Bottom line is not to deviate from the written language in the ECO. If it says to do something within a certain distance make dam sure it is within the allowable distance or materials etc. I saw so called experts doing the MD 80 ECO and some were not doing it verbatim per the paper work. They said "well this is the way I do it" which was not correct per the ECO. We have something similar brewing with the 767 ECO with checking the wiring below the P61 panel, people did not do it correctly per the ECO and the feds took pictures. Just do it per the paper work and the feds will not have anything to ding us on.
FAA set to hit American with huge penalty
- Thread starter Hatu
- Start date
Bottom line is not to deviate from the written language in the ECO. If it says to do something within a certain distance make dam sure it is within the allowable distance or materials etc. I saw so called experts doing the MD 80 ECO and some were not doing it verbatim per the paper work. They said "well this is the way I do it" which was not correct per the ECO. We have something similar brewing with the 767 ECO with checking the wiring below the P61 panel, people did not do it correctly per the ECO and the feds took pictures. Just do it per the paper work and the feds will not have anything to ding us on.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 587
MCI, yes there were dimensions called out for in the AD and on some aircraft they were not followed. That is part of what got us into trouble.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
It bears noting that other MD80 operators managed to complete the required repairs w/o problems and supposedly AA did contract work for another airline and the FAA had no problems w/ those repairs.
As for the comparisons w/ NW, the FAA doesn't fine airlines for incidents or accidents... they are fined for violating procedures. And NW was indeed fined for doing just that recently... if the FAA finds that the NW maintenance problems were related to a systematic violation of FAA guidelines, then they should be fined but I'm not sure that wil happen even if it is found to have occurred since NW doesn't exist anymore and part of the FAA's goal is to ensure aviation safety; if NW's procedures and people are now controlled by DL, then there might not be much point in levying fines even if NW is found to have systematically chosen not to follow FAA procedures.
The government always wins. If you challenge them, make sure you can cover your backside well.... and if you can't, make sure it is worth challenging them. There is no doubt that the FAA was wrong at least in the Dallas office - but they walk away scot free.
AA was indeed quite politically active on a number of fronts in the past - and was very successful.... problem appears to be that AA has been challenging the FAA on one enforcement action after another which only spurs the FAA on to look for more dirt and levy larger fines.
WN had an equally nasty brush w/ the FAA but took the approach of admitting they were wrong, putting in place new procedures and processes, and putting the incident behind them. Outside of the aviation community, not many people remember the FAA/WN story.
As for the comparisons w/ NW, the FAA doesn't fine airlines for incidents or accidents... they are fined for violating procedures. And NW was indeed fined for doing just that recently... if the FAA finds that the NW maintenance problems were related to a systematic violation of FAA guidelines, then they should be fined but I'm not sure that wil happen even if it is found to have occurred since NW doesn't exist anymore and part of the FAA's goal is to ensure aviation safety; if NW's procedures and people are now controlled by DL, then there might not be much point in levying fines even if NW is found to have systematically chosen not to follow FAA procedures.
The government always wins. If you challenge them, make sure you can cover your backside well.... and if you can't, make sure it is worth challenging them. There is no doubt that the FAA was wrong at least in the Dallas office - but they walk away scot free.
AA was indeed quite politically active on a number of fronts in the past - and was very successful.... problem appears to be that AA has been challenging the FAA on one enforcement action after another which only spurs the FAA on to look for more dirt and levy larger fines.
WN had an equally nasty brush w/ the FAA but took the approach of admitting they were wrong, putting in place new procedures and processes, and putting the incident behind them. Outside of the aviation community, not many people remember the FAA/WN story.
NYGiantsFan90
Corn Field
- Oct 23, 2003
- 246
- 41
Actually the government always doesnt win, most fines are reduced or eliminated when they airline meets with the FAA, that has happened to WN, AA and HP.
Also when the FAA takes action against a AMT, the AMT has the right to go to the NTSB and request a hearing, I have participated in several cases when the FAA has sent an LOI to a mechanic and the mechanic prevailed and the FAA was shown to be wrong.
Also when the FAA takes action against a AMT, the AMT has the right to go to the NTSB and request a hearing, I have participated in several cases when the FAA has sent an LOI to a mechanic and the mechanic prevailed and the FAA was shown to be wrong.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 587
<_< ------ Slopoke, "dimensions" yes! "Tolerances", no!!!------- In other words, the "dimensions" had to be "dead on", with no fudge factor!------- That's where we got into trouble!----- But, in my opinion, and hell, I've only worked on Aircraft for 45 years, counting military, at no time were those Aircraft less safe than any other MD80, with that AD produced by any other Airline!
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
In a democratic society of law, there SHOULD be a recourse of appeal.... but it is extraordinarily rare for the FAA to completely drop a fine once they have started the process. It is actually the NORM for the fine to be reduced based on a plan to correct the deficiencies that led to the fine in the first place. If the goal is to improve aviation safety (which it is) then the focus is not on extracting a pound of flesh as much as correcting problems that could lead to future problems.
There is no incentive to change if you don't gain something in the process of negotiation either... thus it makes sense to reduce the fine in return for demonstrating changed behavior.
NYGiantsFan90
Corn Field
- Oct 23, 2003
- 246
- 41
IIRC the spacing limit was not clearly spelled out either, was it edge to edge, center to center? It doesnt really make a difference safety wise but if i read it as one inch apart i could interpret that as edge to edge but that could put me out of limits if they interpret it as center to center.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 587
<_< ------ Again, that's because they interpreted the AD at plus "0", minus "0" tolerance! In an imperfect world, not a little unreasonable, wouldn't you say? And yes, safety was never an issue even though the FAA is suggesting otherwise!
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
The US has an indirect representative form of government which means ultimately the government (in its present form) cannot do what it wants absent the consent of ENOUGH citizens.
Specific to this case, there aren't enough Americans who are going to believe that AA is being railroaded which is why a representative democracry won't do much to change the situation.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 587
All governments exist with the consent of their citizenry, its how they get that consent that varies.
Similar threads
