safety at qantas

[nlagalle]

I hope that the outcome of these incidents continues to be an aircraft landing safety.

The A380 Roll-Royce saga engine is of concern though - push your engine maintenance to an out-source arrangement and hope it works out..... but then a metre to the left with the engine debris on QF32 and it seems that Qantas's perfect record would now be in the dustbin with many fatalities

It's already been proven that maintenance had nothing to do with the A380 engine failure. It's a manufacturing fault.

 

[yohy?!]

It's already been proven that maintenance had nothing to do with the A380 engine failure. It's a manufacturing fault.

Agreed - but the decision to out-source engine management to Rolls Royce left them at fault.

 

[nlagalle]

Agreed - but the decision to out-source engine management to Rolls Royce left them at fault.

Where has it been stated that is the cause? How can outsourcing engine maintenance cause a manufacturing fault that occured when it was built?

I think you have your facts messed up here. Aside from the usual union bluster at the beginning, it went very quiet straight afterwards.

 

[yohy?!]

Where has it been stated that is the cause? How can outsourcing engine maintenance cause a manufacturing fault that occured when it was built?

I think you have your facts messed up here. Aside from the usual union bluster at the beginning, it went very quiet straight afterwards.

Roll-Royce was tasked with managing the engine. They were aware of the defect but did not deploy a fix and the incident occurred as a result.

Qantas took the right action in immediately grounding the fleet - but out-sourcing engine management in the first place meant that Qantas lost control of the situtation even before it occured.

Rolls-Royce the maker of the Trent 900 engine which disintegrated knew about the faults that the current airworthiness directive concerning these engines says are likely to have caused an intense oil fire in a structural cavity in the intermediate pressure turbine area of the engine.
Rolls-Royce had designed and was introducing a fix for the oil leak issues for this into the engines at its own speed. Qantas was left in the dark. It is fair to suggest that Qantas needs to review relationships with engine manufacturers in which it pays for power by-the-hour and leaves much of the maintenance and oversight of those engines to the designer and manufacturer.

The Anatomy of the Airbus A380 QF32 near disaster – Plane Talking
Roll-Royce makes “progress” on QF32 investigations | Australian Aviation Magazine
http://www.theage.com.au/travel/tra...r-rollsroyce-a380-engines-20101202-18hie.html

 

[JohnPhelan]

Qantas could not have fixed the manufacturing fault, because Qantas did not KNOW there WAS a manufacturing fault!! RR did, and that's a whole different story ......

 

[nlagalle]

Roll-Royce was tasked with managing the engine. They were aware of the defect but did not deploy a fix and the incident occurred as a result.

Qantas took the right action in immediately grounding the fleet - but out-sourcing engine management in the first place meant that Qantas lost control of the situtation even before it occured.

Incorrect. Even if Qantas were managing engines inhouse they still would not have prevented it from happening as there was no AD issued on the engine fault til after the event.

 

[oz_mark]

Qantas could not have fixed the manufacturing fault, because Qantas did not KNOW there WAS a manufacturing fault!! RR did, and that's a whole different story ......

If your talking about the misaligned counter-bore, I am not sure even RR knew about it. Which does raise concerns over their quality control.

 

[yohy?!]

The Crikey link I posted indicates there was an AD

 

[nlagalle]

The Crikey link I posted indicates there was an AD

It was issued after the incident. There was no AD prior. It only mentions the current AD.

 

[yohy?!]

They speak of a fix being in progress and QF '
Being in the dark'

 

[nlagalle]

They speak of a fix being in progress and QF '
Being in the dark'

As was Singapore, Lufthansa, Emirates and Airbus. But Ben Sandilands conveniently left that out..

They might be 'in the dark' but no AD was ever issued prior.

 

[ric_melb]

And if you consistently read Ben Sandilands he always seems to have a gripe about Qantas.
Some of what he says is no doubt true, but he does seem to go overboard.
I believe the issue here in the never ending reporting of incidents.
No other airline in the world is subjected to this scrutiny.
I think jb747's thoughts on this issue show how consistent Qantas is when it comes to safety.

 

[yohy?!]

If there's any other source out there that conflicts with this I'm happy to stand corrected. For now I'm trusting this based on it being Crikey.

 

[nlagalle]

If there's any other source out there that conflicts with this I'm happy to stand corrected. For now I'm trusting this based on it being Crikey.

OK here is the date the AD was issued 02 DEC

Recommendation AO-2010-089-SR-012

and if you want a detailed report on factual events gathered to date:

Investigation: AO-2010-089 - Inflight engine failure - Qantas, Airbus A380, VH-OQA, overhead Batam Island, Indonesia, 4 November 2010

Sorry but Crikey isn't exactly the fountain of truth.

 

[JohnPhelan]

For now I'm trusting this based on it being Crikey.

:shock::shock::shock: Crikey is a glorified gossip network - it's hardly a credible news source !!!!

 

[yohy?!]

The feedback to the Plane Talking post is worth reading, it seems an AD that relates to the incident was issued prior and not implemented against the QF engines.

We are talking big companies facing lawsuits over this so I doubt it's particularly black and white. I don't really see any hyperbole on this from Crikey though-the blog post is from an EADS presentation on the incident.

http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2010_0008R1.pdf/AD_2010-0008R1_1 August 2010

 

[nlagalle]

The feedback to the Plane Talking post is worth reading, it seems an AWD that relates to the incident was issued prior and not implemented against the QF engines.

We are talking big companies facing lawsuits over this so I doubt it's particularly black and white. I don't really see any hyperbole on this from Crikey though-the blog post is from an EADS presentation on the incident.

http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2010_0008R1.pdf/AD_2010-0008R1_1

SQ and LH grounded their planes as well for engine inspection post the QF. The AD refers to inspections to be carried out.

My point I was making is the incident has nothing to do with how QF handled their engine inspections. That was established early on.

 

[yohy?!]

SQ and LH grounded their planes as well for engine inspection post the QF. The AD refers to inspections to be carried out.

My point I was making is the incident has nothing to do with how QF handled their engine inspections. That was established early on.

Indeed QF handled the 'closing of the barn door after the mule bolted' in the right manner.

What is being worked out now is who is to blame for QF32 taking off with those engines, I work in property outsourcing and know first hand when something goes wrong that the client does not give a fig if a sub contractor stuffs up - the principle contractor is at fault and should have managed the risk better. I believe this analogy applies to QF too as they chose to outsource to RR.

In time we will know the full story - perhaps it will even be on Air Crash Investigations!

 

[nlagalle]

What is being worked out now is who is to blame for QF32 taking off with those engines, I work in property outsourcing and know first hand when something goes wrong that the client does not give a fig if a sub contractor stuffs up - the principle contractor is at fault and should have managed the risk better. I believe this analogy applies to QF too as they chose to outsource to RR.

I don't know what you are getting at here. It's either Rolls Royce or Rolls Royce, isn't it? Had QF been inspecting the engines, it would still be Rolls Royce, as it was a manufacturing fault.

 

[yohy?!]

It is RR...they have been appointed by QF to manage these engines.

So why have they held back on implementing these fixes?

You would hope they would proactive and QF would be managing their services too given they used to perform in house on the same services.