Jubilee777 From Singapore, joined May 1999, 528 posts, RR: 1 Posted (12 years 11 months 15 hours ago) and read 1074 times:
For Your Info:
SYDNEY -- For the second time in a month, Ansett Australia faced the embarrassment on Friday of being forced to ground some of its jets and reschedule flights because of inadequate servicing.
The airline was ordered to take three Boeing 767s out of service after its engineers found a hairline crack in the horizontal stabiliser of one of two aircraft undergoing a compulsory inspection.
A third 767 was immediately grounded on turnaround at Melbourne Airport where similar cracks were found in its tailplane by Ansett engineers using ultrasound equipment.
The order came less than a month after the airline had to ground seven jets because of servicing irregularities.
Ansett services were thrown into chaos on Dec 23 when the company was forced to cancel 14 scheduled services, which meant delays for 18,000 passengers booked to fly to holiday destinations at the start of the Christmas break.
However, Ansett said only one flight had been cancelled on Friday and it would 'not experience undue disruption' because it had previously planned to remove two of the three aircraft for checks at this time.
Civil Aviation Authority (Casa) spokesman Peter Gibson said the cracks found presented no immediate danger, but they were concerning enough to mean the immediate grounding of all three aircraft involved.
He said the problem had also prompted Casa to immediately cancel an agreement under which Ansett was able to keep flying the seven aircraft grounded at Christmas after passing their date for routine aging inspections due after every 2,500 flights.
The three 767s were among the seven grounded at Christmas and two had been undergoing the compulsory inspections ordered at that time.
Ansett, recently bought out by Air New Zealand and now controlled from Auckland, subsequently came to an agreement with Casa under which it was permitted to keep operating the aircraft provided fortnightly visual inspections were made.
But Casa said it had cancelled the dispensation because of the latest problem. -- AFP
King767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 938 times:
It's not a problem with the 767! Its Ansett's fault! They don't need to get a fleet renewal program going, they need to maintain their planes better! This happens to all planes after a certain amount of time. What responsible airlines do is they fix these cracks!
USAirways737 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1026 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 936 times:
Like King767 said it's not the 767! If it was the 767 that had the problem then wouldn't you think that other airlines like AA or DL (that by the way operate a whole hell of a lot more 767s than AN) and others would be having problems with their 767s too? If I'd had to fly I wouldnt be asking to not fly on the 767s but ask to not fly AN!!
Feret From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 931 times:
A quick question. Do AA and DL B767-200s of the same vintage have anywhere near the same number of cycles as the affected AN aircraft? I doubt it.
I for one would much prefer to fly on a AN aircraft if it came down to a choice of the three airlines.
King767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 914 times:
Cycles have nothing to do with it. No matter how many cycles an airframe has on it, as long as it is maintinaed properly (Something AN did not do), its perfectly safe to fly. Feret, if you really do live by that theory, then your saying you won't fly on any major US carrier.
Feret From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 913 times:
Cycles are what it IS all about! Ageing aircraft inspections are the issue. I take it you really know little about aircraft maintenance by your statement. I have flown on several different US airlines and I stand by my choice.
King767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 907 times:
I take it you know little on how to comprehend a statement. Of course cycles are the whole point. What I was reffering to was that it does not matter if a certain aircraft has more cycles than another. It all comes down to maintence of the airframe. If an airline properly maintains an airframe porperly, than theres nothing to worry about. Of course it takes more maintence as a plane ages and a bit more looking for those hairline cracks, but your analogy reffering to US 767 and AUS 767s made no sense whatsoever. If were talking 767, then no matter what 76 you get, there all fine framewise, not like a 707 or 732 as you were reffering them to.
Feret From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 904 times:
Please clarify your last sentence. There is a mix up here somewhere. I have many hours on the 767 and the 707 and found nothing wrong with the latter's airframe. I also much preferred the 707 but enjoyed the performance of the 767. There are no 732s on the Australian register.
Feret From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 888 times:
You are right there. My neighbour is a AN ground engineer (on 767 among other types) so I am in the picture, so to speak. Definitely an oversight by Ansett and Boeing is not so squeaky clean as they are supposed to be monitoring the ageing aircraft progress to determine what has to be done in the way of inspections etc. Last year QF copped all the media flack. Looks as though this year it is Ansett's turn. Haven't seen a shot of either a QF or AN 747 sitting on its nose lately for sensationalism either!
King767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 885 times:
You state in your 1st post that you would rather fly on an AN frame than an AA or DL because of the amont of cycles on each. I did not say that there was something wrond with the 732 or 707 but was reffering to the fact that today these frames would have clocked up a large amound of cycles. No I did not say that there were and AUS 732s, I was just stating an example (I don't know where you got that one from).
Feret From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 879 times:
My choice has nothing to do with the actual number of cycles of an aircraft. Read into that sentence whatever you will! You seem to interpret things differently but then, according to you, I have a comprehension problem. Maybe that stems from being around aircraft for 37 years, scrambled my thought processes, then again maybe it was the layovers. BTW, I was speaking about 767s. You were the one who brought up other types. Why? I dunno.....
King767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 855 times:
You stated clearly in your post that you would choose an AN 76 over a DL or AA 76. It was obvious to me that you were talking about cycles. If not, what were you talking about. As to my statement about comprehension, I felt that was a fine way of putting it after you insulted me about my understanding of aircraft maintence I brought up the other types to use as an example of a high cycle aircraft, to what I thought you were reffering AA and DL 767s to, high cycle aircrafts. Well I guess we both have to make ourselves understood better, so no hard feelings.
The Best, Tom
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7866 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 825 times:
I have news for you folks.
I believe that the AN and QF 767's were bought almost at the same time. The problem with the AN 767's is they have went through nearly TWICE the takeoff-landing cycles of the QF planes, and that's why the cracks are starting to show.
I think what AN should do is buy a beefed-up version of the 757-300 that is designed for lots of takeoff/landing cycles.
Tullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1256 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 809 times:
AN's 762s are at least 2 years older than QF's. AN received their first 762 in 1983 whilst QF got their first in 1985 at which time QF was an international airline only therefore cycles are lower. QF did not commence using 762 on high cycle domestic routes until 1993 whereas AN's 762s have spent most of their life doing 1 hour jaunts between MEL and SYD, hence high cycle count.
The missed inspections were due to some shoddy paperwork by AN, CASA and Boeing. No one can take much solace from what has happened and hopefully they all learn from the incident. Fortunately no potentially life threatening faults have been found in any plane though listening to the hysterical media you would think the wings were going to fall off.
AN/NZ need to get on with their fleet renewal but I think we are still a few months away from any announcement. Hopefully Gary Toomey will progress it as a matter of urgency as I'm sure it would be a good "circuit breaker" from bad publicity.
I think we can safely say that there is no chance we will see the 753 in Australia. The choice will be between A332 or 764 if they decide to keep a widebody domestic fleet or A321/738 if they go for narrowbodies only. The 757 has never sold in Australia and the length of 753's single aisle would probably mean turnarounds would take too long. AN's 762s are often turned around in 30 minutes in Australia.
OZ777 From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 521 posts, RR: 6 Reply 20, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 796 times:
Sorry DeltaSFO, but according to the Boeing records, the AN 767's have the highest cycles.
If you had read the previous parts of this thread you would have seen the statement that the AN 767s essentially have only 60 minute sectors for their operation (in fact 90% of the time)
AA 762 have an average sector time of 124 minutes, and DL have 106 minutes as an average sector time.
Very difficult given the relative ages of the aircraft to have more cycles than the AN ones -- oh of course!!!AA and DL use theirs 26 hours a day or should that be 2.6 hours per day (the rest is spent in maintenance!!)