captcloudbuster I am struggling to follow you.
I get the impression that no matter which way this is handled you will find something wrong in it.
Perhaps we should go back to basics and ask some very simple questions-
Defect ratio's used to be spread across all stations more or less evenly because most stations had an engineer present.
Manufacturers however have still not produced the defect free aircraft. Aircraft go wrong all the time as the rate of defect reporting remains consistent. So the issue isn't whether we have defects because the same logbook statistics tell us we do.
All aircraft including modern ones depart station A, land at station B and usually have something defective. Could be minor could be more serious. An autopilot A fault is just as serious today as it was 40 years ago. No change. System redundancy is the same today as 40 years ago. The difference is only in the amount of space such systems take up on board and the increased reliance on technology to reduce size and weight.
Yet 40 years ago an engineer would have been at station B awaiting that defect. Now there are no engineers at stations so what do we do?
The fact is that based on a flawed logic that modern jets don't go wrong or defects are less serious than 40 years ago, the way defects are handled has changed.
How do we know this?
Globally defect ratio's are no longer evenly spread. ALL AIRLINES produce similar results 92% of defects are written up going into a manned base.
Airline management also like to compare aircraft maintenance with modern day cars often citing the need for less maintenance and longer servicing intervals. However we are not talking about scheduled maintenance we are talking about the daily operation of the aircraft.
And to make a further comparison with cars, national car breakdown associations have a similar statistic which reports 75% of their call outs are to cars out of home base. Only 25% of call outs are to the owners home. I would suggest this reflects reality and aviation should be reporting a similar statistic. It isn't.
And it is getting worse. Birds and lightning strike damage inspections are now being performed and assessed by pilots at unmanned stations. On what basis are you making these highly technical and safety based decisions?
amount of blood determines remaining airframe strength or severity of damage?
But where I do agree with you is that we need to find a solution to this situation. Safety is being undermined. Intentionally or not is actually irrelevant just as who is to blame. We need to come together to find a way of stopping it before more people die. I chose my words carefully because there have already been avoidable accidents due to this irresponsible attitude to handling defects.