65,000 Maintenance Problems Have Taken Off Anyway

[repariit]

This is a summary of a USA Today headline for a story that can be found here: Report: 65,000 flights should not have flown - News- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35199267/ns/travel-news/). This story hypes around 18 real events over a seven year period into a sensational indictment of the industry. We have never been free of problems, but after 45 years with a front row seat, I do not think that this story represents reality. WHAT DO YOU THINK?

[matkat]

Could you please copy and paste the article as cannot get the link to open, probably due to where I am other than anything else:ugh:

[chuks]

I think it represents one side of reality with the other side being the relative safety of air travel.

It is correct to say that skimping on safety can cost you money, plus to be totally old-fashioned that is immoral, putting the lives of passengers at risk. If you have a crash there go your savings and sometimes they take your airline with it!

On the other hand, if you get away with skimping you can save quite a bit of money over a rival operator who makes that required investment. Since an airplane is an airplane to your average traveler, nice and shiny when you look at it with no way to know what went on out of sight in the maintenance hangar, you are on an equal footing as a sleazy operator unless and until you get caught by either an inspection or an accident.

A big part of the problem must be deregulation, so that air transport has become just another commodity instead of the public service it once was. Now it's eating itself in a price war.

[A345]

msnbc.com
updated 11:59 a.m. ET Feb. 2, 2010
Reporting the results of a six-month investigation, USA TODAY on Tuesday said that millions of passengers were on at least 65,000 U.S. flights over the last six years that should not have taken off because planes weren't properly maintained.

While just a fraction of the 63.8 million U.S. airline flights over that time, the 65,000 figure was criticized by John Goglia, a former airline mechanic who was a National Transportation Safety Board member from 1995 to 2004.

"Many repairs are not being done or done properly, and too many flights are leaving the ground in what the FAA calls 'unairworthy,' or unsafe, condition," Goglia told USA TODAY.

USA TODAY said its investigation found that substandard repairs, unqualified mechanics and lax oversight by airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration are not unusual.

Its investigation included an analysis of government fines against airlines for maintenance violations and penalty letters sent to them that were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

It cited these key findings:

Airlines contract about 70 percent of their maintenance work to repair shops in the U.S. and abroad, where mistakes can be made by untrained and ill-equipped personnel, the Department of Transportation's inspector general says.
Airlines also disregard FAA inspectors' findings to keep planes flying, defer necessary repairs beyond permissible time frames, use unapproved parts and perform their own sloppy maintenance work, according to FAA documents.
The FAA levied $28.2 million in fines and proposed fines against 25 U.S. airlines for maintenance violations that occurred during the past six years. In many cases, planes operated for months before the FAA found maintenance deficiencies. In some cases, airlines continued to fly planes after the FAA found deficiencies in them.
In its defense, the FAA said it "sets an exceptionally high bar" for the required level of safety for airlines and that the fines indicate that problems were detected and corrected.

The airline industry countered that its planes are safe, pointing to millions of incident-free flights.
U.S. airlines "regard safety as their highest responsibility," and "their maintenance programs reflect that commitment to safety," Elizabeth Merida, a spokeswoman for the Air Transport Association, told USA TODAY.

The ATA said member airlines haven't had a fatal accident "attributable to maintenance" since Jan. 31, 2000. That date is when an Alaska Airlines jet flying from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, to San Francisco, crashed into the Pacific Ocean off California, killing all 88 people aboard.

The accident was caused by a loss of plane pitch control after threads of a screw assembly on the tail failed, according to the NTSB, which concluded that Alaska Airlines did not sufficiently lubricate the assembly, causing excessive thread wear. The FAA had approved extending the time between lubrications, which contributed to the accident, the NTSB said.

A USA TODAY analysis of NTSB data showed that maintenance was "a cause, factor or finding" in 18 other accidents since then. Some were on scheduled flights of airlines that are ATA members, some were on airlines that aren't members. No one was killed or injured in 10 of the accidents; 43 people were killed and 60 injured in the others.

[protectthehornet]

john goglia wasn't just an airplane mechanic...he was head of mx for a major airline...and at that time the airline he headed up had great maintenance. he has my respect.

[bizdev]

I notice the article mentions the Alaska Airlines crash. This was a very sad case which is often used as a case study in Human Factors training - a catalogue of issues, errors, mis-management etc etc - but I would like to think that this particular accident is very un-typical of the standard of MRO today.

But I wonder whether this article has a subtext. Much of the US MRO work nowadays is outsourced - particularly overseas for C/D Checks where labour is much cheaper. I understand that US Labour unions have been lobbying the FAA for more stringent checks on overseas FAA Repair Stations. However, this is probable due to protectionism rather than safety concerns, safety is the lever being used to bring the work back in-house?

bizdev

[FEHERTO]

It is interesting for me to hear that FAA complains about maintenance organistaions in Europe. Doing EASA 145 for a long time and with companies all over the world, I disgaree. A lot of US airlines using companies whom we denied a certification. They are guilty using such companies for convenience and money !

[Perspective]

"I understand that US Labour unions have been lobbying the FAA for more stringent checks on overseas FAA Repair Stations. However, this is probable due to protectionism rather than safety concerns, safety is the lever being used to bring the work back in-house?"

bizdev

Statement or question bizdev?

No one knows better than the airlines own Engineers what product they are getting back from an overseas repair station.

It is extremely hard to perform Aircraft Maint in house, with all the O.H.S rules that have to be so strictly followed, the close eye of the regulators not far away, the vested interest that all Airline employees have in keeping Aircraft as safe as possible for our customers while keeping our "Unit Cost" down ( or they'll shut us down!!!!).

Why is it every time an Association or Union covering Aircraft maint Engineers tries to shed some light on the product we are getting back from a contractor or MRO, people (usually Execs,Managers) cry foul, and play the "Protectionism hand. Who else is going to speak out.

Airline Employed Aircaft Maintenance Engineers (in my experiance) are well trained and morally sound, we have to be, its part of our job. We deal day in and day out with fact, cause and effect. People generally hold us in high regard right... except when we raise concerns about aircraft safety... then its just protectionism!

I'm sure there must be some very good operators and MRO's out there, that put out a good product,

unfortunately, we have not had very good experiences with any of our aircraft that have been outsourced as yet.

Rant over...

[bizdev]

I don't think you can 'broad brush' with outsourcing - I have worked in in-house MRO (Airlines) for over 25 years and, until recently, 12 years for a major independant MRO with EASA Part145 and FAA Repair station approvals, with a very high reputation for quality. I have witnessed equivalent safety/quality in both.

Unfortunately when labour unions play the outsourcing safety card it rankles with those MROs with good quality/safety track records.

I guess it is my own prejudice - I immediately think protectionisn when the unions cry foul over safety, I would rather hear it from FAA inspectors performing independent audits.

bizdev

[AVIONIQUE]

The outsourcing, price cutting and de -skilling of maintenance has only one outcome in the long term. The concerns of experienced licenced engineers have all been ignored by the authorities despite all the actual evidence and anecdotal evidence. "This is just them protecting their own jobs" seems to be the attitude. This ignores the fact that it is these very people who are dealing with the results of botched and inadequate maintenance, it is these people who see beneath the floor and behind the panels.
Money rules every part of aircraft maintenance with a grip so tight it is choking the life out of it.
Until the inevitable consequence happens nothing will be done. Then of course we will have inquiries and prosecutions and calls for change and questions of "how could the systems have been so weak?" and "why did nobody speak out?" The public will be amazed at how their aircraft were being maintained in far off countries by mechanics with suspect qualifications and little experience, all to a price that means only the very minimum legally required work was being done.
To point to the lack of maintenance attributable accidents does not hold water. Is it safe to say that drinking and driving is safe because I have been doing it for five years and not killed anyone? Flying around in a poorly maintained aircraft will degrade safety, latent faults will exsist waiting for the other "holes in the swiss cheese" to line up. We can be thankfull to the inherent good design ,multiple systems and integrity of flight crew for the good safety record in the main. Good maintenance was another safety factor, remove that factor and you are increasing your risk.
The british railways had cheap subcontracted maintenence until a series of fatal accidents made the truth known and precipitated a change. Do we need our own series of disasters? A lot of money could be saved by learning the lessons already learned by other industries.
As the old maxim says " if you think maintenance is expensive- try an accident".

[Safety Concerns]

always interesting when this subject comes up.

unless you are physically in an mro 24/7 take a step back bizdev.
The usual arguments here to dismiss these reports range from protectionism to I don't see it, so it don't happen.

Just consider this: 65,000 flights that shouldn't haven't taken place and nowhere in the article did anybody deny that fact. There was some huffing and puffing about well it must be safe cos there hasn't been an acccident. That as you well know isn't an answer.

It is time for all aviation professionals to wake up and smell the coffee.
Businessmen are businessmen, pilots are pilots, regulators are regulators and engineers are engineers. If only everybody would just do their job and stop pretending they are also businessmen.

The law sets out requirements to be met if you wish to fly commercially, stick to them. We have already recently seen in the states in particular that the FAA have admitted that they haven't been doing their job properly so why would I wish this story to have come from them.

Engineers may not always express themselves as eloquently as pilots but rest assured engineers are thinking of your backside when they raise these issues because only engineers appreciate how bad standards within maintenance has become.

The message may not be welcome but the consequences of ignoring it are worse.

It is a global problem and Europe is also far from immune. I am not talking about outsourcing either. Ignore, dismiss at your own peril.

Why are there not more reports? Jetstar pacific explains very well why. Morally sound individuals lose their income. Simple and very wrong

Jetstar Pacific hits back, while whistleblowers hold their line (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/jetstar-pacific-hits-back-while-whistleblowers-hold-their-line-20100115-mafd.html)

[Swedish Steve]

We must put some of this into perspective.
Many years ago we handled TWA aircraft in Europe. One day they sent us a B727 instead of the usual B767. (It was based in Paris). My mate went out and helped the Flight Engineer on the turnround, and then the aircraft had a slot delay. He had no cover on the B727, so left the local airline engineer (who did have cover) in charge of the pushback.
On departure a starter motor failed. The local engineer arranged the loan of one of his starter motors, fitted it and the F/E did the paperwork and off it went.
But this starter did not have the required FAA form with it (It was the correct pt nbr), and TWA managed to miss replacing it for a month. In the time before removal the aircraft flew 120 flights.
TWA reported this to the FAA, who then fined them a shedfull of dollars for each flight. So we contributed 120 flights to this total due to a procedural paperwork error.

[Safety Concerns]

your point being?

[hashman]

Commonsense and experience no longer counts any more in this world of litigation. Sometimes the qualified and experienced engineer could arrange for small defects to be remedied at the next appropriate aircraft ground-time. Tyres which are on the limit but can do another flight or two to keep the jockies' on schedule, we'll fix it at night-stop. We've all used commonsense in the past, but it's getting to the point where even if there's a smudge of paint, ground the aircraft until it's sorted..

Airlines are now also becoming their own biggest enemy, ie, they choose to do their maintenance at the cheapest bidder. I know from personal experience of a German airline that sends its' A320 fleet to Malta for maintenance. It will go there with maybe 5-6 defects held in the Tech Log, however when it returns, it'll come back with over 30 deferred defects!!!!

[Safety Concerns]

I suspect swedish steve is making the same point as you hashman. But isn't this whole scenario more about integrity and honesty than anything else.

Your company will undoubtedly claim safety is paramount yet you choose to turn a blind eye to a beyond limits tyre. So 65,000 times this happens without consequence, maybe even 115,000 times but then we suffer a concorde scenario.

Are we saying we accept this attitude and cheat the fare paying public or are we saying it's unacceptable?

Do you think you would be considered a professional being the individual who said "take it, should be alright"?

[tornadoken]

hashman: but that's good, surely? Either: the Inspection workscope addressed areas not covered by daily/weekly schedules; and/or: operator chooses neither to pre-position may-need parts in Malta, nor to pay contractor's mark-up. These are (by definition) deferred items to be fixed as convenient.

The issues Make or Buy (in-house or Contracted), and Home or Away (do it in US {or my Homeland, for others}, or cross-border) are for management to address on the same basis as any other: what is in the best interests of the operation? If the ethos of the carrier's Maintenance Team is to do the right thing, then it is irrelevant whether the touch labour is here, there, or anywhere. Define what you want; supervise that it is done. Bad in-house workmanship is disciplined, and if repeated is fired; bad outsource is rapidly unsource.

[IcePack]

YouTube - Normalization Of Deviance Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK_r0F51CFI)

Says it all. :cool:

[Kiltrash]

As SLF I would like to think that pilots would NOT take off unless they were happy that the craft would get them safely to their loved ones

However I understand that they may feel under pressure by their employers to the flight through

Pilots are unable to check EVERYTHING and have to trust the mechanics are doing their job

I personally prefer, if there is a choice, to fly the carriers that has had least number of accidents that caused fatalities

So would fly Quantas, Singapore Easy FR etc over BA AF etc EVEN if the accidents were not even attributed to the airline concerned ie weather

[bizdev]

I once flew with a very nervous pax who proclaimed that the one airline he would never fly with, was Qantas.

When I challenged him on this - reminding him that statistically they were the safest airline around without a crash or death in their long history - he said "exactly, they are due one" :}

Some sort of Baldrick logic there I think?

bizdev

[repariit]

The 65,000 number includes violations that range from serious, such as the ones cited in detail, that are indeed serious in addition to many that are simply trivial. Trivial violations include such things as a maintenance operation that is due once per year that by mistake gets accomplished on the 375th day. That could result in forty flights with each flight tabulated as a separate violation.

The industry should focus on those that are of the serious nature to eliminate their cause. Too bad journalists, and people selling books, use the bureaucratic score keeping to hype the headlines.

[Safety Concerns]

can we just get the Qantas thing factual

Qantas have had accidents and have had fatalities in their long history, they have just never had a jet engined aircraft tragedy.

[airmuster]

But how long has QANTAS been operating jets???? I suggest a hell of a long time.

[Safety Concerns]

not disputing that but one needs to be careful because there is a big difference between never having an accident and having an accident, no fatalities and fatalities.

One of the problems is that aviation ends up believing its own safety propaganda which isn't factually correct. We just need to be honest.

Qantas has an excellent record but they have suffered accidents and fatalities

[Dodo56]

65,000 defects there may have been, but I wouldn't class an inspection overflown by a day or a mechanic with a stray NAS screw in his toolbox in the same league as departing with a failed or mis-rigged flight control. We are pretty good at preventing one but people will still point to the other as a problem. Neither is acceptable of course but there is a difference in the magnitude of risk they present.

It's sloppy too, to point the finger at "foreign" repair stations. If the BEA report on the Concorde crash is correct there is no room for sitting back and suggesting the problem lies abroad - whatever the cost of foreign repair stations that may lead some to question their standards.

The same standards apply to all of us and there is no room for protectionism.

[Pugilistic Animus]

may have gotten the figure a little low:suspect:

[Safety Concerns]

in the article it mentions american eagle operating 20 further flights although they were aware that the aircraft was suffering vibration. The fine was $30,000 per flight or $600,000.

Hasn't anybody got a comment or opinion on that?

[ericferret]

There has a a concerted effort over the years to de-skill aircraft maintenance.

We are now told that we cannot defer anything without being able to reference manufacturers maintenance data.

So captains coffee cup holder cracked, no maintenance data for this item, aircraft grounded. No engineer in his right mind would deck an aircraft for this yet not to do so would be to breach EASA rules according to our technical department.

[p51guy]

sc,

I don't think Eagle was operating unsafely. 30,000 per flight seems pretty severe. Did the vibration problem source ever get resolved? A loose fitting on a cowling? AA had an engine fall off a 727 over El Paso and continued to LAX and they were legal. Three engines you can continue if it is safe. They didn't know they were down to two until they landed.

[p51guy]

They did an engine shut down thinking the engine was still attached. They didn't know it fell off.

[framer]

We've all used commonsense in the past, but it's getting to the point where even if there's a smudge of paint, ground the aircraft until it's sorted..
That is not the case at all in my experience. It seems to me that it is going the other way. Companies too cheap to put licenced engineers at outstations (even bases) so the pilots are under pressure to carry the fault until they get to a port with a LAME so that it can be MEL'd or fixed. I know that they should not succumb to the pressure but being human they often do.

[HeryBird]

can we just get the Qantas thing factual

Qantas have had accidents and have had fatalities in their long history, they have just never had a jet engined aircraft tragedy.

Are they safe? or have they been lucky?

I have been driving a car for thirty years and never had an accident, am I a safe driver or have I been lucky?.......answer I have been lucky.

That can be said for any airline or MRO...

C

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Safety Concerns is correct, the only claim about Qantas safety is that QF have never has a fatality in the jet era.
There have been jet accidents and major incidents, but none resulted in a fatality to a passenger or a crew member. Unsurprisingly, most of the injuries have been from in flight turbulence, with a small number from evacuations.
The excellent Qantas histories by John Gunn have comprehensive appendices of all accidents and major incidents (up to the date of publication of the last volume), all made available to Gunn from Qantas records.
In considering the QF jet record, they were the first non-US operator of the B707 ( the unique to QF B707-138, which was NOT a B707-120, although 38 has remained the QF Boeing customer number).
Tootle pip!!

[aussiepax]

SLF here.

QANTAS have the unusual situation of many long haul flights, so a lot of mileage, but relatively low overall numbers of takeoffs / landings compared to just about all other players in the field. So this may skew figures.

OTOH, major accidents like Bangkok overrun (which was not a hull loss only due to a massive repair to save that reputation) are likely to continue , in line with current company policy / SOPs . The outsourcing of heavy maintenance from Sydney , my patients tell me, has seen a huge change in the past philosophy of "safety at any expense". Other than that, there was nothing else all that special about QANTAS. Good ole Aussie scepticism / egalitarianism and finely tuned bullsh!tometers also avoided some of the "loss of face" Asian accidents.

I may be wrong about the above and stand ready to be corrected by you professionals. I do enjoy the fora !

[FEHERTO]

Coming back to the headline and leaving the Aussies for a moment on the side.

For more than 15 years I am doing 145/135/91 audits, all over the world. You find on each continent good ones and some, which you know after the audit, never fly with them.

But, subjective from my experience, the standard in the USA is definitely lower as in most Europe and several countries in Asia / Oceania.

It is unacceptable for a lot of countries to allow airlines to continue flying after finding major maintenance discrepancies just with a "financial penalty". We you drive too bad or drunken, you loose your licence. The same should apply, as a minimum, for aviation in all respects.

And to all who question the safety record of Quantas: Just go their and look on the maintenance they operate. Not perfect, but far exceeeding the most done in 121's in USA.

[Safety Concerns]

http://www.pprune.org/engineers-technicians/406255-faa-proposes-1-2-million-civil-penalty-ge-caledonian.html

http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/406128-faa-wants-2-9-million-american-eagle-fine.html

It is interesting looking at all the threads on this forum particularly in the aftermath of a tragedy. With SMS and human factors at least trying to show us the correct way forward the unfortunate reality is that humans are unable to learn from their mistakes.

The list and the warnings are growing as the business minded manager gradually replaces the safety minded manager. You will ignore this thread which is actually about prevention but you will post like crazy after the next preventable accident.

When you stand back, remove all the excess baggage and politics surrounding flying, and think about the situation, how sad is that?

[muduckace]

The hype here is something else as people are not capable of comprehending aviation safety.

" 65,000 Maintenance Problems Have Taken Off Anyway (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/404449-65-000-maintenance-problems-have-taken-off-anyway-2.html#post5523751) "

Yeah, so what? How many of these were safety of flight, I have read some of the above examples.

Fact is every aircraft in existance has a maintenance problem right now, at this moment!

May be a loose rivit, spot of corrosion OR could be a crack in primary structure that is getting ready to let loose and kill hundreds of people that was an inspection card or AD not accomplished at overhaul 200 legs ago.

Draws focus away from creating better maintenance programs and oversight. Bottom line is control. When airlines use MRO's forign or domestic they loose control as the MRO's prime initiative is to make as much money while still staying in business. Airlines who elect to do business in house drive to shorten check time and cut corners to save money but the system is stronger as they have employees who have to look out for their personal welfare first. This means generating more work by looking a bit harder, questioning processes to ensure what they sign for has been performed and doccumented correctly etc.

Lazyness is the human factor that causes most if not allmost all safety events from all aspects of the business.

[FEHERTO]

The point is that known maintenance problems had been ignored and records had been faked. And just have a look, where it happened: Most of the time in the own maintenance basis.
So stop only complaining about outsourced maintenance, the black sheeps can be found everywhere.

[Safety Concerns]

I think the real issue is not outsourcing or in house but that these incidents are steadily increasing. Thats the issue. Anyone trying to defend or belittle the situation does not comprehend safety.

Flying is perfectly safe when everybody does what they are supposed do. Any deviance is unwanted and increases the risk unnecessarily.

[DIA74]

Kiltrash - Your preferential carriers are low cost, so do you imagine your £10 fare pays for excellent standards of maintainence? FR, for example, have had many incidents for such a new airline, and many of their employees are bitching about their practices (see pilots conerns in The Times) All airlines face a very difficult balance between what is best possible practice and what is economically realistic "It will do a trip" is a common ethos, because the public look for the lowest fare - yet buying, operating and maintaining aircraft to the highest possible standard is very expensive. In an ideal world, no aircraft would ever take off without a totally clear tech log and a committee checking every nut and bolt. Sadly, no commercial organisation could afford to operate that way and the public would not pay the cost through fares. Luckily, our industry is mainly staffed by highly responsible and well trained people who make it the safest form of travel there is. The low cost travel revolution is potentially the greatest threat to safety because it drives income down to levels where best practice is too expensive.

[Dodo56]

HeryBird: I hold to the doctrine that you make your own luck.

Muduckace: Don't underestimate outsourced MROs. They are as focused on safety as the airline's own facilities. The same requirements and oversight apply to them all. Arguably the independent MRO should be even more focused on service and safety as one major incident could lose them the contract, while the airline's in-house staff know they have a tied customer. The airline's MRO are no stranger to economic pressures either. I've seen good and bad from both types of provider and I don't believe one has any real safety advantages over the other.

[bizdev]

What makes the low cost carriers low cost?

Predominantly it is high utilisation of its aircraft.

To achieve high utilisation you need very high reliability of the aircraft.

In my experience, the Approved Maintenance Schedules of the LCCs have a higher attention to those areas that can affect reliabilty. For example the lubrication/inspection of high cyle parts of the aircraft get more attention than the 'standard' MPD i.e. langing gear, flaps, slats etc.

Low Cost does not necessarily mean less maintenance - often it is the opposite.

bizdev