More Timco Tales

[Hopeful]

So when the MRO mechanics get "pressured" to sign an aircraft off or their company loses the contract for that carrier, and he or she already is at reduced wages and benefits because it is the only job he or she can find, how fast do you think the job gets pencil whipped?


Would you pencil whip anything?

 

[mrfish3726]

No one can be forced to sign off anything Hopeful and you know it!!! And no I have NEVER pencil whipped anything.

 

[Segue]

Mr. Fish has a valid point. Its easy to selectively point out anecdotes that support your argument, but what are real facts about outsourced maintenance?

Human error leads to these incidents, but for what reason do we think that doing it in house is superior? Is there statistical data over a long enough time period to support either argument?

 

[mrfish3726]

Segue,

Thanks, that is the point I am trying to make. It is not the fault of any of the layed off mechanics that have to move on to MRO'S to make a living. But that doesn't mean they are any less attentive to their duties as they were when they worked at one of the legacies.

 

[AMFAMAN]

The only thing I am disputing is that EVERYONE can make a mistake, UniTED mechanics aren't bullet proof PERIOD!

[post="269948"][/post]​

Well at least I'm clear now as to what your point is. You are correct about mistakes can be made by anyone but I'm more worried about those that ignore problems or simply don't comprehend english and so therefore sign off items not knowing what they have done. I cetainly understand the pencil whipping going on by company reps and I believe it is the duty of the A&P to report these events to the feds as it would go a long ways to fixing some of the problems with the MRO's. I some seen some of the handy work done by MRO's and if your argument is that pencil whipping by the company rep is to blame, then let it be known to the feds and the media.

 

[Hopeful]

This is not about an individual mechanic's dedication. This is about MRO's looking for profits. And if these MRO's employ by the book mechanics who keep planes grounded, the airlines look elsewhere for MRO's who's mechanics are "team" players with the company.

Take UAL, or AA, or NWA for that matter. Do you think any mechanic would let a supervisor or manager brow beat them into working "smarter?"

MRO's are most often non union. They do employ laid off mechanics from other carriers. When there is no union, there is fear that the company can go after them for reasons other than following FAA rules and regulations.

That's how they get around the "pressuring" of mechanics.

Isn't that why the airlines are outsourcing to cheaper facilities?

PROFITS?


Let me give you an example of something of a similar nature.

At JFK, we have mechanics who work a second job at either AOG or Mach maintenance. They have negotiated wages for themselves foregoing any other benefits. At AA. they will not work unless every item, tool in the maintenance manual and GPM is on hand. Gloves, masks, ladders, you name it.

Of course they are right to demand these things.

Now they go work for the AOG and MACH people. There, they will stand on cases of oil to work on an aircraft or engine. They will stand on the roof of a pickup truck to get at that #1 or #4 engine. On our nitrogen carts and oil and hydraulic bowsers, day after day and night after night, the service fittings disappear. They are more needed at AOG and MACH maintenance because they don't supply those things. Gloves, batteries? Gone faster than they can supply them.
Should I continue?

The bottom line is that they know AA will always back down when the MM and GPM is quoted.

At AOG and MACH maintenance, if they break "balls" while working, they do not get called or scheduled for more work.


So you see, at AA, they would never pencil whip anything. At these other places,,,,,,,well, what do you think?

 

[Bob Owens]

Mr. Fish has a valid point.  Its easy to selectively point out anecdotes that support your argument, but what are real facts about outsourced maintenance?

Human error leads to these incidents, but for what reason do we think that doing it in house is superior?  Is there statistical data over a long enough time period to support either argument?

[post="270002"][/post]​

Are you prepared to wait until the body count gets high enough?

The fact is that in house-unionized labor, is the best safeguard that you can have for maintenance.

If a mechanic is told to sign something off in a union shop he is more protected than one in a non-union shop. Obviously a company is not going to claim that they fired someone for not signing off an item but in a non-union shop they will just claim some other resaon and in an at-will place the other reason could in fact be no reason.

When that commuter plane flipped over, killing all on board because of improper rigging done by poorly trained 3rd party workers and overloading it should have been enough to get the FAA to scrutinize these places more thoroughly, but the fact is even if the FAA had the ability, they really dont have the interest. If a few dozen more people die in a preventrable accident and the airlines as a whole earn higher profits with lower fares, well thats just the price to be paid.

Annd the answer is yes, the quality that a mechanic puts out in a MRO could be of less quality than they put out at the carrier. The employer and the FAA set quality standards, not the mechanics. They write the books, not us.

 

[mrfish3726]

Bob,

Major airline mechanics have killed more people due to theirlack of diligance in a maintenance task than any MRO could claim responcebility for PERIOD. And yes it is up to the FAA, HSA, and the TSA to police the MRO's for un-qulified or undocummented workers. The FAA needs to add more inpectors to police what goes on at the MRO, and catch the company REP's that are padding the books. The HSA and TSA need to make every MRO comply with the same security issues and background checks that they require the airline industry to. And Yes I even feel that they need to keep MRO work from going overseas, it is a security risk.

But the record with the NTSB is VERY clear in their investigations of many commercial crashes that were the cause of COMPANY MAINT not MRO'S

 

[Emil.Howes]

EMIL,

Check out NTSB Report AAR-92/02: Contributing factor to the lose of the cargo was lack of maintenance and inpection by UniTED Airlines. There is some fault on the part of Boeing and the FAA to address this issue which happened on another aircraft. But ultimetly the saftey of your PAX'S is on the shoulders of UniTED maintenance.

[post="269818"][/post]​

MrFish,

I replied to the specific allegations you made in your post and you have not provided the supporting data.
Instead you pummel this thread with cut and paste of every incident recorded on the NTSB website that you could easily google.
(None of which support your case)

In regards to your AAR-92/02 inference read this:
AAR-92/02
AAR-92/02
*NOTE 3.32 MB PDF

Once again, here is the Souix City (Flight 232) NTSB Report:
AAR-90-06
AAR-90/06
*NOTE 3.52 MB PDF

Are human factors involved in these tragedies?
Of course there are, but the question is of whom?

Read these reports and get back to me.

Will outsourcing solve these issues or compound them?

This thread was initiated by a documented incident and you chide in with undocumented and unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Your accusations of UAL Mechanics being 'Hacks' is insulting, inflammatory and with unsubstantiated proof.

So prove your case MrFish or be gone.

-BigE

 

[mrfish3726]

EMIL,

HOW blind are you or can you not understand the english language??? It clearly states in every incident/accident that I posted from the NTSB that UniTED maintenance was totally at fault for what happened. No it didn't name a specific inspector or mechanic, but it shoulder the burden on someone at UniTED that didn't follow procedures that lead to a tragedy. Could a report from the NTSB be any clearer to YOU??? Just because you work for a major does not make you bullet proof from making a mistake. And again after working at an MRO in the past, I still would put a lot of what happens to your aircraft on the shoulder of your management money saving REPS that are part of the management trouble at UniTED. Or any other legacy for that matter!

Remember, don't whine and cry about the MRO work. YOU are the ones who let UniTED farm it out in the first place!!!

 

[Fly]

Ahhhh, so now we know why Mr Fish was fired from UAL. He was the hack mechanic!

 

[Bob Owens]

mrfish3726,May 17 2005, 09:29 PM]
Bob,

Major airline mechanics have killed more people due to theirlack of diligance in a maintenance task than any MRO could claim responcebility for PERIOD.

Not quite period. The fact is that 99% of the work was done by major airline mechanics so of course the odds favor that even though we do a better job we will have more errors. Thats like saying that the major airlines have killed more people than the tiny ones. The trend toward large scale outsourcing of major overhaul by major airlines is relatively new yet the trend is disturbing. In fact as this trend continues maintenance related accidents are rising and surpassing pilot error.


And yes it is up to the FAA, HSA, and the TSA to police the MRO's for un-qulified or undocummented workers.


Do they have the manpower to do it? I doubt it.

The FAA needs to add more inpectors to police what goes on at the MRO, and catch the company REP's that are padding the books.

Are you saying that companies only try to pad the books when they are at an MRO? Could that have anything to do with the fact that at a unionized shop the workers are more familiar with company policy and the maintenance manual and act as a deterrant to such actions?

And Yes I even feel that they need to keep MRO work from going overseas, it is a security risk.

Is it any less secure than having illegal aliens do the work here?

But the record with the NTSB is VERY clear in their investigations of many commercial crashes that were the cause of COMPANY MAINT not MRO'S

I think I covered that already, but the odds are greater that per unit the rate of mistakes are greater at MROs. We have known that for years simply from all the parts that we get from third party providers that are "bad from stock". The fact that more work is going to such places is not reassuring.One of the problems with MROs is that they have made a quote and the quicker they get it done, the more money they make. If it takes longer to get it right, they lose money. Short sighted bean counters dont mind a quick job because as they plug in their numbers all they see is an extra day or two of potential revenue.When airlines do the work in house, and the airline has competant management they realize that a rush job at overhaul will result in lost revenue, or worse, in the future.