doc

Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is to widen its investigation into Ansett after the grounding of another of the airline's Boeing 767.

The Ansett jet, grounded last Friday, reportedly flew for a week between Hong Kong and Australia despite being fitted with an incorrect part to its wing.

CASA will now extend an investigation it began earlier this month into Ansett's management and maintenance operations after last December's grounding of seven jets.
http://news.airwise.com/stories/2001/01/980774316.html

ffhound

Hi all

Overseas readers may not quite appreciate the extent to which this is getting media coverage here in Australia. A string of such mishaps since Christmas has been widely publicised on Australian TV. The authorities have been very direct and stated quite categorically that it is not the maintenance engineers's fault these incidents have been happening - the fault rests squarely with management.

Expect a big shakeout at Ansett management methinks.

All this will be good for air travel safety in Oz.

cheers Peter

doc

Australian regulators say shortcomings in Ansett Australia Airlines' maintenance program are part of the reason the carrier missed key Boeing 767 inspections, but hinted that better communication between the U.S. manufacturer and its customers could have prevented the problems.
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...ansett0201.xml

doc

Ansett Australia, the country's second largest airline, said on Thursday it would implement changes required by Australia's air safety authority after a series of embarrassing incidents.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) ordered Ansett to ground seven of its Boeing Co (NYSE:BA - news) 767-200 aircraft just before Christmas after the discovery of ``minor airframe cracks'' during safety inspections.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/010201/syd171901.html

doc

Aviation analyst Peter Harbison said it was only a matter of time before Singapore's flagship airline made a strategic move on to Ansett's share register...

...Singapore Airlines already has a 25 percent stake in Air NZ and wanted to buy into Ansett Australia last year, but the New Zealand carrier used its pre-emptive right to block the Singapore bid.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/index/0,1...279a13,FF.html

Jetkid

Hi

Okay I'm new to this but as a New Zealander reading this I wonder about a few things.

1. Why have both groundings taken place right before public hoildays?

2. Is it true that Boeing, Air NZ and Singapore Airlines all said the planes were, and are, fit to fly, yet CASA still grounded them

3. Is it true that CASA only grounded the planes after speaking to enginerring staff?

4. Could those staff members be unhappy with 'their' airline being owned by a New Zealand company?

There seems to be an increasing number of people in NZ who are questioning the action taken by CASA. Could it be that there are people in Oz who aren't happy with Ansett being owned by Air NZ?

Who knows but I think you will find there are a few other NZers asking the same sort of questions.

MukMuk

jetkid, maybe they shouldn't have employed enginerrs!

ozstamps

People at Qantas laugh and say they are not sure whether AN is run from Melbourne, Auckland or Singapore. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

------------------
~ Glen ~

doc

Parent company, Air New Zealand, threatened legal action against CASA to recover losses to its operation and reputation. Air New Zealand chairman Sir Selwyn Cushing said the possibility of a lawsuit against CASA could not be ruled out.
http://news.airwise.com/stories/2001/04/987593318.html

Gaza

Jetkid

Aircraft have strict maintenance schedules. While they may be perfectly serviceable, the manufacturer states that this and that must happen afetr XXX number or flying hours or landings. These rules are there to ensure the airworthiness of the aircraft.

If a car manufacturer says that you must have the car serviced avery 12,000 miles but you do not do it, and the engine fails after 20,000 miles because there is no oil in it, then you are unlikely to have a claim. You thought you would ingnore the schedule as your friend who has the same car and who also does not have it serviced drove fot 100,000 miles without any trouble.

Your friend was lucky. You were not. Is it worht the risk? I think not. Now apply this to a 767 that can carry 250+ people.....It might be okay but then again it might not.

Jetkid

Gaza

Thanks for your reply. Perhaps CASA (and the Australian taxpayer?) will help fund new aircraft for AN in the long run?!

doc

THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority had lost control of the big airlines and they were effectively regulating themselves, a leaked internal CASA document claimed yesterday.

As Ansett yesterday lobbied CASA and the federal Government to keep flying, a draft CASA report on the first 767 groundings said the regulator had failed to fix problems identified by the Auditor-General two years ago and might have misled the Senate about the pace of reforms.
http://news.com.au/common/story_page...55E421,00.html

doc

Australian Premier John Howard has defended the country's Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) against accusations it failed to properly oversee maintenance directives to Ansett Airlines.
http://news.airwise.com/stories/2001/04/987681669.html

doc

"The 'show cause' notice will not be issued. It is an artificial deadline and is now quite flexible," a CASA spokeswoman told the newspaper.
http://asia.biz.yahoo.com/news/asian...or_Issues.html

doc

Ansett Airlines has overcome a major hurdle with the aviation watchdog giving the airline the all clear to continue operating.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newslink/...apr2001-61.htm