safety at qantas

[yohy?!]

Yohy?! I suggest you read the ATSB report which is totally unbiaised. I'll draw your attention to page 14:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/2888854/ao-2010-089 preliminary report.pdf#page=0

So as you can see this AD you listed earlier was performed. And the AD had nothing to do with checking the part that failed.

Here is the part about the failure:

So again - this has nothing to do with how the engine was maintain and by who.

Thanks for the link, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

 

[NM]

I don't know if this was hyperlinked before but anyways. Please ignore if was posted before

Qantas loses another Rolls-Royce engine, and the plot – Plane Talking

Ben Sandilands's Blog

Doesn't the fact that the Qantas flight crew involved in this engine failure chose to take the safe option and return imply the ongoing safety culture of the airline? Compare that "safety-first" decision with the "she'll-be-right-mate" decision taken by a certain UK operator of the same type of aircraft that experienced an engine failure departing LAX and decided that they would continue a 10-hour flight on the three remaining engines.

While the aircraft may be perfectly able to fly on 3 good engines, I believe it is prudent to abort the flight in such circumstances just as Qantas did in this case.

In-flight engine shutdowns are not the rare events that some reporters would like us to believe. How the flight crew respond to such an event is the true indication of the safety culture of an airline.

In the case of the LAX-LHR flight mentioned above, the decision to continue the flight after one engine was shut-down resulted in a low-fuel emergency landing at MAN because the crew failed to properly consider the impact on fuel burn rate as a result of lower-altitude 3-engine operations. To me that is a much more serious safety issue than the engine problem experienced (by that flight or the QF flight mentioned).

 

[nlagalle]

Thanks for the link, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

Perhaps, but I fail to see (as do others) how you can link this accident to a maintenance issue, when it's been spelt out it was a manufacturing fault that caused the accident. How are the two connected?

 

[oz_mark]

In-flight engine shutdowns are not the rare events that some reporters would like us to believe. How the flight crew respond to such an event is the true indication of the safety culture of an airline.

I'm not even sure in the QF case that the engine was shut down. The articles I have read suggest they reduced thrust due to its high fuel consumption.

I have mentioned elsewhere that I prefer the approach of landing and dealing with the problem, rather than being on an airline that chooses to press on.

 

[NM]

I'm not even sure in the QF case that the engine was shut down. The articles I have read suggest they reduced thrust due to its high fuel consumption.

True, it is reported that the engine thrust was reduced and returned to BKK. So may not technically have been an in-flight shutdown.

 

[drewbles]

Thanks for the link, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

Perhaps look at it this way.

You buy a car. Your car is serviced by your local garage (say you own the garage and you're a mechanic, keeping servicing in-house so to speak). The car throws a rod due to a engine block malfunction.

Do you blame a) the in-house mechanic (yourself) or b) the manufacturer?

The mechanic may have serviced the engine perfectly, but due to the manufacturing defect, the rod threw anyway.

QF had no idea about the manufacturing flaw because RR didn't tell them. RR didn't fix it before it issued the AD, and RR are entirely at fault here. QF did nothing wrong.

 

[reductionist]

QF had no idea about the manufacturing flaw because RR didn't tell them. RR didn't fix it before it issued the AD, and RR are entirely at fault here. QF did nothing wrong.

Yep, totally agree with this. It's a pretty clear cut situation IMO.

Manufacturing defect and (supposedly substandard) outsourced maintenance are two entirely different things and one does not cause the other.

 

[drron]

I fail to see why servicing the A380s in Germany is somehow worse than being serviced at Avalon.Do German Engineers have a reputation for shoddy work?Should I worry that Mrsdrron drives a german car?Would be interesting to know what car Ben Sandilands drives-hopefully not a merc,BMW,Audi etc as surely he wouldn't trust the engineering.Enough of the Xenophobia-and no I am not going to explain.
It's not as if the QF outsourcing is done in places without some quality control-and i am talking QF not JQ.

 

[anat0l]

This, x 1000. As someone who has worked in communications for 10+ years, I simply cannot understand the approach Qantas takes to PR. They get a lot of other things right, but they get this oh, so very wrong.

The problem lies is that when Qantas does good, it doesn't matter how it is reported: all the outlets are clearly ears shut about it. These outlets are catering for what is essentially an IQ < 50 audience who couldn't tell what's good for them from whatever garbage comes out of their noses. (And that includes the journalists and... God save them... their editor bosses of whom I will reserve the most harshest judgement).

For what one cares, I'm surprised that media outlets don't even start fabricating bad news about QF to feed the piggish masses. Sure, QF can sue based on defamation or complete lies, but even if they win it'll be a Pyrrhic victory all the same (i.e. no one will care that QF won and "cleared their reputation", they will only care that QF flipped out against a "respectable" news outlet).

Essentially, any further investment or efforts that could be put into PR should be put into innovation and consistency improvements. Of course, we aren't really seeing that either....

 

[medhead]

I fail to see why servicing the A380s in Germany is somehow worse than being serviced at Avalon.

I actually thought it was great they were serviced in Germany. At the risk of repeating myself. My brother works in Germany. When this incident happened one off his german bosses (who has been given him a bit of grief) said something about Australian maintenance (or some such). Needless to say I happily let my brother know that it was actually lufthansa that serviced that very aircraft last* and that he should let his boss know the good news. Thanks AFF

* At least that was my interpretation of what I read here, hopefully I didn't misread as I usually do

 

[straitman]

Having just sat down and read most of this thread in one sitting I really have to ask how many people here actually know what an AD is and how they are applied :?:

It looks to me that there is a lot of gum beating with a relatively low level of knowledge.

Whether the AD was issued before or after the engine failure may not even be relevant if the AD did not actually address the situation in question. Even if it was issued earlier and was fully complied with the engine can (and did) fail in a spectacular manner.

 

[jb747]

The problem lies is that when Qantas does good, it doesn't matter how it is reported: all the outlets are clearly ears shut about it.

Which is perhaps shown by the fact that no element of the media chose to report that last year a QF crew was awarded what amounts to the highest award available from within the aviation world.

For what one cares, I'm surprised that media outlets don't even start fabricating bad news about QF to feed the piggish masses.

Basically they are. Two recent examples relate to claims of near misses in the Melbourne area. One seems to have been based upon a passenger seeing an aircraft at a holding point after their aircraft did a late go around, whilst the other seems to be based on some very odd data from a tracking site, in which a VB aircraft is essentially hovering.

I don't consider Crikey to be any more accurate than any other media source.

 

[nlagalle]

Basically they are. Two recent examples relate to claims of near misses in the Melbourne area. One seems to have been based upon a passenger seeing an aircraft at a holding point after their aircraft did a late go around, whilst the other seems to be based on some very odd data from a tracking site, in which a VB aircraft is essentially hovering.

I don't consider Crikey to be any more accurate than any other media source.

Yes always wondered that a person looking from the side knew exactly what was happening on the ground. Fortunately that story didn't get much coverage..

I consider Crikey less so..

 

[oz_mark]

Let's not forget JT's go around at MEL!

 

[sometimeflyer]

JB747, I take your point about the current standard of reporting. But Qantas can't just throw its hands up in the air and say "well, we're just have to put up with all this bad reporting - there's nothing we can do about it".

There is no reason in principle why the mainstream media (by this I mean the major newspapers and the evening TV news) could not be persuaded to report more favourably/accurately concerning Qantas.

I say again that there are ways that companies - unpopular or unfairly treated for whatever reason - are able to generate decent press. That's what PR is all about. I certainly don't claim to have any expertise, but I simply can't accept that Qantas is doing all/the best it can in the PR department at the moment.

I can't diagnose what is wrong - but something is. Perhaps the PR department's approach is too reactive rather than proactive; perhaps their press releases and briefings are not approached correctly - I don't know.

I have no problem with complaints about media coverage. But we have to acknowledge that this is not a problem so outside of Qantas' control or influence that they can be absolved of all responsibility.

 

[anat0l]

JB747, I take your point about the current standard of reporting. But Qantas can't just throw its hands up in the air and say "well, we're just have to put up with all this bad reporting - there's nothing we can do about it".

There is no reason in principle why the mainstream media (by this I mean the major newspapers and the evening TV news) could not be persuaded to report more favourably/accurately concerning Qantas.

I say again that there are ways that companies - unpopular or unfairly treated for whatever reason - are able to generate decent press. That's what PR is all about. I certainly don't claim to have any expertise, but I simply can't accept that Qantas is doing all/the best it can in the PR department at the moment.

I can't diagnose what is wrong - but something is. Perhaps the PR department's approach is too reactive rather than proactive; perhaps their press releases and briefings are not approached correctly - I don't know.

I have no problem with complaints about media coverage. But we have to acknowledge that this is not a problem so outside of Qantas' control or influence that they can be absolved of all responsibility.

This is a little bit O/T now, but anyway... and let me preface that I am not a PR person by any stretch of the imagination or willing (I'm an engineer by qualification)...

I've highlighted the part of your post which undoes most of the rest.

In principle, all human beings have the capacity to do good. In practice, there are several who decide not to be (or at least not all of the time).

The same is said for the media. They can choose to report accurately and unbiased or they can do otherwise. Unfortunately, we tend to see this on a subject-by-subject basis rather than just a consistent across-the-board or even a random inconsistent annoyance.

No one is denying that QF - disregard all the mainstream media - has problems. I think that effort (time, money and resources) would be better invested in targeting the root causes of those problems rather than dealing with the media. Dealing with the latter is mostly a superficial effort and doesn't address some of the real* issues that will bite QF in the long term.

Perhaps I don't fall in the camp which says that QF PR is doing the best they can right now. But from another standpoint I really fail to see what QF can do better in the face of what is a hostile and irresponsible media.

* I can't specifically target some of these real issues (apart from fleet replacement, perhaps), but media relations is not a long term issue IMHO.

 

[sometimeflyer]

This is a little bit O/T now, but anyway...

I don't think that talking about the reasons for certain perceptions of safety (or otherwise) is far off topic, but happy to be told otherwise by a moderator.

I've highlighted the part of your post which undoes most of the rest.

In principle, all human beings have the capacity to do good. In practice, there are several who decide not to be (or at least not all of the time).

The same is said for the media. They can choose to report accurately and unbiased or they can do otherwise. Unfortunately, we tend to see this on a subject-by-subject basis rather than just a consistent across-the-board or even a random inconsistent annoyance.

Well I'm not about to engage in a metaphysical discussion about human nature - that would be off topic - but I don't think the point I make about principle undoes the rest of what I'm saying. Companies (and political parties/figures) can, both in principle and in practice, influence the way the media reports on them. Somtimes it's harder, sometimes it's easier - sometimes it's obvious how to do it, sometimes not.

No one is denying that QF - disregard all the mainstream media - has problems.

I agree - and I'm neither a diehard critic of, nor a diehard apologist for Qantas.

I think that effort (time, money and resources) would be better invested in targeting the root causes of those problems rather than dealing with the media. Dealing with the latter is mostly a superficial effort and doesn't address some of the real* issues that will bite QF in the long term.
* I can't specifically target some of these real issues (apart from fleet replacement, perhaps), but media relations is not a long term issue IMHO.

That might be true from a purely operational perspective - but from a corporate perspective, ongoing bad PR and inaccurate reporting is a real issue and also a long term issue. Sure, good PR doesn't fix other problems - like fleet age, but even if Qantas does fix what you call the "real issues" or "root causes" what makes you think the reporting will change?

You seem to think the reporting is unfair and inaccurate - the product of a "hostile and irresponsible media" - why would we expect that that would ever change in the future if Qantas continues to take the same approach to its PR?

If the reporting remains bad indefinately I don't see how this isn't a long term problem. I'm happy to admit that there are important decisions about prioritization - but working out priorities is different to identifying problems in the first place.

Perhaps I don't fall in the camp which says that QF PR is doing the best they can right now. But from another standpoint I really fail to see what QF can do better in the face of what is a hostile and irresponsible media.

Well I think this really is the difference between us - I just can't understand the appproach which says "it's all too hard, we've done our best, we just need to resign ourselves to the fact that we're going to get bad press for the foreseeable future".

I don't think bad PR is the root of all of Qantas' problems and I don't think it's necessarily more important than other issues - but that doesn't mean it should be ignored or put in the "too hard" basket.

Anyway, to anything more would be to repeat myself. I'd love to hear some contributions from people with either experience in PR or knowledge of Qantas PR.

 

[MiLK_MaN]

Within Flight Operations safety is not only taken seriously...it is almost the only priority. In all my time in QF I have never seen a pilot queried by management for taking a safe course of action, irrespective of the cost. Nor, knowing the management pilots as I do, do I ever expect to. Delay a flight because you weren't happy with something, will, in many airlines have you hauled over the coals....in QF they will ask why, and then try to fix it.

I was on a SYD -> MEL flight about a month or two ago that seemed to have a large number of QF pilots and cabin crew.

I could not believe the focus these people had on the safety video when played before take off. I mean they would of seen it a gazillion times, but they were paying attention to it as if they were fixated and unable to look away. Regardless of whether this is a requirement beaten into the staff, I actually really noticed it and thought it was a good thing to see.

 

[VHOEJ]

I was on a SYD -> MEL flight about a month or two ago that seemed to have a large number of QF pilots and cabin crew.

I could not believe the focus these people had on the safety video when played before take off. I mean they would of seen it a gazillion times, but they were paying attention to it as if they were fixated and unable to look away. Regardless of whether this is a requirement beaten into the staff, I actually really noticed it and thought it was a good thing to see.

They probaly do it as routine but it also sets an example to other passengers - I would be concerned if they were ignoring the safety message as a passenger and yet when in control, they reinforce the messages like keeping your seatbelt fastened. It is a shame so many people just ignore the video - even if you see it everyday, it is still important to watch it.

The crews at Qantas really do value safety over anything else - there is a reason they are highly regarded.

 

[jb747]

They probaly do it as routine but it also sets an example to other passengers - I would be concerned if they were ignoring the safety message as a passenger and yet when in control, they reinforce the messages like keeping your seatbelt fastened. It is a shame so many people just ignore the video - even if you see it everyday, it is still important to watch it.

The crews at Qantas really do value safety over anything else - there is a reason they are highly regarded.

It's common sense. I want you to watch the video, John Travolta or not, so one way of getting people to do so is for me to watch every time as well. Of course we also notice that hardly anyone actually does.....and yet they'll then tell the media that no one told them how to use the oxygen masks. Perhaps I should start quizzing.....

You never know when the contents of that video will save your life. There is unlikely to be the slightest warning as things go from normal to in extremis. And yet, every day, the finance section of the paper seems to draw more attention.