To: SASless
I don’t know where you are located or which authority runs the show so what I will say here is based upon the USA. In the first paragraph you hit the nail on the head. Businesses of any type are run to maximize profits without excessive expenditures to maintain the business in a viable state. Just look at the major business in the United States that were run to maximize profits for the shareholders and the top management with no regard for the people working for the company. Whether it is an aircraft operation or energy conglomerate the situation is the same.
In your second paragraph I can only say it is sad that this condition is allowed to exist. Firstly the certification authority is supposed to make periodic visits to operators to determine that the maintenance is performed in according with manufacturing instructions and that there are no deviations taking place in the performance of that maintenance. You as a pilot have your ass on the line every time you get into one of those aircraft and although it is a touchy subject you should notify the authorities about the situation. From a mechanics perspective if he / she certifies an aircraft as airworthy and something happens he / she can lose his / her license and is subjected to a stiff fine and possible jail time. So in order to protect himself / herself he / she should report the situation to the authorities.
Regarding the third paragraph it is sad but this is a nature of business. Even though the operator charges less the shortfall is absorbed in personnel costs and maintenance. Personnel can be let go and the remaining personnel just work harder.
In the fourth paragraph you outline the demise of the industry due to the new management philosophies. You then ask if the results of this management philosophy can result in increased accidents. The asnswer is most likely.
In paragraph five you ask if management is cutting too close to the bone. They are not only cutting too close they are cutting into the bone.
Regarding paragraph six the FAA and possibly other certification authorities constantly plead poor mouth in not having sufficient personnel to make periodic inspections. With the advent of several major commercial accidents the FAA budget was increased to hire more inspectors. This was pure window dressing as it only applied to the commercial operators and not general aviation and especially the rotary wing industry. Regarding the certification authorities turning a blind eye to the problems in the industry I can’t say. But since the FAA has a tombstone mentality the only time their eyes open is when there is an accident and then most of the digging and analysis is performed by the NTSB which has no authority to mandate changes to eliminate technical problems. Small case in point is that the NTSB wanted to pull the certificates of airworthiness from Robinson and the FAA fought them tooth and nail. Another individual that may be turning a blind eye is you local techrep. If he is not reporting these unsatisfactory situations to his home office then he is not doing his job.
The manufacturer based on design calculations and major testing determines the age of a helicopter and how long it can stay in service. The same is true for the dynamic elements and the powertrain to include the engine(s). The manufacturer specifies overhaul times and what repairs are allowable to return a part to service. The manufacturer of some operators can extend these intervals providing certain things are done. The government normally does not get involved with life extension programs unless it is a passenger jet. You have highlighted a major problem relative to crosstalk between certification authorities. It is like the flag of convenience on ships. If ships are registered outside of the United States even though an American company owns them they do not have to meet USCG regulations unless they operate out of the United States. When an American built helicopter crashes in a foreign country and that helicopter is registered in that or a third country the FAA does not get involved even on commercial aircraft. The only involvement is when the foreign country invites the FAA and the NTSB to participate in the accident investigation. As I had indicated previously the manufacturer sets the spares level when the helicopter is purchased. This spares level is not the same for all operators of that aircraft. There is a complex formula that is used and it considers operational environment, capabilities of the maintenance organization, skill levels of the pilots as well as many other things. On commercial aircraft they use a similar formula to not only establish the level of spares but it is also used to determine the warranty package. Also on commercial aircraft the operator has the option to sell the spares back to the manufacturer after one year if the spares allocation was excessive.
With all of that said I am going to give you some advice. You may personally think of me as being an assbite with this theory being shared by many on this forum but this advice is based on my own experience. Do the following:
1) Send you post to the Certification authority. See what their response is.
2) Send you post to the company that insures the operator. See what their response is.
3) Send your post to the manufacturers of the aircraft at your facility. See what their response is.
4) If the certification authority drags their feet send a second letter along with the post and tell them that if they do not take action and an accident happens then the responsibility is theirs. Also tell them that you will send the post to several aviation writers at major newspapers and aviation magazines.
5) Send copies of all correspondence to the NTSB or your accident investigation branch because in the USA the NTSB hates the FAA. It may be the same in your country.
Why am I giving this advice? It is because I uncovered two major catastrophic design deficiencies in a large commercial aircraft while doing my job. Management at the company and several other companies elected not to follow my advice because it would cost them money. After I left the company I felt I had done everything possible to effect a change in the design. When I found that this commercial airliner was being certified in the USA I sent a letter to the FAA outlining the problem. Four months later I received a letter from the FAA telling me that they had contacted the DGCA in France and they indicated that the problems were corrected. I contacted a friend at the factory and he told me the problems had not been corrected. I sent a second letter to the FAA telling them that if any thing happened relative to these two problems the responsibility would be theirs. They finally took action and the Vice President and the chief program manager were fired. Guess what. The problems were never corrected. Now if an accident happens I can sell my services for $500.00 per hour pointing out the failures of the manufacturers and the certification authorities.
