From what I heard the cables must be tied with string at one inch (plus or minus .25) spacing. Pretty standard but they are being very exact. OK by me. Shouldn't have taken three years to do but it is generating a lot of OT
AA grounds the sp80 fleet....
- Thread starter alexe
- Start date
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
Well, not to point fingers, but had this happened to an airline who outsourced their maintenance, that's exactly what the unionistas would be doing as well -- pointing fingers at the scab labor who couldn't get their tie wraps spaced correctly...
Sure, QA should have inspected, and the work card should have been clearer, but fact is that AA AMT's did the work in question.
That said, I think it's a load of crap that the FAA is blowing this so far out of proportion. They got blasted last week by Congress, and came home to kick the nearest dog, which happened to be AA. Had they gone after WN, it would have looked like revenge for the guys who ruined their careers.
This comment gets the "Understatement Of The Year" award but I'm not so sure the FAA is soley to blame. This is from a CNN report Feb 9 of 2000 in regard to the infamous jackscrew failure.
---------------------------------------
American Airlines said its fleet of 284 MD-80s and MD-90s would undergo inspections over the next week to check the jackscrew.
"We are undertaking this voluntary program to underscore our commitment to the safety of our passengers and employees," American Airlines Vice Chairman Bob Baker said in a written statement.
"This voluntary inspection should alleviate public concerns following the Alaska Airlines accident."
American stressed that the inspection is voluntary, being conducted as a precautionary measure. The airline said the 30-minute inspection involves checking the condition of the mechanical "stops" on the jackscrew assembly.
---------------------------------------
When AA can take a week to VOLUNTARILY inspect a jackscrew known to have caused loss of life, one has to wonder what these piss-ant string ties are really all about.
You have to remember the FAA's ass wasn't getting grilled by Congress daily when that happened. Someone is cracking the whip and it's not from DFW.
AA would not voluntarily added millions to its expenses (so much for fuel savings) and lots millions in revenue, and pissed of (literally) hundreds of thousands of passengers just to get a leg up in labor negotiations.
D
DallasConehead
Guest
Yes they would, it's widely known in our company these buffons will trip over a dollar to jump on a dime any day of the week.
Penny wise, pound foolish (or dollar foolish for a more modern interpretation of the saying) seems to be the industry's operating mantra these days, but I doubt that any set of managers would say... Gee, those MD-80's burn alot of gas. Let's ground them for 4 days straight to save some money, while stranding half a million people, putting out millions for vouchers, hotels, and food; completely screw up the operation so we have to spend a good day to reposition crews, ruin the airline's reputation and have to deal with the sure to follow Congressional bloviating which will earn another week of really bad press. Did I even mention all of the lost revenue?!
WingNaPrayer
Veteran
I don't think AA added anything to it's expenses here. My gut instinct is that this is all fully insurable, and AA will be able to pass the bulk of these "losses" off onto their insurance. Voluntary or not it had to be done by FAA directive and it created a massive loss of revenue. That sounds insurable to me. Time will tell.
WingNaPrayer
Veteran
Moderators note- I'm sure you really dont want to go there, right Wing? Other topic also moved BECAUSE IT WAS NOT AA RELATED.
*****************
Midwest Airlines Pulls MD-80s Out Of Service; Cancels Flights
MILWAUKEE (AP) --Midwest Airlines (MEH) has grounded 13 of its airplanes to re- inspect a wiring harness that caused American Airlines to cancel more than 2,400 flights since Tuesday.
Midwest Airlines voluntarily canceled all of its flights involving the Boeing (BA) MD-80 aircraft to make sure the wiring component is in compliance with a recent Federal Aviation Administration directive.
FAA inspectors have been conducting stepped-up surveys of airline compliance with safety rules this week. It warned American Airlines that nearly half its planes could violate a safety regulation designed to prevent fires.
Midwest spokesman Mike Brophy says the airline's MD-80s passed FAA inspection, but Midwest executives decided the planes should be re-inspected by the airline's own personnel.
At least 10 Midwest flights were canceled by Thursday morning, but the airline could not say how many more might be affected.
LINK/FULL STORY
*****************
Midwest Airlines Pulls MD-80s Out Of Service; Cancels Flights
MILWAUKEE (AP) --Midwest Airlines (MEH) has grounded 13 of its airplanes to re- inspect a wiring harness that caused American Airlines to cancel more than 2,400 flights since Tuesday.
Midwest Airlines voluntarily canceled all of its flights involving the Boeing (BA) MD-80 aircraft to make sure the wiring component is in compliance with a recent Federal Aviation Administration directive.
FAA inspectors have been conducting stepped-up surveys of airline compliance with safety rules this week. It warned American Airlines that nearly half its planes could violate a safety regulation designed to prevent fires.
Midwest spokesman Mike Brophy says the airline's MD-80s passed FAA inspection, but Midwest executives decided the planes should be re-inspected by the airline's own personnel.
At least 10 Midwest flights were canceled by Thursday morning, but the airline could not say how many more might be affected.
LINK/FULL STORY
WingNaPrayer
Veteran
You could be right, but I'm very skeptical that AA has any insurance coverage for this disaster.
U
UAL_TECH
Guest
It would be interesting to read the AD (I don’t have the AD#) and compare it to the FAA complaints. Having ‘experiences’ with the FAA, I find them unreasonable at times. There ‘were’ occasions when we would replace materials (bearings/o-rings/etc…) before the OEM/CMM recommendations because we wanted to increase reliability by preventing premature failure of a piece part based on the historical performance of the part. This is ‘no more’ as it is considered a ‘DUAL Maintenance Program’.
We also ‘used to’ add additional testing of piece parts to detect possible premature failures, but again, it is a ‘DUAL Maintenance Program’. The outcome was predictable as we see reliability go down and costs go up.
Who knows what the ‘original’ SB said and how many revisions were issued before and/or after it became an AD.
I’ve seen some SBs that would never work as originally written in a field environment.
Too bad they do not scrutinize the work of the OEM and Vendors as much as they do us, but we are the ‘easy’ target.
Again, I’m just speculating as I do not have all the data.
JMHO
B) UT
We also ‘used to’ add additional testing of piece parts to detect possible premature failures, but again, it is a ‘DUAL Maintenance Program’. The outcome was predictable as we see reliability go down and costs go up.
Who knows what the ‘original’ SB said and how many revisions were issued before and/or after it became an AD.
I’ve seen some SBs that would never work as originally written in a field environment.
Too bad they do not scrutinize the work of the OEM and Vendors as much as they do us, but we are the ‘easy’ target.
Again, I’m just speculating as I do not have all the data.
JMHO
B) UT
Here it is:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance.../2006-15-15.pdf
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance...ight=2006-15-15
Incorporates by reference the various revisions of the SB (which aren't online).
