Is Cost King When it Comes to Maintenance? FAA Oversight and Foreign Maintenance...

RV4

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,885
80
www.usaviation.com
As you read through this article, think about the non-oversight the FAA has on foreign repair facilites. Think about the Corporate belief that Cheaper is Better. Think about the future of aviation if Cost is King, and the oversight needed for superior maintenance is not done on foreign soil.

More Room Throughout Coach is nothing in the passengers mind as compared to quality maintenance of the aircraft they fly to their destination!





FAA oversight in repairs may be key

Agency unable to find records of monitoring at maintenance base

The Federal Aviation Administration's monitoring of a West Virginia maintenance base has emerged as a key issue in the investigation of the crash of a US Airways Express flight in Charlotte, which killed 21 people.
Despite an exhaustive records search, the FAA has been unable to provide documents showing that its inspectors ever saw the mechanics in Huntington, W.Va., work on planes before the Jan. 8 crash. The search followed an Observer request for inspection records, filed under the Freedom of Information Act.
It's unclear whether the FAA was aware, before the crash, of the unusual operating arrangement at the maintenance base.
Although commuter airline Air Midwest flew the plane for US Airways and operated the base, it contracted maintenance work to Raytheon Aerospace LLC, which in turn contracted with a Florida-based company to provide mechanics. Some experts say such an arrangement would make it harder for the airline to ensure the quality of work.
The National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating the crash, has said flight control cables on the Beech 1900 turboprop may have been improperly adjusted. The mechanic who adjusted the cables in Huntington two days before the crash had never done the job on that type of plane before, sources said.
The NTSB is expected to look at how the FAA monitored that repair shop.
The board's scrutiny comes at a time when the U.S. Department of Transportation inspector general's office is studying how the FAA monitors third-party maintenance, such as the kind done in Huntington. Some inspectors and aviation experts say the FAA is short-staffed, and they question its ability to keep up, given the industry's financial problems and increasing reliance on third-party maintenance.
The way the FAA oversees maintenance provides an illusion to the public that we are doing what we need to do, says Linda Goodrich, a maintenance inspector who helps run a union of FAA inspectors. More and more accidents are going to happen.
No laws or regulations require the FAA to inspect every maintenance facility an airline operates, according to agency spokesman Les Dorr. The FAA monitors airlines to ensure that they train mechanics appropriately, distribute maintenance manuals and properly calibrate tools, among other things, Dorr said.
Jerry Unruh, the chief FAA inspector overseeing Air Midwest maintenance, said in an interview last week that he visited the Huntington hangar at least twice before the crash, once before it began operating last summer and once afterward. Unruh, who is based in Wichita, Kan., where Air Midwest is headquartered, said he can't remember the dates.
He told The Observer last week that he couldn't explain why the visits didn't show up in a database where information about all FAA inspections is supposed to be captured. According to an FAA spokeswoman, Unruh said he entered the records of his first visit into the computer system shortly after it was completed last summer, but thinks a computer glitch kept it from being saved.
Two days after talking with The Observer, Unruh re-entered inspection records related to the visit into the database, using information from his notes, according to the FAA spokeswoman. The information was added to the computer system May 2 -- 10 months after the reported inspection date. Unruh subsequently declined to comment.
The records indicate Unruh visited the hangar July 15, before the shop started working on planes. According to the records, Unruh raised concerns about insufficient lighting and missing equipment, but found no problems with training records.
The FAA has been unable to find any records showing inspectors visited the hangar between the time when maintenance work began in late July and when the crash occurred in January.
Douglas Burdette, Freedom of Information Act manager for the office that keeps the database, said it's rare that inspection records aren't properly downloaded into the system. Such computer problems probably affect one or two of the more than 10,000 inspection records entered into the database annually, he said.
Computer searches found no indication that FAA inspectors visited the shop a second time before the crash, Burdette said.
FAA officials say they'll continue to search for records documenting any further inspections of the maintenance base.
Keeping airline maintenance records is considered a key to ensuring the safety of the nation's aviation system. Without good records, it's harder for the FAA to identify trends and recurring problems.
Two days after the crash, other FAA inspectors based in West Virginia inspected the hangar. They wanted to determine who Raytheon Aerospace, LLC is and what type of work is being performed at the facility, according to FAA records.
Citing the NTSB's investigation, Unruh said he couldn't comment about whether the FAA was aware before the crash that Raytheon had contracted with an Edgewater, Fla., company called Structural Modification and Repair Technicians Inc., or SMART, to provide contract labor.
During their Jan. 10 visit, FAA inspectors found that 10 mechanics worked at the Huntington hangar, and all but three were contract workers from SMART.
Experts have told The Observer that it's rare for companies to hire mechanics from a temporary agency such as SMART to perform routine line maintenance like the kind done at Huntington. However, as it geared up at the recently opened repair station, Raytheon was gradually shifting workers from the SMART payroll to its own, said a source familiar with the investigation.
Unruh said he remembers watching mechanics take apart and reassemble a plane's nose gear during a second visit to the hangar before the crash. He found no problems with the work, he said. FOIA officials say they've been unable to find records of such a visit.
A source said the mechanic who adjusted elevator control cables on the Beech 1900 expected a supervisor to inspect his work. Investigators are trying to determine whether that happened.
Unruh wouldn't talk specifically about the qualifications of the mechanic who adjusted the cable, but said Air Midwest's maintenance manual stipulates mechanics have training or experience in such work before they do it on their own. We're investigating whether that is actually what happened, Unruh said.
At a May 20 public hearing in Washington, D.C., the NTSB is expected to explore the maintenance at the Huntington hangar, the relationship of the companies responsible for it and the FAA's monitoring of the shop.
The board also may hear from experts who believe excessive weight played a major role in the crash of flight 5481. Sources say the 19-seat plane may have weighed several hundred pounds more than the maximum allowable weight of 17,120 pounds.
Since the crash, the FAA has reviewed rules governing passenger and baggage weight in planes with 19 seats and fewer; its preliminary study indicates current weight standards are too low.
The Charlotte flight marked the first time the plane was fully loaded after the cable adjustment, sources said. A full load would have meant that the pilots required more response from the flight control system.
Swamped inspectors
The Huntington hangar is about 900 miles from Air Midwest's Wichita headquarters.
The FAA inspectors responsible for overseeing an individual airline's maintenance are typically stationed near the airline's headquarters or one of its major maintenance bases. To send inspectors to a remote site involves travel, which often is limited by budget constraints.
Air Midwest has five maintenance bases, located in Arkansas, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and West Virginia. Three FAA maintenance inspectors, based in Wichita, are responsible for monitoring them. The inspectors also are supposed to keep tabs on maintenance performed on Air Midwest's planes at dozens of other airports.
Overwhelmed FAA inspectors rarely visit uncertified repair shops located far from their office, according to Goodrich, the FAA union official. Usually, FAA inspectors would visit such a shop before it begins work, but they may never have time to return, Goodrich said. That may be the first and last time I go to see him, she said.
After the 1996 crash of a ValuJet DC-9 in the Florida Everglades, the FAA increased inspections of new airlines during their first five years of operation. But nothing requires inspectors to do more frequent or intensive inspections when existing airlines open new maintenance shops.
Nick Lacey, director of flight standards for the FAA from 1999 to 2001, said the agency should take a much closer look at new airline maintenance shops.
For any new organization, it takes a period of time to ensure it functions the way it's supposed to, he said.
Some longtime FAA inspectors say heavy workloads have left them with less time to inspect maintenance shops. The number of FAA field inspectors has declined since 1998, according to the union that represents them, while the number of commercial airline departures has increased.
In recent years, more airlines have attempted to cut maintenance costs by turning to third-party shops such as Raytheon. That has made it harder for the FAA to visit all the places where crucial work is done, some inspectors and aviation experts say.
Some inspectors say they've been forced to rely more on the industry and its maintenance contractors to police themselves.
I think the public demands more oversight, Goodrich said. We feel it's just getting thin.



Link Reference:
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/5829323.htm
 
Notice that there is NEVER any reference to the oversight of third party foriegn repair facilities. I admit that it is an assumption on part, but I fear that if the F.A.A. admits weakness in inspections and monitoring of domestic repair facilities, logic would conclude that inpection and monitoring of foriegn third party maintenance is much, much worse.
 
You're dreaming if you expect the FAA to seriously provide oversight of maintenance, either in the US or overseas. That would cost the government and the airlines money. Expect this issue to quietly fade away.

I'd like to see the FAA actually follow their mandates, even if it means I have to write an occasional "letter" for what I've done. At least it would prove someone is watching what we do, and maybe it will make everyone in maintenance act more professional. The causes leading up to this Express crash are too typical of the real world.

This meatball maintenance that is currently being performed needs to stop soon.
 
"More Room Throughout Coach is nothing in the passengers mind as compared to quality maintenance of the aircraft they fly to their destination!"

Well there you go RV, KC just confirmed my thinking, and TWAAA backed it up in another post. THEY DON''T CARE!!! Give them a little more room, and a cheaper ticket and they''ll gladly ignore the pool of Hydraulic fluid, the missing wheel (installed by a "vendor") or the misrigged flight controls. they don''t expect to pay a premium to you for doing it right the first time, and they don''t expect to pay the pilots a premium to nurse the crippled jet back to the earth. Ignorance is truely bliss. I guess that should be my response to KC''s "cute" little excuse of a signiture box, because each time he posts, it shows just how blissful he is.
 
----------------
On 5/11/2003 12:44:57 PM Busdrvr wrote:
Well there you go RV, KC just confirmed my thinking, and TWAAA backed it up in another post. THEY DON''T CARE!!! Give them a little more room, and a cheaper ticket and they''ll gladly ignore the pool of Hydraulic fluid, the missing wheel (installed by a "vendor") or the misrigged flight controls. they don''t expect to pay a premium to you for doing it right the first time, and they don''t expect to pay the pilots a premium to nurse the crippled jet back to the earth. Ignorance is truely bliss. I guess that should be my response to KC''s "cute" little excuse of a signiture box, because each time he posts, it shows just how blissful he is.
----------------​

Busdrvr,
Just because a pilot/mechanic/FA/check-in agent/etc. are paid more at a major (or should I say WERE more paid at a major) it doesn''t mean that they can perform their job better/safer than an employee of a LCC.
More expensive does not always mean it is better.
Also, a lot of the flying public, even the frugal ones, are not as ignorant as you think they are.
 
----------------
On 5/11/2003 10:11:43 AM RV4 wrote:
Notice that there is NEVER any reference to the oversight of third party foriegn repair facilities. I admit that it is an assumption on part, but I fear that if the F.A.A. admits weakness in inspections and monitoring of domestic repair facilities, logic would conclude that inpection and monitoring of foriegn third party maintenance is much, much worse.
----------------​

Wouldn't the FAA be a little bit out of its jurisdiction if it were to send an inspector to a hangar overseas?
 
----------------
On 5/11/2003 12:21:41 PM KCFlyer wrote:


If I may borrow a phrase from RV4: When all else fails resort to


FEAR FEAR FEAR!!!!!!

----------------​
Try this:

SAFETY, SAFETY, SAFETY

Not to worry KCFlyer, you do not have to be concerned with who accomplished the last maintenance on the aircraft you are boarding, nor should you consider any oversight of that maintenance important, just get the cheapest ticket and fly baby fly! The Pilot will just pull the plane over the next available AA "cloud that has parted" and make a call to the AAA for a tow.

PS Did you find that one instance of AMFA members not being given a credible vote on a contract yet?
 
----------------
On 5/11/2003 7:33:32 PM ualflynhi wrote:

Check out this news link about a special assignment report on ual's
maintenance practices.Shows Monday night in Los Angeles.

http://kcbs.dayport.com/viewer/viewerpage....=kcbsviewer.tpl

----------------​
The question is will the public's view be that the whistle blowers are looking out for the safety and best interest of the consumer?

Or will they take the KCFlyer approach and view this as a fear campaign and a tool to retaliate for lower pay and benefits.

A Labor Union that is a real advocate for the mechanic and related group would be spending dues money right now on Public Relations and Safety Response Teams to insure that the public remains educated and air travel remains safe. A real mechanics union would be honest about safety concerns and go public even if it meant a carrier was put out of business. Poll the passengers about safety and see where it falls on their list of priorties when taking flight.

After all, the security measures implemented by the Federal Government are all Safety Related in addition to security.

Nobody is claiming the Carriers are not concerned about safety, but the bottom line is maintenance is not one of those items which should be on the chopping block when hard times hit the industry.

The truth is, a bean counter views maintenance as a massive cost function, and from a bean counter perspective, cost, pay and benefit reductions look good on paper. But the end result of the bean counter running an industry that is so sensitive to safety could be the worst result for a passenger. The unknowing passenger expects a safe ride for the ticket price.

Another thing, if the Pilot of AA wants to save his sacred cow pension at the cost of maintenance and safety, he should consider how he will spend that pension fund from a non-earth existence. Greed, could buy the Pilot as well as the passenger an early exit and that saved Dollar would then be worthless.
 
Also, a lot of the flying public, even the frugal ones, are not as ignorant as you think they are.



I dont think the general public is as smart as they think they are since
the general public doesnt work at a airline and has no idea what goes on
there even when everything is totally above board.
 
RV wrote -
"Another thing, if the Pilot of AA wants to save his sacred cow pension at the cost of maintenance and safety, he should consider how he will spend that pension fund from a non-earth existence. Greed, could buy the Pilot as well as the passenger an early exit and that saved Dollar would then be worthless."


I must'a missed something. What does a pilot's pension have to do with quality of maintenance? Does that mean that if I worked for free for the company, the maintenance on my aircraft would be even better? If you were trying to poke the pilot group in the eye, you missed.
 
----------------
On 5/11/2003 5:42:16 PM FrugalFlyer wrote:

Busdrvr,
Just because a pilot/mechanic/FA/check-in agent/etc. are paid more at a major (or should I say WERE more paid at a major) it doesn''t mean that they can perform their job better/safer than an employee of a LCC.
More expensive does not always mean it is better.
Also, a lot of the flying public, even the frugal ones, are not as ignorant as you think they are.

----------------​

Apparently you are. this is NOT about a lower paid AMT. These "outfits" get little non-licenced worker bee''s to do the work for less than half the price of a REAL AMT, and the work is "signed off" by the one AMT on staff, who, of course, monitored the entire procedure for compliance. There is little to no oversight and even less accountability. If Tramco once again missrigs the flight controls on a UAL or SWA jet (as they have in the past), and it results in an accident, who is accountable? Will there be a big boycott of Tramco? not likely. they will change thier name and do business as usual. The airline will blame the vendor and promise to keep an eye on them in future while pointing out all the other Airlines that used the same guys. Again, this is NOT about lower paid AMT, this is about not even using AMT''s. it''s the equivilent of a Dr "supervising" unskilled workers performing several operations in differant rooms at the same time. you wanted Airlines to "cut the fat", and that''s just what you''re gonna get.


Ignorance is Bliss.
 
----------------
On 5/11/2003 11:27:23 PM Busdrvr wrote:
There is little to no oversight and even less accountability. If Tramco once again missrigs the flight controls on a UAL or SWA jet (as they have in the past), and it results in an accident, who is accountable?
----------------​

Seems to me like SW is very satisfied with the work Tramco does on their jets. If not, then why not do the work in-house or switch to a BETTER contractor?
 
----------------
On 5/11/2003 5:42:16 PM FrugalFlyer wrote:

Busdrvr,
Just because a pilot/mechanic/FA/check-in agent/etc. are paid more at a major (or should I say WERE more paid at a major) it doesn''t mean that they can perform their job better/safer than an employee of a LCC.
More expensive does not always mean it is better.
Also, a lot of the flying public, even the frugal ones, are not as ignorant as you think they are.

----------------​

Just curious Frugal and Blissful, is ther ANY industry that you can name where YOU think it takes a little extra money to hire the very best? When YOU interview for a job, do YOU take the best offer or the lowest paid offer? Do you think it''s possible that the lowest paid in the industry didn''t get more than one offer? Why?


Ignorance is Bliss
 

Latest posts