safety at qantas

[straitman]

Hi all,
I still can't believe that Qantas is persisting with the line that the outsourcing of the maintenance of the Rolls Royce engines on the A380 through" Power by the Hour" contracts is not a problem. Qantas CEO has admitted they were not advised of the need for the modification to these engines. They only found out when over 300 people nearly died.

The same problem is emerging with the Rolls Royce enginess on the 747-400's. Uncontained engine failure, repeated engine shutdowns in flight. Its the same outsourcing arrangement.

If Qantas is committed to "exceeding" not just equalling the safety record of other airlines they must bring this under their direct management. I don't care where it is done but it should be under Qantas Engineering direct control.

The Qantas brand is based on worlds best safety practices not the world average!!!

farmer,

At the risk of sounding rude, because that is not the intent, I have to ask you if you know what "Power by the Hour" means?

I also need to ask how you come to the conclusion that the engine manufacturer is not as well qualified to do maintenance on it's own engines as some one who would ultimately have been trained by the engine manufacturer?

 

[farmer]

farmer,

At the risk of sounding rude, because that is not the intent, I have to ask you if you know what "Power by the Hour" means?

I also need to ask how you come to the conclusion that the engine manufacturer is not as well qualified to do maintenance on it's own engines as some one who would ultimately have been trained by the engine manufacturer?

Hi,
My understanding of power by the hour contracts, is that an airline pays the engine manufacturer an hourly rate for the operation of the engine. The engine is not purchased by the airline.The manufacturer is responsible for all maintenance and detailed montoring of the engines performance. There are restrictions on what the airline operator can do in terms of day to day inspections or minor maintenance.

In the case of Qantas they were clearly not aware or told of modifications that needed to be undertaken to the initially installed engines on the A380. This was admitted by the Qantas CEO in a public statement. The question as to whether this caused the uncontained engine failure is still being reviewed. Rolls Royce announced restrictions on the maximum power that could be applied by the engines on takeoff immediately after the incident that made it impossible to operate the A380 economically across the Pacific for a period.

The contention of experts in the industry is that the interests of the airline, safe power for the aircraft are not necesssairly directly aligned with those of the engine manufctuere who wants to make a profit on the supply and operation of the engine. See Ben Sandilands blog at crickey.com.au

Up until these contracts, Qantas has always maintained their engines with staff directly employed by the airline. All required modifications or replacements of parts, maintence etc was under the control of the airline with guidance from the manufacturer. Some experts assert this culture of direct control and very high standards has maintained Qantas's great safety record since its was established.

This is still the case for the majority of Qantas planes except the A380 and 747 series. The only uncontained engine failures in the last 12 months at Qantas have been on these two aircraft types.

I am not an expert but desparately want to see Qantas succeed as I have trusted them over many years. Placing the maintenance of the critical part of an aircraft in someones hands means you are placing the safety of the aircraft in someone else's hands!!

 

[farmer]

A must read from Ben Sandilands


Is Qantas ditching unaffordable excellence?

February 10, 2011 – 8:09 pm, by Ben Sandlands at Crickey

Here is something risky to think about in the context of the dispute between Qantas and the Australian and International Pilots Association over job security.
If Qantas were to remove the burden of excellence from its balance sheet, those pilot training, maintenance and standards costs that do more than just tick the boxes that make the carrier legal, what are the chances of disaster striking?
The answer is obvious. They would be the same chances that apply to other carriers who do the absolute minimum but claim to be conforming with ‘world’s best practice’, because in the weasel words of air safety standards, ‘best practice’ and ‘minimum required practice’ are identical.
The probability of a ‘hull loss’ which is a euphemism risk assessors use for a heap of dead people on world wide newscasts is probably one disaster every 25-30 years for a large airline.
This means that any such airline might not have a very bad accident for 50 years, or not until tomorrow. But if the company is saving $200 million a year by dispensing with excess excellence, meaning anything which is in excess of the minimum required to be able to claim conformity with ‘world’s best practice’, it will be more than several billion dollars ahead within a decade, and an accident could happen anyhow. Because ‘**** happens’ as Tony Abbott so lucidly put it the other day.
This is what is troubling about the apparently urgent need for Qantas to put an end to the unsustainable losses on its long haul operations, as flagged by Qantas CEO Alan Joyce a week ago in an address to the Melbourne Press Club.
The company has persisted with a failed network concept and a failed re-equipment program and uncompetitive products and seems determined to try and solve these issues by off shoring some of its assets and costs through the device of basing Australian registered aircraft in Singapore. The small beginnings of a major shift in strategy. It closed an engine shop that was critical to keeping its aged fleet of Rolls-Royce powered 747s safe over the far southern ocean routes or across the Pacific to North America. It deals itself out of knowledge and oversight over the engines Rolls-Royce put on its flagship A380s, only to put better versions on those supplied to other A380 operators without telling Qantas a thing until one of them rips itself apart, and tears 27 holes through the wing in the process, on the November 4 flight of one its A380s from Singapore to Sydney.
At the tense meeting between itself, its strike breaker contractor and the union yesterday Qantas refuses to consider anything that might give job security to the pilots that are the best trained in the world.
Why? There are several possible reasons for this. The widely discussed possible reason is that Qantas is determined to end the employment of pilots under ‘legacy’ terms and conditions and churn them back, through Jetstar, under different agreements. The less widely discussed reason refers to nebulous statements from Jetstar about the setting up of a pilot resource from which non Australian pilots flying elsewhere on the Jetstar franchises could perform flying in Australia for Jetstar at favorable rates. No doubt like those of guest workers in the building industry employed on temporary visas.
If such an arrangement is set up for Jetstar there is no reason why it then couldn’t be applied to Qantas, what’s left of it.
The bizarre situation arises now that Qantas has a cadre of pilots who appear to have a longer term loyalty to the carrier than its management. The former are prepared to put standards ahead of remuneration if it keeps the carrier truly Australian. The latter don’t want to know about it.
It isn’t clear if Qantas has thought through the consequences of undercutting and severing those legacy costs that are its brand ‘premium’. It is clear however that Alan Joyce has calculated the immediate consequences of not lifting productivity at Qantas, and this is where there is considerable pain and bafflement and anger in pilot ranks. They are prepared to lift productivity and keep pay in check.
Surely there must yet be room in this stand off for Joyce to make different, more constructive choices, that will engage and retain that part of the Qantas legacy which is priceless.




Farmer

 

[anat0l]

Looks like the only way to resolve this Mexican stand-off is to have QF manufacture and maintain its own engines! And plane parts for that matter. And, perhaps, aircraft.....

 

[nlagalle]

In the case of Qantas they were clearly not aware or told of modifications that needed to be undertaken to the initially installed engines on the A380. This was admitted by the Qantas CEO in a public statement. The question as to whether this caused the uncontained engine failure is still being reviewed. Rolls Royce announced restrictions on the maximum power that could be applied by the engines on takeoff immediately after the incident that made it impossible to operate the A380 economically across the Pacific for a period.

farmer,

I suggest you read my post which contains the extract from the ATSB report - not from the mouth of Ben Sandilands (who has always had an axe to grind with QF).

Here is the link to my post. The ATSB have already stated that the required check based on the AD was carried out. The part that did fail had nothing to do with the required check.

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....gram/safety-at-qantas-27821-2.html#post398820

 

[simongr]

I think the point that farmer is making (which I hadnt heard about before) is that [allegedly] RR put newer fixed engines in other airlines' aircraft and not in QF planes.

 

[nlagalle]

A must read from Ben Sandilands


Is Qantas ditching unaffordable excellence?

February 10, 2011 – 8:09 pm, by Ben Sandlands at Crickey

I'd suggest editing your post and removing most of it and then linking it to the original article.

and as I have stated for a long time - Ben sandilands has it in for QF and will bag them at every opportunity. And crikey is hardley a worthy news source anyway. If you want a proper perspective on aviation matters, read one of the dedicated magazines.

 

[drewbles]

A must read from Ben Sandilands


<snip>


Farmer

"TL;DR".

Sorry but if you're quoting Ben Sandilands, then you're quoting media. As nlagalle points out, he has an axe to grind with QF. Crikey is not a valid source for proper aviation news IMHO.

 

[simongr]

"TL;DR".

I was quite literally coming back into the thread to do that

 

[farmer]

Hi again,
There is an undeniable point about the A380 incident. Qantas was not told about about modifications required for its engines by Rolls Royce. Modifications that were being undertaken on other airlines engines prior to installation. This was confirmed by the CEO of Qantas and was clearly free unhappy.

The consequences of this are still not clear but I am sure that regardless of ATSB investigations that Qantas will as a minimum have must greater direct oversight of the maintenance of their engines under the Power by the Hour contracts.

Farmer

 

[nlagalle]

Hi again,
There is an undeniable point about the A380 incident. Qantas was not told about about modifications required for its engines by Rolls Royce. Modifications that were being undertaken on other airlines engines prior to installation. This was confirmed by the CEO of Qantas and was clearly free unhappy.

The consequences of this are still not clear but I am sure that regardless of ATSB investigations that Qantas will as a minimum have must greater direct oversight of the maintenance of their engines under the Power by the Hour contracts.

Farmer

farmer,

I don't know how many more times this can be explained.. first, please read my post above from the ATSB. Secondly the engine failure was caused by a manufacturing fault that was not previously detected. the engine modifcations had nothing to do with the suspect part. Can you tell us what the modifcations were?

IIRC Qantas still has engineers that will confirm all work done if it happens externally.

 

[simongr]

Farmer - can you cite a reference for the clear point that QF were not told and that RR fixed the problem on other carriers. It would make this discussion a lot more effective.

Unless that is you are just trolling now in which case:

 

[farmer]

Farmer - can you cite a reference for the clear point that QF were not told and that RR fixed the problem on other carriers. It would make this discussion a lot more effective.





In an Associated Press story November 19 Joyce(CEO Qantas) is reported as follows:

“Rolls-Royce have gone and modified certain parts of this engine,” he said. “If this was significant and was known to be significant, we would have liked to have known about that … We and Airbus weren’t aware of it.
“But it depends on what the purpose of modifications were for,” Joyce added. “It doesn’t look like it’s a significant modification, but it is a modification that has an impact on how the engines are performing. And it is a modification that indicates whether you are going to have a problem or not with the engine.”

Perhaps you shoudl speak to Mr Joyce about his concerns!!!
​

 

[farmer]

Extract frpm Australian Aviation. Airbus confirmed RR modifed later built engines but had not modifed Qantas engines. They had acording to Joyce not notifed Qantas of the need for the modifications. (see earlier quote)

"The expression of regret came after Airbus chief operating officer – customers, John Leahy, told journalists in Sydney on October 12 the latest build standards of Trent 900 engine is not affected by oil leaks in the bearing box which led to QF32′s engine fire and subsequent uncontained failure.
“These are all to a new build standard and they should not have any issues,” Leahy said, “we think the engines on the production line are fine”.
It is understood that Rolls-Royce is now up to its third, ‘C’ build standard for the Trent 900. As many as 40 of the 80 Trent 900s delivered to A380 operators Singapore Airlines, Qantas and Lufthansa are understood to be affected by the oil leak issue to some degree, with 14 of those engines on Qantas’s six A380s, 24 in service with Singapore Airlines and two with Lufthansa.
Meanwhile, Associated Press has reported that EASA (the European Aviation Safety Agency) had already issued two airworthiness directives concerning the Trent 900, warning of the potential for “inflight shut down, oil migration and oil fire” from oil leaks in the intermediate turbine.
The same AP report also quotes an unnamed maintenance engineer from a Trent 900 operating airline as saying that Rolls-Royce had made design change to the oil lubrication system on the Trent 900 for engines delivered from the second half of 2009.

 

[nlagalle]

In an Associated Press story November 19 Joyce(CEO Qantas) is reported as follows:

“Rolls-Royce have gone and modified certain parts of this engine,” he said. “If this was significant and was known to be significant, we would have liked to have known about that … We and Airbus weren’t aware of it.
“But it depends on what the purpose of modifications were for,” Joyce added. “It doesn’t look like it’s a significant modification, but it is a modification that has an impact on how the engines are performing. And it is a modification that indicates whether you are going to have a problem or not with the engine.”

Perhaps you shoudl speak to Mr Joyce about his concerns!!!
​

Do you know what parts they were referring to? And explain that how QF would have known about it if the engines were serviced in house? Especially given that airbus had no knowledge on this either?

Again, have you read the ATSB report I posted? you will clearly see what was done prior to the engine failure.

pulling parts of an interview isn't going to yield you anything. Do you expect a CEO to know everything engneering? I highly doubt it!

 

[nlagalle]

Extract frpm Australian Aviation. Airbus confirmed RR modifed later built engines but had not modifed Qantas engines. They had acording to Joyce not notifed Qantas of the need for the modifications. (see earlier quote)

"The expression of regret came after Airbus chief operating officer – customers, John Leahy, told journalists in Sydney on October 12 the latest build standards of Trent 900 engine is not affected by oil leaks in the bearing box which led to QF32′s engine fire and subsequent uncontained failure.
“These are all to a new build standard and they should not have any issues,” Leahy said, “we think the engines on the production line are fine”.
It is understood that Rolls-Royce is now up to its third, ‘C’ build standard for the Trent 900. As many as 40 of the 80 Trent 900s delivered to A380 operators Singapore Airlines, Qantas and Lufthansa are understood to be affected by the oil leak issue to some degree, with 14 of those engines on Qantas’s six A380s, 24 in service with Singapore Airlines and two with Lufthansa.
Meanwhile, Associated Press has reported that EASA (the European Aviation Safety Agency) had already issued two airworthiness directives concerning the Trent 900, warning of the potential for “inflight shut down, oil migration and oil fire” from oil leaks in the intermediate turbine.
The same AP report also quotes an unnamed maintenance engineer from a Trent 900 operating airline as saying that Rolls-Royce had made design change to the oil lubrication system on the Trent 900 for engines delivered from the second half of 2009.

Can you please provide a link to this? It states a conference in October but the accident was in November.

 

[drron]

I believe there are 3 versions of this engine-A,B,C.As the QF plane that had the incident was the first delivered to QF it had the A type engine.It is usual for modifications to be done with experience of use.RR did not call in any other type A engines from other carriers to modify them.Types B and C were fitted to new planes as they became available.The most recent A380s received by QF have the type C variant.Singapore airlines being the first customer had type A engines on their first380s.Type A engines were also on a LH A380.So the point crikey is trying to make is meaningless.
Their credibility is further called into question when they are still linking the 747 engine failure to the 380 incident-it is not the same type of engine period.
Then again the press all over the world are the same-came across this article where there was smoke in the toilet of a Singapore A380 and they found some burnt wires-
'Burn Marks' Found on Singapore Airlines A380 - AOL Travel News
Yet they had to put this at the end of the article-

The 11 A380s that make up Singapore Airlines' fleet are powered by Trent 900 engines manufactured by Rolls-Royce, the same type of engine that exploded on a Qantas Airlines jet last November, forcing the plane to make an emergency landing and scattering debris across an Indonesian island

So it was the engine that caused smoke in the toilet?
Farmer as you have been told and as the ATSB report states the previous directives had nothing to do with the part that failed on November 4th.

 

[Smackbum]

Very strange comments on this thread. I wonder if the next poster will claim that the engine explosion was some kind of union plot and Farmer is their stooge.

Anyway - back to a balanced opinion.

Outsourcing the responsibility for engine maintenance totally to the engine manufacturer has potential drawbacks, particularly with regard to faults in design. No one can say whether keeping the maintenance in-house at Qantas would have gleaned any better result, but the only facts in this story are :-

1. Qantas has saved many millions of dollars by outsourcing some engine maintenance and closing down local operations.

2. There have been 2 significant engine failures with "outsourced" engines - one of which could easily have resulted in the largest ever hull loss.

Is it any wonder that people consider these 2 facts and wonder if they are related or mere coincidence? Doesn't it worry the majority of AFF readers that the CEO of Qantas felt left in the dark about a potentially catastrophic fault?

 

[simongr]

Ok here are some maintenance options.

1 - Have it maintained by a small group of engineers in Oz dependent of remote updates from Europe.

2 - Have it maintained by a large group of engineers who can share information quickly, are close to the action in terms of changes and combined have a greater pool of talent to think/work on issues.

I personally can not opine on Joyce's comments as the sequencing of events, comments and outcomes is very jumbled and the circumstances changed on a daily basis.

 

[JohnPhelan]

I think Farmer's point - and I don't disagree with it - is this: if the engines are going to be maintained by an external party, then QF needs to have someone physically on site to see what they are doing and sign off on the work as being to QF's standards.

I would add that, given the poor conduct of Rolls Royce in this matter - which has been, at best, poor communication and at worst, deliberate withholding of critical information - I would not trust a word that comes out of the mouth of anyone from RR. In fact, if I was QF, I would be cancelling all orders for RR engines for the A380 and cosying up with Engine Alliance!