FAA asking why AA has asked mechanics to skip safety checks

[FWAAA]

Wonderful. If true, things are gonna get worse for AA:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Federal aviation officials are examining why AMR Corp's American Airlines asked mechanics to start skipping some safety checks to detect damage to planes from suspected lightning strikes, the Wall Street Journal said on Friday, citing internal company and agency documents.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080516/americanair...tning.html?.v=2

If this is true, AA could use some new management.

 

[MCI transplant]

Wonderful. If true, things are gonna get worse for AA:



http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080516/americanair...tning.html?.v=2

If this is true, AA could use some new management.

<_< ------On this one FW, we totally agree!!!!

 

[1AA]

Sounds like another way that AA is trying to save money. Less down time for inspections, less maintenance personal assigned to the inspection will save money. These types of cut backs in the various maintenance programs has been going on since 2003. We AMT's have questioned the company and the TWU. The response was that American is following the Aircraft manufacturers minimal maintenance program. As we can see it might appear now that AA might have gone one step too far in this case. The one problem I see is that we do not have people at the top who are airline people. All they worry about is how much money did we make for the share holders and their performance bonus payouts for a job well done. All airlines claim safety first at all cost. Good PR BS!!
Low staffing, low inventory, low moral and no light at the end of the tunnel for a good contract that we can all make a decent living.

 

[MCI transplant]

Sounds like another way that AA is trying to save money. Less down time for inspections, less maintenance personal assigned to the inspection will save money. These types of cut backs in the various maintenance programs has been going on since 2003. We AMT's have questioned the company and the TWU. The response was that American is following the Aircraft manufacturers minimal maintenance program. As we can see it might appear now that AA might have gone one step too far in this case. The one problem I see is that we do not have people at the top who are airline people. All they worry about is how much money did we make for the share holders and their performance bonus payouts for a job well done. All airlines claim safety first at all cost. Good PR BS!!
Low staffing, low inventory, low moral and no light at the end of the tunnel for a good contract that we can all make a decent living.

<_< ------- 1AA, You make some god points here! But the reality of it is that the company could go way overboard in the other direction and spend time, money, and energy, needlessly! It's really a balancing act! And not an easy one!------ True! no compromise in safety! But, in these times, going overboard in the other direction isn't going to help us "make a decent living"! It's a hard call on where to draw the line, and sometimes management may make a decision we don't agree with, but there are ways to address that, including calling FAA. BUT!------ I do recommend before one does that, to try and resolve the problem "in house"!

 

[jimntx]

A pilot told me that a mechanic told him that the mechanics were told not to repair anything until it had been entered in the log 3 times and the FAA mandatory repair rule kicked in. I was working on a S80 the other day that had the ceiling panel in the forward entry held up by duct tape. So attractive!

That was following a trip on a 757 that was delayed almost 2 hours for repairs. We were supposed to depart DFW at 1100 that day. At 1045 a broken airplane was towed to the gate from the hangar where it had been sitting for 18 hours. After we pushed we had to return to the gate because as soon as we pushed the APU stopped working. We had to jumpstart the a/c the rest of the day.

 

[MCI transplant]

A pilot told me that a mechanic told him that the mechanics were told not to repair anything until it had been entered in the log 3 times and the FAA mandatory repair rule kicked in. I was working on a S80 the other day that had the ceiling panel in the forward entry held up by duct tape. So attractive!

That was following a trip on a 757 that was delayed almost 2 hours for repairs. We were supposed to depart DFW at 1100 that day. At 1045 a broken airplane was towed to the gate from the hangar where it had been sitting for 18 hours. After we pushed we had to return to the gate because as soon as we pushed the APU stopped working. We had to jumpstart the a/c the rest of the day.

<_< ------ Jim, there are curtain things that can go "unprepared" for a curtain length of time. These are in the most part "Cosmetic" in nature! That ceiling panel, although in my mind questionable, could come under that category. Than there are others, that are "Safety of flight" or RII items that "MOST" be fixed! Now here's where we can get in trouble! Some people try and bend the definition of "Safety of flight", although it's clearly defined in the G.P.M. just to make schedule!!! A practice all to commune!

 

[WingNaPrayer]

there are ways to address that, including calling FAA. BUT!------ I do recommend before one does that, to try and resolve the problem "in house"!

And there are always exceptions to the rule. I'm sure it is no secret at AA that "in house" can get you fired if you push it. Therefore, by the time you get to the FAA, your termination labels you as a "disgruntled former employee" and you loose again.

If the company is blatantly violating FAA rules and regulations, especially with their safety checks, screw "in house" and go straight to the FAA. If the issue is serious enough, whistleblower kicks in and the only ones that end up disgruntled are management who thought for sure they had gotten away with something.

AA has just about the oldest fleet in the air. There is no room for skirting safety when your aircraft is older than most of the passengers flying on it. If a safety issue, especially one covered by the FAA comes up and you report it, and your manager either does nothing or worse yet, orders you to ignore it, that is when it is time to contact the FAA directly. Gawd knows it will take them forever to respond as it is.

In house indeed!

 

[WingNaPrayer]

All they worry about is how much money did we make for the share holders and their performance bonus payouts for a job well done.

AA stock doesn't, and hasn't paid a dividend in quite some time. It is a day-trader stock, nothing more.

 

[MiAAmi]

<_< ------ Jim, there are curtain things that can go "unprepared" for a curtain length of time. These are in the most part "Cosmetic" in nature! That ceiling panel, although in my mind questionable, could come under that category. Than there are others, that are "Safety of flight" or RII items that "MOST" be fixed! Now here's where we can get in trouble! Some people try and bend the definition of "Safety of flight", although it's clearly defined in the G.P.M. just to make schedule!!! A practice all to commune!

While the mechanics and most airline personel know the difference between safety of flight items and "Cosmetic" items, most passengers do not. When AA has monthly headlines about safety issues and passengers walk on and see duct tape everywhere they are going to start questioning our procedures. Once safety is questioned it wont matter what the fares are. Management really needs to start earning their keep and put these safety issues to rest.

 

[777 fixer]

A pilot told me that a mechanic told him that the mechanics were told not to repair anything until it had been entered in the log 3 times and the FAA mandatory repair rule kicked in. I was working on a S80 the other day that had the ceiling panel in the forward entry held up by duct tape. So attractive!

That was following a trip on a 757 that was delayed almost 2 hours for repairs. We were supposed to depart DFW at 1100 that day. At 1045 a broken airplane was towed to the gate from the hangar where it had been sitting for 18 hours. After we pushed we had to return to the gate because as soon as we pushed the APU stopped working. We had to jumpstart the a/c the rest of the day.

That first statement makes no sense. Either the mechanic was talking out of his butt or the pilot misinterpreted what he was saying. If something is written up it has to be addressed. It either has to be fixed or deferred per the MEL.

 

[Bob Owens]

Wonderful. If true, things are gonna get worse for AA:



http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080516/americanair...tning.html?.v=2

If this is true, AA could use some new management.

I have no doubt that its true.

Over the last few years the company has eliminated items from the checks. Fuel sumping and cargo compartments were eliminated because the mechanics kept finding discrepancies that would cause delays since corrective action had to be taken before the aircraft could be dispatched. The sumps were often frozen, in other words there was water in the tanks. While more than likely the amount of water was minimal and did not present a hazrd to flight the incident in England a few months ago highlights that nothing should be taken for granted. The elimination of checking the cargo compartments is more troubling, cargo compartment linings have to be sealed for containment in case of fire.

Lightning strikes are another item where corrective action must be taken.

While eliminating sumping and checking the cargo compartments was easy its harder to prevent mechanics from finding and reporting lightning strikes since they would have to explicitely say "ignore lightning strikes" or eliminate looking at the aircraft. Either that or change the limits, make taking corrective action deferrable but the airline would rather have higher standards on paper and shift risk to the mechanics. This way if anything should happen they can say "How did you miss the damage caused by the lightning strike" if discovered by the FAA or the flight crew.

If it doesnt need to be checked then it should be deferrable, if its not deferrable and its a common problem it should be checked. Water in the tanks(especially on the A-300), tears and holes in the cargo compartments and lightning strikes are common discrepancies and they should be checked prior to every flight.

 

[The Goose]

MiAAmi said: "Management really needs to start earning their keep and put these safety issues to rest."

FWAAA said: "If this is true, AA could use some new management".

Hmmm ... what was your first clue?

In what way is management able to earn their keep other than providing plausible deniability (read 'take the blame') for the sins of the next management-type up the food chain? Few of them understand more than how to show up on time for meetings and how to BS that meeting's chairperson.

In order for management to take the reins and start earning their keep, we have to understand the most basic requirement is to have some so-called "management" to begin with.

Some have said we're rudderless. Ladies and gents, I believe we're missing a helluva lot more than a friggin' rudder.

 

[ch53D]

A pilot told me that a mechanic told him that the mechanics were told not to repair anything until it had been entered in the log 3 times and the FAA mandatory repair rule kicked in. I was working on a S80 the other day that had the ceiling panel in the forward entry held up by duct tape. So attractive!

That was following a trip on a 757 that was delayed almost 2 hours for repairs. We were supposed to depart DFW at 1100 that day. At 1045 a broken airplane was towed to the gate from the hangar where it had been sitting for 18 hours. After we pushed we had to return to the gate because as soon as we pushed the APU stopped working. We had to jumpstart the a/c the rest of the day.

Out of your 18 hours the A/C was on the ground only 8 hours would have been manned by an AMT at the best. The APU must of worked go to the hangar and returning back to the gate, because it would have been written up as such. The APU was working before you pushed off the gate because the pilot would have called for maintenance before pushing back.

Sorry us AMT’s are not smart enough to think a head and know the APU was going to take a #### once it left the gate the next day.

 

[Wretched Wrench]

The business of not repairing until the third pirep is not new. Both management and mechs evaluate pireps, and whether or not it is a repeater has an effect on the action taken. Or not taken. We all know many complaints, particularly those attributed to rogue electrons may not reoccur.

Every person has slightly different criteria on what to sign off, what to reseat, and what to ground the airplane to fix. Some have higher standards than others. I myself have different standards, depending on the schedule. For example, an imminent departure gets less fussy work than a B check item. As a simple example, at the gate, working on an outbound, a screw with a worn head gets reinstalled. On the B check, it gets replaced, with the attendant time wasted at stores.

 

[jimntx]

Out of your 18 hours the A/C was on the ground only 8 hours would have been manned by an AMT at the best. The APU must of worked go to the hangar and returning back to the gate, because it would have been written up as such. The APU was working before you pushed off the gate because the pilot would have called for maintenance before pushing back.

Sorry us AMT’s are not smart enough to think a head and know the APU was going to take a #### once it left the gate the next day.

What I meant was that the mechanics were told to defer everything that could be deferred until the magic 3rd write-up.

And, you see the flight was already delayed because when it was brought to the gate, a mechanic told the cockpit to hold off boarding because there was something that needed to be fixed in the cockpit. Also, both coffee makers in F/C had those stickers that are supposed to go on inop serving carts that say DO NOT USE. One of those DO NOT USE stickers had also been put on the liquids drain in the F/C galley. The a/c was brought to the gate in that condition. We were told there was a leak in the drains in F/C; but that they would not be repaired prior to takeoff. So, we had nowhere to pour waste liquids in F/C, but then that only inconveniences the f/as; so why bother, right?

The APU crapping the minute it was turned on was just jam on the bread.