Safety Violations Alleged Against American

[Hatu]

U.S. Prosecutors Allege Safety Violations by American Airlines, Seek Penalties


NEW YORK (AP) -- American Airlines put its passengers at risk and violated multiple federal air-safety regulations in 2003 by allowing one of its jets to fly with a leaky fuel tank, according to a civil complaint filed by the U.S. attorney's office in Brooklyn.

The complaint alleges that on Nov. 17, 2003, a Federal Aviation Administration inspector was a passenger on an American flight from Orlando, Fla., to New York's La Guardia Airport when he saw fuel leaking from a wing of the McDonnell Douglas MD-82.

The inspector warned the flight crew about the leak and demanded it be recorded in the aircraft's maintenance log. However, "no such entry was made by the pilot or maintenance personnel," the complaint said.

American allowed the "unsafe and un-airworthy" jet to take 53 commercial flights over two weeks before it was repaired during a regularly scheduled maintenance check, the complaint said.

 

[B.O.B.]

Old news

 

[magsau]

NH/BB??!!

Your response would be???? They did not use auto parts on this thing did they? Was it the late 80's that was the violation for using GM parts instead of McDonnell?

"were American Airlines doing the best we can"

 

[eolesen]

Curiously, this is being filed in a district court in New York by the US Attorney's office.

Fines for safety issues are typically assessed directly by the FAA as a regulatory agency, and not thru the courts, so it would appear that the inspector may have decided to take matters into their own hands.

 

[WorldTraveler]

So much for the theory that in-house maintenance is necessarily safer...

 

[Bob Owens]

Curiously, this is being filed in a district court in New York by the US Attorney's office.

Fines for safety issues are typically assessed directly by the FAA as a regulatory agency, and not thru the courts, so it would appear that the inspector may have decided to take matters into their own hands.

[post="297848"][/post]​

It could be that the Inspector felt that those above him were too cozy with Aa management.

 

[TWU informer]

It could be that the Inspector felt that those above him were too cozy with Aa management.

[post="297932"][/post]​

Are these inspectors represented by the TWU? Or is AA boot licking becoming an epidemic?

 

[goingboeing]

So much for the theory that in-house maintenance is necessarily safer...

[post="297913"][/post]​

It depends how bad the fuel leak was and where it was located whether or not it was an unsafe condition.

Most airlines that outsource Heavy Maintenance Checks still have their own line mechanics for the overnight maintenance.Notice that the the problem was corrected by "in-house" maintenance during a scheduled maintenance check.
A line mechanic may not be aware of a problem unless it is written up in the log book.Some problems may only manifest themselfs during certain stages of operation of the aircraft and not be evident sitting at the gate overnight.
So you need to read the whole story before you are so quick to SLAM in-house maintenance.

You may be a World Traveler but you obviously don't know jack about aircraft maintenance.

 

[High Speed Steel]

Curiously, this is being filed in a district court in New York by the US Attorney's office.

Fines for safety issues are typically assessed directly by the FAA as a regulatory agency, and not thru the courts, so it would appear that the inspector may have decided to take matters into their own hands.

[post="297848"][/post]​

I love your avatar I was wanting to use that guy for my own avatar. I had met a guy that looks like him that told me my seniority rights would be for sale if I joined his club :blink:

Great avatar .......I luv-it.....

 

[FWAAA]

If true, someone screwed up, as the inspector allegedly demanded that the leak be written up in the log, yet nobody did it.

Which raises a fundamental (and probably stupid) question: Why didn't the FAA inspector simply write it up in the log himself? Is that forbidden?

 

[TWU informer]

I love your avatar I was wanting to use that guy for my own avatar. I had met a guy that looks like him that told me my seniority rights would be for sale if I joined his club :blink:

Great avatar .......I luv-it.....

[post="297961"][/post]​

Yeah, with all of you brainwits, it is all about avatars, t-shirts with slogans, and little face icons.

Brilliant, just, Brilliant!

 

[magsau]

NH/BB??&&!!!#

Where oh where are you on this issue???? Your response would be????

ROTFL??::!!&&^$R^

--------------------------

(((((((((((((((((((((( ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

 

[MCI transplant]

So much for the theory that in-house maintenance is necessarily safer...

[post="297913"][/post]​

<_< You really can't blame maintanance for this one! As I read it, the FAA inspector told the crew to write up the leak in the log book! For whatever reason, the crew neglected to do that! The fuel leak was on one of the fuel tank access plates "On top of the wing", and was sucked out by the same forces that keep the plane in the air, which would not have been noticed on the ground durring a normal walk arround, unless noted in the log!!! So "if" you have to point fingers at anyone, the buck stops, on this one, at the original crew that didn't write it up in the first place!!!

 

[MCI transplant]

Curiously, this is being filed in a district court in New York by the US Attorney's office.

Fines for safety issues are typically assessed directly by the FAA as a regulatory agency, and not thru the courts, so it would appear that the inspector may have decided to take matters into their own hands.

[post="297848"][/post]​

<_< Mr. exmoderaator---- This new logo I like! It seems to fit!!!!

 

[777 fixer]

NH/BB??!!

Your response would be???? They did not use auto parts on this thing did they? Was it the late 80's that was the violation for using GM parts instead of McDonnell?

"were American Airlines doing the best we can"

[post="297846"][/post]​

Your post makes no sense what so ever.