Rise In Outside Repairs Raises Questions

[SilentWarrior]

From a previous post/topic (TSA Lighter Ban)

Maintenance in 3rd world countries...That brings up more serious issues, doesn't it?

.....

And don't even get me started on the loss of skills this country will suffer, making us forever dependant on the armpits of the world. We're losing the ability to have the older teach the younger. The link is breaking. That is a bigger security threat.

[post="252361"][/post]​

On that note, and just off the press

CNN Article that raises questions on outsourced maintenance.

Those expressing the most concern over the outsourcing trend are the unions representing airline mechanics and Federal Aviation Administration inspectors. And the Department of Transportation's inspector general has expressed concern over the government's ability to oversee maintenance done by outside contractors.

But airline industry representatives and the FAA deny that using third-party repair stations increases safety risks. In fact, they note that even though major air carriers now outsource 51 percent of their maintenance, up from 37 percent in 1996, the fatality rate among major carriers is at the lowest levelin years.

This is going to be a LONG discussion.

 

[mweiss]

SW, you're probably right.

While it's true that outsourced maintance has risen, and the fatality rate has fallen, to conclude from those two statistics that outsourced maintenance is as safe or safer than insourced.

It's the same sort of speciousness that we hear from mechanics who claim that problems at a particular maintenance facility prove that outsourcing is inherently more dangerous.

 

[gatemech]

I have heard that at a couple of repair stations they hire off street corners to take the aircraft apart. Like interiors / seats. The FAA is the one requiring an A&P to work the line. United had a policy of requiring A, P, or both depending on what you did. It just shows how much United lowered its standards by using repair stations with unlicensed mechanics.

Some of the aircraft coming back from the OSV stations are real bad. I have seen some in a hanger for over a week to fix problems from those stations. Where are the savings?

I could go on & on. Maintenance should remain in house!!!!! As stated on the TSA thread who is doing the background checks at the overseas repair stations???? What is Bush with his Homeland Security Agency doing about this???!!!! Our jobs, security, & safety are going away.

 

[SilentWarrior]

Ok, I will admit I am not in or related to the aviation maintenance field, and would gladly accept corrections so long as they are factual.

From what I can gather, and FAA certified (licensed) mechanic could hold one or both ratings of Airframe and Powerplant (A&P). The FAA is very clear on the certification process.
CFR Title 14 Part 65, Subpart D. This includes meeting the knowledge requirements in Part 65.75 (including Parts 65.77 and 65.79), and meeting the basic requirements in regards to age/language. Uncertified mechanics can do maintenance work on an aircraft, so long as a certified mechanic signs off the work. This I imagine would also be the standard for any outsourced work done in another country. These companies overseas would have to meet the standards set forth by the FAA for them to work on aircraft considered “US metalâ€￾.

From the data (PDF) I have found (sadly no later than year 2000) it states that the split of certified mechanics and uncertified mechanics was 85% to 15%. This chart further breaks down those numbers. If anyone has updated information I think it would add to this thread.

Here comes the “stickyâ€￾ part. The FAA it seems from this point to wash their hands, and place the responsibility for the oversight of third-party maintenance squarely on the airlines (from the article). This to me seems a hard pill to swallow. The certification required by any professional mechanic is not airline specific in name or nature. There is no such thing as an (insert airline here) A&P certification. While I do agree that the airlines need to place those whom they are entrusting their maintenance under a microscope, at the end of the day the FAA needs to be the enforcing agency.

Arguments for the FAA revamping their oversight can be found here. Review of FAA oversight (or lack there-of) by the US Gerneral Accounting Office (GAO).

Of course this does not include the inherent security concerns brought up by RDU Jetblast. Some of these concerns are brought up here.

 

[UAL_TECH]

New Evidence of Aviation Security and Safety Gaps Supports Aircraft Mechanics' Warnings to Congress

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been repeatedly criticized for failing to adequately oversee outsourced maintenance contractors in the U.S. and abroad. A July 2003 report from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General noted that these repair stations are not only less supervised by the government, but less able to enforce compliance on their own. "For example," the report said, "(FAA) inspectors at one air carrier completed 400 inspections of the air carrier's in-house maintenance operations in financial year 2002, while only completing 7 maintenance inspections of offshore repair stations used by the air carrier during the same time period. During this same year, this air carrier outsourced 44 percent of its maintenance cost."

B) UT

Don't Worry

 

[local 12 proud]

Sadly, the general public really has no concern as long as the seats are cheap and it "does'nt happen to them".

 

[mweiss]

Sadly, the general public really has no concern as long as the seats are cheap and it "does'nt happen to them".

[post="255833"][/post]​

What makes that sad? They are far more likely to die in the car on the way to the airport than in the airplane they take to their destination. Shouldn't our dollars be spent where they do the most good?

 

[RDU Jetblast]

Still, the chain of passing experience from old timer to new comer is breaking. If you have eer worked on aircraft compare how much of your skill was learned from A&P school to Maintenance manuals to someone with experience. In my case, my experience came from 1)someone else, 2)manuals, 3)school.

 

[local 12 proud]

What makes that sad? They are far more likely to die in the car on the way to the airport than in the airplane they take to their destination. Shouldn't our dollars be spent where they do the most good?

[post="256090"][/post]​

sure whatever you say einstien!

 

[NWA/AMT]

What makes that sad? They are far more likely to die in the car on the way to the airport than in the airplane they take to their destination. Shouldn't our dollars be spent where they do the most good?

[post="256090"][/post]​

So the logical solution is to cut spending on aircraft maintenance until it becomes as unsafe as auto travel?

 

[mweiss]

So the logical solution is to cut spending on aircraft maintenance until it becomes as unsafe as auto travel?

[post="256374"][/post]​

That's not what I was saying. If cutting, say, a million dollars in aviation maintenance were to cost, say, an extra dozen lives per year, what could we do with the money? If putting those same dollars into the automotive industry were to save an extra fifty lives per year, then it's worth doing.

But it's more than that. I'm saying that we have to deal with the dollar value of risk every single day. There is not enough money in the world to make everything absolutely safe, so we compromise. Why is that sad?

 

[whlinder]

The government generally spends between 8 and 12 million to save one life. This was quoted by a college professor of mine. I guess they studied bills that were passed to see how much money was spent and how many lives the change caused by the bill expected to save. The final figure was 8 to 12 mil, I guess depending on the expected lives saved. (This is all from memory, I hope I got it right.)

Thus, Congress wouldn't pass a bill that forces auto companies to make 50 million dollars worth of changes to save 1 life, but they would if it only cost 5 million to save that life. FWIW

 

[UAL_TECH]

That's not what I was saying. If cutting, say, a million dollars in aviation maintenance were to cost, say, an extra dozen lives per year, what could we do with the money? If putting those same dollars into the automotive industry were to save an extra fifty lives per year, then it's worth doing.

But it's more than that. I'm saying that we have to deal with the dollar value of risk every single day. There is not enough money in the world to make everything absolutely safe, so we compromise. Why is that sad?

[post="256556"][/post]​

It is sad because it is a known -vs- an unknown and it is preventable.
The system is on the verge of a breakdown and nothing will be done until there are 'several' lawn darts attributable to outsourcing.

Will it happen tomorrow? I doubt it.
Will it happen? Most certainly!

What is sad is that the acceptable Aviation DPRM (Deaths Per Revenue Mile) are not made public.

More good news:
FAA To Abandon Preventive Maintenance

The implementation of the FAA plan, in its current form, will affect the safety and integrity of the National Airspace System (NAS). Adopting a “Reliability Centered Maintenanceâ€￾ philosophy would cause the physical degradation of equipment and facilities vital to safe air travel. “Reliability Centered Maintenance basically means, ‘don’t touch it until it breaks,’â€￾ said Brantley.

B) UT

 

[mweiss]

It is sad because it is a known -vs- an unknown and it is preventable.

There are tons of known, preventable risks that result in increased deaths. Why is it best to be spending those dollars on airline safety?

Historically, the issue has been (and most likely will continue to be in the future) the headline-grabbing nature of airline crashes. The fact that we have had far fewer of them in recent years than in years past has reduced the significance of airline maintenance in the eyes of the traveling public. IIRC, the last US-based airliner to go down was the AS MD-80, five years ago. That's a long time.

I want to make it clear that I'm not advocating anything in particular here. I don't know whether or not we're overspending on airliner maintenance. I don't know if the money would be better spent in preventing, for example, BSE infections of humans. I don't know if we'd be better off spending the money on developing alternative fuels so that we're not dependent upon nations that seem to be the cradle of modern terrorism. What I do know is that the only way to make airliner maintenance a squeaky wheel is to have periodic crashes. It's human nature.

 

[local 12 proud]

your off a few year's, the last was jan.08 2003 where 21 lives perished when a USAIR commuter slammed into a hangar shortly after takeoff. it was determined that the elevator flight control had been improperly rigged by a mechanic with little or no knowledge of the system. BUT just think of the cost savings the airlines gain from cheap maintenace. IM SURE THE ATTORNEYS AND THE CARRIER WILL COME OUT THE WINNERS ON THIS ONE AS WELL!......your right MICHAEL, you dont have a clue so why dont you just leave AVIATION matters to those who do?