Why didn't the airlines act without FAA prodding?

[dumpster56]

Lets look at the American airline mess this week, why didn't american inspect these planes before?

Why did southwest fly planes without checking the 737s??

I keep hearing about how incompetent the govmint is yes they are, BUT why isn't anyone looking at American Air and Southwest and asking dudes why have you been flying unsafe planes?

 

[Texas Proud]

LOL>.... now I can see why some have you on the ignore list...

AA has said that they did what the FAA had asked, but that the FAA kept changing their mind on what was 'acceptable'.... read a bit more than the headlines and you would see that for at least the AA mess it WAS the government that caused all the problems... this is from both management and the mechanics union... and AA does not have great relations with their unions so I would think they are telling the truth...

 

[Caroline]

Now Texas, aren't you being a little hard on the guy?

I'm sure there's enough blame to go around in this airline thing (there always is), but if it was entirely the gummint's fault why did the Southwest CEO testify that mistakes were made by Southwest and that he was going to get them fixed asap?

Fact of the matter is the airlines are not doing real great right now and a little cost-cutting might have looked just a little too tempting to pass up.

 

[Wags]

There is probably enough blame to go around.

The government does not want to disrupt the airline industry and the airlines want to continue to make money.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Let's hope that all the problems are resolved so that the public can once again trust in their government and in their airline carriers.

GOD BLESS US ALL

 

[Notmuchlonger]

"Now Texas, aren't you being a little hard on the guy?"

No, Newguy is outraged if the paper boy is 1 minute late.

 

[Caroline]

"Now Texas, aren't you being a little hard on the guy?"

No, Newguy is outraged if the paper boy is 1 minute late.

Mebby so, but that doesn't make this particular rant inappropriate. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

 

[M Paquette]

Lets look at the American airline mess this week, why didn't american inspect these planes before?

For what little it's worth, this week's AA kerfluffle is a re-inspection of the fasteners for the sheathing on wheel well cable bundles. It appears (seriously) that some of the retaining clips for the bundles are clockwise instead of counterclockwise, and some ties on the cable bundle are as much as 1 1/4 inches apart instead of the specified 1 inch.

The FAA appears to be serious in wanting precise compliance in detail. They are rejecting the 'close enough' findings from prior inspections.

 

[Notmuchlonger]

Mebby so, but that doesn't make this particular rant inappropriate. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

Cry wolf enough and thats what ends up happening eh.

 

[Texas Proud]

Now Texas, aren't you being a little hard on the guy?

I would say 'yes' normally..... but I think he has 3 to 5 threads now going on how bad business is.... with no 'solution' etc... just big bad business and how they screw up all the time... getting a bit old... which is probably why none of the normal high number posters post on these threads as they have already put him on ignore...

 

[dumpster56]

I would say 'yes' normally..... but I think he has 3 to 5 threads now going on how bad business is.... with no 'solution' etc... just big bad business and how they screw up all the time... getting a bit old... which is probably why none of the normal high number posters post on these threads as they have already put him on ignore...

Hey how bout socialism

Guys its all good

 

[dumpster56]

Hey how bout socialism

Guys its all good

Seriously are we back in high school? Ignore lists? look I may be over the top at times however I have never in my time here on the forum ever bad mouth any other poster, If I do not agree with a post or thread I may read it and reply or just pass on to the next. I see too many people on this and other forums think this is something other than what it really is. Just a way to pass some time in the day, in a new medium that quite frankly when all is said and done a pretty wasteful use of our time.

Sure those high posters have me on ignore, yep Nords ,Bunnie etc, oh well, I have responded appropriately to many of their threads. Again who made the high number posters always right?

People read everything and throw out the stuff you don't like but thinking this or any other internet forum is anything more than an odd blog is taking yourself way too seriously.

 

[chinaco]

LOL>.... now I can see why some have you on the ignore list...

AA has said that they did what the FAA had asked, but that the FAA kept changing their mind on what was 'acceptable'.... read a bit more than the headlines and you would see that for at least the AA mess it WAS the government that caused all the problems... this is from both management and the mechanics union... and AA does not have great relations with their unions so I would think they are telling the truth...

Wrong!

As far as the union / management excuse... It is not a credible or acceptable excuse. Mistakes do happen, but the organization is responsible and accountable! Management better fix it if they want the public to fly with them.

I agree with Newguy... it is pretty sad that the FAA has to watch over the airlines to ensure they follow rules.

I am sure some employees at the airlines were trying to cover their butts when these situations came to light. For some airlines, it may have been an oversight (something broke down)... but it is very serious.

I am a little suspicious... Those inspections and maintenance cost money and down time... Do you really think anyone would admit it, if there was a money motive?

American Airlines CEO apologizes to passengers

Roger Frizzell, an airline spokesman, said the inspections involve technical compliance as opposed to flight safety.

Although American was most affected by the inspections, the Federal Aviation Administration's orders for safety checks

The AA spokesman tries to downplay the incident saying it was a compliance issue not a flight safety issues. Flight safety is code for the bird cannot (should not) fly.. get it on the ground and keep it there until the issue is fixed? If the FAA ordered an inspection they did it for a reason... those notices usually originate from the manufacturers. I (as a potential passenger) want it inspected!

I wonder if airlines are blurring the lines between proactive (for safety) maintenance and inspections and an (immediate) flight problem. Do you think they were trying to rationalize the delay of the inspections/maintenance because it was not an immediate flight risk?

I worked in aviation in the military. There are a number of cross-checks to ensure oversights do not occur in the aviation industry. Scheduled Inspections and scheduled maintenance are common routine... Plus manufacturers issue notices of a potential problems as they discover them which can trigger special inspections and maintenance. It happens all the time.

The FAA has regulations to check that those maintenance and inspection schedules are kept... Safety is number 1... It is the companies responsibility to ensure it happens.

 

[TromboneAl]

Knowing nothing about this stuff, here is what I figure happened:

Recently, there was some news report implying or explicitly stating that the FAA wasn't being tough, and wasn't strictly enforcing its regulations. It was lax and too cozy with the airlines.

So, some mid-level bureaucrat took the initiative, and said, "They want tough, I'll
show them tough!! We said those plastic ties have to be one inch apart, and that's what they're going to be. Not ****ing 1.1 inches, not ****ing 0.9 inches, 1 inch. And in the diagram they are on counterclockwise, so if anybody put them on ****ing clockwise, the plane is ****ing grounded."

 

[Texas Proud]

Knowing nothing about this stuff, here is what I figure happened:

Recently, there was some news report implying or explicitly stating that the FAA wasn't being tough, and wasn't strictly enforcing its regulations. It was lax and too cozy with the airlines.

So, some mid-level bureaucrat took the initiative, and said, "They want tough, I'll
show them tough!! We said those plastic ties have to be one inch apart, and that's what they're going to be. Not ****ing 1.1 inches, not ****ing 0.9 inches, 1 inch. And in the diagram they are on counterclockwise, so if anybody put them on ****ing clockwise, the plane is ****ing grounded."

More than likely this is what happened.... and cost AA maybe up to $30 mill...

 

[samclem]

T-Al and TexProud: Yep, that's just what happened. Southwest had some inspections that were overdue, and the FAA was deemed too have been to lenient on the issue (i.e. they were cooperating with Southwest). The (acting) FAA chief was hauled before Congress and publicly called on the carpet.

So, along comes a minor issue with inspections of wiring bundles and possible improper securing of these bundles. Given what had just happened, there was no way that the FAA was going to be seen to be doing anything but cracking down on the airlines. The wiring bundle issue, in a normal situation, would have been handled expeditiously but without massive groundings. This would have saved the airlines money, reduced passenger inconvenience, and probably resulted in a safer fleet (during this mass hurry-up job, does anyone think the maintenance guys fixed other minor discrepancies they happened to find while making this repair? Not a chance!)

There's a case to be made that a ruthless, inflexible FAA is perhaps not the best way to improve flight safety. For example, the FAA has a policy whereby airlines can identify safety problems (sometimes a new issue nobody noticed before) and bring them to the attention of the FAA along with a plan to fix the problem. The FAA examines the situation, and if it seems the airline has a good plan, they don't fine the airline. If the issue is a new one, the FAA notifies other airlines of the problem and puts in place a big program to make the fleets safer. Now, if the airlines are going to be fined or grounded immediately for every nit, then you can bet they wont be voluntarily identifying anything to the FAA. The problems/fixes won't be identified as safety related, the airlines will just call them "enhanced maintenance procedures" and quietly implement them on their fleet only. As a result, we won't have the benefit of shared knowledge and flight safety overall will decline.

 

[chinaco]

Knowing nothing about this stuff, here is what I figure happened:

Recently, there was some news report implying or explicitly stating that the FAA wasn't being tough, and wasn't strictly enforcing its regulations. It was lax and too cozy with the airlines.

So, some mid-level bureaucrat took the initiative, and said, "They want tough, I'll
show them tough!! We said those plastic ties have to be one inch apart, and that's what they're going to be. Not ****ing 1.1 inches, not ****ing 0.9 inches, 1 inch. And in the diagram they are on counterclockwise, so if anybody put them on ****ing clockwise, the plane is ****ing grounded."

Al,

If the FAA was lax, then they are remiss in their job of policing the airlines. And they may deserve some criticism. But remember there were FAA inspectors that caught the discrepancy and blew the whistle.

Blaming the FAA for the airlines misdeed is not unlike blaming the SEC for Enron and the fraudulent energy trading and energy market manipulation.

There is little doubt where the responsibility and accountability lies. It is the airlines job to keep those planes safe. Not take risks with safety! And they know it. Notice the AA CEO took full responsibility. Good thing for him and AA. If he tried to avoid it... he would soon be in the unemployment line.

 

[Texas Proud]

Hey how bout socialism

Guys its all good

That country down south that Chavez is heading is doing the socialist experiment.... I have suggested you move down there if you like it better...

BTW, they will pay for it in a few years with hyperinflation...

Now... I think maybe Norway and Sweden is doing it "OK", but not sure...

I still prefer our system, thank you very much...

 

[saluki9]

Knowing nothing about this stuff, here is what I figure happened:

Recently, there was some news report implying or explicitly stating that the FAA wasn't being tough, and wasn't strictly enforcing its regulations. It was lax and too cozy with the airlines.

So, some mid-level bureaucrat took the initiative, and said, "They want tough, I'll
show them tough!! We said those plastic ties have to be one inch apart, and that's what they're going to be. Not ****ing 1.1 inches, not ****ing 0.9 inches, 1 inch. And in the diagram they are on counterclockwise, so if anybody put them on ****ing clockwise, the plane is ****ing grounded."

I don't think you're far off. Remember, with the AA issue this wasn't about them not inspecting their planes. This entire issue was about one wire bundle on the front wheel well of one type of plane.

 

[clifp]

You know safety is a relative term. Airline travel is ridiculously safe and getting safer. It is at least 20 times safer to take 500 mile flight by air than drive. I'd wager that the FAA action probably killed a person or two, who switched from flying to driving and had an accident, especially because the people who rented cars were probably tired and pissed off.

 

[dumpster56]

That country down south that Chavez is heading is doing the socialist experiment.... I have suggested you move down there if you like it better...

BTW, they will pay for it in a few years with hyperinflation...

Now... I think maybe Norway and Sweden is doing it "OK", but not sure...

I still prefer our system, thank you very much...

How many more times will you guys keep saying move to venezula or another socialist country.Venezula is not a socialist country its run by an @ss,Chavez. A dictator and the dummies in that country elected the jerk. Now norway sweden are from my backround, grandpartens are latvian so i have a bit of a pull there. Socialistic ideas so what.

 

[saluki9]

How many more times will you guys keep saying move to venezula or another socialist country.

Probably as long as you keep coming to a forum full of people who's only commonality is that they are enjoying the fruits of capitalism and spilling your socialist crap.

So, either you don't get it or your a troll. Until recently I wasn't sure which one.

 

[dumpster56]

Probably as long as you keep coming to a forum full of people who's only commonality is that they are enjoying the fruits of capitalism and spilling your socialist crap.

So, either you don't get it or your a troll. Until recently I wasn't sure which one.

Lets see how is a MILITARY pension a fruit of capitalism?

People like you are the IS got mines and screw the rest of ya.

Sorry its not that simple.

 

[ERD50]

Yes, with over 40,000 deaths a year (and many more serious injuries) due to automobile accidents, we really need to be spending more tax dollars on airline safety. /satire/

Priorities!

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Lets see how is a MILITARY pension a fruit of capitalism?

People like you are the IS got mines and screw the rest of ya.

Sorry its not that simple.

Yes, it *is* that simple.

I decided to stay in the the private sector. I could have gone govt/military and got that pension. But for me, the 'price' was not worth it. But people are and were free to make that choice.

So, the free market (capitalism) is at work.


-ERD50

 

[chinaco]

You know safety is a relative term. Airline travel is ridiculously safe and getting safer. It is at least 20 times safer to take 500 mile flight by air than drive. I'd wager that the FAA action probably killed a person or two, who switched from flying to driving and had an accident, especially because the people who rented cars were probably tired and pissed off.

Why do you think we have safe air travel? The only reason those flights were delayed is because the airline delayed the maintenance and let all of the planes' inspection schedules backup.

The delay is the airlines fault... they should have stuck with the inspection schedules. They could have likely done a few planes at a time stretched over time.

It would be irritating to be delayed on a flight... but not near as irritating as having an unsafe fleet.

Here is a situation:

You get to be the FAA and a Passenger and you get to decide. Let's change the way it played out a little:

The FAA indicates that these airplanes need inspection and the airlines are not adhering to the inspection program (i.e., safety... in a proactive way). The inspections are way over due. They elaborate a little and say that the fuselage inspection is very important because very small crack can develop in the fuselage due to the extreme stresses in flight. A failure could cause a serious problem.

You have two choices as the FAA:

1) Order the inspection of the overdue aircraft immediately
2) Tell the airline to get to it as soon as they can.

Suppose the FAA chose number 2

[First off there would be a large public outcry that the FAA was not doing their job.]

Now lets say you are a passenger and you find that you have paid the price for the ticket and expect the airline to be safe... lets face it you are paying for the safe flight. But have 2 choices:

1) Fly on a plane that has not been inspected
2) Wait for the plane that has been inspected (which could be months until the airline gets around to it).


Personally, I would rather have the aircraft inspected. But then again, I worked in aviation in the military and have seen aircraft crash from stress fractures. attended the memorial ceremonies of buddies that were killed. Knew a few that luckily survived.

It is a serious business and much can go wrong. Are you ready to fly on aircraft that are overdue on safety inspections?