safety at qantas

[oz_mark]

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!

My understanding is that one of the delays in getting the A380's back into service, was that Qantas weren't taking RR at the word. Basically, they made RR prove that the engines were ok to go back into service.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Will future engines on the A380 for QF (...and even SQ and LH), still have the Trent 900 engines? Would QF consider a swap to what EK are using on their A380's? Considering EK has an option to purchase up to 90 A380's, they might know something QF doesn't?

 

[drron]

Will future engines on the A380 for QF (...and even SQ and LH), still have the Trent 900 engines? Would QF consider a swap to what EK are using on their A380's? Considering EK has an option to purchase up to 90 A380's, they might know something QF doesn't?

Well BA have signed up to the Trent 900 since the November incident.

 

[nlagalle]

Will future engines on the A380 for QF (...and even SQ and LH), still have the Trent 900 engines? Would QF consider a swap to what EK are using on their A380's? Considering EK has an option to purchase up to 90 A380's, they might know something QF doesn't?

I thought this was interesting not only regarding the A380, but flying one engine down too:

Incident: Emirates A388 over Germany on Nov 18th 2010, engine shut down in flight

Emirates A388 over Germany on Nov 18th 2010, engine shut down in flight

What's the lesser of two evils? the engine shutting down inflight or continuing on?

 

[LiamR]

I thought this was interesting not only regarding the A380, but flying one engine down too:

Incident: Emirates A388 over Germany on Nov 18th 2010, engine shut down in flight



What's the lesser of two evils? the engine shutting down inflight or continuing on?

I remember seeing this about a week after it happened, Qantas would have been on the ground asap, nomatter what the cause of the problem.

I can just imagine the captain... "Ladies and gentlemen, were going to be a bit late landing this afternoon, one of the engines isn't working"

 

[Oneworldplus2]

What's the lesser of two evils? the engine shutting down inflight or continuing on?

Don't know, but BA managed to fly a 747 from LAX-LHR on 3 engines in 2005.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Boeing 747-436, G-BNLG 06-06.pdf

 

[nlagalle]

Don't know, but BA managed to fly a 747 from LAX-LHR on 3 engines in 2005.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Boeing 747-436, G-BNLG 06-06.pdf

Yes but IIRC it was frown upon and that the flight should have diverted. Not to mention the fuel reserve issues too.

 

[oz_mark]

I thought this was interesting not only regarding the A380, but flying one engine down too:

Incident: Emirates A388 over Germany on Nov 18th 2010, engine shut down in flight



What's the lesser of two evils? the engine shutting down inflight or continuing on?

According to Emirates they didn't shut the engine down - although there was an issue with a fuel pump (and I believe the A380 can use a gravity feed to get fuel to its engines)

 

[nlagalle]

According to Emirates they didn't shut the engine down - although there was an issue with a fuel pump (and I believe the A380 can use a gravity feed to get fuel to its engines)

Yeah I read that last bit.. I'm not sure if i believe it though considering the flight arrived an hour late..

 

[jb747]

Both engines have their problems. As do all, actually. Emirates operate their A380s with a lighter max TO than QF, so maximum power may be less of an issue.

As for continuing with one shutdown...firstly the articles are contradictory over just what the state of the engine was. Flying at a lower level is consistent with it being shut down, but then that can also be a requirement of operation with gravity feed.

Whilst I have never had to operate with gravity feed, I would be extremely wary of it. There is no guarantee that you will be able to achieve maximum power (though pressure feed would be available from another feed tank). But, would I land immediately...probably not.

If an engine is shut down, fuel burn increases quite dramatically. About 15%. Now, if you are close enough to destination, then that 15% may be absorbed by your variable fuel, and you could continue to destination, where you would arrive with less than normal, but still legal, fuel reserves. As a generalisation, that point normally occurs with about 1500 nm to run to destination. Outside of that, you would need to have an abnormally high fuel loading to make that a viable decision.

Gravity feed will also cost you, as you will most certainly have to operate at lower levels. Again, that may be covered by the variable fuel reserve. The fuel penalty won't be anywhere near as high as having one shut down. From the available data its hard to say just what Emirates situation was, but I would lean towards the gravity feed situation, simply because the fuel penalty of the shut down would most likely preclude operation from Germany to Dubai.

 

[NM]

Don't know, but BA managed to fly a 747 from LAX-LHR on 3 engines in 2005.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Boeing 747-436, G-BNLG 06-06.pdf

No, they flew LAX-MAN and declared a low-fuel emergency and landed at MAN as they did not believe they had enough fuel left to make LHR safely. Flying that distance at reduced altitude and the additional drag of a shut-down engine burned more fuel than they thought.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

No, they flew LAX-MAN and declared a low-fuel emergency and landed at MAN as they did not believe they had enough fuel left to make LHR safely. Flying that distance at reduced altitude and the additional drag of a shut-down engine burned more fuel than they thought.

Yes, sorry, my bad.
The scheduled route was LAX-LHR, but got cut short to MAN.

Found this too...(make of it what you will...)

[FONT=ARIAL,]Most likely if the aircraft had all engines running and had flown the same route and altitude the same result would have occurred[/FONT]

747-400 LAX-LHR 3 Engine Flight Report Now Out. — Tech Ops Forum | Airliners.net

 

[Jobu]

I think the fact that Leigh Clifford is the chairman also means that safety will remain a huge focus at Qantas, and I could see some of Leigh's influence in the way Joyce dealt with the grounding of the 380s.

J

 

[farmer]

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?

Thanks "Smackbum",

A very accurate summary. I am not a stooge for anyone. I work in an industry where safety is paramount. The legislation in NSW states that as a Director if I do not peronsally ensure a safe workplace I can be liable for criminal prosecution and even jail.

If there was an accident like QF 32 with a loss of life, I could not offer a defence that I had outsourced the work and had not been told by a subcontractor what he was doing to the equipment I operated. I have an absolute duty of care to ensure subcontractors perfrom their work in a safe manner in accordance with defined safe work methods that are documented and audited continually. This includes maintenance of equipment.Under NSW law there is a reverse onus of proof.

Does not Qantas have the same duty of care to directly supervise its subcontractors particularly those working on the aircraft it operates? This is not about outsourcing, or overseas work or cost control. It is about Alan Joyce's admission Qantas Engineering did not know what was being done to his aircraft engines regardless of the cause of the ultimate failure of the Trent 900.

Farmer

 

[nlagalle]

Thanks "Smackbum",

If there was an accident like QF 32 with a loss of life, I could not offer a defence that I had outsourced the work and had not been told by a subcontractor what he was doing to the equipment I operated. I have an absolute duty of care to ensure subcontractors perfrom their work in a safe manner in accordance with defined safe work methods that are documented and audited continually. This includes maintenance of equipment.Under NSW law there is a reverse onus of proof.

Does not Qantas have the same duty of care to directly supervise its subcontractors particularly those working on the aircraft it operates? This is not about outsourcing, or overseas work or cost control. It is about Alan Joyce's admission Qantas Engineering did not know what was being done to his aircraft engines regardless of the cause of the ultimate failure of the Trent 900.

Farmer

Farmer,

I've asked you a dozen times to please read the ATSB report so you understand what actually happened. From your replies, you haven't. a CEO is not going to know the ins and outs and that press conference was before they determined what went wrong.

AFAIK QF engineers still sign off on all works carried out. They would have known that the AD in question was performed on that engine.

So please farmer, instead of speculating, spend 20 minutes reading through the report. It won't take you long!

 

[straitman]

Thanks "Smackbum",

A very accurate summary. I am not a stooge for anyone. I work in an industry where safety is paramount. The legislation in NSW states that as a Director if I do not peronsally ensure a safe workplace I can be liable for criminal prosecution and even jail.

If there was an accident like QF 32 with a loss of life, I could not offer a defence that I had outsourced the work and had not been told by a subcontractor what he was doing to the equipment I operated. I have an absolute duty of care to ensure subcontractors perfrom their work in a safe manner in accordance with defined safe work methods that are documented and audited continually. This includes maintenance of equipment.Under NSW law there is a reverse onus of proof.

Does not Qantas have the same duty of care to directly supervise its subcontractors particularly those working on the aircraft it operates? This is not about outsourcing, or overseas work or cost control. It is about Alan Joyce's admission Qantas Engineering did not know what was being done to his aircraft engines regardless of the cause of the ultimate failure of the Trent 900.

Farmer

farmer,

I agree that the comments from Smackbum is a very accurate summary but I do not agree with your conclusions from his summary.

Did Alan Joyce admit that Qantas Engineering did not know what was being done to his aircraft engines regardless of the cause of the ultimate failure of the Trent 900 or did he admit that he, at that point in time, did not know :?:

OMHO I would rather have RR doing the engine maintenance, with oversight, than having QF engineers doing that maintenance alone. This is an industry where experience counts for safety outcomes and RR were in a much better position to do that maintenance that QF.

Just going back to the 'Power by the Hour' discussion of earlier in the thread. Power by the Hour is a very common practise throughout the aviation industry on many components and not just engines.

From where a few people here are sitting it appears that you are arguing semantics rather than from knowledge. As others have asked and I don't believe that you have answered, have you read the ATSB report as it covers a lot of the arguments that you are making?

 

[simongr]

Thanks "Smackbum",

A very accurate summary. I am not a stooge for anyone. I work in an industry where safety is paramount. The legislation in NSW states that as a Director if I do not peronsally ensure a safe workplace I can be liable for criminal prosecution and even jail.

If there was an accident like QF 32 with a loss of life, I could not offer a defence that I had outsourced the work and had not been told by a subcontractor what he was doing to the equipment I operated. I have an absolute duty of care to ensure subcontractors perfrom their work in a safe manner in accordance with defined safe work methods that are documented and audited continually. This includes maintenance of equipment.Under NSW law there is a reverse onus of proof.

Does not Qantas have the same duty of care to directly supervise its subcontractors particularly those working on the aircraft it operates? This is not about outsourcing, or overseas work or cost control. It is about Alan Joyce's admission Qantas Engineering did not know what was being done to his aircraft engines regardless of the cause of the ultimate failure of the Trent 900.

Farmer

Umm for start setting aside people pointing out that you obviously havent actually read the ATSB report and you seem to refuse to do so I find your comments on the supervision of subcontractor to be completely spurious. You are arguing that it was something that RR engineers did (by implication I think you mean it was something that they didnt do in fact) that caused the engine problem. In fact it well documented that it was a design fault not a maintenance fault.

 

[farmer]

farmer,

I agree that the comments from Smackbum is a very accurate summary but I do not agree with your conclusions from his summary.

Did Alan Joyce admit that Qantas Engineering did not know what was being done to his aircraft engines regardless of the cause of the ultimate failure of the Trent 900 or did he admit that he, at that point in time, did not know :?:

OMHO I would rather have RR doing the engine maintenance, with oversight, than having QF engineers doing that maintenance alone. This is an industry where experience counts for safety outcomes and RR were in a much better position to do that maintenance that QF.

Just going back to the 'Power by the Hour' discussion of earlier in the thread. Power by the Hour is a very common practise throughout the aviation industry on many components and not just engines.

From where a few people here are sitting it appears that you are arguing semantics rather than from knowledge. As others have asked and I don't believe that you have answered, have you read the ATSB report as it covers a lot of the arguments that you are making?

Hi again and for the final time,


I have read the "preliminary ATSB" report on three occassions. It makes a number of observations about the sequence of events and what has been found to date in the disassembled engine and the actions RR , Qantas and the ATSB have taken to inspect other engines and return those generally that have been modified to service. Many of the early build engines have been removed for modification.

It reaches no conclusions of fact. This will take up to one year in the ATSB's report.It specifically states at page 35 that it is undertaking a detailed examination of:

" the mechanism/s of engine failure

and aircraft and engine maintenace'

I dont know how you can jump to the conclusions about the cause of this accident when the ATSB may take up to one year.

Regardless of this ,Alan Joyce has admitted that RR was undertaking modifications to Qantas operated engines that Qantas was not aware of!! The Airbus Chief was also reported as making the same comments. Please can you advise what is your factual source that Qantas Engineering did know of these modifications and had signed off on the dealy in underataking the modifications?

If you have no factual source, we can only rely on the public statements of these two CEO's that the " Power by the Hour "arrangement had kept both companies in the dark about modifications to the engines. These modifications may not utlimately be the source of the accident but the admission of lack of knowledge of what was being done to the engines is no less alarming.

This may be "fair average quality" for aircraft maintenance but does not not stand up to the standards that we had come to rely on from Qantas. I am sure Qantas will be modifying its agreements with RR so it has much greater transparency and supervision of what is being done to its engines.

Farmer

 

[under the radar]

ive been a flight attendant with qf for 22yrs and have the utmost of faith in qf...if i didnt, i wouldnt get on their a/c as part of my job!!... i actually have more safety concerns taking the taxi to work!!!.. just a little perspective here!!

 

[nlagalle]

Hi again and for the final time,
It reaches no conclusions of fact. This will take up to one year in the ATSB's report.It specifically states at page 35 that it is undertaking a detailed examination of:

" the mechanism/s of engine failure

and aircraft and engine maintenace'

standard in ANY investigation.

I dont know how you can jump to the conclusions about the cause of this accident when the ATSB may take up to one year.

Page 16 of the report.

Regardless of this ,Alan Joyce has admitted that RR was undertaking modifications to Qantas operated engines that Qantas was not aware of!! The Airbus Chief was also reported as making the same comments. Please can you advise what is your factual source that Qantas Engineering did know of these modifications and had signed off on the dealy in underataking the modifications?

Actually I believe you will find rather than them making modifications to existing engines, they were bringing out updated engines. There is nothing that suggests the RR were modifying QF engines without telling them. If they did and were covering it up it would be fraud as the maintenance papers would be falsified.

There is also no evidence that RR knew about the flawed manufacturing of the part that failed.

If you have no factual source, we can only rely on the public statements of these two CEO's that the " Power by the Hour "arrangement had kept both companies in the dark about modifications to the engines. These modifications may not utlimately be the source of the accident but the admission of lack of knowledge of what was being done to the engines is no less alarming.

This may be "fair average quality" for aircraft maintenance but does not not stand up to the standards that we had come to rely on from Qantas. I am sure Qantas will be modifying its agreements with RR so it has much greater transparency and supervision of what is being done to its engines.

Farmer

Again.. I think you will find there were no modifications made to existing engines. You'll also note that these comments were made before the faulty part was discovered so there was speculation everywhere.

Do CEO's know exactly everything that happens within their company? I seriously doubt that. Would the head of QF maintenance know? - yes, that's his job.