NTSB not happy with AA

[Hopeful]

But don't worry, the lazy union mechanics will bear the brunt of the blame when the dust settles.



http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews...20090520?rpc=44

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

But don't worry, the lazy union mechanics will bear the brunt of the blame when the dust settles.

You're actually correct: "The safety board determined that the cause of the accident was American Airlines' maintenance personnel's use of an incorrect manual engine-start procedure, which led to a fire in the left engine"

 

[Hopeful]

You're actually correct: "The safety board determined that the cause of the accident was American Airlines' maintenance personnel's use of an incorrect manual engine-start procedure, which led to a fire in the left engine"

Absolutely...Because they obey a direct order from a supervisor who doesn't even shave yet..


.read the last paragraph of this WSJ article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1242773149...oo#mod=yahoo_hs

AA's internal surveillance program failed to find this problem...
Is it possible the auditors intentionally ignored this?

Or maybe the mechanics were so worried about getting some rest, they chose not to spend hours trouble shooting because they needed some sleep before their second job.

As usual, the pro company cheerleaders never find fault in management.

Yea blame the mechanic and keep hitting him/her with more concessions...Keep that morale and passion for the job at sewer levels....

Whatever the cause, and yes, believe it or not, I blame the mechanics. I blame the mechanics for bowing down to a supervisor who is getting his NADS squeezed by the manager to get that plane out on time.
Yes I do blame the mechanic for not calling the FAA and the NTSB and tell them they are being ordered to change a start valve over and over again.

Like I said, Frugal......being an outsider how do you know what goes on internally..Tell us!

 

[jimntx]

At the same time, Hopeful, I don't see you denying the possibility of pilot or f/a error decisions. You didn't blink an eye at the statement in the article that said flight crew needed additional emergency training. Evidently, it is only mechanics that are like the Virgin Mary--without sin or error.

 

[Hopeful]

At the same time, Hopeful, I don't see you denying the possibility of pilot or f/a error decisions. You didn't blink an eye at the statement in the article that said flight crew needed additional emergency training. Evidently, it is only mechanics that are like the Virgin Mary--without sin or error.

No, I was just responding as a mechanic. Just like the MD80 wiring debacle, mechanics' judgment was called in to question. And I was responding to the article which seems to pin the blame more so on mechanics judgement than a pilots. And I don;t know where an F/A would come into this incident.

And please show me where in my post do I give mechanics a pass on any incident...I don't.

I'll be the first to admit mechanics are our own worst enemy. Ignoring procedures to "move" an aircraft because they want to look good for management. In turn they get their shifts changed at will, days off changed, start times moved around, etc.

And Jim my boy, show me where in the history of aviation where a flight attendant has been the cause of aircraft accident....

Usually pilot error or mechanical.

 

[Rogallo]

Or maybe the mechanics were so worried about getting some rest, they chose not to spend hours trouble shooting because they needed some sleep before their second job.

Hey....I resemble that remark!!

 

[chris perry]

Hey....I resemble that remark!!

\
One statement,AA adopted the TWA maint program! Mechanics just follow procedures mandated by the program.

 

[Mr.Robot-tow]

Whats really nice about this whole thing is that the lower cowling has to be lower which requires 2 AMT's to lower then one goes to the headset, and the other crawls into the lower cowling trying not to slip right out because of all the oil,that sit's in the lower cowl,and with this nifty wrench,rotates the valve shaft and right next to his face the starter engages and spins up to God knows what speed.Lord help the AMT if and when a starter blows up right next to his face.Every time I do this procedured I make sure somebody witness's this MPM procedure.For if it happens, I what a witness to the event.There is also very little room for the wrench to reach back between the engine casing and the valve's shaft.One tech crewchief and myself wonder why they don't they enlarge the door or redesign the wrench so that there is protection between you and the starter. I pray this will never happen to any line/overhaul AMT for I am sure a serious lawsuit will happen.767,777,737,757 do not use this procedure the cowling is always closed,with a large access panel/hole to activate the starter.

 

[Hopeful]

Whats really nice about this whole thing is that the lower cowling has to be lower which requires 2 AMT's to lower then one goes to the headset, and the other crawls into the lower cowling trying not to slip right out because of all the oil,that sit's in the lower cowl,and with this nifty wrench,rotates the valve shaft and right next to his face the starter engages and spins up to God knows what speed.Lord help the AMT if and when a starter blows up right next to his face.Every time I do this procedured I make sure somebody witness's this MPM procedure.For if it happens, I what a witness to the event.There is also very little room for the wrench to reach back between the engine casing and the valve's shaft.One tech crewchief and myself wonder why they don't they enlarge the door or redesign the wrench so that there is protection between you and the starter. I pray this will never happen to any line/overhaul AMT for I am sure a serious lawsuit will happen.767,777,737,757 do not use this procedure the cowling is always closed,with a large access panel/hole to activate the starter.

Geez, and I thought executives had tough jobs.

 

[skipfly]

The NTSB findings have a few holes.

The AMT's in STL used the proper manual start procedure...the pin was already bent.

The AMT that used a prying device was a contract AMT from Canada.

The CASS program is not designed for identifying repeat items on an individual AC, it is to identify and correct systemic issues.

AA's M&E Repeat control should have caught the 6 start valves being changed in 12 days.

If AA's AMT's constantly used improper start procedures, why did this only happen one the sixth start valve in 12 days?

Boeing published an All Operators Bulletin in 1998 that warn of this condition and AA chose not to include it in the manual.

AA says it did not add the warning because using the pin was not an approved procedure, yet the placard remains on the access door today that says "Start Valve Manual Override Access"

A DFW AMT troubleshot and found the problem and could not get the part to fix it (none in stock) so it had to be deferred again.


To name a few.....

 

[chris perry]

The NTSB findings have a few holes.

The AMT's in STL used the proper manual start procedure...the pin was already bent.

The AMT that used a prying device was a contract AMT from Canada.

The CASS program is not designed for identifying repeat items on an individual AC, it is to identify and correct systemic issues.

AA's M&E Repeat control should have caught the 6 start valves being changed in 12 days.

If AA's AMT's constantly used improper start procedures, why did this only happen one the sixth start valve in 12 days?

Boeing published an All Operators Bulletin in 1998 that warn of this condition and AA chose not to include it in the manual.

AA says it did not add the warning because using the pin was not an approved procedure, yet the placard remains on the access door today that says "Start Valve Manual Override Access"

A DFW AMT troubleshot and found the problem and could not get the part to fix it (none in stock) so it had to be deferred again.


To name a few.....

To add to all that! The engine engine programs have changed drasticly over the past few years!In the Crandal era the engines never spent more than 5000 hours on the aircraft.The engines were pulled and overhauled completely.Plus all filters including the starter filter were replaced so it was never an issue.Now they are pretty much ran til they fail or fail a inspection.They routinely run on special engineering approval even out of MM limits.The engines today are pulled and only the faulty part replaced,Which program sounds safer! You be the judge depends on whos in charge.The bottom line is Dollars! Just sounds better to me to have a quality engine than a patchwork unit.The programs are legal and approved by the FAA so be it I guess!