http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dw...ns.462963.html

 

The fallout from those pesky 737 cracks continues, and I believe will intensify.
Good Luck to all carriers!

 

Never a good thing to have issues with wiring, we had some issues like that in our wings that caused our fuel panel to do some crazy things--not fun. Good luck to them.

 

And don't forget about the supposed faulty wiring in the wing tanks of TWA800's 747...

 

"The need for the new inspections became known during an audit of American by a joint team of inspectors from the Federal Aviation Administration and the Fort Worth-based airline, according to a statement from American."

""We are reinspecting the MD-80s to make sure the wiring is installed and secured exactly according to the directive," American spokesman Tim Wagner said in the statement, which did not describe the function of the wiring."

Hmmmmm.... wasn't this the purpose of the AD in the first place?

-Fatty

 

Just a few quotes from another thread about SWA's proposed FAA fine from about a week ago with "SW" changed to "AA." Mind you, these are not my quotes, they belong to EagleDriver (American Airlines guy) and other select few. I wish no bad news on anyone out there, let's just be a little careful about what we say about each other and finger pointing if we are truly professional pilots, particularly when dealing with breathless media articles that haven't been proven accurate, as they are rarely the whole story.


"You can spin it anyway you like but AA broke the law at least twice and violated the trust it's passengers AND CREWS placed in the company.

If I was a pilot or FA for AA I would be outraged that my pink body was put on an aircraft that wasn't in compliance with the airworthiness standards set up by the FAA. Some of you want to defend them for this. Unbelieveable!

If you want to sugar coat it and say "awh shucks, it wasn't that big of a deal, it's just some bitty ole wires that shoulda been looked at", you're not very smart. The FAA airworthiness certification process was set up specifically to avoid this type of maintenence. The FAA, not individual operators, decides safety standards. That's why most AD's have dates associated with them. Some aren't much of a threat to safety and don't need to be complied with until the next heavy check. Some AD's are Emergency AD's and must be complied with immediately. This fell inbetween those extremes but regardless that AD was NOT complied with.

There is no defense for AA in this case. Pay the fine, fire the idiots who allowed this to occur and make sure it doesn't happen again."

...I'm a pilot with an ATP as well as a certified FAA mechanic. Here's some information about AD's that may be useful. Compliance with an AD is MANDATORY or the aircraft is by definition unairworthy.


An Airworthiness Directive (commonly abbreviated as AD) is a notification to aircraft owner and operator of a known safety deficiency with a particular model of aircraft, engine, avionics or other system.

ADs are mandatory in most jurisdictions and often contain dates or aircraft flying hours by which compliance must be completed. Some ADs are of such a high priority that compliance must be completed prior to the next flight of the aircraft.

Who has to comply with ADs?
No person may operate a product to which an AD applies, except in accordance with the requirements of the AD. Furthermore, the owner or operator of an aircraft is required by 14 CFR part 91.403 to maintain the aircraft in compliance with all ADs.

...but it does not obscure the fact that AA messed up and didn't follow proper maintenence procedures. They in fact flew aircraft that were by definition "unairworthy" because they were not in compliance with the AD's for that aircraft. To try to paint the picture that they were "safe" is in disagreement with what was stated in the original AD. The AD was issued with a date for compliance because that is what the FAA, the manufacturer and the MD-80 operators agreed was the "safe" thing to do. They exceeded the timeframe specified in the AD. Move on.

Spinmeisters will do what they are paid to do - damage control. This forum is predominately read by commercial pilots. Every pilot that I know would be upset (outraged) if they found out that they had been flying aircraft that were long overdue in required maintenence checks.

Some other comments from others...

...One airplane slipping through the cracks (pardon the expression) but 46 aircraft??? The crews of AA should be up in arms over this situation. The crews and passengers could have been possible victims. One can only imagine what else was overlooked or mx items pencile whipped.

...They're lucky the FAA didn't slap them with counts of reckless endangerment (CFR part 91).


At any rate, there's a whole lot more, but y'all get the point...

 

Maintenance malpractice has killed people at several airlines. The problem is when the boss decides to cut costs, sometimes the middle managers start taking shortcuts.

And when you add in FAA PMIs and POIs who are too lazy to do their jobs and take Management's word that everything is hunky dory the result can be a smoking hole.

 

You mean to tell me "America's Airlifter" has problems? Say it ain't so.

 

I remember back before most of you were born, ferrying 2 C-130's from Barbers Pt, HI to Marietta, GA to fix cracked wing spars. Seems like nothing has changed.

 

Yeah, more than anyone would like to acknowledge. They are already getting beat down with our ops tempo. But, such is life now in the AF. And we still look good doing it