United faces FAA fine for operating 787 not in airworthy condition

As some one who has to ride on the planes on a regular basis, I really don't care what the reason is for the size of the fine. If that puppy is going to leave the ground, I want all the parts working on it. I don't care if it's 10 feet or 10,000 feet. If its leaving the ground I want all the parts working.:D
 
  • Like
Reactions: B737 driver
Let's not forget the other issue mentioned. The AMT or others involved did not follow the maintenance manual for the task accomplished. More fines and possible suspension of an airmans certificate may be in the horizon.
 
Let's not forget the other issue mentioned. The AMT or others involved did not follow the maintenance manual for the task accomplished. More fines and possible suspension of an airmans certificate may be in the horizon.
How many times has that happened?
IIRC, there is a self reporting process that can (and does) gives a mechanic a pass.
It used to be called MSAP at Untied.
I am sure the reamsters have something similar, as does AA.
Worse case is they will make them Supervisors...:eek:
 
How many times has that happened?
IIRC, there is a self reporting process that can (and does) gives a mechanic a pass.
It used to be called MSAP at Untied.
I am sure the reamsters have something similar, as does AA.
Worse case is they will make them Supervisors...:eek:
At AA we call it ASAP. It's not a free pass if you intentionally screwed up and got caught. If you unwillingly made a bad call in judgement of error then you most likely can peruse an ASAP filing.
 
The public will read this and many people will gasp and say "UA flew a plane that wasn't airworthy."

Airworthy in this context is, of course, a legal term of art that describes a plane that should not have been released by maintenance in its present condition.

As everyone else understands, the plane was certainly airworthy - after all, nothing bad happened on those 23 flights. And besides, it's not like they failed to inspect an old, worn part - the article says they failed to inspect a "new fuel pump pressure switch." It was new - and it didn't fail - so what's the problem?

Yes, I get what the problem is. If the maintenance manual/procedures calls for that part to be inspected, and it is not inspected, then the plane isn't legally airworthy, and should not have been flown. Commercial aviation has become very safe and routine in part because I's are dotted and T's are crossed - routine maintenance procedures must be followed in order to keep aviation safe and routine.
 
How many times has that happened?
IIRC, there is a self reporting process that can (and does) gives a mechanic a pass.
It used to be called MSAP at Untied.
I am sure the reamsters have something similar, as does AA.
Worse case is they will make them Supervisors...:eek:

At AA we call it ASAP. It's not a free pass if you intentionally screwed up and got caught. If you unwillingly made a bad call in judgement of error then you most likely can peruse an ASAP filing.

Like 1AA said, It's NOT a free pass, not even close. Any and all mechanics involved in the maint of said violation, any and all inspectors involved, as well as possibly the leads, sups, and whomever signed the aircraft of as "Airworthy" and yes all these people can be different people. All these folks could be at risk of lic. being in jeopardy, risk of job loss etc... There is a lot more to it than most think. The ASAP group within AA could very well reject the ASAP report from the employee. The FAA could reject the ASAP report. Even if all groups except it into the ASAP program, there can still be punishments delivered it is all determined by the ASAP group, the company, and the FAA after a full blown and thorough investigation of what took place.
And BTW, AA will not just make them supervisors if it is found they were in the wrong. If the FAA wants them punished they will get punished not promoted or moved up.
 
Like 1AA said, It's NOT a free pass, not even close. Any and all mechanics involved in the maint of said violation, any and all inspectors involved, as well as possibly the leads, sups, and whomever signed the aircraft of as "Airworthy" and yes all these people can be different people. All these folks could be at risk of lic. being in jeopardy, risk of job loss etc... There is a lot more to it than most think. The ASAP group within AA could very well reject the ASAP report from the employee. The FAA could reject the ASAP report. Even if all groups except it into the ASAP program, there can still be punishments delivered it is all determined by the ASAP group, the company, and the FAA after a full blown and thorough investigation of what took place.
And BTW, AA will not just make them supervisors if it is found they were in the wrong. If the FAA wants them punished they will get punished not promoted or moved up.

I have been in this business for over 40 years and have yet to see the FAA pull a ticket.
If you have some examples, I would be indebted for your findings.
As far as 'promoting' them to supervisors, JMHO, you clearly do not understand the process.
Well, that was the Untied way, maybe all other airlines were different, but I doubt it.
JMHO & PO,
xUT
 
I have been in this business for over 40 years and have yet to see the FAA pull a ticket.
If you have some examples, I would be indebted for your findings.
As far as 'promoting' them to supervisors, JMHO, you clearly do not understand the process.
Well, that was the Untied way, maybe all other airlines were different, but I doubt it.
JMHO & PO,
xUT

I too have no examples or my knowledge of any tickets being pulled. I have seen where the company has brought forth the recommended punishment (if it were deemed necessary) and the FAA agreed with it, or added to it, and that was that. I have also seen company fire someone therefore the FAA says well that's harsh enough and stays out of it. This company use to work and pay to protect all employees involved in something to do with the FAA, not any more, they are more geared towards firing now. Not the same company it was when I hired on, and that is fact.