Originally Posted by
Bug Smasher
Spot on. When you are flying and you miss a crossing restriction, think of it as scoring a demerit. When you mess up interpreting how to schedule, perform or document a repetitive maintenance task, the demerits keep racking up until someone fixes your foul up.
For example, when ASA missed some engine borescope inspections on 90-something CRJs at C-check last year, I was riding the crew bus with a flock of hens, I mean flight attendants, and roosters, I mean pilots, who were clucking and crowing about the situation. They wanted our new Maintenance management team to get the ax.. immediately. It turns out, for whatever reason, our computer software didn't include the engine borescope inspection as part of the C-check work package, so it wasn't done... for a long time. The new guys discovered the glitch, self-disclosed it to the Feds to minimize financial impact and got on the ball fixing things.
Again the numbers don't support a simple "foul up", your interpretation of the events seems to point the finger at maintenance's record keeping. Yet I ask again, how is it that other CRJ and ERJ carriers are able to comply without any "foul ups"? Is it possible that there is actual accountability at those other carriers? The problem here is that you're only addressing a symptom not the disease.
Originally Posted by
Bug Smasher
From all appearances, Chataqua could have had an identical problem. They just didn't handle the recovery as we did.
Again, not condoning anything, just trying to lend a little bit of insight that the furlough has given me. When I was flying the line, I used to get paired up with captains who thought every segment of the company was out to get us. As a pilot, I've learned that it's just not so. Every working stiff is bent over the barrel in one way or another in this industry.
Well, apparently the administrator does not agree with your assessment. You see the corporate culture of most regional carriers now (mine included) is to save money where ever they can to maximize profits. The problem is that this has every indication of Bedford taking shortcuts to save a few bucks.
I would agree with your theory if it encompassed a year or less of mx records, but in talking to our own MX, they agree that there's no way that such mistakes can go unnoticed for as long as they did in this case and in two different types. You working in maintenance yourself should know that. The bottom line is that the administrator determined that the inspections had not been done, and someone simply looked the other way.
Folks, just remember, it could always be your family in the back of these aircraft, there is no excuse for this level of stupidity.