Originally Posted by
goaround2000
So the recurrent theme with your posts seems to be:
- Not addressing anyone's points that weakens your own point view.
-- I thought I was. Sorry. I cannot think of way to make my "point view" any clearer, so I will try this.
- Other carriers are subject to equal or greater fines, thus making it an automatic paperwork snafu which management did not have anything to do with, even though such clerical errors extended through a period of two years, two types, and five different inspections (sure a thing pal).
Never said it was an automatic anything, never said management had anything to do with it. My point was that it happened to a lot of other carriers, and that CHQ is certainly not unique. Also, for kicks, lets suppose an airline did intentionally put peoples lives in danger by intentionally refusing to do required maintenance - do you think all the FAA would do is fine them? Don't you think the penalty might be steeper?
- You refuse to engaged in the debate so you resort to calling me a conspiracy theorist.
If it walks like a duck...otherwise, I am doing my best to engage.
- You're a big fan of management and Tim Martin (this last one is more of a joke based on your avatar, assuming you actually know what a sense of humor is).
Not a fan of Management, but I did fly B-17 bombers with Tim in the big one. That is a photo of our aircraft limping home after a German fighter collided with her and nearly cut us in two.
Let me know when you're ready to address the points you failed to address in your last two post, and we'll continue the debate.
Actually, I think I am good if you want to call it a day.
As I said earlier you and I will have to agree to disagree as to whether management knew about this or not, but as I posted 3 times already, the administrator seems to think they did, and they didn't manage their maintenance program.
I disagree that the FAA is of the opinion that the violation was intentional or that management was "aware" that it was occuring. You base that on this sentence from the article - "FAA investigations found that problems with Chautauqua's management of its maintenance program and its system for tracking the status of airworthiness directives led to the alleged violations." I am of the opinion that the writer used "management" to mean Chautauqua's ability to effectively manage the program, meaning a breakdown in the system and the unintentional issues that a poor sytem of management caused. You seem to think the writer meant "Management" (capital M) of the system, meaning the employee Managers willfully violated FAR's, which I would think would get A and P certs pulled. I think your interpretation is incorrect, and defies logic. In any case, in my opinion there is certainly no logical interpretation of that sentence that one could use to indicate willful or intentional misconduct. If I am wrong and you have a source that shows the FAA found willful violations, please post and I will stand corrected.
goaround