Checking it Out
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2003
- Messages
- 1,702
- Reaction score
- 0
Directors Update 04-22-04
Study Cites Maintenance Risk...
Study Cites Maintenance Risk
By ANDY PASZTOR
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
April 21, 2004;
Maintenance mistakes have caused significantly greater safety hazards for U.S. airlines than aviation-industry statistics suggest, according to a new study by Purdue University.
In addition, maintenance lapses led to hundreds more dangerous in-flight incidents during the past 20 years than previously indicated, according to the study, which is slated to be released today by researchers from Purdue and John Goglia, an outgoing member of the National Transportation Safety Board.
The findings are likely to spur calls for more training and oversight of mechanics at a time when cash-strapped airlines are under stiff financial pressure to reduce maintenance costs. Federal aviation officials increasingly are focused on the issue because maintenance was cited as an important factor in several high-profile airliner crashes during recent years. In particular, safety officials have focused on lax oversight of outside maintenance contractors as more airlines shift work to outside shops.
The study, which sifted through federal data from 1984 to 2002, is billed as the most detailed, wide-ranging analysis yet of the impact of maintenance mistakes on commercial-aviation safety. Purdue analyzed federal reports covering some 1,300 airline accidents and incidents -- defined as events ranging from crashes to equipment malfunction that posed enough of a danger to the aircraft and passengers to prompt an investigation by federal officials.
Publicly available industry-safety reports concentrate on actual crashes and generally don't go into depth on incident data. So this is the first comprehensive effort to shed light on the role of maintenance in near-crashes, which safety experts say provide the best road map on how to prevent future fatal accidents.
Researchers concluded that incomplete or incorrect maintenance tasks were primary contributing factors in 14% of incidents and 8% of accidents during the period. By far, the leading cause of maintenance-related problems was failure to follow procedures. Overall, maintenance or some sort of mechanical failure was primarily responsible in nearly one-third of all of the events that compromised safety during those years.
One example cited in the report: In November 1998, a crippled AirTran Holdings Boeing 737 veered off the runway during an emergency landing in Atlanta, injuring 15 on board. Investigators blamed maintenance slipups, including improper installation of hydraulic lines.
Spurring Controversy
The findings are likely to be controversial, since airlines, aircraft manufacturers and engine makers historically have argued that mechanical failures and maintenance slipups account for only a fraction of mishaps. Boeing Co., in a recently published safety summary, estimates that faulty maintenance was responsible for only about 3% of crashes involving widely used jetliner models in 1993 to 2002. Industry officials also have maintained that mechanical and maintenance problems are much less prevalent than the federal data suggest.
In terms of problems, Boeing's public-safety statistics give greater emphasis to problems caused by midair turbulence. Company statistics for 1993 to 2002 list turbulence as the cause of nearly half of the roughly 280 "accidents" broken out in a separate section of its report. Boeing defines accidents -- as opposed to crashes that destroy aircraft -- as events that cause "substantial" damage and injuries.
Pilot mistakes are still easily the leading cause of airliner catastrophes -- figuring in roughly two-thirds of crashes. But as training programs and closer cooperation in the cockpit continue to chip away at those categories of mistakes, maintenance is steadily moving into the spotlight.
The Human Factor
"The latest numbers on the frequency of maintenance errors came in higher than almost anyone expected," according to the report's Mr. Goglia, who worked as a mechanic and safety official at USAir before joining the federal safety board. "This should force a more careful look at the importance of human factors inside the hangar."
The Purdue study doesn't cover cargo planes, charter aircraft and tiny commuter operations, nor does it deal with business and general aviation.
But a recent internal study by FedEx Corp. found that roughly 15% of a broad sample of maintenance work performed on its fleet of cargo jets was completed improperly, or at least without following all the required steps, according to federal safety officials.
Study Cites Maintenance Risk...
Study Cites Maintenance Risk
By ANDY PASZTOR
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
April 21, 2004;
Maintenance mistakes have caused significantly greater safety hazards for U.S. airlines than aviation-industry statistics suggest, according to a new study by Purdue University.
In addition, maintenance lapses led to hundreds more dangerous in-flight incidents during the past 20 years than previously indicated, according to the study, which is slated to be released today by researchers from Purdue and John Goglia, an outgoing member of the National Transportation Safety Board.
The findings are likely to spur calls for more training and oversight of mechanics at a time when cash-strapped airlines are under stiff financial pressure to reduce maintenance costs. Federal aviation officials increasingly are focused on the issue because maintenance was cited as an important factor in several high-profile airliner crashes during recent years. In particular, safety officials have focused on lax oversight of outside maintenance contractors as more airlines shift work to outside shops.
The study, which sifted through federal data from 1984 to 2002, is billed as the most detailed, wide-ranging analysis yet of the impact of maintenance mistakes on commercial-aviation safety. Purdue analyzed federal reports covering some 1,300 airline accidents and incidents -- defined as events ranging from crashes to equipment malfunction that posed enough of a danger to the aircraft and passengers to prompt an investigation by federal officials.
Publicly available industry-safety reports concentrate on actual crashes and generally don't go into depth on incident data. So this is the first comprehensive effort to shed light on the role of maintenance in near-crashes, which safety experts say provide the best road map on how to prevent future fatal accidents.
Researchers concluded that incomplete or incorrect maintenance tasks were primary contributing factors in 14% of incidents and 8% of accidents during the period. By far, the leading cause of maintenance-related problems was failure to follow procedures. Overall, maintenance or some sort of mechanical failure was primarily responsible in nearly one-third of all of the events that compromised safety during those years.
One example cited in the report: In November 1998, a crippled AirTran Holdings Boeing 737 veered off the runway during an emergency landing in Atlanta, injuring 15 on board. Investigators blamed maintenance slipups, including improper installation of hydraulic lines.
Spurring Controversy
The findings are likely to be controversial, since airlines, aircraft manufacturers and engine makers historically have argued that mechanical failures and maintenance slipups account for only a fraction of mishaps. Boeing Co., in a recently published safety summary, estimates that faulty maintenance was responsible for only about 3% of crashes involving widely used jetliner models in 1993 to 2002. Industry officials also have maintained that mechanical and maintenance problems are much less prevalent than the federal data suggest.
In terms of problems, Boeing's public-safety statistics give greater emphasis to problems caused by midair turbulence. Company statistics for 1993 to 2002 list turbulence as the cause of nearly half of the roughly 280 "accidents" broken out in a separate section of its report. Boeing defines accidents -- as opposed to crashes that destroy aircraft -- as events that cause "substantial" damage and injuries.
Pilot mistakes are still easily the leading cause of airliner catastrophes -- figuring in roughly two-thirds of crashes. But as training programs and closer cooperation in the cockpit continue to chip away at those categories of mistakes, maintenance is steadily moving into the spotlight.
The Human Factor
"The latest numbers on the frequency of maintenance errors came in higher than almost anyone expected," according to the report's Mr. Goglia, who worked as a mechanic and safety official at USAir before joining the federal safety board. "This should force a more careful look at the importance of human factors inside the hangar."
The Purdue study doesn't cover cargo planes, charter aircraft and tiny commuter operations, nor does it deal with business and general aviation.
But a recent internal study by FedEx Corp. found that roughly 15% of a broad sample of maintenance work performed on its fleet of cargo jets was completed improperly, or at least without following all the required steps, according to federal safety officials.
