usjacket
Senior
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 310
- Reaction score
- 52
Is the FAA allowing air carriers to disreguard proper maintenance? Is it just going on at Northwest? http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?Content...f-102628be0ea4& 😱
Faa Cover Up?
- Thread starter usjacket
- Start date
usjacket said:
Not suprising. If you were a mechanic and you wanted to get into the FAA you would have to go into management first. Why? Since the actual job has nothing to do with managing people? Because of the mindset they are looking for. The FAA is not looking for good mechanics, who will try to make sure that our aircraft are being kept as safe as possible, to become FAA inspectors, they are looking for people from management who will abide by the FAAs primary directive-to promote Aviation.
Many people are under the imnpression that the FAA is a safety watchdog-THEY ARE NOT. Thats the function of the NTSB, which has no authority over the industry. The NTSB can only make recommendations and they only get involved AFTER accidents. More often than not NTSB recommendations for improving air safety are rejected by the FAA because of cost factors.
Lets not forget how the FAA coddled Eastern Airlines. It was only after the carrier failed that they went after a few poor slobs in lower management in order to try and regain some semblance of credibility with the travelling public. The big dogs, who were the real force behind the fraud at EAL went unscathed.
I had a recent experience with the FAA where I privately questioned the soundness of a new policy where a line could be drawn through signature boxes instead of signing for each box and the FAAs response was not to investigate and get back to me but to bring me in front of management. I have no doubt that this was meant to intimidate. The message being that if you report something to the FAA that you believe is wrong that they will let the company know that YOU were the one. There could only be one reason for this. To shut mechanics up.
One thing you can be sure of is that at NWA if a scab saw something that he thought was not right he would be very reluctant to report it. Lets not forget that NWA even has a gag order as a condition of employment on their mechanics preventing them from talking to reporters. Imagine if they found out that a mechanic reported something to the FAA. He would be gone.
Clearly with the pressure to get flights out with inexperienced mechanics and the stifling of those mechanics (who risk being terminated if the plane does no go)passengers at NWA are being put at a greater risk than any other carrier out there.
You would have to be nuts to put your family on NWA right now. Some would argue that the pilots are not going to put their lives at risk but pilots can only go by what they see, often they would be unaware of what maintenance did on an aircraft since pretty much the only thing recorded in the logbooks is what other pilots wrote up. The majority of the findings of mechanics is recoded elsewhere, the pilots never see that.
markkus757
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 598
- Reaction score
- 1
You forgot about Valujet and the fact that they wanted them to survuve so they could bring "affordable" air fares to Atlanta.
coolflyingfool
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,192
- Reaction score
- 1
I would not even put an enemy on NWA right now. Didn't the FAA have a hand in helping Valujet to shutdown for a few months? Some of the mechanics might be very skilled, but I know there are some who are very green. Just my thoughts............
That's not exactly true. The FAA writes all the FARs, which are designed with one thing in mind - SAFETY. They are not written to promote aviation. The FAA certifies pilots, mechs, planes, etc. only after stringent SAFETY standards are met.Bob Owens said:
It is true the NTSB is a 'watchdog', but not only for aviation. This agency investigates rail and motor vehicle accidents, as well. It was created, among other reasons, to seperate the investigative process from the rulemaking process. We can complain about the FAA all we want - there's a laundry list of squawks we can all relate - but let's remember that the US Aviation system is the safest in the world and a model other countries look to.
PHL,Sep 5 2005, 06:39 PM]
That's not exactly true. The FAA writes all the FARs, which are designed with one thing in mind - SAFETY. They are not written to promote aviation.
Not true. Safety is considered a selling point in promoting aviation. Lets face it strapping yourself into a tube going 600mph eight miles high will always be a little intimidating. Like we say in maintenace if somthing goes wrong you cant pull over onto a cloud. The FAA writes the FARs because they are the only ones with the authority to do so. In fact the standards set by the FAA tend to be so low that most carriers adopt higher standards.
The FAA certifies pilots, mechs, planes, etc. only after stringent SAFETY standards are met.
Not as stringent as those set in Europe and the reason for that is Economics, not safety.
It is true the NTSB is a 'watchdog', but not only for aviation. This agency investigates rail and motor vehicle accidents, as well. It was created, among other reasons, to seperate the investigative process from the rulemaking process.
Exactly because the rulemaking body is really from Commerce. Where did the current head of the FAA come from? Was this person a certified Airman in any capacity? Rulemaking is kept from the NTSB because they would be more focused on saving lives than airline profits.
We can complain about the FAA all we want - there's a laundry list of squawks we can all relate - but let's remember that the US Aviation system is the safest in the world and a model other countries look to.
Sure, third world countries. The fact is that the rate of accidents due to mechanical malfunctions is overtaking pilot error. Keep patting yourself on the back but the industry is losing its best on a daily basis because the industry does not want to pay. The FAA is part of the problem not part of the solution.
That's not exactly true. The FAA writes all the FARs, which are designed with one thing in mind - SAFETY. They are not written to promote aviation.
Not true. Safety is considered a selling point in promoting aviation. Lets face it strapping yourself into a tube going 600mph eight miles high will always be a little intimidating. Like we say in maintenace if somthing goes wrong you cant pull over onto a cloud. The FAA writes the FARs because they are the only ones with the authority to do so. In fact the standards set by the FAA tend to be so low that most carriers adopt higher standards.
The FAA certifies pilots, mechs, planes, etc. only after stringent SAFETY standards are met.
Not as stringent as those set in Europe and the reason for that is Economics, not safety.
It is true the NTSB is a 'watchdog', but not only for aviation. This agency investigates rail and motor vehicle accidents, as well. It was created, among other reasons, to seperate the investigative process from the rulemaking process.
Exactly because the rulemaking body is really from Commerce. Where did the current head of the FAA come from? Was this person a certified Airman in any capacity? Rulemaking is kept from the NTSB because they would be more focused on saving lives than airline profits.
We can complain about the FAA all we want - there's a laundry list of squawks we can all relate - but let's remember that the US Aviation system is the safest in the world and a model other countries look to.
Sure, third world countries. The fact is that the rate of accidents due to mechanical malfunctions is overtaking pilot error. Keep patting yourself on the back but the industry is losing its best on a daily basis because the industry does not want to pay. The FAA is part of the problem not part of the solution.
PHL said:
Could you explain why the FAA is allowing US based airlines to ship critical overhaul to those countries with a less stellar reputation?
If we are the "model" then why is the FAA allowing the "model" to be dissasembled?
Is it about safety or $$$$$$?
The FAA has previously admitted that they lack the resources to monitor US facilities let alone foreign facilities. How can you come here and make the false claim that the FAA is more concerned over safety than profits?
The WSJ (not exactly a hotbed of unionism) just ran an article about an FAA inspector who went to a Senator because he felt that a cover up was in progress at NWA. That Inspectors career is over. The FAA is now trying to do damage control. The FAA is a farce, any inspector who does his job properly is putting his job at risk because the FAA bosses are in bed with the airlines.
September 6, 2005
FAA Probing Problems at Northwest - WSJ
By REUTERS
Filed at 4:47 a.m. ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Federal aviation regulators are investigating possible maintenance problems at Northwest Airlines (NWAC.O) since mechanics went on strike on August 20, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday.
According to the newspaper, the Federal Aviation Administration said one of its inspectors, temporarily re-assigned from his duties at Northwest, [/I] had complained to the FAA and to Mark Dayton, a Democratic senator from Minnesota.
The senator in turn contacted the FAA and the Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General and sent a letter to FAA Administrator Marion Blakey, {does she hold an airmans certificate?} outlining the inspector's assertions, the Journal said.
Dayton asked Blakey to ``assure me and the public that Northwest Airlines is meeting all necessary standards of reliability and safety.''
The Journal said the letter to Blakey alleged that about 470 FAA inspector reports on Northwest's maintenance operations for 11 days after the strike began had not been entered into an electronic database, ``which would have triggered a risk assessment.''
A replay of EAL, the FAA is working with NWA by delaying the reports to strenthen NWAs hand at breaking the strike.
The letter said that 58 percent to 90 percent of the inspector reports cited defects, compared with a defect rate of 3 percent to 5 percent for Northwest prior to the strike. According to the letter, a 9 percent defect rate would trigger an internal FAA alert.
Up to a 90% defect rate??!! No wonder they are hiding it.
Unfortunately I can't cite the source(as it's from a book I read YEARS ago), but one Boeing aircraft engineer once bragged that he could design and airplane "that met EVERY single FAA requirement, and you WOULDN'T want to fly on it!."
We have always relied on builders and mechanics to what is RIGHT, not just REQUIRED to achieve the high level of safety this industry has enjoyed.
Just a thought...
We have always relied on builders and mechanics to what is RIGHT, not just REQUIRED to achieve the high level of safety this industry has enjoyed.
Just a thought...
