What is wrong with the F.A.A. ?

a727dr

Newbie
Sep 12, 2006
3
0
What is wrong with the F.A.A. ?

I am a licensed Aircraft Mechanic (A&P) (AMT), and I am very concerned with the future of aircraft safety and the longevity of the aircraft mechanic. In recent years the airlines have turned to contract maintenance to reduce the cost of maintaining there aircraft. This move makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is the increase in flight crew maintenance. More and more when there is a maintenance issue with an aircraft, the pilots, flight attendants and ground handlers are performing maintenance procedures prior to calling out a licensed mechanic. I can’t count how many times I have been called to an aircraft for a problem that was discovered 30 minutes or more prior to receiving a call for maintenance. Upon arriving at the plane, I would find that the crew had tried numerous maintenance actions, with out fixing the problem. This wouldn’t bother me so much if it was limited to non airworthy items. Recently I was called to respond to a gate return of an aircraft for a problem with its navigation system. On my way to the aircraft, I was called and told not to bother coming just yet, the crew is going to try and fix it at the end of the runway. When I saw the aircraft take off, 20 minutes later, I wondered how they signed off the logbook. Only licensed mechanics with the proper training can sign off the aircraft, as airworthy, after a repair has been accomplished. Or did they just fail to document a problem with a live aircraft, with passengers on board? It is painfully obvious that flight crews are reporting less and less maintenance problems. With aircraft getting older this doesn’t make a lot of sense. I have many examples of crews pocketing items, to avoid taking a delay outbase. This to me is a major safety issue. Don’t get me wrong, I am not lashing out at the pilots alone, but the airlines that offer incentives for on time performance and punishes for maintenance delays. If the airplane has a mechanical issue it shouldn’t be ignored in order prevent a delay. I think the biggest blame needs to be put on the F.A.A. I am sure they are aware of the airlines actions, it’s what they are paid to do. What will it take for someone to step in and resolve this serious safety issue? Is it going to take a major accident before something is done to put the maintenance back in the mechanics hands? Having seen this neglect in oversight first hand, I am more afraid now of a mechanical failure, rather than a terrorist attack, taking down an airplane.

A concerned mechanic
 
If the crew doesn't write it up, there is no need for anyone to sign it off.

As for your nav system story, they may have realized they made a mistake dialing in inputs or knew that resetting a c.b. would correct the problem. It's not like they carry a tool box with them. They're not swapping boxes in the E&E.
 
If the crew doesn't write it up, there is no need for anyone to sign it off.

As for your nav system story, they may have realized they made a mistake dialing in inputs or knew that resetting a c.b. would correct the problem. It's not like they carry a tool box with them. They're not swapping boxes in the E&E.

My point exactly, most pilots have not been to school on the mechanics of the aircraft. They just react to the fault indications per their flight manual. If they have a fault they are required to report it. If they don't report it and it is a recurrent problem, how is the mechanic supposed to troubleshoot the problem? In the case of the gate return, which is only one example, the crew decided to power down the A320 at the end of the runway for 10 minutes to reboot the A/C. Do you think it's wise to de-power the aircraft with passengers on board at the end of an active runway? What about an emergency egress? What if they weren't able to re-establish power to the airplane? i.e. the APU won't restart. I'm just asking for the flight crews to do their part to ensure the safety of the flying public, the mechanics to do their job, and the F.A.A. to do theirs. Safety is my #1 concern as it should be yours.
 
A reply I received:
From: Passenger with a clue.>
unregistered


posted 13 September 2006 04:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or they just dont report a problem and limp home...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IP: Logged

<Passenger with a clue>
unregistered


posted 13 September 2006 05:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other week I noticed a long black round rubber or plastic thing been jammed between the flaperon and flap . It was about 1 meter long and 5cm thick. Seemed to be on a track on the inboard part of the flaperon.
It departed the aircraft without incident. Very quickly I must add, at crusing altitude.
It was reported to the captain and I also reported that there was a remaining section that was unstable. We landed on a scheduled stop.
I thought, thats ok, an engineer will look at it and fix, or at least remove this other part that might get jammed too.
We took off and I was shocked nothing had been done about it.
The remaining part also made its way to the trailing edge of the flaperon and was also been jammed between the flap and flaperon It left the aircraft and hit the tail section with a loud "thump", and to make things worse it was over a populated area this time.
If the captain gets a bonus for putting his passengers and the publics life in danger, then action must be taken.
Good on you for speaking out old chap, you claims of a failing system are all too valid in my eyes!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IP: Logged
 
Pilots are allowed to decisions. And, if the crews actually returned to the gate for every anomaly without attempting to correct themselves, nobody would ever get off the ground! Flight crews are indeed trained more than you know.

If these events flames you, go to:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Travel/story?id=2484183&page=1

and read about the British Airways captain who lost one engine on a 747 during takeoff from LAX and continued on to London.

It appears, in Britain, they are allowed to do that.