Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
red750

Qantas urged to ground all 737's

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

No offence intended just a gentle poke.  

Are you stealing the CEO's words ? :spot on:

Or was that Phil Mc Crackins ?

Edited by Butch
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they didn't make it to their planned service life which is why the AD was promulgated. This has happened throughout the aviation industry for years. Sometimes ADs are only done after a total failure, eg 737 Max.

 

The AD requires all 737 NGs with more than 30,000 cycles to be inspected within 7 days. All 737 NGs that have 22,600 cycles but less than 30,000 cycles have to be inspected within the next 1000 cycles. Qantas say that it will take about 7 months for their 737 NGs to fly another 1000 cycles. They have been proactive and inspected the 33 of their aircraft with 22,600 or more cycles within 4 weeks of the US FAAs AD. None of these aircraft had 30,000 or more cycles & Qantas could have taken months to check them to comply with the AD. They found cracks in 3 of them & grounded those 3. Virgin had 19 over 22600 cycles & found no cracks.

 

Why all the hysteria when they have complied well before the required timeframe? Who in the media, forumites & even Qantas Engineers is more knowledgable than the manufacturer & the FAA. Both have been under the microscope for some dodgy practices but why would they try to continue those processes especially at this time? Everyone is entitled to an opinion but making demands for groundings with no expertise in the actual problem is an emotional response to something that the demander knows little about.

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the engineers are saying the aircraft should be grounded, who in Qantas has the right or expertise to say that is nonsense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jabiru7252 said:

If the engineers are saying the aircraft should be grounded, who in Qantas has the right or expertise to say that is nonsense?

I don't think the engineers are saying this. It was said by union management. Qantas have completed the inspections in a more timely way than required. Some people are never happy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I must ask, who in the Union has the right or expertise to comment? Surely they would consult the engineers? Maybe I'm expecting too much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Qantas handling this in manner that is different to other airlines? Are the US airlines grounding entire fleets or just particuclar aircraft?

I dont particularly have an informed opionion but will be flying in one next month. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if the Engineers Union is a militant one or not but whenever unions see an opportunity to bolster their own importance they will do so and especially so if they think they can get some extra money out of it. Also do you think these engineers have more knowledge of the issues surrounding the cracks in the picklefork wing assembly that the manufacturer and certifier?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. October 2011 - CEO of Qantas grounds the ENTIRE airline for 3 whole days, over "excessive" union demands and disruptive actions, for better pay and employment conditions for Qantas employees.

 

CEO says this unfortunate decision had no alternative, and "that this (grounding) is the fastest way the airline gets back into the air" (?)

Meantimes, millions of Qantas passengers and passengers on partner airlines (not to mention thousands of airline and airport employees), suffer major disruption to travel plans, suffer personal losses, and develop serious levels of anger towards Qantas management. The grounding is reputed to have cost Qantas itself, in the order of $60 million minimum.

 

2. October 2019 - Qantas Engineers Union, seriously concerned over the level of cracking in a major structural component of Qantas' 737 NG's, urges that Qantas management ground all uninspected Qantas 737 NG's to ensure maximum Qantas passenger safety.

Qantas management is outraged, claims the Engineers Unions demand is "irresponsible", and says "(the cracking problem) is being dealt with seriously, and in the appropriate way.”

 

Oh, the massive irony!!

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-01/qantas-says-three-boeing-737-found-with-cracks/11661320?section=business

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kgwilson said:

I don't know if the Engineers Union is a militant one or not...

Only one or two at the top. But that is all it takes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/10/2019 at 10:23 PM, Litespeed said:

They should be grounded, no exception.

 

If it cracks at a third of life cycle something is seriously wrong.

 

Bugger Boeing and shareholders this is a critical safety issue.

 

If you think otherwise- let me come over and makes some cracks in your spar. That should be fine.

I trust you can back this up with an engineering degree, calculations and modelling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, M61A1 said:

I trust you can back this up with an engineering degree, calculations and modelling. 

Just like Boeing did with the 737 Max, backed it all up with engineering degrees, calculations and modelling, we all see how that went. Lion Air were still flying when they knew from the engineers to the top level managers that something was seriously wrong, they still let the aircraft fly with disastrous consequences. That's what happens when you let corrupt management do what they like with no regard to human life. 

The CEO of Boeing was asked several times if he was going to forgo his pay bonus because of the problems with the Max, he wouldn't answer the question, dollars are more important than anything. Keep em flying what's the worst that could happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Glenn1 said:

Just like Boeing did with the 737 Max, backed it all up with engineering degrees, calculations and modelling, we all see how that went. Lion Air were still flying when they knew from the engineers to the top level managers that something was seriously wrong, they still let the aircraft fly with disastrous consequences. That's what happens when you let corrupt management do what they like with no regard to human life. 

The CEO of Boeing was asked several times if he was going to forgo his pay bonus because of the problems with the Max, he wouldn't answer the question, dollars are more important than anything. Keep em flying what's the worst that could happen?

Best stick to the relative safety of your lounge chair then. All aircraft go through this sort of process, and most have some sort of issues occur in their working life and are handled in the same manner. 

The emotive carrying on proves nothing. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, M61A1 said:

Best stick to the relative safety of your lounge chair then. All aircraft go through this sort of process, and most have some sort of issues occur in their working life and are handled in the same manner. 

The emotive carrying on proves nothing. 

😁

Probably. The point I was making is that you cannot take the word of a governing body or a multi national company as good anymore. This is proven beyond doubt by the 737 Max issue.

If you don't listen to those critical of some decisions then ultimately it ends in tears. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Glenn1 said:

😁

Probably. The point I was making is that you cannot take the word of a governing body or a multi national company as good anymore. This is proven beyond doubt by the 737 Max issue.

If you don't listen to those critical of some decisions then ultimately it ends in tears. 

I think that Boeing would trying very hard right now to dot all their 'I's and cross all their 'T's and trying very hard to avoid any further negative publicity.

I have found the engineers (the people that do the sums and testing) that work in that part of the industry to be extremely risk averse, to the point of painful. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its all well and fine to day the Boeing engineers are great and know what they are doing.

 

But they are not in control, the bosses are. They have been proved untrustworthy with actions of over 15 years of fraud and building non compliant aircraft.

 

Even today Boeing is betting on hiding stuff will still get them through. 

 

Qantas has form for safety last, profit first.

 

You can bet the US would be much harder on a Airbus in this situation.

 

They would say it is not certified and not flying. The Ng was never legally certified due to massive fraud that was swept under the carpet. What else is the design hiding?

 

On a strict legal case the 737 ng would be permanently grounded as it never met certification. All ng production had fraudulent paperwork and non compliant parts fitted- major safety items.

 

But no way will USA act on that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Qantas has form for safety last, profit first.

Litespeed. Would you care to explain how this can be.

I doubt that you will be able to find another airline with as good a safety record as Qantas. Certainly not KLM who I have seen quoted as safest during an internet search.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CASA listed the pickle fork AD, direct from the FAA, on the 3rd Oct 2019, without any CASA modification or comment.

The AD is simple - if cracks in the pickle forks are found upon inspection, the aircraft is grounded until they are repaired.

 

IMO, the cracks are of concern - but I note that the cracks found, do not appear to be extending past the first rivet hole, meaning the rivet hole is effectively dispersing the stresses causing the initial cracking.

Under general engineering practices, minor cracks can be prevented from propagating by drilling a hole in the component, which under the laws of fracture mechanics, spreads the stress concentration, and stops the crack from continuing - unless the stress levels are exceptionally high, whereby a crack will then commence again, somewhere around the hole circumference.

 

It's not unusual to have cracks in highly stressed components. They are a warning, that the component has inadequate fracture toughness, or is fabricated from inadequate strength material, or it has an initial flaw, which has led to the crack propagation. Often, just a scratch, or a chip, or a depression in the surface of the highly stressed component, is the commencement point for a crack.

 

The problem with metals is that increasing their strength by adding small percentages of alloying metals, or heat-treating the metal, usually leads to reduced fracture toughness.

It's a fine balancing act, developing high strength components that still have adequate fracture toughness, so they can resist cracking.

 

If the crack in the pickle fork was found to be extending beyond the first rivet hole, I would be greatly concerned about the problem.

As it stands, the crack stopping at the first rivet hole is effectively showing us there is a high level of stress in that component - but at this point, it is not alarming enough to ground every 737 NG ever built.

 

http://services.casa.gov.au/airworth/airwd/ADfiles/over/b737/2019-20-02.pdf

 

It's also interesting to find that the cracking was not discovered during routine maintenance and inspections, it was discovered during passenger-to-freighter conversion work.

Edited by onetrack
  • Like 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yenn said:

Qantas has form for safety last, profit first.

Litespeed. Would you care to explain how this can be.

I doubt that you will be able to find another airline with as good a safety record as Qantas. Certainly not KLM who I have seen quoted as safest during an internet search.

It could be said current Qantas safety is more a matter of the legacy of the engineers that still get to work on them, most servicing is done elsewhere.

 

Another factor is the relatively high pilot standard, go to jetstar and the pilots pay and experience tends to drop.

 

Also the fleet in quite young and works in a high regulated environment.

Modern jets are far safer per mile than older ones. If a airline running modern gear is not far safer than its older fleet brethren, the something is very wrong.

Qantas is not immune from a crash, lots of near misses. A combination of luck, our relatively empty skies, long air times per cycle and few big airports all help.

 

The fact they closed the airline to force in increased profits but slam any safety talk by engineers, speaks volumes for their culture.

 

For some, Qantas could choose paper airplanes and still would refuse to see it as anything but the safest.

 

The exact culture that has driven Boeing is alive and well in Qantas at all levels. Profit at any cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Litespeed said:

It could be said current Qantas safety is more a matter of the legacy of the engineers that still get to work on them, most servicing is done elsewhere.

 

 

Actually 2 years ago the head engineer of servicing (whatever his position title) flat out rejected having any service work done in China after an intensive tour..

 

... He's a freind of a close friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A comment on the crack....

 

That component shown only has four fasteners in that area to take the loads. 1 of 4 are cracked. It is not just, drill a crack stop hole and replace the fastener repair. The crack is 25% of the load ability of that area.

 

This has failed in less than 30% of life cycle. That is a inherent failure of the part in poss 5% of the aircraft at this few cycles. How many will fail by 90000?

A very large number could be expected.

I agree it is very worrying this was not detected in normal inspections. 

Boeing must be spewing they did not have more paint spilled around, it would have covered the crack.

Could we really expect a repair to resolve this, I think that is very wishful thinking.

 

Total replacement with new pickle forks that are fully tested and actually built to certification not bodge parts are needed.

 

No new pickle- then they can get forked.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...