American re-Grounds its MD-80s

[wileydog3]

From Dallas Morning News this afternoon...

American Airlines canceling up to 500 flights to re-inspect MD-80s

05:56 PM CDT on Tuesday, April 8, 2008

By TERRY MAXON / The Dallas Morning News
[email protected]

American Airlines Inc. said it was canceling as many as 500 flights Tuesday to re-inspect its McDonnell Douglas aircraft, with more cancellations likely Wednesday.

“We’ve been working in good faith to ensure that we are in complete compliance with this airworthiness directive,” American Airlines chairman and chief executive officer said Gerard Arpey said Tuesday afternoon.
Also Online

Blog: Get the latest news and commentary on the airline industry

Link: D/FW Airport flight tracker

“We regret and apologize that we are once again causing inconvenience to our customers, but we will continue to work in good faith until we satisfy all of the technical issues related to this airworthiness directive.”

American canceled hundreds of flights two weeks ago for the same reason: to make sure that wire bundles in the fleet of MD-80s were properly protected.

American said the re-inspections are to “ensure precise and complete compliance with the Federal Aviation Administration’s airworthiness directive” and that the inspections “are related to detailed, technical compliance issues and not safety-of-flight issues.”

The Allied Pilots Association said the Federal Aviation Administration randomly inspected 10 MD-80s on Monday to make sure the jets had been properly inspected and modified. Of the 10, nine did not pass the audit, the union said.

At Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Dallas businessman Tony Morris, 45, was preparing to board his American flight to Minneapolis-St. Paul in mid afternoon when his BlackBerry and that of passengers around him began alerting them that their 4 p.m. flight was canceled.

The airport departure display, which just minutes before had been covered with blue to indicate the flights were going, quickly was covered with red labels telling passengers that their flights were canceled.

“There’s not a lot of happy people out here,” he said.

He and a colleague were catching an early-evening Midwest Airlines flight through Milwaukee and will still make their early Wednesday meeting, although they wouldn’t make a Tuesday evening meal with clients.

A D/FW Airport spokesman said at about 3:30 p.m. that American had notified airport officials that it would be canceling all flights using MD-80 aircraft Tuesday and expected there may be additional cancellations Wednesday.

The airport was advised the re-inspections would affect as many as 500 flights systemwide, spokesman Brian Murnahan said, and said American had canceled 193 D/FW departures for Tuesday. On an average day, American operates around 2,200 flights systemwide, including about 500 at D/FW Airport.

According to the Web site Flightstats.com, American as of 4:15 p.m. had canceled 320 flights.

At D/FW’s Terminal C, passengers filled the ticketing lobby near gate C-21, while the flight monitor showed cancellations in yellow. Some passengers said they had been waiting since 3:30.

Andy Bulkey was headed from Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. He said that his connecting flight was canceled, so he got rebooked on a 6:40 p.m. flight. After waiting in line for about an hour and a half, he still had at about three dozen people in front of him, but he considered himself lucky.

“My flight is a 757,” he said.

Employees from American handed out fliers with a copy of its press release about the cancellations on one side and travel rebooking information on the side. The airline flyer said that passengers would not be able to collect baggage Tuesday; bags would be forwarded on the first available flight to their destination. Meanwhile, passengers stood around talking on their cellphones and trying to figure out what to do.

Gerald Rogan was in Grapevine for a business conference and was scheduled to return to Sacramento, Calif., Tuesday evening when he found out his flight was cancelled. He arrived at Terminal C, saw the long line and called his travel agent. He ended up booking himself a flight on United Airlines for $805 so he could make a business meeting in Sacramento Wednesday morning.

Mr. Logan was confused by the cancellations. “It says right here that it’s not a safety issue,” he said, pointing to the press release that American employees were handing out. “So why are they canceling all these flights on an emergency basis?”

He said he didn’t have any choice other than to book the flight on another carrier. “American doesn’t have any other flights tonight,” he said. “I’d rather go home.”

Tracy Skelton was trying to get back to Nashville, Tenn., and was also frustrated by the cancellations.

“I’m not a flier anyway, and this isn’t a good experience,” she said. “I’ve got a 16-year-old at home, and I need to get back there.”

She said she called her sister to try to find other flights on other airlines.

“Southwest had a flight but I can’t get [to Dallas Love Field] in time,” she said. “I don’t understand how it could be OK yesterday but not OK today,” she said about the safety issues.

Patrick Carroll of Richardson was supposed to fly to Tucson, Ariz., Tuesday evening on an MD-80 before his flight was canceled. He said he’s scheduled for Wednesday, but he’s not sure what type of aircraft it’s on.

“That’s our concern — if it’s on another MD-80, we could still have a problem.”

Staff writer Suzanne Marta contributed to this report.

[jamier]

she said. “I don’t understand how it could be OK yesterday but not OK today,” she said about the safety issues.

I dont think she would be saying that if it was her aircraft that came down because of wire bundles catching fire/shorting etc

[Two's in]

Local News (Florida) reporting that the original A/D called for the wiring looms to be secured every 1''. Although the inspection 2 weeks ago showed no chafing or damage, apparently the engineers never checked the compliance with the 1" spacing on the securing ties. FAA QA check failed 9 out of 10 MD-80's for having ties spaced more than an inch.

Apparently, if you have just gone on Worldwide TV for non-compliance of an A/D the FAA can be quite picky over your subsequent recovery actions - who knew?

[sevenstrokeroll]

if at first you don't succeed try try again.

[AA SLF]

I always thought an AD was to be complied with - PERIOD.

It appears that folks at my airline don't take AD's seriously. THAT kind of attitude pisses me off, 'cause it very well could be my butt in the plane that has an incident while in flight.

Here is a link to an announcement from APA (Pilots Union) http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/

How do these folks expect to get away with this kind of stupidity? Oh, I see, they chat with Wee Willie . . . . . :sad: :mad:

[cwatters]

<quote> I dont think she would be saying that if it was her aircraft that came down because of wire bundles catching fire/shorting etc</quote>

Nor if she knew that was the risk. Bet she wasn't told why at the airport.

[groundbum]

grounding all planes suddenly does seem massive over reaction, caused I suppose by living in a litigous society such as the USA.

Really, these planes have been flying with the old wiring loom for ages, what are the odds the issue will reoccur on a plane in the next, say, 2 weeks? A normal cost-benefit analysis would say right this is serious, extra overnight engineers etc, but we will with the regulators OK take 2 weeks to do this job over the fleet.

All the time there are things flying around that aren't ideal, but I think the pendulum has swung too far towards zero risk.

I bet if these passengers and flight crew were offered the chance to travel if they agreed to after signing a waiver nad having read a reasonable blurb on the issue, 99% would do and the rest can have their money back with a smile.

G

[mrangar]

It's a 15 minute inspection from what I hear.. What a mess

[PPRNkof]

The FAA has been getting a lot of flak recently about being too cosy with the big Airline Companies! I'd guess that they're making a point!

I'd agree with groundbum about the risk vs impact of immediate groundings to facilitate inspection and if required, rework. However, I think that the 99% figure for take up would be overstated, if the PAX were informed about the fire risk.

Obviously, American Airlines maintenance should have done the job right, first time. So, I hope that they learn a lesson - I imagine that the cost of this, both financially and in terms of bad PR will ensure that this is the case.

[maybepilot]

Just wondering what's it like over here in Europe with MD80 operators....is maintenance better overlooked here since we don't hear anything from SAS,Alitalia,Spanair and alikes?
Or maybe the AD only affects N registered A/C?

[Huck]

I'd guess that they're making a point!


My God what timing though.

US airlines are in a free-fall right now. The very landscape will be transformed by the new price of oil and the lack of available commercial credit.

It's hard not to think that this may be deliberate... brought to us by the Open Skies White House to soften up resistance.....

[Erwin Schroedinger]

she said. “I don’t understand how it could be OK yesterday but not OK today,”
Maybe the clue to the reason for not understanding is in the word "she". :rolleyes:

[Check Airman]

I agree that it's not as if they'll start to drop out of the sky tomorrow, but the problem is that you never know when it will happen, so you've got to take the precaution. However, I believe it's more important to teach AA the lesson. They save a few cents by not doing it right the 1st time, now they're loosing big bucks trying to fix the situation. Hopefully other carriers are paying attention...

[Eboy]

Wall Street Journal "breaking news"

"American Airlines has canceled 850 flights today, due to continued MD-80 reinspections. Full article coming soon."

http://online.wsj.com/home/us

[Mr @ Spotty M]

So over the last few years the engineers from the US airlines have demanded that maintenance checks are not sent to MROs overseas, this because of fears of losing their jobs and they say poor workmanship.
So AA does its maintenance in house but seems not to be able to follow an AD written in their own tongue, l say that because they are sure as not written in English, as anyone who has read FAA ADs over the years will know what l mean.
So are all the engineers in the US going to apologise to the rest of the world and admit they are not so hot.:=

Standby for incoming.

[SaturnV]

CNN has a story today about AA problems with the MD-80 landing gear, and specifically the problems that arose on an AA MD-80 flight out of KMSP last December.

The American Airlines pilot says the plane's nose gear would not retract and he quickly began circling the Minnesota airport. But freezing temperatures and icy precipitation started to create problems inside the plane, Mayer says.

"Our windshield started to cover with ice from the bottom working its way up," he says.

"As we were running the emergency procedures, there was a pop. Everyone's ears blew out. We realized that we had lost the pressurization of the aircraft at that time."

Within minutes, Mayer managed to bring the airplane safely back to the airport. But when he inspected the exterior of the aircraft, he says the MD-80 jetliner looked like a "popsicle." The malfunctioning nose gear disabled the plane's anti-icing systems, according to Mayer, who says the wings and tail of the plane were freezing over.

This malfunction was probably unrelated to the wire bundles, but it illustrates how the media can take one dire situation and apply it generally.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/08/griffin.landing.gear/index.html

[Huck]

The air/ground switch failed, and the default is the ground position.

Therefore the anti-ice was disabled.

Good damn thing they hadn't armed the spoilers yet, or they would have deployed to the ground position. Valujet had that happen once.

[Mark in CA]

AP now quoting more than 1000 flights canceled today.

[PBL]

Sometimes I wonder why anyone bothers.

The French have trains running right now that can do SF to LA in two hours more or less. With all due respect to my colleagues in Monterey, San Luis Obispo and SB, there is nothing to stop such a train between SF and LA.

It's comfortable, you can spread out in it no matter what your weight, and you can open your laptop to its fullest extent, plug it in, and work the entire time, without being disturbed by or disturbing your neighbor. And without having to take your shoes off, or remove your nipple rings, before boarding.

As far as I see, the only weaknesses are (a) nobody thinks like that, and (b) LA has no particular center to which it would make sense to bring such a train (somewhat different to the situation in the 1930's).

Sorry, forgot one weakness. The sorry history of the Acela service (assuming that everyone else thinks they have to do as badly. Some people might conclude that there is only one thing less customer friendly than a US airline, and that is a US train service.

These are either the ravings of a mental midget, or of somebody thinking outside of the weirdly constrained US box (not that it's hard). Take your pick.

PBL

[Bubi352]

The FAA is all over the place now. In just one trip me and my captain were observed twice by FAA inspectors. In addition, they looked over all our paperwork and inspected the aircraft. A lot of pilots do not like to have the FAA behind their neck but I actually like it. It definitely forces companies to keep an industry standard.

[sevenstrokeroll]

PBL

not sure how we got on to the subject of a train between LA and SF. But I've flown that route many times.

You just said it. Even with a super train, it would take two hours.

But a plane can do it in about 1 hour.


Having driven the route, there are concerns like earthquakes...even snow , yes snow, closed the main road (interstate five) for a couple of days this year.

But the planes kept flying.


I love trains...but not doable out west in the US.

[chefrp]

Maybe it's about time to retire the MD-80's....
I wont fly on one...so at least I would not have had to deal with the delays......:)

and one response to groundbum.......fire on the ocean or in the sky is bad bad news and should be prevented at any measure....:=

[PBL]

not sure how we got on to the subject of a train between LA and SF.

That was me, free-associating from my preferred means of travel between the five European capitals closest to where I live. (Sorry for the distraction :-)


But I've flown that route many times.

Me too, but in my own plane, which was both (a) faster door to door than flying commercially, and (b) much slower than a TGV.

Even with a super train, it would take two hours.

But a plane can do it in about 1 hour.

Airport to airport, not door to door. Add an hour at each end for the journey to/from the airport. Or maybe an hour and a half to allow time to succumb to the tender mercies of the TSA.


Having driven the route, there are concerns like earthquakes
...

Trivial, as the BART tube under the Bay showed during the 1989 7.2-er.


even snow , yes snow, closed the main road (interstate five) for a couple of days this year.

Yes, well, our last snow here was two days ago. And a week ago I was travelling at 300 kph (186 mph for those of you who don't understand real units) all over northern Europe.

But the planes kept flying.

Can't have been anything significant, then.


I love trains...but not doable out west in the US.

All that space - a straight shot with no people in the way. If you were talking about a 300 kph line through the middle of Connecticut stockbroker country, comparable with what was just done in the south of England, maybe I would agree it would not be doable.

I think you missed the real clincher. Rail is monopoly economics. You have a line and somebody owns it. Any one of, say, ten unions can shut you down. Whereas the air belongs to anybody with a Boeing and a few dollars for a slot at Concorde and Orange County. And if you get shut down, your pal is up there with his Airbus instead.

PBL

[Basil Seal]

PBL

Would not one factor stopping high speed train service between San Fran and LA in the same manner as what the French have perhaps be the cost that our good friends from Gaul paid up to 11 million Euros per kilometer of new track in some sections of Eastern France?

Frankly I prefer the train, but not sure how that would cost out in CA.

[a convict]

Check out the movie here....

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/09/the-daily-show-dont-talk-about-flight-club/

'It’s all sort of ironic, when you think about it. When you fly, you are inspected quite thoroughly. Whereas the plane itself is perhaps occasionally vacuumed. See, with this administration, if a passenger blows up a plane, it’s a failure on the War on Terror. But if a plane just blows up on its own, eh, that’s the market self-regulating'

..NOT funny, ...really.

[Eboy]

Now, it is up to nearly 1,100 flights canceled on Wednesday.

About 900 flights to be canceled on Thursday.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080409/amr_cancellations.html?.v=17

[airfoilmod]

To think all those wires were at one time unsheathed and un-bundled gives one pause. Rocks, slush, mud, water, ice, snow. I'd rather have my conductors in conduit or routed inside the wing, I'll pay the extra couple bucks to maintenance for the harder access to inspect, brrrrr. (Are those snap ties holding the sheath?)

[Mark in CA]

>You just said it. Even with a super train, it would take two hours.

True, but when you fly, consider the time to get to the airport, the hour at the airport before the flight , perhaps waiting for luggage, and then getting where you want to be from the destination airport. I'd say it's a wash at the very least, if not in favor of the train.

[0497]

The FAA has been getting a lot of flak recently about being too cosy with the big Airline Companies! I'd guess that they're making a point!


My first thoughts as well. Both the FAA and AA are giving a bit of a f-you to Congress.


PBL

Would not one factor stopping high speed train service between San Fran and LA in the same manner as what the French have perhaps be the cost that our good friends from Gaul paid up to 11 million Euros per kilometer of new track in some sections of Eastern France?

Frankly I prefer the train, but not sure how that would cost out in CA.


In the north east (Bos-Wash), Amtrak in the last few years (air and road congestion) is a serious alternative. Something could be made of that in future.

Elsewhere ... maybe, population density could be a problem. In terms of CA? Driving LA-SF 6hrs, LA-LV 4hrs - most pepole drive. Californians would probably support a train but there'd probably be constant legal action from nimbys when a route is figured out.

[airfoilmod]

A suspicious person might remind us of the rumor re: AA banko, some time ago. Rather than seeing the FAA as the villain here, and the recent grounding of MD80 producing results that missed the mark by an apparent cm., could cries of BK be forthcoming? AMR/APA conflict produced the recent rumor, and if the "coziness" between FAA and AA is continuing, might it not be a foundation for soon to be heard cries of BK!!. ?

[IGh]

Observation from AirfoilMod, about four slots above:
"... all those wires were at one time unsheathed and un-bundled gives one pause...."

You've just hit on a remaining weakness in the Douglas (DAC, DPD) design: Douglas jets never had Wheel Well Fire Detection nor Suppression (TBC began Wheel Well Fire Detection with the B377).

Without Wheel Well Fire Safety features, every effort must be made to prevent another Nation Air failure interaction (possible with the current DAC design).

After the ValuJet fire in 1996, industry worked hard to get FIRE SAFETY features retrofitted into narrow-body cargo bays (fore and aft the Wheel Wells). The DAC/DPD aircraft are still left WITHOUT any Wheel Well fire safety features.


Nationair / 11Jul91 Canadian registered DC-8-61 C-GMXQ, chartered ... inflight fire; impacted 1.75 miles short of runway 34C at Jeddah.... Flames visible in the left main gear until gear was retracted after T/O.

Taxi on under-inflated tires caused over-deflection, overheating and structural weakening of the tire. Friction created enough heat to start a self-sustaining fire; two wheels severely damaged, and piece of broken wheel rim struck the airframe (embedded in left flap). When gear retracted after T/O, burning rubber brought near hydraulic and electrical system components. Wheel well fire involved tires, hydraulic fluid, magnesium alloy and jet fuel (fire burned through center fuel tank). Fire spread from Wheel Well to Cargo Compartment, cabin floor was breached, control systems disabled. Cabin pressurization lost, hydraulic pressure lost.

Five minutes after brake release for T/O, F/A entered cockpit and reported, "smoke in the back, real bad."

CVR recorded F/O's comment, "I've got no ailerons!" Crew told ATC there was fire onboard, declared an emergency, and said they were returning to base. On final 11 miles out (suspected point that LG was extended) numerous pax bodies fell from the aircraft.

Airframe structural integrity lost, control lost prior to impact....

Lessons:
-- dangerous under-inflation of tire not discernible visually;
-- After T/O, gear should not have been retracted.
-- DAC’s tiny yellow “Brake Overheat” lamp, with its sensors hidden inside the wheel/brake area, fails to alert pilots about any Wheel Well fire.

[DingerX]

About earthquakes: Yes, you'd need to make sure your tracks could withstand a major earthquake, and have a plan in place to deal with it.
I'd rather not be in a 9.0-quake, but I'd rather go through one emergency braking in an aluminum tube on a seismically-resistant high-speed train track than stuck in an aluminum tube with a mess of fuel, on landfill over the bay at SFO or OAK.

Trains and the US: two huge problems. SF-LA is something like 700 km without much in between in terms of urban centers, and to be honest, those in the Bay Area don't like Los Angeles very much. There are already rail connections in the denser parts of the US. That's the second problem. As the Eastern Seaboard has shown, you can have a railway, but you have to buy or rent the land over which it travels. And if you're renting (=the American Way), you ain't gonna pay cheap.

Heck, even in Europe it's cheaper to fly over Germany than take a train across it.

[tacklingsnowmensteve]

I often fly the Newark/Boston stretch. It is 4.5 to 5 hours of driving. train is a hair over 3 hours for the amtrak bullet train and ~5 hours for the ordinary commuter train.

To fly... 30min drive to EWR. Park and take monorail to terminal 20min
60min arrival before takeoff. Listed as about an 1.5 to 1.75 hour flight. ~35min flight time. Time to deboard etc 0.5hr. Total travel time of ~3 to 3.5 hrs, if the congestion allows. Usually at EWR, waiting to take off can be an hour or more.:ugh:

[Mark in CA]

Another 922 cancellations today, and projecting more than 500 Friday with more over the weekend.

[visibility3miles]

Rebooking canceled flights is turning into a nightmare, as is trying to find hotel rooms. One passenger was quoted as having his outgoing flight rebooked easily, only to discover that they hadn't rebooked his return flight, so he was scheduled to land on the return flight two hours before reaching his destination... :rolleyes:

Time travel anyone? :hmm:

American should partner with local Tourist Bureaus and arrange cheap bus tours of local cities. Give the pax something fun to remember (at least those with children) rather than the tedium and frustration.

[0497]

About earthquakes: Yes, you'd need to make sure your tracks could withstand a major earthquake, and have a plan in place to deal with it.

Ask the japanese for help.

[PBL]

I guess the train thing has tickled more people's fancy than just mine. Please indulge me in a couple more observations.

I don't underestimate the difficulties (not just the physical but the contractual, thinking of the various travails of the LA subway system development). But then I commuted Berkeley-Palo Alto for some 7 years and saw the time go from 50 minutes to 1.5 hours, and there was no effective way to do it on public transportation. And, besides me, there were all those people living in Modesto and working in Santa Clara. Living in Sacramento and working in SF. That is one of the reasons I came back to Europe. Now I can do the 90km in 50 minutes between the two nearest major cities every hour between about 4.30 am and midnight, 7 days (if I need to; actually, I commute by bicycle). Comfortably, and work while I am doing it. And that's not even a high-speed track. It's hard for me to believe there wouldn't be a market for bullet trains on these SFBA commuter routes.

I think Dinger hit the mark on the crucial constraint on SF-LA. People in Europe are looking for the train to be competitive for journeys up to 500-600 km, and SF-LA is further than that. So there is no physical model as yet.

But I am not sure about the population-density argument. One shouldn't forget that Santa Monica came to be because the Pacific Electric Railroad put a station out there in what was the middle of nowhere (granted, it would exist now even if they hadn't). A bullet train down the route of Highway 101 might well lead to different growth patterns; or even down Highway 5. I mean, why not live in Parkfield if you can get to San Jose in an hour in the morning and back in the evening?

I think Dinger is off the mark on prices. When all costs are factored in, train is for me almost always less expensive, and only takes 20-25% more time, even from Bielefeld to GB. And allows me to work almost the entire time.

I really don't have much more to say on this. But I do wonder whether the extreme inconveniences suffered regularly by US air travellers would not occur quite as often if air travel were not a monopoly mode.

PBL

[BRE]

Good train connections have actually killed commercial flights for some high density connections in Europe.

Take Berlin - Hamburg, 290 km driving distance. This used to be a high density air connection. Now with the bullettrain line you cannot find any direct flight from one of the three Berlin airports to Hamburg.

Why? Hourly train service, 2 trains/hour during peak times, 1 hour 33 min from main station to main station, for 62€ one way (local transport included depending on booking mode), less if you reserve well in advance, have a company account or buy a personal 25 or 50% reduction card that is valid for a year on all German connections and usually pays off after 1 - 2 trips.

You can arrive at the train station 2 minutes before departure, and you can conveniently reach both main stations by subway/bus/local commuter train or park your car in a garage really close to the station.

Every second train will additionally stop in Berlin-Spandau which is more convenient for those living in the Western outskirts. Also, in Hamburg, all trains start resp. continue to Hamburg-Altona via Hamburg-Dammtor, giving people from that half of the city more convenient access.

Compare that to driving to any of the Berlin airports and getting into the city from Hamburg airport and you know why there are no longer any commercial flights.



Now, if you don't live close to on of those train lines, the story can be quite different. I live about 120 km from the closest station for a northwards high speed line, and while east-est train connections are quite ok, getting to that particular station from my home station takes 2.5 hours, so to Hamburg I can beat trains by driving when I look at the total travelling time.

[EagleStar]

I know that these inspections have been called for by the FAA in the US.... But what are the chances we will soon see AZ, SK, and other European airlines grounding their MD-80's for checks?????

Any info appreciated!


EagleStar

[OutOfRunWay]

I was just wondring: how seriously did those aircraft fail the inspection?

Did FAA inspectors get out their Micrometers and discover that binders were 1.1 inch apart instead of the regulation 1 inch?

Were they 3 feet apart, or not tied down at all?

Thinking about it, securing wire bundles every inch seems very, well some :mad: expressions come to mind, but let's just say it seems very very secure...

I too am wondering if the FAA has come out to show that "We are on top of the Problem!"

OORW

[carholme]

The whistle blowers complained that the airlines had not complied with the original ADs. Certain FAA inspectors overrode the complaints and this was over a year ago. The airlines have a vested interest in taking the easy way out and they did by going along with the FAA inspectors that they had developed a chummy relationship with.

As the airlines are more and more operating under "risk management"/SMS/self regulation, it was incumbent on the airline to satisfy themselves that the aircraft were in AD compliance. They took the easy way out and were called to the mat when the complaints of the whistle blowers were finally heard, a year later. The FAA is just starting to realize the implications of self regulation and by calling for the audits, saw that Southwest/AA/United and several others were not regulating themselves very well.

Why do you think all of these voluntary shutdowns are happening? Do you think it is because all of a sudden the airlines have become so safety conscious, especially with regard to ADs that were previously certified as being in compliance.

With fuel costs as they are at present, we are seeing the results of the bean counters trimming every cost they can. Simply, less oversight equals the fox in the hen house.


carholme

[fc101]

This might have been answered, so apologies and could someone point me there instead...

What about other MD80 operators in the US and in the EU - particularly SAS/Blue1 and Alitalia? Are these affected in the sense that these airlines also need to carry out checks? Haven't really had the chance to ask any SAS/Blue1 crews this week...

fc101
E145 Driver

[carholme]

Yes, all operators in the world will be affected by the AD issued by the FAA. However, one hopes that other operators carried out the AD correctly when it was first issued and they won't have a problem with it.

The present problem is because of inadequacies in complying with the AD in the first place and the present audits by the FAA are checking for compliance
because some FAA whislte blowers advised that some US airlines had not complied correctly.

carholme

[TeachMe]

On the point of trains again,

I live and work in Seoul. From Downlown to Kimpo is 45 minutes at best on subway (Incheon is almost 2 hours), plus one hour early for security and such, add the 2 hours gate to gate and 45 minutes in from Kimhae it is a total of 4.5 hours. Driving is about 5.5 hours if there is no trafic jam (3am???), and up to 7 hours as a high average. From downtown to downtown, the slow train (120 kph) is about 5.5 hours, and the KTX (TGV) is about 3 hours.

When the KTX was launched Korean and Asiana cut about 70% of their domestic flights (excpt Cheju and some small resort areas), or to Incheon as connectors.

The train can indeed kill off air travel in some markets.

TME

[ironbutt57]

Apparently there have been in excess of 3 revisions to the AD note as well..further complicating attempts at compliance..:confused:

[NotPilotAtALL]

Hi,

It's not from me but reflect very well what I think about :)


This is an example of federal beuracracy run amoke. AA addressed the problem with the AD regarding wiring bundles in the wheel well earlier. However, as a result of whistleblowers revealing some embarrasingly shoddy enforcement of maintenance with Southwest, the FAA decided to become the gestapo and ground the entire fleet of MD 80's to prove a point - that they can be bad asses if they want to and to overreact to criticisms over the Southwest incident. There is nothing imminently unsafe regarding the way AA addressed the wiring bundles, it's just that they didn't place the wire holddown clamps in the correct places and manner as prescribed by the AD. It's nothing that could not have been dealt with during periodic maintencance or by even allowing a percentage of the planes to fly. No, they had to be chicken**** enforcers to show everyone that they have the biggest dicks when it comes to aviation. I'm so glad I don't have to deal with the FAA anymore. I was an A&P and a pilot and always got along with them because you learn very early on that you have to play their game or you will take it up the ass. In AA's case, yes, they screwed up, but instead of doing the right thing, the FAA is following the letter of the law (which they have the right to do) but does it make sense? Ask AA and the hundreds of thousands of people that are affected by this.

Look, a fault can be found with pretty much anything that is inspected, be it an airplane, a house, or a soldier. The inspecting agency has the latitude to make it very painful for their target if they choose to do so, and much of that depends on the message that is being sent and the history of their target. In this case, AA is the undeserved recipient of the rath of the FAA and it is a vengeful rath that the FAA is guilty of. They are the ones who have been glossing over shoddy inspections, and they think by doing this they are sending a message. Well, yes they are, but it could have been much better and with much less economic and personal hardship. Trust me, there will be a backlash to this whole debacle and the FAA will look less than professional when it's all said and done.

My two cents.

Edited by Shredder (Yesterday at 19:52)



Cheers for now.

[Few Cloudy]

This may sound off - er - track, as it were, but how come a flight thread gets full of train spotters?
Specially as you have to log in these days.
I see the National Bus to Southampton is running late again today.

[repariit]

Knowledgeable and rational people will eventually examine the facts and provide the answer to this question. Many of you fit that crterion. So if you would like to have a go at it, here is a link to AD 2006-15-15 (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/E1BF657E6FC3CE7D862571BC00643684?OpenDocument).

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/E1BF657E6FC3CE7D862571BC00643684?OpenDocument (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/E1BF657E6FC3CE7D862571BC00643684?OpenDocument)

The details of the conditions are in: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-29A070, Revision 1, dated July 28, 2005. Can any of you post a copy of it here?

And, finally does anyone have a report of the FAA's inspection discrepancies ? The news reports are a bit sketchy regarding tie spacing and orientation.

[sevenstrokeroll]

retire the md80's? you don't want to fly on one?



its a good plane when properly maintained. quiet (in the front).and very reliable.

lose all hydraulics and you still have full control of the plane...many planes can't say that. full manual reversion on all 3 axis of control...737 doesn't have that.

don't get me started about the airbus series.

this problem could have been handled alot easier for all. imagine asking a surgeon to make sure all the sutures in a patient were exactly "x inches" apart. and if not, having to operate again to make sure the distance was exactly right.

going back after the fact on the md80 to make sure the ties were exactly one inch apart instead of 1.25 inches apart...well, there are lots of problems with lots of planes out there that are much more concern to me!

[fc101]

all operators in the world will be affected by the AD issued by the FAA. However, one hopes that other operators carried out the AD correctly when it was first issued and they won't have a problem with it.

The present problem is because of inadequacies in complying with the AD in the first place and the present audits by the FAA are checking for compliance
because some FAA whislte blowers advised that some US airlines had not complied correctly.


Thanks, I guess then the EU (and other) operators like SAS, Blue1 in my part of the world happily complied with the ADs...like I said hvaen't been around much to talk to SAS/Blue1 crews, though did meet some chap yesterday who said that its buisness as usual at SAS other than the usual maintence "problems"

[PBL]

I see a basic issue here (that is, not to do with trains).

The FAA has recently discovered that some operators, for whatever reason, have not implemented some ADs the way they are written. The agency is thus now ensuring that ADs have been implemented to the letter.

Now do we support such a development, or do we not?

Does anybody here *really* want to argue that ADs don't really need to be implemented the way they are written?

PBL

[His dudeness]

@PBL, as maintenance manager for 3 operators and now for a cooperate operation I have seen a few AD´s. Some of them are written in such a way that you really wonder WHAT to do WHEN and under WHICH condition.
This is especially true when the manufacturer has come up with a SB or SL before and one complied to that...
I haven´t read the AD concerned, but as a non-native english speaker I feel that there is an area that needs improvement. I´d guess that AA has some native english speakers available, so most likely that is not a point for this thread....

Oh, and BTW: ANY AD that comes up for my airplane is done ASAP. No chances taken there...

[Gullwings]

@PBL, I personally do support what the FAA is currently doing and I only wish that more Airworthiness Authorities actually did the same. Safety should genuinely be a top priority at all times.
Unfortunately, some Airlines and Authorities may not have applied sufficient focus on this important issue as much as they should have done and those are now suffering the consequences.
It is also not only Engineers and Aircraft Manufacturers that may have contributed to some AD compliance failures. Mistakes are also made within various aircraft maintenance support departments that interpret, plan and record AD/Modification requirements and completions.
Whilst a lot of Airline/Airworthiness Authority focus is directed towards airlines having enough appropriately qualified, trained and experienced hands-on aircraft engineers the same cannot always be said for support staff.
This is a pity because if for any reason, support staff do not ensure that AD requirements are correctly issued to the appropriate aircraft/equipment at the right times, then it does not matter how good the hands-on engineers are, an AD requirement may not get complied with.

[propwalker]

Maintenance is of a far better quality in Europe the mechs are much better trainned and paid than in the US. You pay peanuts you get monkeys.:=

[DocJacko]

I found this in my mailbox this morning (I have frequent flier status on AA):

Dear XY,

As one of our most valued customers, please accept my apology on behalf of American Airlines(R) to you, your family and your fellow AAdvantage(R) customers for disrupting so many peoples' lives with the recent flight cancellations related to the inspection of our MD-80 aircraft fleet.

As you can imagine, American's decision to cancel thousands of flights this week was difficult, and it undoubtedly created concern among our best customers - even those who had no travel plans during the period.

If in your travels you were among the many who have been personally affected, I sincerely regret the inconvenience you have experienced. Our employees will continue to work around the clock to accommodate all who still need to reach their desired destinations. We anticipate returning to a full schedule by Monday.

While the media reports have documented the reasons why American took this action and the steps we're taking to re-accommodate and compensate affected customers, I've also attached an explanation of the events for your understanding. It's a bit complex, but at the end of it all, please know this:

First, your safety and the safety of our employees remains our number one priority.

Second, we will learn from this experience and we will get better.

Finally, we wholeheartedly appreciate your loyalty to American Airlines, and we remain committed to earning your business each and every day.


Respectfully,


Dan Garton
Executive Vice President
Marketing

P.S. You may have already contacted us via AA.com(R) or by writing directly to Customer Relations. Let me reassure you that we will respond directly to your contact just as quickly as practical.

****************************************

American Airlines MD-80 Fleet Inspections

Background: In 2004, American Airlines was the lead airline working with Boeing to develop a Service Bulletin to correct wiring exposure and chafing in the MD-80 auxiliary hydraulic pump wire bundle. The concern was that exposure and chafing could cause fire in the wheel well. An Airworthiness Directive (AD) was issued in September 2006, giving MD-80 operators, including American, 18 months to address this issue. American completed the Service Bulletin in November 2006, followed by adjustments deemed necessary by American's structural engineers to comply with the AD well ahead of a March 2008 deadline.

In recent weeks the Federal Aviation Administration significantly increased its emphasis on monitoring the adherence to Airworthiness Directives that apply to various U.S. airlines. With respect to American Airlines' MD-80 fleet, we had a detailed issue that we believed had to be addressed immediately to remain compliant with the FAA; if found in non-compliance, we would have been instructed to stop flying our airplanes.


What is the specific nature of the issue?
The issue surrounds questions raised by the FAA about the way American implemented the Engineering Change Order (ECO) addressing the MD-80 auxiliary pump wiring Airworthiness Directive (AD). American fixed the item well within the specified AD timeframe. The work being done now centers on a need to change the way in which American complied with the AD regarding such items as the spacing of the ties on the wiring bundles and the direction of the retention clips and lacing cords. We are highly confident that this is not a safety of flight issue because the wire bundle is secure. It is a matter of how the work was done, not whether aircraft were protected from the threat of wire exposure and chafing that could cause fire.


Why ground the entire MD-80 fleet?
It became clear based on the number of questions the FAA raised that there would be a high percentage of aircraft that would not be found to be in full compliance of the Airworthiness Directive. Working with the FAA we were unable to find an alternative solution to regaining compliance - for example, a multi-day period to rectify the issues - so we had no choice but to ground the aircraft. While it has been a major disruption to AA's operation, everyone recognizes the need to ensure that the MD-80 fleet is in complete compliance and is working to restore the MD-80s back to service as quickly as possible.

Who is completing the work and why is it taking longer than the previous MD-80 inspections?
There are three levels of American employees accomplishing the work. American has assigned a team of employees - aviation maintenance technicians, quality assurance inspectors, and engineers - to inspect the aircraft and ensure full technical compliance, as well as to make any additional adjustments. As our aircraft return to service, the FAA is inspecting those aircraft to ensure compliance.


What is the airline doing for customers?
We are doing everything possible to take care of our customers as expeditiously as possible while facing the fact that our resources have been stretched to their limits. We are extremely sorry for the inconvenience and know that this kind of interruption of travel plans is unacceptable. While customers are dislocated we are providing meals, hotels and ground transportation; for those stranded overnight, we will offer vouchers for future travel on American Airlines. Customers who were inconvenienced with overnight stays can go to AA.com where a link will guide them to instructions on how to receive compensation.

Visit:
http://info.aa.com/Key=55946.Gxjb.C.N7WGwC


What is the company doing to make sure it doesn't happen again?
American plans to contract with an independent third party to review American's compliance processes. This work will help ensure that all procedures strictly adhere to the technical elements of every directive so American can avoid this type of schedule disruption in the future.

****************************************

[Shore Guy]

The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

April 13, 2008
Behind Air Chaos, an F.A.A. Pendulum Swing
By MATTHEW L. WALD and MICHELINE MAYNARD

WASHINGTON — For all the headaches of flying in the United States, the domestic airlines were until recently considered a logistical marvel, moving two million people a day with remarkably few accidents.

Now they are in chaos, with airlines grounding more than 500 planes and thousands of flights so far because they may not meet safety requirements. Travelers have seen this before but only rarely, when all planes were grounded after the Sept. 11 attacks and when the government grounded all DC-10s after an engine fell off one of them in 1979, killing 273 people.

But there is a big difference this time: there has been no crash.

What happened?

One answer is that some whistle-blower inspectors for the Federal Aviation Administration disclosed that they had been discouraged from cracking down on Southwest Airlines for maintenance problems, and they found a sympathetic audience with some Washington lawmakers.

That prodded the F.A.A. to order a national audit to check whether airlines were in compliance — and to propose a record penalty of $10.2 million against Southwest.

Then F.A.A. inspectors discovered the mistakes that prompted American to cancel more than 3,000 flights last week. Delta, United, Alaska and others also canceled hundreds of flights.

But more broadly, the turmoil is better understood as a reaction — or overreaction, in the eyes of some in the industry — to a long-term shift, over two presidencies, in the way the F.A.A. oversees the airlines.

In the 1990s, the agency was more of a cop on the beat, handing out penalties to those who broke the rules.

“You used to fear an F.A.A. inspector showing up,” said Joseph Tiberi, a spokesman with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. “They checked everything from the nuts and bolts in your tool kit to the paperwork in the cockpit.”

But then a different, more collaborative approach emerged that critics say went too far. After the 2001 terrorist attacks, which crippled the industry, the agency began “a creep away from their rigorous oversight of maintenance,” said Representative James L. Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota and the chairman of the House committee that has pushed the issue.

That arrangement was “coddling the airlines,” he added, which eased the burden on the F.A.A., with its inspectors spending more time on paperwork than on airplanes.

The change began after the T.W.A. 800 and ValuJet disasters in the mid-1990s, when regulators and the industry convened a “safety summit.” Then the Clinton administration formed a national commission in 1997 on aviation safety and security, led by Vice President Al Gore and known as the Gore Commission. It set a goal of cutting the rate of fatal accidents 80 percent over 10 years.

One idea was for the F.A.A. to start working more closely with the industry. If airlines shared their mistakes or problems without fear of retribution, the reasoning went, the system would benefit from these shared lessons.

And it seems to have. Over the next decade, the accident rate fell 65 percent, and this new approach is widely seen as having played a role in the drop.

Then the F.A.A., under the Bush administration, took on a role after the Sept. 11 attacks to help the industry recover — “through technology, through greater efficiencies, through sensible and non-burdensome regulatory schemes,” Marion C. Blakey, the F.A.A. administrator in 2002, said at the time. She declined to be interviewed for this article.

This more collaborative approach was reflected in a “customer service initiative” announced by the F.A.A. in April 2003.

The customers in this case were not passengers; they were the airlines the F.A.A. regulates. The core principles of the new initiative, which inspectors could print up on pocket-size cards, included creating for the airlines “an environment without fear of retribution if you challenge our decisions” and “clear guidance on how you can elevate your concerns to the next higher level of authority.”

The F.A.A.’s watchdog role, to many Democrats in Congress who now oversee airline regulators, grew toothless. “We had drifted a little bit too much toward the over-closeness and coziness between regulator and regulated,” said H. Clayton Foushee Jr., a former F.A.A. official who led a recent inquiry by Mr. Oberstar’s committee.

Some inspectors in the field were also concerned by the drift. In early 2003, Charalambe Boutris, an inspector in the F.A.A.’s Dallas office, began reviewing Southwest’s engine maintenance records.

The task would seem the equivalent of the Maytag repairman’s job, since Southwest has a stellar safety record. But Mr. Boutris discovered the airline’s record-keeping was inconsistent and varied from aircraft to aircraft, according to the United States Office of Special Counsel, which reviewed his accusations.

After raising the issue with a supervisor, Mr. Boutris was told he could send Southwest a letter expressing concern, but not a more serious “letter of investigation,” which is what regulations called for under such circumstances.

He continued to find problems with the airline’s record-keeping, and again pressed for an investigation. But his supervisor again chose a slap-on-the-wrist letter, and Southwest officials began to lobby for Mr. Boutris’s removal.

Yet problems remained. In January 2007, the airline discovered cracks on some of its Boeing 737s. Less than two months later, an unidentified whistle-blower in the F.A.A.’s Chicago office noticed a crack in a Southwest jet that had been flown the day before.

Earlier this year, Southwest told the F.A.A. that it had flown 46 planes without the required inspections of fuselage panels, operating the defective planes for up to nine months on more than 61,000 flights. That “self-disclosure” normally would have allowed Southwest to avoid financial penalties as long as it fixed the problems. And it kept flying the planes.

It also flew 27 planes that were not in compliance with an F.A.A. directive requiring inspections of cargo doors.

Before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearings on April 3, Mr. Boutris and another inspector, Douglas Peters, testified about being told by supervisors to ignore violations by Southwest. “My supervisor was suppressing my authority and responsibility to report them in accordance with mandated F.A.A. guidance,” Mr. Boutris testified.

The two men, who say they have received threats over their decision to expose the airline, have become “rock stars” within aviation safety circles, Mr. Foushee said.

Mr. Foushee said he began to hear “noise” as soon as he joined the committee in January 2007 about the relationship between the airlines and the agency.

“F.A.A. people would call me, and contact me, saying, ‘We’re not able to do our jobs anymore,’ ” said Mr. Foushee, who worked for a law firm in Washington before joining the committee staff.

He spoke first with Mr. Peters, who contacted him anonymously. He then spoke with Mr. Boutris and began the committee’s investigation into the conduct of the airlines and the agency.

The two men “turned over incontrovertible evidence that what happened happened,” he said.

When the committee began circulating a damning report on how the agency had treated the two whistle-blowers, written by the Special Counsel’s office, the F.A.A. decided it had to act. It ordered a nationwide audit and relieved Mr. Boutris’s supervisor of his safety responsibilities.

Now the F.A.A. is conducting a broad national audit, which led to the grounding of all MD-80s in the American Airlines fleet. More groundings of other planes throughout the industry are likely to occur in coming weeks as the audit continues. American, for its part, said it would resume its normal schedule on Sunday.

More disclosures about lax inspections are likely, Mr. Oberstar said.

“There are more people coming to us with reports of stuff,” he added. “They said, ‘No one was listening to us for last six or seven years; now we’ve got someone who understands the problems, understands the safety implications.’ ”

He said the new reports came from all around the country, not just the regional office responsible for Southwest Airlines.

“Pilots talk to me, flight attendants talk to me, ramp mechanics have stopped me and said, ‘I want you to know this is happening,’ ” Mr. Oberstar said.

A number of industry officials, however, call the latest crackdown an overreaction, pointing to American’s decision to park all 300 of its MD-80s while it checked whether their wiring complied with a safety directive.

One senior executive at another airline, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the agency’s new stance reflects the new tone in aviation safety.

“In the past, you wouldn’t have grounded the whole fleet,” the executive said. “There’s a question of what’s rational and what’s not.”

A change in procedures seems likely. Tom Brantley, president of the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists, the inspectors’ union, testified on April 3 that inspectors have been defanged by the F.A.A. itself.

For example, he said, if the inspectors show up without warning, he said, airlines would complain to their F.A.A. superiors that “they’re slowing us down, they’re asking people questions, they’re costing us money.”

And the agency seems likely to change its procedure for “self-reporting” and avoiding penalties. Two F.A.A. managers have been transferred, and others may lose their jobs.

Passengers will have to endure more canceled flights in coming weeks. But they are also left to make sense of mixed signals — about planes that rarely crash anymore but whose safety is suddenly in doubt, and about an agency that was long considered best-in-class that suddenly seems broken.

The unraveling relationship between the F.A.A. and the airlines is “like a divorce,” said James E. Hall, a former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. “And the children are the passengers.”

Mr. Oberstar said these were “difficult times for the passengers,” with, by his count, 568 aircraft grounded so far. “But I think they’d rather be on the ground than 7 miles in the air, with no way to pull over to the curb and check under the hood,” he said.

Matthew L. Wald reported from Washington, and Micheline Maynard from Detroit.

[FlexibleResponse]

The FAA Mission Statement is rather revealing:

http://www.faa.gov/about/mission/

Who are the "customers" of the FAA that the FAA is supposedly working for, if such "customers" are not actually the traveling public?

If ever there was a blatant conflict of interest....and they are silly enough to put it in print.

[chefrp]

"its a good plane when properly maintained."

I hear what your saying, but isnt that the whole point....
Properly maintained??????

what if they are not?

and it seems they have not been properly maintained.

[Huck]

Marion Blakey is an idiot.

Brownie number two.

[sevenstrokeroll]

chefrp (do I know you, rp?)

anyway, the whole point about maintenance is this.

IF you have an airline system in which low cost carriers have cut to the bone their mx, and the big, legacy carriers have to follow suit to stay in business...then isn't the real problem:

MONEY to do things Correctly?

I will assume you are in aviation as a pro, let me know otherwise.

IF jet blue buys new airbusess with 5 years of free mx and then ships out their planes to some central american country for repairs isn't that the problem...forcing others to cut their staffs and their standards?

the American Airlines pilots put an ad in the newspaper declaring that managment had cut too deeply , helping to cause problems.

just remember, those new airbusess will be falling apart one day...remember who will fix them.

[chefrp]

You are right...everything gets old. And no I am not a pro, I am as my name says a chef. But I do find Aviation very interesting and the events of the past two weeks even more so.

So maintenance is more the issue than the actual aircraft.....so I guess looking closer at the maintenance records is a good thing. After all when your in the back of the plane you assume that everything is done at the highest level, maybe I should not assume that??

:confused: