I think these comments belong at that other forum with all the "professional armchair pilots" ;)

Facts are usually backed up with more than a random reference to a 1997 board meeting.

Interesting that the QF share price dropped by 2.2% today while most other shares rose slightly. Imagine the share price if their was a hull loss or a crash

Now back to the real topic please, interested to hear the official report of this incident at LAX once it is released

Hey Adam, this is a good and important discussion to have. If QF is not paying enough attention to safety then this need to be brought up. But claims should be substantiated with facts, references etc so we all can form an opinion.

Outsourcing maintenance to Asia for example is not a bad thing in itself. Lufthansa Technik for example is doing some heavy maintenance for the A330s in the Philippines. I personally have as much faith in a LH technician than I have in a QF engineer in Melbourne.

And so far we have no idea what actually caused the incident.

Someone gets it!!
 

DownUnderFlyer,

I am renewed to discover that someone else out there thinks that safety is important.

Maybe those critics of my concerns will now reconsider that as the bottom line and the big picture my concern stems from what I see as a lowering of safety standards.

Any human life is too important to be calculated in a number crunching exercise.

As far as the quality of those outsourcing technicians, sometimes where there is outsourcing there is a lower standard, be it in any industry not just aircraft mainteance.

Carpe Diem

Adam

No one said safety was unimportant. This forum encourages open discussion and personal opinion, and I welcome yours. But several people took exception to the way you presented your opinion as fact. That kind of statement can make it hard to have an open discussion on both facts and opinions.

This thread is turning rather pprune like :confused:

Who are you though? I don't know what profession you are in but unless you are involved with airlines I am not sure how you can make these assertions based purely on your own uneducated (in relation to airline maintenance) opinion.
Agreed. Do you have proof that this is occurring otherwise what do you base this statement on?

That maybe so, there are also many successful instances of outsourcing, I would counter probably more positive than negative experience, but we are not discussing the pro's and con's of outsourcing generally we are speaking specifically of QF which you claim as fact has lowered its safety by outsourcing. Again without any evidence why should we believe you?


If it was a board level decision where is the memo/minutes?

You have made that assertion before, you have been asked to back it up before, and have failed to do so. Such statements are bordering on libellous.

Dave

Gosh I'm not good at this. AdamPenrith, you have also implied Boeing's recommended maintenance schedule isn't adequate and potentially unsafe. Working in a regulated industry myself, I feel safe in assuming that published maintenance schedules are not intended to test boundary conditions.

If I were a stockholder in QF, I would be annoyed to think that money was being spent examining bolts, rivets and engines not due for inspection for many, many more cycles. Is your concern on the training of overseas engineers or something else?

On another point, I've been a passenger in one aborted takeoff of a commercial aircraft. It was a small turbo-prop with only 12 passenger seats. As far as we were concerned, all the wheels were off the ground before the pilot aborted. We slammed back to the runway and braked hard before taxiing to a halt. The pilot turned around to us, still using a mic, and said that a warning light had come on at rotation that could have meant one of three things. He'd checked them all and couldn't find anything broken, so he was going to try again. :eek:

Look at the profile - I guess that has something to do with travel. :rolleyes: Read his other other posts and then give weight to the comments. I've made up my mind about the weight they deserve. I'm mindful of the wise comment about not feeding the trolls. :cool:

I just did the same thing, over the past week various complaints about QF maintentance and profits, a whinge about NZ being only worried about profits. A whinge about an AMEX card not being worth the annual fee etc etc

How about we ignore the troll and get back to the topic ?

[mod hat]
Guys remember to attack the argument and not the poster.
[/mod hat]

they have mechanics in Australia? :confused:

There is always a V1 and it is always less than, or equal to, VR. At come weights the calculated VR might be less than V1 but, in such cases, VR is increased to equal V1.

On most takeoffs an abort after V1 is possible for a brief period but there's no way to know when that period would end so the only aborts after V1 are when control is lost or the ability of the airplane to fly is seriously in doubt. An abort after VR is unlikely to end well.

Minor items which would trigger a low-speed abort (generally under 80 to 100 knots) are not enough to justify a high-speed abort (from ~100 knots until V1). Once in the high-speed portion of the takeoff, aborts will likely only be accomplished for serious problems such as engine failure, engine fire or loss of directional control. The decision is the Captain's.

The tires have thermal plugs which are designed to pop allowing the tires to deflate when the tire temperatures rises too high. This prevents overheated tires from exploding and causing more damage and possibly a fire. After a high-speed abort the possibility of brake/tire fire is the prime concern. There are brake cooling charts which specify a minimum amount of time that must elapse, without any tires blowing their thermal plugs, before another takeoff can be attempted.

Yes. http://redefine.dyndns.org/~andyr/bl...g/DSC05595.JPG

You think this is the same guy doing repairs?
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f4...R/DSC05828.jpg

Those two pics are great

Love it