Vanity Fair: The Disturbing Truth About How Airplanes Are Maintained
 

From the 30th Nov 2015 edition of Vanity Fair (a publication not known for its aviation focus), an article some around this parish might find interesting, or indeed already be familiar with.

The Disturbing Truth About How Airplanes Are Maintained Today | Vanity Fair

JAS

This is very alarmist and but few 'facts' seem to be substantiated.
It also sounds as if the writer is suggesting that if an aircraft is maintained by anyone other than an American then it will be suspect.
Be interesting to hear the engineers view on this article and how it applies to UK (or even European) airline maintenance.

FF

It seems that they expect mechanics in South America to hold FAA licences. We maintain many N registered aircraft at my company, in locations all over Europe, and none of us are FAA licenced, We mostly hold EASA licences and work under a FAA repair station approval.

Speaking as a licensed engineer, CPL(H) in training, and someone who owns a company very much involved in all manner of aircraft maintenance, I see this is total sensationalism.

The simple fact is that aircraft still have to be maintained under the regulation of the state of registry - be it an EASA aircraft or FAA aircraft - the maintenace companies still have to be EASA or FAA approved - so whist non certifying mech's may be non-English speaking, the licensed engineers will still need to read/write/speak English whilst holding the relevant FAA A&P or EASA Pt 66 ticket.

None of the above makes a good story though........

ISTR wen i wer lad the cure was wet towels :ok:

We had a maintenance facility in Wales referred to as 'Taff's Garage'. Does that count as cheapo work? :E

When I left the RAF I flew air taxis for a couple of months. We had an old but unlicensed ground eng and a young licensed guy. That was considered legal because the young guy was required to inspect and sign off the other guy's work. Whether he actually inspected it very carefully I have no idea.

I'm sure that the work will have to be signed off by an engineer licensed by the nation of registration.

At the plumbers' merchant's one day I listened into a conversation about a Corgi qualified man who made a living from inspecting and signing off work done by unqualified fitters. (Don't get me started about incompetent gas fitters)

The Vanity Fair article on the Air France Airbus that crashed in the South Atlantic (I think it was the Nov 2014 edition) was one of the best pieces I have ever read on an aviation topic in the mainstream media.

It was available online, and may still be. If you haven't read it, it's well worth seeking out. Apart from a few unusual descriptions of items used in the aircraft, (possibly deliberately 'dumbed down' so the everyday reader could more easily its function), the article was absolutely spot on.

Anyone who (tries to) fly with United on a regular basis gets to understand that their maintenance is awful. Hours-long delays are common, as are cancelled flights, the reason being given as problems with the aircraft. I don't know how they manage to tread such a fine line while avoiding serious problems, i.e. significant failures in flight. Whether they outsource it or not I have no idea - they still have a huge maintenance base at SFO.

Here's a link to the AF 447 article written by William Langewiesche:

Should Airplanes Be Flying Themselves? | Vanity Fair

His test pilot father, Wolfgang, wrote the classic Stick and Rudder (1944).

Langewiesche most definitely did NOT write this article.

In addition to the Air France story, he also wrote a very informative long piece for Vanity Fair about the Embraer / 737 midair collision over Brazil:

William Langewiesche on the Amazon air crash | Vanity Fair


I used to make my living test-flying heavy aircraft coming out of maintenance checks. I did work in Asia, Europe and the US, for company facilities and contractors. The contractors in Asia were usually head-and-shoulders better than the others, as far as the finished product......

Vanity Fair also had an article about African flying and African airlines some years ago. Hilarious and scary at the same time. Possible same author.
Highly recommended, perhaps available online.

Vanity Fair article.
 

"Langewiesche most definitely did NOT write this article.

In addition to the Air France story, he also wrote a very informative long piece for Vanity Fair about the Embraer / 737 midair collision over Brazil"


??????


Would you please explain this contradiction.

This article's pretty good, but I think it's a little sensationalist suggesting that just because maintenance is done somewhere abroad - it's not as good.

With the exception of people (usually) being able to speak English, all of the maintenance failures highlighted in the article aren't unique to South America. The reality is all operations are susceptible to what's described in the article.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Prior to flying I was Aircraft Engineer, some of the most poorly maintained aircraft I saw were N reg.

I was referring to the maintenance story that is the subject of the thread.

You need to see the aircraft flying in Vietnam. There is nothing that can't be permenantly fixed with high speed tape. All three airlines are the same here.


Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Prior to flying I was Aircraft Engineer, some of the most poorly maintained aircraft I saw were N reg.

I suppose everyone has a different experience but none of the aircraft I flew around SE Asia were maintained as well as the aircraft I fly around Australia and NZ.
I might be biased though as before flying I was maintaining in Australia and NZ.

As with most aspects of aviation, safety relies on good auditing by the regulator. No regulatory oversight means poor safety standards.

I guess I'm the only one who checks that magazine just for the pics...:E