A/c 700 Out Of Mobile S-check

[firstamendment]

It seems that A/C 700 fresh out of S-check down in Mobile is already developing MAJOR problems. Sources say it made an emergency landing in Richmond tonight with a major hydraulic failure. Manual extension of landing gear involved.Aircraft is quarantined and under FAA investigation.Also had 5 mel's fresh out of check a couple of days ago. I will be anxiously awaiting the complete story on this situation.When will this LOUSY mangement group learn? :down:

There was no manual extension of the landing gear. I was working that flight and as the pilots told us, we had enough fluid (barely) to drop the gear. We DID. I was there and the landing gear came down on it's own, so that was a rumor. The landing was smooth, we stopped at the end of the runway, and were towed to the gate. We were escorted by the fire dept. but the f/as were not asked to prep the cabin but I will promise you I gave much more thought to the 30 second review and my commands.

The customers were very understanding and were all grateful for a job well done.

 

[FlyingHippie]

It's out there everyone. Just look at this http://www.anitavacation.com/dailytraveldi...sh/111003.shtml

 

[firstamendment]

Okay - forgive me if I seem dense - but I'm still not clear on what really happened. Did this plane make an "Emergency Landing" in RIC, or not? Was it on a scheduled flight at the time? If so, what was the flt #? Where did it originate? Where was it headed? How many people were on board? Was there a "hydraulic failure?" Was there a "Manual Extension" of the landing gear? Reading the posts in this thread, it's clear this plane came out of a major overhaul with some problems. As a layman, I can't tell which items mentioned are serious and which are not. How unusual are these types of problems when a plane has been taken apart and put back together? (Isn't that essentially what was done?)

As I mentioned earlier, as a passenger, I take this stuff more seriuosly than any other thread on this forum. Right now, if I were to walk to the gate for my next flight and see N700UW, I would probably eat the ticket and walk away. Hopefully, someone can piece together a clear picture of what actually happened to this aircraft while it was in flight and how serious these problems that have been listed really are.

Facts

Aircraft 700uw with 120 passengers made an emergency landing November 10, 2003 at the Richmond Airport as flight 122 CLT-RIC, at 1517 hours. The f/a's and the passengers were informed of a hydraulic problem but were informed that the only problem would be that the aircraft would have to be towed to the gate. The landing was smooth and we were towed to the gate. The landing gear extended ON ITS OWN. The aircraft was scheduled to make up a flight from RIC-CLT-SEA. The RIC-CLT segment was canceled and CLT-SEA proceeded with another aircraft and crew.

As far as the flight was concerned, it was smooth and the customers were very kind and understanding.

 

[X-U]

USAirways has performed its maintenance inhouse and had 7 mainline fatal incidents (plus 2 express ones).

http://www.airsafe.com/airline.htm

Wrong Wrong Wrong...

The accidents on Mainline were NEVER ...I repeat NEVER attributed to in-house maintenance…!!! They were pilot error.

So, that cleared up....Check your facts first before making yourself look bad.

SL

I don't know where the seven is coming from, but the majority of the "5 in 5"
was not attributed to pilot error. 427 was found to be a design error (rudder servo),
the collision in LAX was attributed to an ATC error and the DC-9 in CLT was also an ATC error (lack of timely weather info). Both LGA accidents were found to be pilot error. The only other one I can think of is the BAE-146 shot down by a disgruntled, former agent.

 

[wrenchbender]

USAirways actually has the lowest accident rate per 1,000,000 takeoffs per any major airline over the five year average. see link below.

http://www.airline-safety-records.com/airl..._year_table.htm

Many accidents never get reported in the press if their are not fatalities involved.
Also, Southwest does not farm out 100 percent of Heavy Maintenance.
They do ALL their own C Checks and 1/4 D checks and I have been told they use one vendor, Tramco for the full D checks.

The Bender in CLT

 

[to much time to quit]

Third party maintenance bases hold the blame? That logic doesn't add up. If you're using that comparison, Southwest has historically outsourced all of its heavy maintenance with zero incident fatalities, while USAirways has performed its maintenance inhouse and had 7 mainline fatal incidents (plus 2 express ones).

http://www.airsafe.com/airline.htm

Maybe you should clarify your point here! Are you saying that Usairways in house maintenance was the cause of all the past accidents at Usair??
That is 100% UNTRUTHFUL. Maintenance at Usairways has not been the cause of any of the past accidents! Talk about trying to spin the truth. :down: Your comparison is NONSENSE. Your logic is not holding up PAL! By the way did you get my holiday personal message.

 

[High Iron]

"Wrong Wrong Wrong...

The accidents on Mainline were NEVER ...I repeat NEVER attributed to in-house maintenance…!!! They were pilot error.

So, that cleared up....Check your facts first before making yourself look bad.

SL "

Um..That's the whole point (in response to the generalities mad about outside maintenance on this tread.) Thanks for agreeing with me without making yourself look childish.

Actually, the whole point of this thread was about an airplane seemingly coming out of a facility in worse health than it went in with.

 

[T-bone]

BTW, regardless of who did the work, the interior was sparkling. I forgot how nice our interiors are. The walls were clean, the doors were clean, and the bulkhead carpet replaced. It looked like a new airplane BUT, we should be doing that work inhouse.

Anyway the aicreft might look good, but the log book looked like a pumpkin full of orange stickers.

Actually upper managment at US Airways decided that it was bad for the airline to have inspectors work the cabin on "C check" as it was expensive to clean it up and repair it. Untill upper managment wakes up and decides to have the work done again cabins will continue to deteriorate. This used to happen time to time when a VP would fly on a crummy a/c, but with managment in total denial this is not a likely senario.

Also one might point out that 700 is a new a/c as opposed say to a 35 year old DC-9

 

[AP Tech]

Had an incident in Pit a few weeks ago, the Shuttle A/C were being routed through for the mainline conversion about a three day job, First Class conversion, reconfigure interior, ect....All the seats had been removed and they were told not to change the carpet due to time restraints!!! New carpet came in the kit and was sitting beside the A/C. Carpet was so filthy the men did not want to lay on it to wire the seats, but they were told not to change it because of time!!!! So much for presenting a good product to the public. BTW the manger of A/C apperance was notified and the carpet was changed on the remaining A/C that came through!!!

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Actually, of the two LGA accidents, only ONE was attributed to pilot error. The other was largely attributed to the FAA fo not having adequate anti icing procedures and information available to pilots. That is why we now have the complicated deicing procedures, holdover times, etc that we now have industry wide.

 

[E-TRONS]

ST Mobile Aerospace exceeded my LACK OF QUALITY expectations........BRAVO!!!

What I want to know is how did this a/c slip past our TopGun Quality Assurance team???? Maybe they were being treated to lunch when the plane left the facility??? So much for oversight to insure quality and safety. What a FARCE!!!!

Having worked in CLT Overhaul over the past 13 years an alarming trend has been evolving. Placing ETR's over everything else. And the company wanting to release an a/c from a heavy check WITHOUT a test hop was even being debated at one time. This is a fine example of the exponential ignorance of our management. Everyone in maintenance knows the importance of a test hop after so many systems have been disturbed during the normal process of overhaul. Yet our highly (hardly) experienced management beg to differ. Sounds like they are getting bad advice from somewhere and a whole lot of it.

This is the result of having an executive management team that is NOT EXPERIENCED IN MAINTENANCE. PERIOD!!! And Prestofillipo must be acting in a YES-MAN capacity after listening to his LIES about inadequate facilities, etc. He of all people should know better. But when the CEO is your pal you don't piss in his wheaties......if you want to stay around.

The blame rests entirely on the U-S Airways mechanics for refusing to compromise SAFETY regardless of the unreasonable ETR's we are up against. Safety is paramount. 99% is not good enough. It must be 100% or it goes nowhere. Just keep this fact in mind....an aircraft will never have any problem finding it's way back to the ground. The real task is to keep it up in the air.

So I suggest that DAVE-SADDAM-LORENZO looks elsewhere to cut costs. Continue to cut maintenance and sooner or later something will have to give out......God forbid. Third party maintenance will never change when penalties are tied to the timely delivery of an aircraft from maintenance. It's such a no brainer. But I fear that Ali-Baba and the Forty Liars will never understand.

God help us all.

E-TRONS OUT.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

E-TRONS.

You are "dead balls Accurate" in the extreme meaning of the phrase.

Any heavy check is going to require removal , replacement and rigging of flight control surfaces...and for anyone to suggest not test hopping one in the aftermath of such radical measures , is the same person that will advocate mass murder if a nickle is involved?

Right is the side that we always need to be on....and what we have in the past is always on the side of right. One has to conclude that never having an accident attributed to maintenance is indeed a great thing to boast about.

 

[to much time to quit]

Well it appears A/C 700 is back in Richmond with a flap problem. It once again makes many wonder about the great cost savings they achieved!

 

[seeking the truth]

In reading the companies public response speaking to the problems with a/c 700 is somewhat deceiving to the average reader. Castelveter states that having minor problems coming out of heavy maintenance is not all that uncommon which on the surface is a true statement.

But to set the record straight an a/c coming out of heavy maintenance in-house is test hopped to find any discrepencies in the aircraft. The discrepencies are fixed and then and only then is the aircraft released to revenue service.

That little tid-bit of information was not spoken to. If an a/c done in house went to the line out of heavy with these kind of problems no doubt there would be some heads rolling as to why this happened and who is responsible.



Will management heed or continue to bleed ?????

 

[T-bone]

I spoke with one of the top inspection peeps at U about the test hop issue. They stated that they did not beleive in test hops. Came over from value jet---go figure! :down: