United Grounds 757 Fleet
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: On the ground too often
Age: 49
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is more than a clerical error, it is disgraceful if you are fully aware...
In an ideal world I would of course expect some kind of an integrated system - so the engineer at the manufacturer defines the tasks to be performed for the SB and these are electronically transferred as task lists for the mechanics. I have, however, worked on a major SCM project for a company which is a key supplier for Boeing, Airbus and a few other military aerospace outfits - and I know that the integration of systems in this industry is decades behind the ones everyone else is using that ensure you can always get fresh eggs at your supermarket, a pickle in your cheeseburger or your particular size of trainer at the sports shop.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I and along with everyone else posting in this thread have no idea of the full facts in this oversight.
My guess is and it is only a guess and l hope the following is what did happen.
They carried out the AD by embodying the Service Bulletin as detailed in the SB.
This included the functions or operational tests after the changes,.
However the FAA can not see individual sign offs of these tests, so UA is unable to prove that they were carried out, hence out of compliance with the AD.
I hope that this is the case, as no respectable engineer would not carry out Function or Ops tests after a mod of this magnitude.
My guess is and it is only a guess and l hope the following is what did happen.
They carried out the AD by embodying the Service Bulletin as detailed in the SB.
This included the functions or operational tests after the changes,.
However the FAA can not see individual sign offs of these tests, so UA is unable to prove that they were carried out, hence out of compliance with the AD.
I hope that this is the case, as no respectable engineer would not carry out Function or Ops tests after a mod of this magnitude.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope that this is the case, as no respectable engineer would not carry out Function or Ops tests after a mod of this magnitude.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Ashbourne Co Meath Ireland
Age: 73
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TWT
thanks for that, corrected,
Qantas in Singapore, got momentarily confused
No.Try Qantas A380.....
thanks for that, corrected,
Qantas in Singapore, got momentarily confused
Last edited by Irish Steve; 22nd Feb 2011 at 19:03.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tewksbury Mass USA
Age: 80
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Painting reality ?
Regarding Post 14 ; “A quick look at the stats (NTSB - Aviation Accident Statistics) shows reality is not as grim as you paint it. Depending on how you count the volume of traffic has gone up by between 30%-50% but I don't really see a significant increase in accident rates over the past 20 years.”.
The NTSB’s Accident/Incident database is worth a look here. Could ‘painting reality’ could be simply the same as using selected reports. And selective reports appears a reality at the NTSB says this NTSB document titled “ NTSB Safety Report SR-02-02” published on September 11, 2002.
Begging corrections if I’m off base here, but the NTSB says of their Accident/Incident database, that only “some non accident events (aviation incidents) that could affect the safety of U.S. aircraft operations (event occurrences).” are entered.
And those selected reports, the NTSB then says of the FAA Incident Data System that; “The FAA AIDS database contains incidents only, using the Safety Board’s Aviation Accident Database as the primary source for accident information.”
So it appears that we have two major databases of selected reports. A ‘painted reality’ one of selection ?
See these quoted excerpts (any highlighting seen is mine) from pages 6 and 7 of this report and the relevant paragraphs reproduced below.
For context and the full texts see the NTSB’s Link > http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/SR0202.pdf
Aviation Accident Database
“The NTSB maintains the Aviation Accident Database which contains the probable cause and other data describing (a) all civil aviation accidents occurring in the United States and its territories; (b) government public use accidents occurring under certain conditions: (c) accidents occurring in foreign states involving civil aircraft of U.S. registry or manufacture or a U.S.- based operator; and (d) some non accident events (aviation incidents) that could affect the safety of U.S. aircraft operations (event occurrences). Data entered into the database come directly from Safety Board investigation records. Board investigators enter accident/incident data using an automated data entry system. Newly entered information is uploaded daily from regional and field offices via the Board’s wide area computer network.”
FAA Incident Data System
“The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Flight Standards Service (FAA-AFS) maintains the FAA Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS). The FAA AIDS database contains incidents only, using the Safety Board’s Aviation Accident Database as the primary source for accident information.” “The FAA currently does not publish an annual statistical summary of AIDS data. The FAA’s Office of System Safety does, however, provide public Internet access to abbreviated incident reports with a on-line search tool for locating incident records on its Web site.
The NTSB’s Accident/Incident database is worth a look here. Could ‘painting reality’ could be simply the same as using selected reports. And selective reports appears a reality at the NTSB says this NTSB document titled “ NTSB Safety Report SR-02-02” published on September 11, 2002.
Begging corrections if I’m off base here, but the NTSB says of their Accident/Incident database, that only “some non accident events (aviation incidents) that could affect the safety of U.S. aircraft operations (event occurrences).” are entered.
And those selected reports, the NTSB then says of the FAA Incident Data System that; “The FAA AIDS database contains incidents only, using the Safety Board’s Aviation Accident Database as the primary source for accident information.”
So it appears that we have two major databases of selected reports. A ‘painted reality’ one of selection ?
See these quoted excerpts (any highlighting seen is mine) from pages 6 and 7 of this report and the relevant paragraphs reproduced below.
For context and the full texts see the NTSB’s Link > http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/SR0202.pdf
Aviation Accident Database
“The NTSB maintains the Aviation Accident Database which contains the probable cause and other data describing (a) all civil aviation accidents occurring in the United States and its territories; (b) government public use accidents occurring under certain conditions: (c) accidents occurring in foreign states involving civil aircraft of U.S. registry or manufacture or a U.S.- based operator; and (d) some non accident events (aviation incidents) that could affect the safety of U.S. aircraft operations (event occurrences). Data entered into the database come directly from Safety Board investigation records. Board investigators enter accident/incident data using an automated data entry system. Newly entered information is uploaded daily from regional and field offices via the Board’s wide area computer network.”
FAA Incident Data System
“The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Flight Standards Service (FAA-AFS) maintains the FAA Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS). The FAA AIDS database contains incidents only, using the Safety Board’s Aviation Accident Database as the primary source for accident information.” “The FAA currently does not publish an annual statistical summary of AIDS data. The FAA’s Office of System Safety does, however, provide public Internet access to abbreviated incident reports with a on-line search tool for locating incident records on its Web site.
FAA Incident Data System
“The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Flight Standards Service (FAA-AFS) maintains the FAA Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS). The FAA AIDS database contains incidents only, using the Safety Board’s Aviation Accident Database as the primary source for accident information.” “The FAA currently does not publish an annual statistical summary of AIDS data. The FAA’s Office of System Safety does, however, provide public Internet access to abbreviated incident reports with a on-line search tool for locating incident records on its Web site.
“The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Flight Standards Service (FAA-AFS) maintains the FAA Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS). The FAA AIDS database contains incidents only, using the Safety Board’s Aviation Accident Database as the primary source for accident information.” “The FAA currently does not publish an annual statistical summary of AIDS data. The FAA’s Office of System Safety does, however, provide public Internet access to abbreviated incident reports with a on-line search tool for locating incident records on its Web site.
All true but;
The important distinction is that FAA data bases typically only use description provided by the reporter and do not include follow up investigations or resolvement.
They are very difficult to resolve cause and solution and other than an incident per unit of time or length and are pretty much useless for the general public to understand.
something like: pilot reports "left engine missing" and maintenance reports "left engine found and flight dispatched"
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AD/SB would have been transcribed to an Engineering Order and issued to production for each aircraft. It seems likely that Technical Services didn't include the operational tests, which would have been written in the SB, as well as called up by the AD, in the EO.
Whether or not the mechanics carried out tests of their own volition is not the point. For AD's it must be crystal clear how an AD was complied with, and that it was complied with totally and correctly.
There is no excuse for United, the process is well known and been followed by others for years. I'll remember this the next time US unions complain about off-shore maintenance standards; this is a clear own-goal.
Whether or not the mechanics carried out tests of their own volition is not the point. For AD's it must be crystal clear how an AD was complied with, and that it was complied with totally and correctly.
There is no excuse for United, the process is well known and been followed by others for years. I'll remember this the next time US unions complain about off-shore maintenance standards; this is a clear own-goal.
411A's honest you don't have to always agree with him, but it is in our best interest to at least listen...
also to add to list of mishaps based on 'tombstone mentality' in the airlines themselves; remember the Alaska airlines jack-screw malfunction
and that famous DC-10 crash due to an incorrectly performed engine change..will they ever learn?
also to add to list of mishaps based on 'tombstone mentality' in the airlines themselves; remember the Alaska airlines jack-screw malfunction
and that famous DC-10 crash due to an incorrectly performed engine change..will they ever learn?
