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

Your expert engineering solution has been noted. May I suggest you now update Boeing and Qantas to ensure modifications as specified are carried out without exception to all 737 NGs regardless of operational cycles completed before each aircraft flies again..

Edited by kgwilson
  • Agree 1
  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kgwilson said:

Your expert engineering solution has been noted. May I suggest you now update Boeing and Qantas to ensure modifications as specified are carried out without exception to all 737 NGs regardless of operational cycles completed before each aircraft flies again..

Mr Wilson, most agree the pickle fork issue is just showing how normal maintenance proceedures work and there is nothing to worry about.

The standout point some are making is that the way most airlines are being run now by penny pinchers with regard to safety coming a distant blip with Airlines main priorities being

1 Increasing CEO salary

2 Increasing upper managers salaries 

3 Increasing middle managers salary

4 Company yearly profit

5 How they can maintain or reduce workers wages

6 Self promotion and press blitzing

7 Maintenance, overseas in a third world country if possible

Edited by Glenn1
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggested if it is cracked, it needs replacement. 

 

If it is not cracked, it needs very regular inspection.

 

The normal repair method does not suit the part at all. It is not a skin crack in one of thousand s if rivets. It is one of four. Its design does not allow for a patch.

 

If that seems unfair or not normal practice, I suggest a crash course in physics is needed. 

 

Would any seriously use a aircraft that had 25% failure of your spar/ landing gear connection to the airframe on one  lower side? Would you accept the word of your builder? After they are caught lying about their next model?

 

Would you accept their cheap fix assurances? When the complexity of the parts indicate that as not a standard fix?

 

Some will say, but that's normal practice or be reasonable. They need to take off their pilot hat or vested interests. The public needs to be safe and insular " we know best " thinking is why we are in this Boeing mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Litespeed said:

 

 

The normal repair method does not suit the part at all. It is not a skin crack in one of thousand s if rivets. It is one of four. Its design does not allow for a patch.

Would you accept their cheap fix assurances? When the complexity of the parts indicate that as not a standard fix?

 

 

Hi Litespeed, just curious if you are a LAME or AME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that young aircraft, superior pilots and a legacy of good maintenance points to an airline which is safe.

In my opinion safety can be seen by looking at the safety record and Qantas has a good record.

One of the problems with safety nowadays is the number of poor pilots who sit at the front of airliners. I very much doubt if a lot of them could fly an ultralight, I certainly wouldn't let one loose in my Corby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

Hi Litespeed, just curious if you are a LAME or AME.

:roflmao: I think we all know the answer to that ........:roflmao:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"superior pilots and a legacy of good maintenance points to an airline which is safe."

WAS

Now that good maintenance has gone, oversea,s.

As it's cheap. Any savings went to the CEO's pocket

spacesailor

Share this post


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

"superior pilots and a legacy of good maintenance points to an airline which is safe."

WAS

Now that good maintenance has gone, oversea,s.

As it's cheap. Any savings went to the CEO's pocket

spacesailor

https://www.qantas.com/au/en/about-us/our-company/our-departments/engineering.html

 

If you look at the chart on this page you will see that all Qantas base maintenance is done in Brisbane.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M61A1 you are spoiling a good story with factual information 😍

Share this post


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

https://www.qantas.com/au/en/about-us/our-company/our-departments/engineering.html

 

If you look at the chart on this page you will see that all Qantas base maintenance is done in Brisbane.

"Base maintenance" as opposed to service, general, annual, where are they all done?

 

Share this post


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

Well, the first three date back to 2014 and earlier, one is about having a maintenance depot in the US  where they spend a lot of time, and the last about some 717 maintenance in Singapore, who also deliver high quality maintenance. 

It makes a lot of sense to have maintenance depots anywhere you might be travelling regularly. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never ever claimed to be a Lame or anything.

 

Never would but that does not discount my opinion nor my concerns.

 

I do however have a science background and two eyeballs.

 

How can the part be repaired to its pre cracked strength and also be sure it will not crack again?

The fundamental answer is ....it can't without replacing the part with one that is new and proven to specs. It is not a skin or even a spar- they can be repaired in some cases.

 

The pickle fork shown and many hundred others have been shown to not be up to the task they were designed and installed for. 

 

It is 1 major load point of only 4 in the lower part of the fork. No simple drill stop technique and a patch with new fastener will work. It is a substantial monolithic part. It is no simple bracket. 

 

For those that know more, please demonstrate. 

 

 

Share this post


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

So all Qantas maintenance is NOT done in Brisbane then?

According the link I posted from the Qantas website, their BASE maintenance is done in Brisbane. Base maintenance is the major stuff.

 

44 minutes ago, Litespeed said:

I never ever claimed to be a Lame or anything.

 

Never would but that does not discount my opinion nor my concerns.

 

I do however have a science background and two eyeballs.

 

How can the part be repaired to its pre cracked strength and also be sure it will not crack again?

The fundamental answer is ....it can't without replacing the part with one that is new and proven to specs. It is not a skin or even a spar- they can be repaired in some cases.

 

The pickle fork shown and many hundred others have been shown to not be up to the task they were designed and installed for. 

 

It is 1 major load point of only 4 in the lower part of the fork. No simple drill stop technique and a patch with new fastener will work. It is a substantial monolithic part. It is no simple bracket. 

 

For those that know more, please demonstrate. 

 

 

 Cut and paste from Australian Aviation magazine: Somewhat less than the "many hundred" you mention

 

Qantas head of engineering Chris Snook said the AD was “very deliberate”.

“What we saw is what we thought we would see if a crack would occur,” Snook told reporters.

“I think there is an integrity issue with the component on the basis there is an AD related to it. There is not an integrity issue with the structure. There is redundancy built into that structure.

“The load limit on that structure hasn’t been compromised by this crack.”

The airline had no 737-800s with more than 30,000 total flight cycles.

Virgin Australia has said previously it had completed checks on 19 of its 737-800s affected by the AD and found no cracks.

Overseas, there were about 50 aircraft that have been grounded after cracks were found in the “pickle fork” component, Agence France Presse reported.

 

Other sources have  suggested that it may just  be a manufacturing fault with that particular component as they changed from a wholly machined item to a forged item at some point, and may just be related to certain batches.

In any case, there is redundancy built into the structure, and they are removing anything with cracks from service until repaired so all the panic is completely unjustified

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have been inclined to believe the experts In the past, but taking into account the debacle with the Max, I have no faith in them now. Qantas has cracks appearing at 30% of the time expected, so does that show that they are getting less than they were led to believe.

Qantas know that if one of their 737s crashes it will be  a major blow to their financial wellbeing, so I cannot see them hiding anything. Boeing is another matter altogether and I think they are at the stage when a lot of problems are coming home to roost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/11/2019 at 4:09 PM, Litespeed said:

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.

 

I have seen a pic of the crack and it is nothing like #44. The area is clean even green only paint with clean gold fasteners like you would expect in an aircraft of this age. I think I saw enough fasteners to allow an engineered alternative load path that I would be happy to fly however I am not an engineer.

 

Why have some failed, bad design ?, manufacture ?, installation ? or were they just built to light so the Veronica' s could carry on big bags that they could not lift into the overhead lockers.🤔    

One thing is certain, between  the regulators, operators, and manufacturer it will be addressed.    

Edited by Thruster88
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In situations like this they devise a fix that "works" structurally and that is then an approved process. There's plenty of planes that had doublers on wing spars etc.Sometimes they just keep an eye on it and drill a hole at the end of the crack to slow it up. Periodic checks are then done at intervals appropriate to what's happening with the crack(s).   The entire rear cabin bulkhead with door (the problem) was replaced on some high time DC-9 s... The weight of the engines  and the tail fin hangs off that part and it's a pressurised bulkhead. When it was removed the whole rear of the plane just flopped around in the breeze...Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, Lionair have found cracks in pickle forks in 737NG aircraft that have done considerably less than the mandated 22,600 cycles ....

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-08/lion-air-reports-cracks-in-new-boeing-737s/11687598

 

Kind of makes the Qantas union calls for grounding and checks on all the Q 737NG's look a little less dramatic now, doesn't it?

Lionair carried out the crack checks, despite there being no official need to carry them out, and despite the aircraft not fitting into the "affected" models, with the required number of flight cycles.

Edited by onetrack
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still would look for the cracks and ASSESS them in these circumstances. There's no excuse for not doing inspections in this situation. Of course in an ideal world nothing like this would happen, but corrosion and cracking  does happen. It's not just cycles. In flight turbulence, rough runways and things like repeated heavy braking hard sideways landings all have an effect but are variables. In some cases there are manufacturing variables too UNFORTUNATELY.  It's also a fact that planes are not built to the strength levels they generally were some time back. Now it's a rush to have  a light structure and have a better Payload/ AUW ratio .Nev

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/11/2019 at 3:06 PM, facthunter said:

In situations like this they devise a fix that "works" structurally and that is then an approved process. There's plenty of planes that had doublers on wing spars etc.Sometimes they just keep an eye on it and drill a hole at the end of the crack to slow it up. Periodic checks are then done at intervals appropriate to what's happening with the crack(s).   The entire rear cabin bulkhead with door (the problem) was replaced on some high time DC-9 s... The weight of the engines  and the tail fin hangs off that part and it's a pressurised bulkhead. When it was removed the whole rear of the plane just flopped around in the breeze...Nev

I remember seeing plenty of cracks in company Partenavia P.68 wing,they were drilled and several, 4 or 5 strips were riveted across the crack.Plane was eventually slotted to  receive new spar.Heavy landings on these and C206's was prime reason for cracks so i was told at time.Maybe Virgin pilots have been drilled on this.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon that to denigrate litespeed for not being a lame is dead wrong. I know a really stupid lame, and it annoys me that the qualification is grossly over-regarded.

If I had my way,  the Standards lot  would be able to give and take qualifications based on testing.  I bet litespeed would beat lots of lames.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the bureaucracy that puts a lot of "back-yard mechanics" out of getting a certificate.

Even the great, "late" Sainty was not a certified mechanic, but what an engine he created.

spacesailor

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...