowledge and experience or sometimes just pay lip service ?
And do the pilots on the line view the chief pilot as management and therefore someone
who might be out to remove their entitlements or do they see him as their voice in head office?
I'd be interested in your comments.
Cheers
N'oz
BTW if answering my questions requires you to express opinions in public that you feel you would rather not make then I completly understand if you decline to respond,I certainly have no wish to place you in an uncomfortable position.

 

[anat0l]

Well, no, the thread is safety at QANTAS.

Jetstar, Jetconnect, and various others are all topics unto themselves.

The last time I looked, Jetstar in Australia is wholly owned by Qantas. In fact on the aircraft the logo is "Jetstar" a Qantas Group Airline." Safety at Qantas includes safety at Jetstar.

Well both of you could read it either way, i.e. "safety at qantas" could be read as safety only pertaining to the Qantas airline itself or the group of airlines - the topic title is not clear. In the latter interpretation, this would include (to be accurate) Jetstar (including Australia and all its other subsidiaries) and Jetconnect.

In saying this, without completely technically tearing it apart, the OP seems to suggest the spirit of the topic is to be argued with the former interpretation (i.e. the topic is about the Qantas airline itself). However, we AFFers are good at creating topic forks

 

[nlagalle]

The last time I looked, Jetstar in Australia is wholly owned by Qantas. In fact on the aircraft the logo is "Jetstar" a Qantas Group Airline." Safety at Qantas includes safety at Jetstar.

In fact given Jetstars growth, there is a distinct possibility over time that the Jetstar standards will become the Qantas standard! The question is does low cost airline, mean lower safety standards including pilot training and incident report?

Farmer

That may be true, but both operate under totally different structures and are independant of each other.

 

[TonyHancock]

That may be true, but both operate under totally different structures and are independant of each other.

Is Jetstar a wholly owned subsidiary of Qantas and are there any common board members of the two entities?

I would have thought anything less than the same standards and procedures for safety would be commercial suicide for Qantas.

 

[nlagalle]

Is Jetstar a wholly owned subsidiary of Qantas and are there any common board members of the two entities?

I would have thought anything less than the same standards and procedures for safety would be commercial suicide for Qantas.

I know there are some differences, including pilot experience and the cadet program (which is where the potential QF pilots strike is coming from).

 

[farmer]

If you were not concerned about Qantas and Jetstar declining safety standards a week ago, suggest you read transcripts from the current Senate inquiry into the issue.

There appear to be 15 unreported "stick shaker" or near stall incidents in the Qantas Regional fleet and a previously unreported aborted landing at Singaore where an A330 nearly landed wheels up. None of these appear to have been directly report by Qantas or Jetstar to the ATSB.

The low cost culture appears to be infecting the" reporting culture" at management level at least.