no more pre-flight inspections on the 737-800

[Must...Fly!]

Slightly O/T, I'm pretty sure the restriction on speedometer accuracy in Australia these days is 10% plus a constant, but can never read over the real speed.

 

[mannej]

The problem with 747 RR engines has been that there is a directive out from RR to modify them, due to a few inflight shutdowns in recent years. Once apon a time QF had an engine maintenance dept that could have done these mods. But they got rid of that, because "we can get it done cheaper in Asia". But everyone is trying to get it done in Asia at the same time, so the workshops are fully booked for ages, and QF can't get booked in for a while. Meanwhile they have lost a few engines, which probably cost more than keeping that maintenance inhouse in the first place.

This isn't directly related to the issue at hand, but it's one of the things that has shown QF cost cutting does have a downside.

How long has it been since the last QF IFSD for a RR engine?

I know there was a period that a few happened in quite a quick time frame, however there hasn't seemed to be one lately.

 

[docjames]

But the engineer's busy worrying about getting to his next union meeting, or the arguement he just had with management..... Everyone can be distracted by something.


So again, if QF drops this inspection by engineers, doesnt it just bring their safety into line with other carriers? And clearly the public feel these other carriers who "risk" pilot inspections are safe - as voted by weight of feet and by hip pocket nerve over flying Qantas.

Qantas need to bring their costs into line with the other carriers or they go out of business, this is one step in that process, whilst meeting all published safety standards and manufacturer recommendations.

But hey, they can continue unchanged in all their processes across the company - and go the way of Ansett. That'd be a great outcome for the engineers.

 

[cmon0005]

Qantas need to bring their costs into line with the other carriers or they go out of business, this is one step in that process, whilst meeting all published safety standards and manufacturer recommendations.

But hey, they can continue unchanged in all their processes across the company - and go the way of Ansett. That'd be a great outcome for the engineers.

Agreed. Reminds me of the saying "Don't bite the hand that feeds you". I think they should take note of this.

 

[amaroo]

IMO this is all about brand bagging, unproductive & other destructive nonsense.

They should stick to issues like pie warmers, water coolers, toilet paper & just get on with their job.

 

[drewbles]

But hey, they can continue unchanged in all their processes across the company - and go the way of Ansett. That'd be a great outcome for the engineers.

I think Steve Purvnias did a good enough job of that with the QF industrial action, encouraging people to fly the competitors over Christmas and not to fly QF. Everyone knows it's a wise idea to spruik for the competition rather than sort your own backyard out first .

 

[harvyk]

But the engineer's busy worrying about getting to his next union meeting, or the arguement he just had with management..... Everyone can be distracted by something.

Which is why having two people look over the same thing means that at least one person is likely to spot an issue before it goes into the air.

 

[JessicaTam]

Slightly O/T, I'm pretty sure the restriction on speedometer accuracy in Australia these days is 10% plus a constant, but can never read over the real speed.

Quite right, but I simplified it for the sake of the example

 

[mannej]

It is interesting to read JB's opinions on the matter in his Ask the Pilot thread.

 

[oz_mark]

Slightly O/T, I'm pretty sure the restriction on speedometer accuracy in Australia these days is 10% plus a constant, but can never read over the real speed.

Bit O/T, but

Prior to July 2006 it was +/- 10% when travelling at greater than 40 km/h.

From July 2006 for new models, and Jan 2007 for new cars, it was 10% + 4 km/h, but must never read less than the true speed.

 

[Must...Fly!]

From July 2006 for new models, and Jan 2007 for new cars, it was 10% + 4 km/h, but must never read less than the true speed.

I suffer from scrambled brain ...that's what I meant

 

[drewbles]

Bit O/T, but

Prior to July 2006 it was +/- 10% when travelling at greater than 40 km/h.

From July 2006 for new models, and Jan 2007 for new cars, it was 10% + 4 km/h, but must never read less than the true speed.

Explains why my late 2011 is exactly 4kph on it then. Makes it easy when setting cruise control (I just add 4kph and I know i'm sitting dead on the speed limit).

 

[haggiscat]

It's a downgrade in the frequency of maintenance inspections and the ONLY possible outcome is that the potential for observable faults to be observed will decrease.

The current rate of inspections adds a cost of seven cents to each passenger's ticket.

The current QANTAS management group wants to reduce its inspections (and why mince words?) to save a dollar.

It may be 'bringing them into line' with the rest of the world, but that is meaningless in terms of what I am suggesting. It cannot enhance safety and can only diminish the potential for fault detection, and for what?

Apparently, seven cents.

If I wanted to fly on a standard airline, I'd fly Virgin, Deathstar.

I don't. I want to fly on QANTAS. I want to know two pairs of eyes have looked over the plane even when that may not be industry-standard necessary. I want to be pushed back into my seat and believe that the aircraft is going to do everything it should for the next two, five, twelve hours, whether it's true or not.

I don't understand why anybody would support a decline in the frequency of any safety inspection on any aircraft to save such a piddling amount of money. QANTAS domestic is not on its knees, it is going gangbusters, and it can afford to go the extra mile (as it always has done). Cut the QANTAS magazine in half and make the saving there - its **** anyway.

Leave your ideology at the Business Lounge door and use commonsense.

 

[mannej]

Is it common sense though?

On the Ask the Pilot thread, we have comment from the resident expert about the issue.

I don't see an issue with it, as long as the procedures are what the makers intended when they built the aircraft. Systems change. We don't fly the same way we did 20 years ago, and engineering has moved along too.

I think you'll find the procedures are being used only on new short haul aircraft. They're actually still looked at very regularly...but not every 90 minutes. The long haul stuff probably won't change a great deal....they get looked at every 15 hours or so. As the engines use oil, at the very least, that always needs to be topped up. It will last a day of domestic ops, but not multiple long sectors. Plus, on the long flights, there is never a sector on which something isn't broken at the end of the flight.

In many cases, even with a 380, the pilots can already turn the aircraft around...otherwise we'd never get going again after a diversion.

 

[bigjobs]

I agree, the problem is not stopping engineers from doing a check before every flight, it is about what comes next. Maybe in a few years we will be having the same discussion regarding daily checks being stopped and only having checks every second day, and then weekly checks. Each change is small if looked at in isolation, but if you add all the changes to maintenance schedules together it might tell a different story.

thank you ... someone who understands the point I am making.

 

[el_rooto]

For everyone complaining about this change, when was the last time you flew DJ or JQ?

 

[drewbles]

Is it common sense though?

On the Ask the Pilot thread, we have comment from the resident expert about the issue.

jb couldn't have put it any better. From a real pilot. 'nuff said really!

 

[drewbles]

For everyone complaining about this change, when was the last time you flew DJ or JQ?

About 30 minutes ago (was reading this post on my phone as I was taxiing in )

 

[el_rooto]

About 30 minutes ago (was reading this post on my phone as I was taxiing in )

You're not complaining about the change though

 

[drewbles]

You're not complaining about the change though

Oh. You're right. Just pointing out the fact I have no problems with the procedures so am happy to fly DJ (and their superior J hard product IMHO on the 737). Very relaxing