Ansett 767 Press Conference
MICK TOLLER: I will just give you, if I could, some background into what is happening with the Ansett situation. Yesterday CASA acted to ground three of Ansett's 767s. These are three of the seven aircraft that were grounded at Christmas time. Four of those aircraft have already undertaken their full inspections and are back in the air normally and the cracks - the crack that was found yesterday was found during a special test that was part of the program that was put in place at that time.
What happened at the time that we let the aircraft back in the air was we put certain conditions on it, on the program, such that if anything of a particular nature happened including cracks bigger than a particular size, then the program effectively ceased and the aircraft were on the ground until such time as the full program that had been missed by Ansett previously was undertaken. So that is the situation we are in today; that those aircraft remain grounded until the full tests are undertaken that should have been undertaken by Boeing earlier.
The issues are that these are very small cracks. They are not visible to the eye. They are only found with the special tests. But nonetheless, this is a precautionary measure and we believe it is a sensible precautionary measure. When we put the aircraft back into the air we effectively approved a program that was developed by Boeing as the manufacturer of the aircraft. Boeing, if you like, are the experts on 767s. They know far more about it than anybody else knows.
The program that they proposed to us was that the tests that had been missed should be undertaken over a 12 month period. We were not prepared to accept that at the time and insisted that it be done within 90 days. Also some of the tests which were only advisory we made mandatory. We said that they had to be done even though they were only advisory and we also put these certain other conditions that if we found certain things during the tests, the whole process would stop. So that is where we have got to today. Aeroplanes are on the ground. They will stay on the ground until the tests are completed and then they will be let back into the air.
I think it is important to emphasise that these are not the sort of issues that are actually threatening safety of aircraft. When we talk about cracks it sounds horrendous but in fact these are minute cracks within a structure which is expected to crack. You will always find cracks in an aircraft. You would find cracks in your car if you did this sort of testing in your car but it does not stop you driving your car. It is important though that we do this sort of testing. The analogy I have been using today when thinking about it, it is a bit like going to see a skin specialist about a blemish on your skin. The earlier you do that the better. And if there are any suspicions or if you want to be absolutely certain, then you do that fairly regularly. And if there is a problem developing, that allows you to take action as early as possible.
This is a very similar sort of process in terms of looking after aircraft which are very complex pieces of machinery that move around a lot and do always have things like very small cracks within the structure. The design is intended to ensure that that does not create a safety problem.
The grounding of the aircraft is part of our continuing review of what are the immediate safety concerns. And I think by grounding the aircraft obviously we have taken a very firm action in this basis. The investigation into Ansett as to why no checks were undertaken when they should have been is continuing. We will probably have - I have asked for an interim report by the end of this month but it is a long process and it is important that that process be done correctly. It has got to be done so that any action that we take against Ansett is supportable by evidence that if necessary is acceptable in a court. We do not know where this will go. I am not prejudging it, but that is the level of the quality of evidence that we need to take while we are doing the investigation.
So that is what we are moving towards, a thorough investigation, and the outcome of it will be that we will be firm with Ansett but we will be fair to Ansett. I think that is all I have got to say as a statement but I am very happy to take as many questions as you like.
QUESTION: If the problems are so minuscule, is it unfair on Ansett to possibly take the action of grounding? Could the actual repairs be done, say, in the morning or could be done over a day rather than actually grounding the aircraft? Ansett I think are probably in damage control and I suppose the general passenger may make this - think of a crack as being a huge crack in the tail. I mean, is grounding the appropriate action?
MICK TOLLER: Grounding the aircraft is the right action at this time because the original tests that were due to be done and which did not get done would be finding out just what the magnitude of the problem is. Now that we know that we have got one instance where the crack is larger than we said was the acceptable limit, we need to then do a full test of the whole aircraft; all those parts of the aircraft that are due for the test. And until we have done that, we actually do not know. So the simple answer is we do not know how big the problem is and if we do not know how big the problem is, in the circumstances we play it safe.
QUESTION: So in a sense would you know when these planes would be up and .....
MICK TOLLER: That is entirely up to Ansett. It just depends how long it takes them to do the full checks on the aircraft. One of them is in the hangar, I understand, undergoing full maintenance and having the checks done already. I think another one possibly was in the hangar and one has been taken off the line.
QUESTION: Did Ansett object to the planes being grounded?
MICK TOLLER: I am not aware of them objecting to the planes being grounded. They were very much aware of the fact that if an occurrence like this happened during the program that we put in place to put the aircraft back in the air, then that program would cease. And that is effectively what has happened now. The program that was allowed to put the aircraft back in the air has ceased. The aircraft are grounded.
QUESTION: Did they suggest this course of action?
MICK TOLLER: This is a course of action that came out of CASA's original requirements for the testing. Having said that, it was a very simple decision last night to say these aircraft are grounded. They can have no complaints whatsoever about it.
QUESTION: Do you think you made a mistake then by not grounding them before Christmas by giving them the 90 day extension?
MICK TOLLER: No. As I said earlier, the program that gave them the extension was a program put in place by the manufacturer. It was a much tougher, much more conservative program than the one that had been proposed by the manufacturer. The manufacturer are the experts; they are the people who understand the systems and have the total knowledge of how 767s in this case behave worldwide. However, the process that we have put in place was much more conservative than the Boeing one and I think therefore it was a very sensible one. It was a tough, conservative way of getting the aircraft back in the air requiring certain requirements. If those requirements could not be met then the aircraft go back on the ground.
QUESTION: But in hindsight, now that you have grounded these three planes because of these hairline cracks and they were not discovered a month ago or just before Christmas, has that not been a period of three weeks of danger flying by these two aeroplanes because they were not on the ground?
MICK TOLLER: The aircraft that have been tested, four of them have passed, okay - - -
QUESTION: No, but the two with the hairline fractures.
MICK TOLLER: Four aircraft have passed the test. Of those that were still to be tested, we always knew we were going to find certain things. It was a question of defining the magnitude of those things. As I said earlier, these are not the sort of cracks that are a threat to the safety of the aircraft, they are the sort of thing that needs to be checked, needs to be fixed when it is found but there is a design system in there which ensures that a crack in a part like this has no major effect on the safety of the aircraft.
QUESTION: Then why the decision to ground them? I am just trying to gather ..... seriousness of it.
MICK TOLLER: No, I see where you are coming from.
QUESTION: I mean - and the - - -
MICK TOLLER: I see where you are coming from. I mean, you have got to draw the line somewhere I think is the answer. We know there are cracks in old aircraft - and these are old aircraft, they are probably the oldest 767s in the world. We know what we believe is an acceptable size of those cracks for the aircraft to continue to fly. One crack has been found that is outside that size. We do not know where the other aircraft stand at the moment. We do know that four of them have passed, but the three that have not had their tests completed, we do not know where they stand. The fact that one is outside our - one crack is outside our limits is enough for us to say "Let's test all the other aircraft before they go back in the air." Then that puts them back to the same situation they were in or would have been in if Ansett had done the tests at the right time.
QUESTION: How many 767s has Ansett got?
MICK TOLLER: I believe they have got 10 - or maybe 11 now. Four of them are much younger than the others, but seven of them are the original aircraft. I think Ansett was the launch customer of 767 and these were, you know, first deliveries.
QUESTION: Is Qantas' fleet of a similar genre?
MICK TOLLER: No, the Qantas fleet is younger and has done less take-offs and landings because of the nature of the flying that Qantas does with its 767s. Qantas have in their system the requirement for this test but none of their aircraft are even close to the stage at which this test has to be done.
QUESTION: At this stage it has just been 767s. Can we feel confident that other aircraft will not showing up with these problems?
MICK TOLLER: All aging aircraft are monitored. Old 737s certainly are monitored in a similar sort of way. It is up to the manufacturer to decide what those processes should be, what the schedules of various inspections should be, and each manufacturer has that responsibility. Now, most of the older aircraft are in fact Boeings, and Boeing have a schedule for every aircraft. So each aircraft will be tested according to whatever schedule is necessary.
QUESTION: It is just the external skin that is being checked or engine components being checked - - -
MICK TOLLER: No, it is not the skin, it is not the engines, it is actually the frame of various parts of the aircraft. The frame of the tailplane, the frame of the wings. It is inside the aircraft, if you like. It is not the sort of thing that you would see if you just walked up to an airport and had a look in an aircraft. It is right inside the aircraft. It is the main structure of the aircraft.
QUESTION: What about the engine components .....
MICK TOLLER: Same thing. Engines actually tend to be in various ways checked far more often than airframes. The maintenance system on engines is such that they get a much more frequent inspection. Part of that of course because they are - they have got a lot of moving parts, they work in very difficult environment, very hot, so really engines are a very different issue from the airframe. The airframes are, you know, harder to inspect and that is why it is important that the inspection program is put in place by the manufacturer. Anecdotally it may be worth, just for background, recognising that in the late 80s, 747s had a much bigger problem than this one with the 767 in terms of a cracking around the nose area around by the front door where the first class passengers get on. And, I mean, it was not a question of grounding 747s at that stage, but it was a question of putting in a process, and that process is actually a complete rebuild of the nose section of a 747 which is undertaken by all the old 747s when they come up to a certain number of take-offs and landings. There is a history of a very similar occurrence but a much more significant one.
QUESTION: In the wash-up of this most recent safety scare, would it be worth considering putting a life span on planes or maybe a maximum number of flights that they can actually take before they need to be retired from service?
MICK TOLLER: All aircraft are fatigue tested by the manufacturers and they have a life. It is significantly higher than anything we are talking about here. Aging aircraft has been a topic of discussion ever since what we call the "cabriolet 737". I do not know if you recall Hawaiian Airlines had a 737 where literally the whole of the top skin ripped off and it ended up looking a bit like a convertible. And this would have been about 1987 I guess, and that really first brought to the fore the fact that some aircraft aged a lot more quickly than others, and that is an issue of what people do with it. I mean, Hawaiian, they are sort of wandering between the islands and they are going up down, up down all the time and this was putting a pressure on the aircraft that the designers had never anticipated. And it did give us the opportunity to start as an industry recognising that aging aircraft is an issue and there have been a number of major studies of the whole area of aging aircraft since then. It is not a question of do you put them on the ground. You know, there are some very very safe - there are still some DC-3s flying at 60 years old. But it is question of recognising where the potential problems may be and making sure that those areas are either inspected or replaced or maintained in a particular way.
QUESTION: Technically how are the aircraft actually examined? I mean, do they walk around with a giant magnifying glass?
MICK TOLLER: No, there are a number of inspection techniques. If I said that there is an x-ray technique, there is a eddy current technique, there was a penetrating dye technique - I mean, there is a lot of techniques that the engineers use and in many cases a specific technique is required, but in some you have a choice. But they are all metallurgical ways of checking the health of a part of the aircraft.