Qantas engineers defy order to reduce safety checks
Updated: FWA has issued the requested orders restraining Qantas engineers from performing the excessive safety checks
In an argument that invokes the Mad Hatters Tea Party Qantas is taking action in Fair Work Australia against its licensed aircraft engineers for continuing to perform safety checks the company says are no longer needed.
The airline makes some very sound claims about how changes in airliner design render the checks unnecessary although its pilots will continue to do walk-arounds of its 737-800s and A330s looking for stuff that just doesn’t look right.
The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association in turn makes a pretty convincing case that based on the routine detection of faults affecting aircraft, what Qantas is saying doesn’t work.
It says “… we found that only 11.7% of defects were found at ports with no licenced engineer present as opposed to 88.3% with one present.
“Having both a licenced engineer and a pilot do a pre-flight safety check led to 8 times as many errors being identified prior to each flight on average.”
This leaves those travellers who think about such things pondering questions as to whether Qantas might be proven dead right.
Given the trivial costs involved in the additional checks, which are part of the safety emphasis that the public values in the Qantas brand, this might not be the best issue on which to take a hard nosed ideological position against the union in question.
And how bad a look would it be if union members were to be jailed or heavily fined for insisting on extra safety measures, or if a jet has a very serious incident because of a defect that might otherwise have been picked up by an engineer?
It is true that newer designs have different, and in some cases more efficient and effective safety checking processes built into them. But in the bigger picture, the safety standards that used to set Australia above those of the rest of the world are sometimes being harmonised, or standarised, to world’s agreed best practice, and that is on occasion nothing more than weasel words meaning dragged down to what is also the world’s lowest permissible safety standard, because when it comes to aviation standards, they are one and the same.
The classic example of this was the removal of cabin life rafts from the Qantaslink Dash 8s that fly between Sydney and Lord Howe Island. This did bring Australia into line with the rest of the world, but where no-one flies a Dash 8 over an oceanic route comparable to this one, meaning that passengers who take those flights to LHI are protected by the near certainty that they will drown if one of the high wing turbo-props ever goes down in the Tasman, and that they are according to CASA, not entitled to the same degree of ditching protection that applies to Qantas Cityflyer wide-bodies for the few minutes that they might be over water making a flight between Sydney and Melbourne.
(Plane Talking has in the past tried to coax CASA into explaining the merits of no cabin floor launched life rafts between Sydney and Lord Howe Island, but without success. The reform is a triumph of regulatory ‘conformity’ over the unique safety imperatives of the route in question).
Categories: Uncategorized
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Whilst it is true most airlines do not carry out (and mostly get away with) a pre-flight check by a qualified engineer that does not mean it is a good idea. Readers should not be persuaded by the company spin of new aircraft do not require checks by engineers as they have you beaut monitoring systems. That is nonsense when you consider what engineers are in general looking for. I’ve yet to see an aircraft that at times does not have tyre damage, leak fuel, hydraulic oil, engine oil, get hit by bats or birds, suck foreign objects into engines , get struck by lightning, hit by ground support equipment etc. At times evidence of these are quite subtle, possibly serious and can occur (in the case of ground damage fuel leaks etc) after the pilot has carried out his or her checks. The ‘no pre-flight’ line is a sales pitch from aircraft manufacturers that allows airline operators to lower the standards of inspection and therefore costs. The numbers Ben has provided are interesting. Is it that pilots miss a lot of defects outbound or are willing to carry them to the next port? If either is the case surely this is not good. It is my understanding that any defect must be written up and reported for the next port of call.
by discus on Jun 14, 2012 at 7:03 pm
Ben:
On the same subject, Fairfax reports:
(emphasis added)
Strange how the Fairfax reporter *knows* passenger safety won’t be affected.
As with any inspection of complex machinery, two pairs of eyes are always better than one. As an ex-truck driver I never ever took the word of the yard grease monkey that the oil, water, tyres etc had been checked and I always checked that the bloke who’d loaded what I was driving had done a proper job. How much will Qantas save by this, and is it worth the risk?
by fractious on Jun 14, 2012 at 7:21 pm
This is a move by Qantas to “world’s best practice”. “World’s best practice” is management doubletalk for MINIMUM SAFETY STANDARDS or the cheapest way they can keep the operation going legally. When did Qantas adopt minimum safety standards as a Company goal?
Whatever this saves QF, whatever manager is making his KPI’s by this, is certainly not worth it in the long run. If Qantas doesn’t at least go above minimum safety standards, then what differentiates them from any other hit on Webjet?
This is NOT how Qantas made their reputation. But, it might be what further tarnishes their reputation going forward.
by Low Flying on Jun 14, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Remember when the front wheel feel off a Virgin Blue 737 taxiing out of Tullamarine in July 2009. Nobody noticed the badly corroded axel before or during pushback, until the pilot of another aircraft taxiing behind radioed that “your wheel has fallen off”.
Airline accountants’ desire to reduce the quality of pre-flight inspections may cost more in the end.
by comet on Jun 15, 2012 at 11:07 am
Qantas’s “claims about how changes in airliner design render the checks unnecessary” are rather undermined by the fact that it flies a lot of older aircraft (B767 and B737-400 in its domestic fleet and B747-400 in its international operations). Older aircraft don’t have the levels of pilot monitoring and systems redundancy of modern day aircraft, not to mention the higher wear and fatigue risks of those components that don’t get replaced during the routine maintenance cycles.
Hasn’t the Qantas board seen the Air Crash Investigation episodes to see the consequences of a missing de-icing boot, fatigue cracks around rivets or faulty cargo door locks? Or is it placing its faith in its Corporate Communications Section to spin doctor its way out of a major incident?
by nonscenic on Jun 15, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Simply brings Qantas in line with Virgin Australia, Jetstar, Tiger and almost every other reputable airline in the world with high frequency short haul ops.
Do not see them dropping out of the sky. Do not see anyone not travelling on them out of fear of safety.
So lets get real.
I am advised that this applies to Qantas domestic aircraft operations.
Also advised that when Qantas International long haul aircraft return to Australia (or say arrive in London, Frankfurt, Los Angeles etc) they are always subject to detailed maintenance checks by Qantas engineers.
The difference in frequency of reported problems at away ports versus major ports naturally relates to “allowable” defects that are carried to the next major port for rectification. Pilots will not fly the aircraft if it is going to jeopardise their own safety or the safety of their passengers. But for a minor (allowable) defect they do not want to be unecessarily stuck at an outport waiting for spares and engineers to be flown in (plus another crew if they are low on hours).
Those close to aviation also know that allowable defects are often carried for days until the defect is repaired on overnight maintenance at a major airport or when the spare becomes available, unless a new overlapping defect occurs and, because of the accumulation, they require immediate rectification.
All airlines (pilots and engineers) also realise that carrying various minor allowable defects increases the probability of a grounding. A single defect may be inconsequential but if something else goes u/s that is also maybe minor by itself but overlapping, it can lead to a ‘no go”. What is OK (allowable) and what is NOT (no go) situations are well documented in manuals, including the tipping points of accumulated minor or overlapping defects.
by DB2820 Postman on Jun 15, 2012 at 3:33 pm
“Pilots will not fly the aircraft if it is going to jeopardise their own safety or the safety of their passengers.”
Really …?
Surely you have forgotten all ready the ‘harden up princesses’ memo. If there is a culture of cutting corners , pilots can and do jeopardise the safety of the plane.
Heard of taking off from an airport with no runway lights once it has got dark?. No chance of returning .
Heard of not carrying enough fuel for an alternate on an air ambulance flight over water?
etc etc etc
by ghostwhowalksnz on Jun 15, 2012 at 4:01 pm
I might add, with the LAME report of reported defects outlined in the article above, I notice that they do not release “who detected the defect”.
My experience, granted it was many years ago, is that nearly all line maintenance defects (I would venture 95%) were first detected and reported by pilots and written-up in the logs. Anything major has to be rectified immediately. All defects have a severity or importance rating and these are well documented in the aircraft manuals.
Engineers first detect few line maintenance defects reported, but they fix 100% of them.
Things like metal fatigue, corrosion, etc are picked up on heavy maintenance checks. It usually requires sophisticated equipment to detect these things or a partial dismantling of the aircraft to see it.
Ground equipment coming into heavy contact with aircraft is always reported and then enginneers inspect it. It is not as if there are “no engineers”.
Ground staff never get into trouble if they report a heavy contact and they also know that they get into serious trouble if they don’t and it is detected later. This is drilled into them over and over and that they also have a responsibility for safety. Besides, if you are on an aircraft, you alwyas feel a heavy contact. If the crew are onboard when this happens they will always come off the aircraft and inspect it. Flight attendants also report these things.
Pilots when they do the ground safety checks look in all the known places. They are very familiar with the aircraft they fly. They check tyres, around the brakes, all pitots, all visible control surfaces, undercarriage and look for hydraulic leaks and fuel leaks and any hull damage. Bear in mind that a good deal of their training relates to aircraft engineering as well as flying.
by DB2820 Postman on Jun 15, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Oh Mr Ghost who walks. Tell me where an engineer makes any difference to the point you make.
Let me assure you that commercial airline pilots of Qantas, Air NZ, Virgin and the like are fastidious about safety and the airworthiness of the aircraft they fly.
by DB2820 Postman on Jun 15, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Mr Postman, regarding engineers, I wouldnt know and I did not say they did make a difference.
You did make a claim ,’will not’ and I provided a contrary view with evidence.
Commercial pilots from Virgin fastidious ?. The Queenstown takeoff ‘at dusk’ was a Pacific Blue (Virgin) aircraft and the pilot was a ‘flight examiner’. Maybe not that fastidious
by ghostwhowalksnz on Jun 16, 2012 at 7:23 am