Risk Management Plan Based on a Near crash of Qantas Flight 32 - Case Study Example

Table of Contents Risk Management Plan; The Near crash of Qantas flight 32 2 Executive Summary 2  Introduction and Aims 3 Aims 4 The customer 4 The manager 4 The Qantas team and Risk Testers 4 Case study and analysis 5 Risk identification and collection of feedback 6 The risk value 7 The risk research expert 8 The consultation team 8 Conclusion 8 The lessons that can be learned from the case 8 References 11 Risk Management Plan; The Near crash of Qantas flight 32 Executive Summary Qantas flight 32 was a plane passenger flight that experience disorderly engine failure in 2010 November 4th which made it to make an emergence landing at Singapore Changi Airport. The failure was new to Airbus 380, the globe’s largest passenger aircraft. On examination, it was realize that that turbine disc in the roles-Royce had disintegrated. The airbus experienced damage to the nacelle, the wing as well as the landing gear. The failure was due to breaking of the stub oil pipe that had been developed incorrectly. The safety standards at Qantas led to temporary grounding of its fleet of the A380 as well as extermination and engine replacement on some roles-Royce powered A380 in service with Lufthansa as well as Singapore Airlines. The Australian Transport safety Bureau found that many oil feed stub pipes were developed with tinny wall which was not in conformity with the specification standards. The non-compliance pipes fitted in the engine trend 900 entailed the engine number 2. This lead to reduced life of oil feed stub pipe on the internal oil fire. The safety report provided that many issues at the time of developing the oil pipes lead to their release into the services with noncompliance of oil feeds stub pipes. The issues pointed out the significance of providing precise manuals at the time of developing procedure as well as staff adhering with the process. As much as the current turbine are dependable with rare occurrence of events, the outcome damages from failure may be important as well as vital effect disastrous. This accident depict the changes for the regulatory authorities to consider any lessons learned into the accrediting advisory paper to improve the safety if future aircraft designs[Jam01]. The rolls Royce engine as well as the Qantas learn took drastic efforts in ensuring that HP/IP hum manufacturers are in compliance with oil feed stub pipes standards with frequent servicing in order to guarantee their safety continuity operations. Rolls once as well released an engine management software updates that entails an IP turbine overspend safety system which is designed to shut the engine prior to turbine disc overspending. In the improbable event that same failure happens. Rolls Royce has as made a variety of transformation to their quality control system to enhance the manner to which they control in order to enhance the manage to which they control non-compliance parts, both at the time of production procedure as well as at the time of it being identified that parts had mistakenly been released into the service with non-compliance[Pau021].  Introduction and Aims A risk is a negative event occurring to a business and can vary from various sources, that is, uncertainty in financial markets, legal liabilities, natural causes or even disasters. If any of the event occurs, the cost, plan or the performance of a project is affected. The whole project assumes some risk. Risks with great losses or impact are usually dealt with first followed by those with less impact to a business or project. Risk management helps one have a good control for their risk. Risk management in Qantas flight 32 is considered as a continuous process, which keeps on throughout the whole project life. It entails setting up of objectives, event identification, risk assessment, risk response, control. It is the duty of the risk control to minimize the likelihood of a risk as well as effect of an occurrence of an event critical to the project. Qantas flight 32limited focuses on identification of risk prior to the initiation of the project as well as the extent of risk growth as the project advances [Jam01]once a risk is identified; it is examined to determine the likelihood of its occurrence. The risk event might affect just a single part many sections of the project. The possibility of existence and extent to which a risk affects a project will be a basis for assigning priority to the risk. Aims The Aim of the study is to analysis the near crash of Qantas flight 32, the factors that lead to engine failure as well as examining the risk measures that were to be instituted by Qantas in managing such risk occurrence on their fleets. The approach in choosing the risk management issues entails the identification and involvement of stakeholders of Qantas flight as far as flight 32 is concerned. The following stakeholders were therefore deem important in understating the near crash of Qantas flight 32. The customer The customers of the company are the shareholders in risk management. This is because they are concerned with the near crash risk situation and performance of Qantas flight 32 as far as their consumer reliability and services provided to them by Qantas flight 32is concerned. The manager The project manager is the one with interest in the near crash of flight 32 and its risk management since, he or she is unrestricted to the risk performance, evaluation and advices the company in order to guarantee a continuous concern statement. The project manager will thus be the shareholder of the risk management in appraising the near crash of Qantas flight 32. The Qantas team and Risk Testers The Qantas team makes up part of stakeholders since they are concerned with the success of their risk management plan and are affected by the risk management plan they have created. The testers of the Qantas flight 32 are the team that is interested with the risk management plan because they are part of the risk project team with the aim of ensuring that the risk management plan is well planned and managed at all levels to ensure a successful risk alleviation in Qantas flight 32[Har071]. Case study and analysis The Australian Transport safety Bureau found that many oil feed stub pipes were developed with tinny wall which was not in conformity with the specification standards. The noncompliance pipes fitted in the engine trend 900 entailed the engine number 2. This lead to reduced life of oil feed stub pipe on the internal oil fire. The safety report provided that many issues at the time of developing the oil pipes lead to their release into the services with non-compliance of oil feeds stub pipes. The issues pointed out the significance of providing precise manuals at the time of developing procedure as well as staff adhering with the process. As much as the current turbine are dependable with rare occurrence of events, the outcome damages from failure may be important as well as vital effect disastrous. This accident depict the changes for the regulatory authorities to consider any lessons learned into the accrediting advisory paper to improve the safety if future aircraft designs. The rolls Royce engine as well as the Qantas learn took drastic efforts in ensuring that HP/IP hum manufacturers are in compliance with oil feed stub pipes standards with frequent servicing in order to guarantee their safety continuity operations. Rolls once as well released an engine management software updates that entails an IP turbine overspend safety system which is designed to shut the engine prior to turbine disc overspending. In the improbable event that same failure happens. Rolls Royce has as made a variety of transformation to their quality control system to enhance the manner to which they control in order to enhance the manage to which they control non-compliance parts, both at the time of production procedure as well as at the time of it being identified that parts had mistakenly been released into the service with non-compliance. Risk identification and collection of feedback The risk in Qantas flight 32 near crash might be identified from various sources. Some risks might be evident whereas some are usually identified. The Qantas flight 32 team were accountable for controlling risk. The project team members are usually assigned their areas of responsibility and must report to the risk manager. Risk awareness needs all the stakeholders in every team to be aware of what is involved in a risk to the project and also being cautious of events that might significantly affect the project[Pau021]. The flight 32 required a risk assessment order to establish the risk as well as its impact of the near crash of Qantas flight 32 and probability of their occurrence in other Qantas fleets. Assessment of risk entails two factors. One is the likelihood that is the appraisal of certainty that a risk will occur. Qantas flight 32 uses the current technology and a high security in the operation of the airbus. In examination the Risk mitigation in Qantas flight 32. The process involves two steps, that is, the identification of numerous activities or procedures to reduce the chances or the effect of unfavorable risk and creation of a possibility plan to deal with the risk at the time it occurs. In Qantas flight 32limited, reducing the likelihood of an unfavorable risks occurring might be efficient as well as affordable. The event of justifying a risk must be recorded in a risk catalogue as well as be frequently reviewed[Har07]. The risk contingent planning involves a plan or a sequence of events, in case of a difficult risk occurrence. Contingency plan for Qantas flight 32 ensured that the pilots and the cabin crew had the concepts in advance in order for them to take action in case of the near crash of the Qantas flight 32 which was fully observed by the pilots and his crew in managing the risk of crash. The Qantas Airline had a risk track and reporting that ascertained whether events that cause a risk occurrence, which may have contributed to the near crash of Qantas flight 32, risk factors, must be controlled. On a daily basis, the risk manager for Qantas flights controls risk alleviation activities. The possibility plan allowed as well as started is included in the risk working plan. Risk management is a continuous process that will keep throughout the life cycle of Qantas fleets. In order to control such near risk of Qantas airlines, the risk phases cycles must take into consideration which involves constant activities of risk identification, risk evaluation, planning for fresh risks, controlling the trigger situations as well as the possibility planning and constant reporting which involves a section on risk control where forecasted risk is identified with changes in the present risk. Some risk characteristics like those that the likelihood as well as the effect might change at the time of project lifecycle therefore must be reported [Jam01]. Qantas airline instituted some measures to mitigate for risk such as the near crash of Qantas flight 32. Some of the agent involved in advancing the risk management team for Qantas airline are as follows. The risk value They are risk experts who are accountable for appraising the danger of near crash of Qantas flight 32 and the appropriate evaluation of the risk in order to ensure that the risk is properly appraised and its impact examined thoroughly in order to mitigate for same risk occurrence in the future to Qantas fleets[Pau02]. The risk research expert The risk research expert are concerned with the duties and responsibilities that he or she will be researching in emerging the what lead to the near crash of Qantas flight 32, the impact of the current risk as well as identification of a future risk that might affect the other Qantas fleets and understanding the threat of the risk to Qantas airlines. The consultation team The consultation team are responsible for apprising the risk at all levels of the risk management of Qantas flight 32 near crash. This is ensure that all risks both current and future risks are well taken care off in understanding what lead to the near crash of Qantas flight 32. The team therefore plays a significant role in ensuring that a complete risk management plan is all setup for Qantas flight 32 near crash[Mic061]. Conclusion The lessons that can be learned from the case To guarantee that the risk management plan is complete, an inspection checklist need to be done and provided to the risk manager and having the method to have the project dismantled if it turns out to be with errors. This guarantees that the risk occurrence is controlled. Communication with Qantas flight and recommendation of the best way forward in carrying out the risk assessment on time and handing it over to the risk management team at the time of risk inspection is mandatory for all fleets. The responsibility of the risk management team is to get in touch with Qantas flight 32 stakeholders in order to gather the finished checklist and creating disassembling plan in order to understand what lead to a near crash of Qantas flight 32. The information concerning the level of errors in roles-Royce engines and the level of completion involves time taken for the processes to be finished before the risk management team of Qantas Airline making the final report on the cause of the near crash of Qantas flight 32. The risk manager will be informed of the checklist needed in every stage of risk management. The project team will inform the Qantas flight 32 inspection team of the checklist requirement within a week of the risk project commencement[Jam01]. The Australian Transport safety Bureau found that many oil feed stub pipes were developed with tinny wall which was not in conformity with the specification standards. The non-compliance pipes fitted in the engine trend 900 entailed the engine number 2. This lead to reduced life of oil feed stub pipe on the internal oil fire. The safety report provided that many issues at the time of developing the oil pipes lead to their release into the services with non-compliance of oil feeds stub pipes. The issues pointed out the significance of providing precise manuals at the time of developing procedure as well as staff adhering with the process. As much as the current turbine are dependable with rare occurrence of events, the outcome damages from failure may be important as well as vital effect disastrous. This accident depict the changes for the regulatory authorities to consider any lessons learned into the accrediting advisory paper to improve the safety if future aircraft designs[Kim10]. The rolls Royce engine as well as the Qantas learn took drastic efforts in ensuring that HP/IP hum manufacturers are in compliance with oil feed stub pipes standards with frequent servicing in order to guarantee their safety continuity operations. Rolls once as well released an engine management software updates that entails an IP turbine overspend safety system which is designed to shut the engine prior to turbine disc overspending. In the improbable event that same failure happens[Dic08]. Rolls Royce has as made a variety of transformation to their quality control system to enhance the manner to which they control in order to enhance the manage to which they control non-compliance parts, both at the time of production procedure as well as at the time of it being identified that parts had mistakenly been released into the service with non-compliance. The finished checklist will then be obtained from the project team specialist after project completion. In following the above procedure set in ascertaining and managing risk for any airlines will ensure that the occurrence of near crash such as for the Qantas flight 32 will be minimal since, the risk management team will be certain of the risk level in their fleets as well as providing appropriate advice in an effort of mitigating risk. The Legislative requirements and government policies that will affect Qantas fleets and any other airline company will aid in providing support, insurance policies, taxes, mandatory insurance plans as well as control of an insurance cover since, these are the main government policies that are important in risk management. This policy requirement states that the every registered company has a need for a risk management policy in place and must have an insurance of property against risk[Mic101] References Jam01: , (Inhofe, 2001), Pau021: , (Royer, Project Risk Management: A Proactive Approach, 2002), Jam01: , (Inhofe, 2001), Har071: , (Schott, Risk Management: Concepts and Guidance - Page 4-3, 2007), Har07: , (Schott, Risk Management: Concepts and Guidance - Page 4-3, 2007), Pau02: , (Royer, Project Risk Management: A Proactive Approach, 2002), Mic061: , (Michael Frenkel, 2006), Kim10: , (Heldman, 2010), Dic08: , (Dick Billows, 2008), Mic101: , (Carpenter, 2010), Read More