65,000 Maintenance Problems Have Taken Off Anyway
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
65,000 Maintenance Problems Have Taken Off Anyway
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. 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?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: DUBAI, U.A.E.
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Deep South, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Outsourcing
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: VIENNA
Age: 58
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 !
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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
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...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Deep South, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perspective
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: EMA
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
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".
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stockholm Sweden
Age: 74
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Northern Hemisphere somewhere
Age: 57
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!!
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!!!!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"?
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"?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Deep South, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.