Rise In Outside Repairs Raises Questions

[NWA/AMT]

IIRC, the last US-based airliner to go down was the AS MD-80, five years ago.

[post="257493"][/post]​

A partial list:

AA - Nov 2001

Air Midwest - Jan 2003

Pinnacle - Oct 2004

I find it interesting that when the mechanics who are actually looking at the airplanes say that the maintenance standards are slipping and that vendor maintenance is not equal to in-house maintenance, they are dismissed as having an agenda or as union propaganda.

Yet, when airline spokespersons, FAA spokespersons, airline consulting spokespersons, or vendor association spokespersons - people who rarely, if ever, see the aircraft and have an agenda, and obvious motives, of their own - say that all is well and all maintenance is equal, the public, and the pundits, accept it as absolute truth.

 

[mweiss]

the last was jan.08 2003

Indeed it was. I had forgotten about that one. I knew about the Pinnacle one, but it wasn't carrying paying passengers. It's a bit of hair-splitting to exclude it, though.

BUT just think of the cost savings the airlines gain from cheap maintenace.

It's an interesting question to ponder, as a purely intellectual exercise. What was the less expensive route?

you dont have a clue so why dont you just leave AVIATION matters to those who do?

[post="257519"][/post]​

You're looking at the world through a narrow slit. It appears that you, in fact, don't have a clue. Of course people will die when maintenance is reduced. Of course that's a horrible tragedy for those whose loved ones perish.

Moreover, I am happy that the people whose craft has been aircraft maintenance treat the job with the level of gravity that you do. It's a sign that you do your job well. You think I don't see that???

My goal in contributing to maintenance related threads is to supply a differing viewpoint on aircraft maintenance, because the perspective outside the hangars is quite different from the perspective inside them. There's nothing wrong with looking at things from different perspectives every now and then. In fact, there's plenty right with it.

NWA/AMT, I have no doubt that the standards are slipping. I also have no doubt that FAA oversight is insufficient. The question I'm bringing is, in a nutshell, how much quality is "enough?" How much should we all be paying to prevent these airplanes from becoming lawn darts? I don't know the answer, nor do I have an agenda to promote a particular answer. Perhaps the question is too crass to discuss with AMTs?

 

[NWA/AMT]

NWA/AMT, I have no doubt that the standards are slipping. I also have no doubt that FAA oversight is insufficient. The question I'm bringing is, in a nutshell, how much quality is "enough?" How much should we all be paying to prevent these airplanes from becoming lawn darts? I don't know the answer, nor do I have an agenda to promote a particular answer. Perhaps the question is too crass to discuss with AMTs?

[post="257757"][/post]​

In other words, how much is too much? Or, more precisely, how much is not enough? Crass? No. But it is somewhat akin to being asked to justify one's profession by what doesn't happen because of you. Oh, the joy of being asked to prove a negative...

Ask the family members of those killed aboard the Valujet crash in May, 1996 whose deaths are the direct result of untrained vendor maintenance employees improperly handling dangerous aircraft components. Despite the fact that the FARs do not allow an airline to transfer ultimate responsibility for the maintenance, or contents, of it's aircraft to others, Valujet management repeatedly attempted to avoid responsibility for their decisions. Even the FAA was finally forced to act in this case, subjecting Valujet to a level of oversight unprecedented in airline history.

Ask the family members of those killed the Air Midwest crash from Jan, 2003. Their deaths were directly caused by outsourced maintenance performed by unqualified, untrained, unlicensed individuals. Despite the fact that they bear direct, non-transferrable, responsibility for the maintenance of their aircraft, regardless of who performs it, the management of Air Midwest has yet to be held accountable for their decision.

Ask those who are flying on the many aircraft maintained by Timco, Inc., aircraft maintained by people whose employer did not even know who they really were. Unlike airline employees, who are required to be fingerprinted and have 10 year background checks, US FAR 145 vendor employees have no specific rules ensuring they are who they say they are, only their own company procedures. Many overseas vendors have even less. Seems like a small issue until you realize the level of responsibility each mechanic is given, even in just opening and closing areas of the aircraft which are only accessed during maintenance.

Timco story

Ask the families of those killed aboard Air China Flight 611 in May, 2002, when an undetected 71 inch crack caused the aircraft to break apart in mid-air. The same people who maintained that aircraft maintain aircraft for many US carriers.

Air China crash

Aircraft are designed to be incredibly safe but still require constant maintenance to remain so. Those of us who accept legal, and moral, responsibility for that have little tolerance for those who wish to reduce the issue to a question of 'acceptable risk' and make airworthiness decisions based on cost. We realize that airlines are under incredible pressure to reduce costs, but operating airplanes is 'core' to every airline's 'business model', and maintaining them must be part of that. We know that conventional wisdom says that our jobs could be done cheaper by someone else.

We hear the 'spokespersons' say that all maintenance is created equal, and then we go to work every day and see that it is not. We see shoddy workmanship and problems ignored and know how the lowest bidder go so low. The fact that the planes are designed well enough that this has not yet become a crisis is of no comfort to us because we know it will. We see the planes, and we see the trend, and we know those 'spokespersons' won't be there to face the results. We know that conventional wisdom is often wrong.

As has been stated before; when you're in an aluminum tube .060 of an inch thick, travelling at 400 MPH, six miles above the Earth, how would you define 'acceptable risk'? At that moment, does it seem wise to place the responsibility for your safety in the hands of the lowest bidder?

I can't tell you how much is too much to be spending on aircraft maintenance, but in the end the question of how much is not enough will answer itself.

 

[UAL_TECH]

NWA/AMT, I have no doubt that the standards are slipping. I also have no doubt that FAA oversight is insufficient. The question I'm bringing is, in a nutshell, how much quality is "enough?" How much should we all be paying to prevent these airplanes from becoming lawn darts? I don't know the answer, nor do I have an agenda to promote a particular answer.

[post="257757"][/post]​

We will not give up on our edification to the masses as to the ‘knowns’ and I suspect that you will not relent with your hysterical statistical data. Using the latest data on historical performance of an aircraft type, most airlines (such as the ‘Lazy U’) are extending their periodical checks to save on maintenance costs. Is this a wise analysis considering that the data is collected by ‘in house’ maintenance? Is the consideration of ‘age’ and ‘neglect’ (minimum/sub minimum standards) calculated into these extensions? You already know the answer to these questions, right?

Your accusations are of the statistical brainiest but the functionally ignorant. You may be an excellent bean counter but have little conception of the making of the bean, you just count them. You a$$ume that our only concern is for our positions. You discount the possibilities that we have little concern for the health and welfare of our customers (much less the lives of our family/friends/neighbors) that depend on us doing our duty (job to you) to the best of our ability regardless of the obstacles.

But this is the makeup of the airline mechanic that you (and the public) will never appreciate nor understand.

Perhaps the question is too crass to discuss with AMTs?

Hopefully, you will spearhead the next recovery crew for the NTSB report and count the body parts and locations for your next analysis.

View attachment 2708

‘Casually Yours’

B) UT

 

[local 12 proud]

Indeed it was. I had forgotten about that one. I knew about the Pinnacle one, but it wasn't carrying paying passengers. It's a bit of hair-splitting to exclude it, though.

It's an interesting question to ponder, as a purely intellectual exercise. What was the less expensive route?

You're looking at the world through a narrow slit. It appears that you, in fact, don't have a clue. Of course people will die when maintenance is reduced. Of course that's a horrible tragedy for those whose loved ones perish.

Moreover, I am happy that the people whose craft has been aircraft maintenance treat the job with the level of gravity that you do. It's a sign that you do your job well. You think I don't see that???

My goal in contributing to maintenance related threads is to supply a differing viewpoint on aircraft maintenance, because the perspective outside the hangars is quite different from the perspective inside them. There's nothing wrong with looking at things from different perspectives every now and then. In fact, there's plenty right with it.

NWA/AMT, I have no doubt that the standards are slipping. I also have no doubt that FAA oversight is insufficient. The question I'm bringing is, in a nutshell, how much quality is "enough?" How much should we all be paying to prevent these airplanes from becoming lawn darts? I don't know the answer, nor do I have an agenda to promote a particular answer. Perhaps the question is too crass to discuss with AMTs?

[post="257757"][/post]​

why don't you tell me which was the least expensive route since your so smart. I dont look at the world through a "narrow slit" as you put it, I have a intimate and knowledgeable understanding of what happens when machinery (in this case airplanes) is neglected and the law of average will prove me right! your right about the viewpoints being "quite" different...your type see's $$$ signs, and mine see's lives. you sound like the typical pencil pusher who probably cant even change his own oil in his automobiles, then complains that your being overcharged to have it serviced by a real mechanic!

 

[mweiss]

...it is somewhat akin to being asked to justify one's profession by what doesn't happen because of you.

In a sense, that's true. And yet many of us, me included, do work whose job is to prevent tragedy. It doesn't make it any less important (in fact, in many respects it makes it more important). But the questions always come down to dollars, because there are a limited supply of them and we (in the collective sense) have a hard time seeing the point of diminishing returns.

When asking the families who lost loved ones in crashes, it's far better to ask before the tragedy than after. Ask someone after a car crash if they wished they had a lower deductible, and they're far more inclined to say "yes." Ask them before, and you're more likely to get a different answer. Few people get to answer that question after the fact.

Those of us who accept legal, and moral, responsibility for that have little tolerance for those who wish to reduce the issue to a question of 'acceptable risk' and make airworthiness decisions based on cost.

Of course you do, because it's part of the core makeup of a quality AMT to find the question offensive. It's offensive because we shouldn't have to make such tradeoffs in life. It's the same sort of offense that doctors experience when the insurance companies refuse to pay for the best treatment becuase it's more expensive than simply adequate treatment.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to even ask the questions. We'd just keep everything humming along perfectly all the time. Of course, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need triple redundancy or mechanics to maintain the systems. They'd all just remain perfect. *sigh* Back to the real world...

We know that conventional wisdom says that our jobs could be done cheaper by someone else.

And they can, of course. Can they be done at the same level of quality for less money elsewhere? In theory, certainly. I believe that they can in practice, at least for some carriers.

We hear the 'spokespersons' say that all maintenance is created equal, and then we go to work every day and see that it is not.

The problem is that maintenance quality is hard to quantify, and without a means to standardize across the industry it becomes nearly impossible to accurately compare multiple service offerings on any metric other than price. Price tends toward cost in commodity industries (which maintenance becomes if you cannot apply any metric other than price), and quality inherently comes at the expense of cost. Therein lies the great tension, and it needs to be resolved in order to avoid the path of least resistance (i.e., cut corners to cut costs). It's not happening, and that is a different, more severe tragedy.

As has been stated before; when you're in an aluminum tube .060 of an inch thick, travelling at 400 MPH, six miles above the Earth, how would you define 'acceptable risk'? At that moment, does it seem wise to place the responsibility for your safety in the hands of the lowest bidder?

At the same time, would it be any wiser to spend a dollar per ASM in order to make these aluminum tubes even safer? It comes back to the old joke about the man who asked a woman to sleep with him for a million dollars, and then for a dollar. We've established that airline maintenance is compromise by its very nature...we're just haggling over the price.

I suspect that you will not relent with your hysterical statistical data.

"Hysterical statistical data?????" I haven't provided a single statistic (other than my erroneous recollection of the last fatal crash) in this discussion. I'm not interested in having a quantitative discussion here; it's a qualitative argument.

Using the latest data on historical performance of an aircraft type, most airlines (such as the ‘Lazy U’) are extending their periodical checks to save on maintenance costs. Is this a wise analysis considering that the data is collected by ‘in house’ maintenance?

It can be, but it certainly doesn't have to be. One reason the Point Mugu crash stands out in my mind is how clearly it outlined the tension between money and safety. The screwjacks were allowed to deteriorate, and it seems pretty clear that there was some pencilwhipping going on in Oakland.

You may be an excellent bean counter but have little conception of the making of the bean, you just count them.

I'm not a bean counter, believe it or not. To me, that's a boring task. I'm interested in vicariously walking in other people's shoes. Since there are plenty of mechanics on USaviation, it'd be silly for me to sit here and nod my head at everything you say. I realize that puts me close to the line of windup artist, but I'm genuinely interested in learning something new, gaining a new perspective.

You a$$ume that our only concern is for our positions.

Au contraire! I believe that job security and other job related benefits have an impact on your beliefs and behavior, but I don't think it's your only concern.

But this is the makeup of the airline mechanic that you (and the public) will never appreciate nor understand.

I know several airline mechanics personally. I think I've gotten a pretty good grasp on the makeup of the airline mechanic.

 

[mweiss]

why don't you tell me which was the least expensive route since your so smart.

I don't know the least expensive route. Even if I did, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the least expensive route is the "right" one. Far too many elements of daily decisions rest on factors that do not easily translate into dollars.

I have a intimate and knowledgeable understanding of what happens when machinery (in this case airplanes) is neglected and the law of average will prove me right!

Ahh, but do you know how much the passengers on your aircraft are willing to pay for each "unit" of quality? If they want a Yugo, and you insist on giving them a Rolls anyway, is that the "right" thing to do?

 

[UAL_TECH]

job security and other job related benefits

[post="257956"][/post]​

At least you have a sense of humor.

B) UT

 

[mweiss]

At least you have a sense of humor.

[post="258007"][/post]​

I do, but I wasn't joking. I was more referring to the desire for job security and other job-related benefits.

 

[NWA/AMT]

But the questions always come down to dollars, because there are a limited supply of them and we (in the collective sense) have a hard time seeing the point of diminishing returns.

[post="257956"][/post]​

Considering that spending in maintenance has steadily been trending DOWN, not up, that's not really an issue.

When asking the families who lost loved ones in crashes, it's far better to ask before the tragedy than after.

No, ask them both before AND after and learn from their new perspective.

Can they be done at the same level of quality for less money elsewhere? In theory, certainly. I believe that they can in practice, at least for some carriers.

Yet real world experience is not bearing out your conclusions. Even Southwest, whose oversight of their outsourced maintenance is legendary, has increased the amount of work they do in house.

The problem is that maintenance quality is hard to quantify, and without a means to standardize across the industry it becomes nearly impossible to accurately compare multiple service offerings on any metric other than price.

It's only hard to quantify if one's intent is to obfuscate the issue. It is quantified clearly in the manufacturers maintenance manuals and engineering data, which are standard for each aircraft type across the industry.

At the same time, would it be any wiser to spend a dollar per ASM in order to make these aluminum tubes even safer?

Yet, increasing the level of safety is not the issue, is it? I don't recall anyone advocating an increase in spending on aircraft maintenance.

We've established that airline maintenance is compromise by its very nature...we're just haggling over the price.

I don't believe we've established that at all. The only gray areas in aircraft maintenance are those introduced by people who would have mechanics make airworthiness decisions based on financial issues rather than airworthiness issues.

One reason the Point Mugu crash stands out in my mind is how clearly it outlined the tension between money and safety. The screwjacks were allowed to deteriorate, and it seems pretty clear that there was some pencilwhipping going on in Oakland.

Your evaluation of the AS 261 issue is incomplete. The airline made the decision to continue using the jackscrew even after being told it was unserviceable. They found someone who would make the decision based on cost issues rather than airworthiness ones. Something the vendors have already proven more willing to do.

Ask AS mechanics how they feel about outsourced maintenance now that all their checks are done by vendors. The ones I know tell of being forced to accomplish check tasks on the line because the vendors could not or would not do them and of spending weeks bringing an aircraft back up to standards after a check.

One of them the other night was telling me of finding one of the main wiring harnesses, containing wiring for dozens of systems (including the rudder), in the cabin ceiling just laying on top of the galleys at the aft end of the plane. It was obvious there had been no attempt to reinstall the wiring in its clamps, as the clamps were still in the ceiling with their hardware tied to them in bags.

It's not as if the sharp metal edges that make up the galley ceiling would have a negative effect on the thinly insulated wiring, is it? The plane was three days out of a vendor check in OKC and took one complete flight day to repair. But it can't be the vendor's fault, after all, the vendor got the check out on time and on budget, and the cost of repairing and reinstalling the wiring was transferred to the line maintenance budget, which will undoubtedly be next under the axe.

I know several airline mechanics personally. I think I've gotten a pretty good grasp on the makeup of the airline mechanic.

Yet you keep finding ways to be condescending and insulting:

"I know several (insert minority group) personally. I think I've gotten a pretty good grasp on the makeup of the (insert minority group)."

Nice.

 

[KCFlyer]

No, ask them both before AND after and learn from their new perspective.

[post="258016"][/post]​

Perfect!

 

[mweiss]

Considering that spending in maintenance has steadily been trending DOWN, not up, that's not really an issue.

Whether it is or not depends on where one would find that point of diminishing returns. If it's below the current point, then it's very much an issue.

No, ask them both before AND after and learn from their new perspective.

Learning from the new perspective is useful, of course. It's just that people who have lost loved ones remain a very small segment. The extent of their impact on the market is either to increase regulation (or, more effectively IMO, enforcement of existing regulations) or to convince the rest of the traveling public that the risk is higher than they perceive it to be. I remain uncomfortable with the "I'm forcing this upon you for your own good" philosophy.

Yet real world experience is not bearing out your conclusions.

I explained why. It's possible to have maintenance at the same level of quality for fewer dollars than in-house (again, at some, not necessarily all, carriers), but it's easy to save even more dollars (in the short term, for sure, and possibly even in the long term) by sacrificing quality. It's this latter effect that precludes us from getting more than a taste of the former.

Even Southwest, whose oversight of their outsourced maintenance is legendary, has increased the amount of work they do in house.

Then again, WN has always gotten more work per employee than any legacy carrier. That's why this particular example is insufficient to draw a broader conclusion.

It's only hard to quantify if one's intent is to obfuscate the issue. It is quantified clearly in the manufacturers maintenance manuals and engineering data, which are standard for each aircraft type across the industry.

Not true at all. Yes, one can black-or-white the specifics of the work as airworthy or not, per the manufacturers' specifications and all subsequent ADs. That gets you part of the way there. However, isn't it safer to fly with the full complement in spec than to fly with the minimums at minimum allowable specs? Wouldn't the former level be considered a higher quality, and worth more than the latter?

Furthermore, how do you validate the level of quality? Do you have two people look at all work? Wouldn't three be even safer? What about the work that isn't visible after the fact (e.g., caliper measurements)?

Your evaluation of the AS 261 issue is incomplete. The airline made the decision to continue using the jackscrew even after being told it was unserviceable. They found someone who would make the decision based on cost issues rather than airworthiness ones.

Agreed. It's not so much my evaluation that was incomplete (I read the NTSB reports and the articles from the Seattle Times, and spoke to a few people closer to the situation), but rather excessive use of verbal shorthand. Your description is more accurate, though also incomplete. We probably don't need to revisit all of the details.

Yet you keep finding ways to be condescending and insulting

I'm sorry that it came across that way; it's not my intent. I'm trying to explain why it is that I'm not as naïve about this as you (collectively) seem to think I am.

 

[UAL_TECH]

I do, but I wasn't joking. I was more referring to the desire for job security and other job-related benefits.

[post="258010"][/post]​

Don’t fool yourself (again) you’re a$$umptions as to the reliance of job security and benefits by mechanics went out the window after 911. Anyone after this fiasco that hasn’t prepared for the inevitable is as myopic as you are (I slept at a Holiday Inn and now I are one). You a$$ume too much and the ‘mechanics’ that you are ‘studying’ might not be as honest to you as they are amongst themselves.

I cannot convince you nor the public of the future ramifications of outsourcing.
This will speak for itself in the not too distant future and time will prove our insight.

My issue with you and ‘yours’ is that nothing has been learned from past experiences and you ‘force’ catastrophe to happen because it was monetarily untenable.

I will not fly anymore unless it is an emergency as I value my ‘Life’!

Take this word from a mechanic that works on the crap you all fly in!!!

B) UT

 

[mweiss]

My issue with you and ‘yours’ is that nothing has been learned from past experiences and you ‘force’ catastrophe to happen because it was monetarily untenable.

[post="258082"][/post]​

Except that I'm not forcing anything. I'm not even advocating anything, other than a discussion that recognizes that, for some reason, the flying public seems to be unwilling to pay as much for maintenance these days. That hardly means that I think they're being intelligent about it.

Beating your head against the wall and moaning about how the craft is going to pot isn't changing public opinion. Do you want to fix the problem, or just complain about the problem?

 

[gatemech]

It is all about the money. The FAA, Congress, Senate, and the flying public want that seat as cheap as they can get it. They do not care who maintains the aircraft as long as it is at the gate ready to go.

Now if a relative of GWB was on an aircraft that crash you bet something would be done. If a high ranking FAA official was in a crash you bet they would look at maintenance. Until it hits home in Washington US registered aircraft will be maintained by the lowest bidder.

You get what you pay for.