787 Outsourcing

[topDawg]

Not trying to be a dick but please, E stay in IT. Stay far away from safety as possible. You're going to get people killed.

top dawg, I am not claiming cause and effect but as the industry has been moving to more and more outsourcing, saftey is at all time records. And I know that on our Heavy MX vendors we are wayless tolerant on them than in house work any day of the week.

no you aren't. You are less tolerant on going over budget thus workers are fired for pointing out things like cracks and such...... ask Southwest. They had a vendor painting over cracks.

Outsourcing is nothing more than a rallying cry used by unions to keep jobs and dues. You don't have to inspect aircraft to see the statistics, especially when safety, dispatch reliability and completion factors are all at all-time highs.

and you just proved you are way over your head. Stick to IT.
Those of us that get to repair the vendor screw ups when they come back from outside repair can tell you how bad the work is. Thankfully the US airlines still have great mechanic doing the inspections when they get back into the states, then fixing the issues. That is why aviation in the US is so safe.

but what do I know? I only deal with it everyday.

AA flight 191 DC10 crash, what happened to this one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191

Bob you don't know what you are talking about yet again. That was a management idea. Management gives mechanics the procedures then the mechanic does the job. Even if it is unsafe we are told "oh engineering says its okay. Just do it."

Frankly, that's just another stupid argument on your part. You would want to hold the airline accountable regardless who did the work.

It's also a deflection. The fact you don't want to admit is that tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of aircraft overhauls have been done by MRO's, and you can't find a single recent example where any of them have fallen out of the sky.

Google this company called Valujet. They had one literally fall out of the sky because of vendor screw up.

Oh and that CEO is now running an airline that has a very questionable safety record.....again.


If you want more examples I'll be more than happy to then them to you.
PS, A&Ps are taught that keeping them from just staying in the sky isn't enough. Again, your mentality is how people get hurt and/or die.

 

[eolesen]

I don't think it's a coincidence that you had to go back over 20 years for an example, and that incident didn't have anything to do with the airframe. It was a matter of improper shipping of hazmats.

Somethings's apparently working between the minimal oversight that airlines and the FAA are providing. All the hand-wringing hasn't convinced the FAA to do anything about it.

That ain't my mentality, Dawg. It's established public policy by the agency with oversight, and it's survived both D and R administrators for over 40 years.

 

[bob@las-AA]

Sooo management did the work.

 

[enough already]

100 Million dollar Hangar...
https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/american-airlines-build-hangar-brazil/

 

[AANOTOK]

Another deflection?

You guys choked the golden goose to death, and now act surprised because it stopped laying eggs...

Instead of throwing out asinine red herrings, maybe you and your union should figure out a way to do the work in a way that is more competitive with the offshore shops.

...or we can just let ALL politicians Outsource any and all of our countries jobs as long as it doesn't affect them and may even be in their best interest monetarily wise...isn't that what it's really all about??

 

[Real tired]

Here is another stupid argument....
just THREE years ago toda


And to think it was only 3 years ago that they considered drug testing at foreign repair stations.

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...vider-employees-located-outside-of-the-united

Remember this one? I wonder if they drug test them when they work inside this country?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/04/16/illegal-aliens-working-on-jetliners.html

 

[Real tired]

Have fun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Midwest_Flight_5481

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/27/u...enance-is-said-to-have-led-to-crash.html?_r=0

 

[Real tired]

We've had our "problems" here at good 'ole US Airways too.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113877784

 

[eolesen]

While you're busy scouring Google to find outsourced maintenance failures, let's not forget insourced labor is fallible, too:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/11/u...tied-long-failure-lubricate-tail-control.html

I know, you'll blame management, but the point is that mistakes and lapses in judgement will happen as long as humans are doing the work or the oversight. Whose logo or name is on the paycheck doesn't seem to be a determining factor as much as some might want to make it out to be.

 

[topDawg]

I don't think it's a coincidence that you had to go back over 20 years for an example, and that incident didn't have anything to do with the airframe. It was a matter of improper shipping of hazmats.

Somethings's apparently working between the minimal oversight that airlines and the FAA are providing. All the hand-wringing hasn't convinced the FAA to do anything about it.

That ain't my mentality, Dawg. It's established public policy by the agency with oversight, and it's survived both D and R administrators for over 40 years.

I picked one that fell out of the sky.

A more recent example would be the blind ass luck of the Qantas A380 that had a Trent engine wet the bed and miss kill 300-400 people by a few inches. I can and have done this all day with WT. I will be more than happy to give you more if you need them. Also you can look at the all the issues Allegiant is having for another starting point.

Also I told you what is working. The US mechanics do inspections on these airplane, engines, components when they come back from OSR. Of course the airframe might spend 2 weeks in a hangar after overhaul to fix everything the Chinese MRO screwed up. Again because you don't see the issues it must not be there? That isn't a smart way to live life.
Do you really expect the airlines to admit failure? Or the US government? GMAFB.

As I asked you before, how many airplanes have you inspected coming back from OSR? Components? Engines?

Life hint, don't tell the ones who see it everyday they are stupid. We know what we are talking about, just because airplanes aren't hitting your front lawn every day doesn't mean the issues don't exists.

 

[eolesen]

I have no doubt there are going to be ongoing quality issues, but even with having to inspect and correct things as they come back from the Aeroman, HAECO and AAR's of the world, it's still a cost positive proposition. If it wasn't, I have no doubt that DL would have canceled contracts for cause and moved the work. It's not like they'd lose face with a union for bringing work back....

The current industry model of outsourcing overhaul isn't going to be changing until the math does.

 

[delldude]

Were you around when this happened?
Mechanics did not decide to use that procedure to change the engine on their own. The procedure was approved by higher authority and higher paygrade than mechanics. Mechanics do not write policy and procedure and the maintenance manuals.
But now that you brought this up, let's discuss..
No argument that this was not an outsourced related catastrophe.
But what about oversight is at facilities thousands of miles away? If it could happen here, what makes you think it can't elsewhere?

The issue wasn't totally the procedure......it was mechanics taking a break while hanging the engine.....the engine didn't have all the bolts installed in the engine mounts, like only one, engine was supported by a forklift, which bled down some hydraulically during the break, putting the entire weight of the engine on the one bolt which later failed in flight.

 

[Vortilon]

The issue wasn't totally the procedure......it was mechanics taking a break while hanging the engine.....the engine didn't have all the bolts installed in the engine mounts, like only one, engine was supported by a forklift, which bled down some hydraulically during the break, putting the entire weight of the engine on the one bolt which later failed in flight.

One of the guys that was involved with that engine change currently works in tech services. I have heard him describe what process was used for that particular engine installation. It was an approved method that took less time. Nobody factored in the forklift bleed down as you described. That's about it in a nutshell.

 

[FWAAA]

The issue wasn't totally the procedure......it was mechanics taking a break while hanging the engine.....the engine didn't have all the bolts installed in the engine mounts, like only one, engine was supported by a forklift, which bled down some hydraulically during the break, putting the entire weight of the engine on the one bolt which later failed in flight.

IIRC, it was a shift change, not "taking a break" and the engine/pylon assembly was being removed, not installed, when the shift change interrupted the work.

 

[delldude]

One of the guys that was involved with that engine change currently works in tech services. I have heard him describe what process was used for that particular engine installation. It was an approved method that took less time. Nobody factored in the forklift bleed down as you described. That's about it in a nutshell.

The procedure was internally approved not in concurrence with MD. We had those mickey mouse procedures at UAir that were 'approved' but had to be removed from the MM's before the feds came in for an audit. That always gave one something to ponder.

It was the aft engine mount that failed, not the bolt like I mentioned before, the bolt transfered the load to the mount which eventually failed.

When I was getting my tickets, we went over the event in school and later at UAir in FAA Chain of Events training it was discussed, both times the forklift was a major factor.