Employees call for Rex to be grounded over safety issues

Read the story here. Further aviation related videos foll at top of page -Boeing 737 , and Jetstar squeezing in more seats.

Great advertising. It won't stop people flying in it's planes. People buy good tyres and shoes but fly the cheapest seats they can find in aircraft. probably not a lot of choice where REX flys.

Read the story here. Further aviation related videos foll at top of page -Boeing 737 , and Jetstar squeezing in more seats.

Don't worry about the seat pitch red, rumour has it that the seats are being redesigned with deep recesses for ones kneecaps. But the airfares may get a little cheaper:wink:

The seat pitch problem can be solved with cable ties. Just tie the pax legs to their seat frame.

Another article here....

Airline Regional Express (Rex) temporarily suspended ASX trade on Monday as it hit back against claims of shoddy maintenance practices.

A 17-page document sent to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority by the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association raised concerns about a “culture of fear” at Rex and urged CASA to revoke the carrier’s authority to service its own aircraft.

Among the allegations made by ALAEA, was that Rex committed serious breaches of safety regulations and discouraged employees from reporting mechanical defects.

The document was received by CASA in late May, and a spokesman for the regulator told The Australian they were taking the allegations very seriously.

“We’re still working our way through the document and as yet we have not found anything that would warrant immediate attention, but it is an ongoing process, and one that will be addressed thoroughly,” he said.

The company’s shares resumed trading on Monday morning after a brief pause. Shares 17 per cent dropped to a 22-month low of $1.16 during the morning but by mid afternoon had recovered some ground to be down 7 per cent at $1.21.

Among the avenues open to CASA as part of the investigation was increased surveillance of Rex’s work practices.

In Rex’s statement to the ASX, chief operating officer Neville Howells said ALAEA had advised the airline it was CASA, not the union, that made the complaint public.

“Realising that these baseless accusations are not getting any traction, some are now taking the despicable and cowardly approach of launching anonymous malicious attacks on Rex,” said Mr Howells.

“Rex had already invited senior management of CASA on June 18, to have a full briefing on the matter as well as to discuss the professional failings of the disgruntled engineer (who authored the document).

“We believe that our safety culture, as part of the Safety Management System is second to none.”

He went on to say CASA had even written to Rex on May 22 to advise that the regulator had no current safety concerns with the carrier.

“CASA is satisfied that Rex is meeting all of its obligations,” said the letter which predated the engineer’s complaint.

Mr Howells said it was now up to CASA to decide if its safety culture was lacking in any manner.

Two years ago, Rex made headlines worldwide when a propeller came off a Saab 340B aircraft mid-flight, landing in dense forest southwest of Sydney Airport.

As a result, additional inspection steps were added to propeller shaft worksheets for aircraft engineers, although the problem was ultimately the fault of the engine manufacturer.

For one thing, it's only CASA which can strip a person of their authority to maintain aircraft or aircraft components - not an employer. All an employer can do is cease to give permission to the person to carry out this type of work.

Secondly, CAR aside, WH&S legislation demands that any person who has concerns that any situation could result in harm to any person, must report the situation to a person who can investigate and determine if the situation requires corrective action. Under WH&S legistlation If there is knowledge that rust on a prop shaft could possible result in failure of the shaft and consequent harm, then the person who observed if is legally bound to report it. Once reported, it is the responsibility of the person to whom it was reported to investigate and take appropriate action.

If there is knowledge that rust on a prop shaft could possible result in failure of the shaft and consequent harm, then the person who observed if is legally bound to report it. Once reported, it is the responsibility of the person to whom it was reported to investigate and take appropriate action.

I have seen maintainers make items unserviceable for "corrosion" because there was a reddish discolouration on a stainless steel part. It clearly wasn't from the the part in question and wiped of with a rag, but once written up a fix and a reference must be also written up.

It would be interesting to see exactly what was found and also what the limits are. Without seeing it, it's hard to determine whether it was an issue or whether someone was just making it an issue. Given that CASA had no concerns might give you a clue.

CASA is certainly not over endowed with expertise. To have it you must want and look for it and then be prepared to pay the going price to get it and keep it. It can't be a sheltered workshop to spend in your pre retirement phase. or have an innate culture against change . .Nev

The problem is in the interpretation.

My bad! I formatted that post badly, and have tried to make my point clearer.

I was using the example of rust on a prop shaft to indicate that something out of the ordinary, which in the mind of the observer could be a safety issue, is worth reporting. If investigation shows that all it involved was dirt, then the matter can be finalised, and Life moves on.

When investigating a failure in any system, one should always go from "worst case scenario" to the expected. For example, if a person's body was found in a park, the first assumption investigators would make is that the person was murdered. By investigating the body and the surrounds, the final deduction as to cause of death might be that the person simply died of natural causes.

My bad! I formatted that post badly, and have tried to make my point clearer.

 

I was using the example of rust on a prop shaft to indicate that something out of the ordinary, which in the mind of the observer could be a safety issue, is worth reporting. If investigation shows that all it involved was dirt, then the matter can be finalised, and Life moves on.

 

When investigating a failure in any system, one should always go from "worst case scenario" to the expected. For example, if a person's body was found in a park, the first assumption investigators would make is that the person was murdered. By investigating the body and the surrounds, the final deduction as to cause of death might be that the person simply died of natural causes.

Perhaps I could have been clearer as well. I’ m talking about the maintainers who interpret the maintenance documentation and damage limits in the manuals. The original article seems be be inaccurate also....they say employees have concerns, when the reality was, an ex-employee had concerns.

I feel sorry for Rex, journalism is pathetic now days.

Bit strange really, they appear almost to be trying to become unemployed!

??? REX or the disgruntled ex-employee?

A friend I've known for nearly 20 years was an engineer for Rex. The treatment he got from management has destroyed him, he's lost everything, job, home, family, everything.

A friend I've known for nearly 20 years was an engineer for Rex. The treatment he got from management has destroyed him, he's lost everything, job, home, family, everything.

Why did he not leave if not happy, plenty of places large and small to work as an engineer.

maybe he had a very old fashioned idea of being loyal to his employer?