Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA Cancels Flights Again To Inspect MD80 Fleet  
User currently offline737-990 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 375 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 10501 times:

OK, I'm going to ask the mods not to delete this post, I've seen several started and removed. I know there is a thread about AA canceling 200 flights: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...eneral_aviation/read.main/3902914/ , however this thread is a week old and has over 50 replies going off on several tangents. I think that today's news (April 8th) warrants it's own thread and is there for not a duplicate. Several news outlets are reporting that AA has, or will cancel 500 flights Tuesday and an undisclosed number Wednesday. Below is a link to AAs press release:

http://www.aa.com/content/amrcorp/pressReleases/2008_04/08_md80.jhtml

Corporate Press Release

American Airlines Cancels Flights To Inspect MD-80 Fleet Again To Ensure Technical Compliance With FAA Directive

FORT WORTH , Texas -- American Airlines is canceling several hundred flights today to conduct additional inspections of its MD-80 fleet to ensure precise and complete compliance with the Federal Aviation Administration's airworthiness directive related to the bundling of wires in the aircraft's wheel wells. These inspections -- based on FAA audits -- are related to detailed, technical compliance issues and not safety-of-flight issues.


Happiest is a man who has his vocation as a hobby
84 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12150 posts, RR: 49
Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 10496 times:

Hello.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...eneral_aviation/read.main/3902914/



You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offline737-990 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 375 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 10474 times:



Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 1):
Hello.

Did you even read what I wrote?



Happiest is a man who has his vocation as a hobby
User currently offlineMeta From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 10434 times:



Quoting 737-990 (Reply 2):
Did you even read what I wrote?

He probably saw the title of your thread and posted over-excitedly and didn't read what you wrote. On topic though, how many MD 80's does AA have?


User currently offlineGSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3107 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 10435 times:

WHY are they having to do this AGAIN?? Should we be concerned?


Finally made it to an airline mecca!
User currently offlineJman40 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 61 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 10413 times:

In light of the airlines that have gone belly up in recent days, how does this impact AA long term? Or does it? Seems like an ugly PR challenge.....

JMAN


User currently offlineFlyPBA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 10381 times:



Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 4):
WHY are they having to do this AGAIN?? Should we be concerned?

similar problem, different location on the aircraft.

still, WTF ?!?!


User currently offlineFlyingcat From United States of America, joined May 2007, 547 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 10092 times:

to paraphrase a great line:

"What the f**k's going on down there?"

Geez WN already found itself on the hot seat now AA will put itself on the same position. Also why the MD80s why have we not heard of rumblings from NW cancelling DC9 to inspect something.

Don't tell me that the 737 is also bulletproof.

It seems that AA and possibly DL might have overstepped some time critical maintenance. If DL does not do the same cancellation it may have a really bad affect on AA's public image as they will be viewed upon as the most lax in maintenace whether deserved or not.


User currently offlineCatIII From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3094 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 10055 times:



Quoting Flyingcat (Reply 7):
It seems that AA and possibly DL might have overstepped some time critical maintenance. If DL does not do the same cancellation it may have a really bad affect on AA's public image as they will be viewed upon as the most lax in maintenace whether deserved or not.

Neither airline "overstepped" anything. I posted this on another thread, and it probably bears being reposted here. If anyone from AA or DL are on here and can add to it, I think we all would appreciate it. I understand that the AA fleet was ordered grounded by FAA during the INITIAL gorunding. This most recent voluntary grounding is a recheck of the same issue to ensure that the wire bundles are properly stowed.

It's my understanding that the initial inspections were the result of ambiguity in the AD itself. A friend from school is an MD-80 F/O at AA, and tells me that the original AD specified a fix that called for "approximately 4 inches" (from the AD) a certain length of wire covering. "Approximately" was the problem that led to the AA fleet being grounded. AA maintenance used a legnth of covering that they though was "approximately 4 inches" (3.8" in some cases, 3.9" in others, and 3.7" in even others). The FAA inspector conducted an audit of the AD, and said that the length of covering used wasn't consistent with the direction in the AD, and therefore he ordered the the fleet grounded. As was rightly stated in other posts, he probably wouldn't have done so if not for the pressure FAA is under following the WN revelations. Also, as rightly reported in other posts, this wiring is a backup to a backup hydraulic system that, according to my friend, resides in a non pressurized area of the wheel well of the main landing gear on the MD-80 (I presume the same on the MD-88 for Delta as well- maybe a DL person on here can confirm?).

It's my understanding that, as a result of FAA's actions, Delta decided to inspect all their MD-88's preemptively to make sure they were in compliance lest the FAA come in and do the same thing to them, and you'll note that none of their airplanes were found not to be in compliance. It's my understanding that both airlines had completed the AD well before these inspections, so it wasn't a matter of the AD not having been completed. The question was whether the AD had been completed to FAA's specs. Both airlines, as I understand it, have voiced strong concerns with FAA over their handling in this as, again, the AD was ambiguous. "Approximately" a certain length means different things to different people.

Moving forward there's probably a few lessons FAA could learn from this:

1) It would do the FAA well to be more specific in their AD's, instead of being ambiguous and then grounding fleets even though an airline tried to comply.

2) The FAA should come up with standards as to how to handle a situation where an airline tries to comply with an AD but doesn't, versus willfully doesn't comply. If this story is true, and the AD was ambiguous, and the fix wasn't something that was dangerous to the flight of the airplane, and the airline made the fix anyways per the AD although the FAA later deemed that the fix wasn't sufficient, then why punish the airline by grounding the entire fleet? Seems overly punitive.

3) The FAA should get more inspectors. It would seem this problem could have been solved a while ago had there been more inspectors out there inspecting the airplanes as they came off the line, instead of waiting until years after the fact.


User currently offlineJAL From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 5093 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 10050 times:

AA wouldn't be in this situation if they had replaced their aging MD-80s earlier!


Work Hard But Play Harder
User currently offlineAirPortugal310 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3720 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 10020 times:



Quoting CatIII (Reply 8):
3) The FAA should get more inspectors. It would seem this problem could have been solved a while ago had there been more inspectors out there inspecting the airplanes as they came off the line, instead of waiting until years after the fact.

Probably a lack of cash money  dollarsign  or so they would have you believe



I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 10002 times:



Quoting AirPortugal310 (Reply 10):
Probably a lack of cash money or so they would have you believe

The FAA could have all the money in the world and they still would find a way to screw things up.


User currently offlineAirPortugal310 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3720 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 9987 times:



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 11):
The FAA could have all the money in the world and they still would find a way to screw things up.

My point exactly thank you sir for the backup  Smile

All it really boils down to is gross negligence on the part of the FAA. Now everyone has to go and back themselves up or face the consequences. "Simple" as that



I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently offlineSirDeath From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 9923 times:

I still can't help but see this as a prelude to a shakedown when the fines start coming down. Is this how the FAA intends to fund the next generation ATC system?

User currently offlineLACA773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 9737 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As we all know AA bases a great many S80s @ ORD and that seems to be where the bulk of the canceled flights were based. Was there any success getting these passengers accomodated on other carrier's or where AA serves the market with 757s as well?

User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3495 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 9635 times:



Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 4):
WHY are they having to do this AGAIN?? Should we be concerned?

No need for concern. AA originally did MORE than the FAA's AD required (way more considering the "approximately" terms used by the FAA). The original grounding was voluntary by AA when it was discovered some (less than 20) planes modifications were not "exactly" according to the AA procedure (1.2" spacing vs 1.0" spacing specified by AA... NO requirement at all per the AD). The latest grounding appears to be those same FAA inspectors not being happy that the FAA MD80 management office in Long Beach approved the AA "alternative method of compliance" and AA is now stuck between bickering FAA offices. Better to ground the fleet, remove the "better than minimum required" FAA approved modification and revert to the original minimum required modification. Having FAA approval is no longer sufficient to some within the FAA.

Quoting Flyingcat (Reply 7):
It seems that AA and possibly DL might have overstepped some time critical maintenance.

Not even close to accurate. Both AA and DL performed required modification to specifications way beyond what Boeing and FAA recommended and required. The issue is a couple of FAA inspectors that appear to be trying to "make a name for themselves" by requiring everything to be done to THEIR specifications --even with previous FAA authorizations by other FAA officials and offices.

Quoting CatIII (Reply 8):
I understand that the AA fleet was ordered grounded by FAA during the INITIAL gorunding. This most recent voluntary grounding is a recheck of the same issue to ensure that the wire bundles are properly stowed.

Both groundings are VOLUNTARY by AA. There have been no mandatory FAA groundings of any AA fleet for decades.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineEchster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks ago) and read 9585 times:



Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 4):
WHY are they having to do this AGAIN?? Should we be concerned?

The FAA inspected 10 x MD-80s for compliance with the AD and found 9 of them to have not been adequately fixed to their liking.


User currently offlineHiflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2177 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 9535 times:



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 15):
even with previous FAA authorizations by other FAA officials and offices.

Isn't that how the whole Southwest mess got started? One FAA office looking the other way? And just happened to be the office located at the biggest hub of AMR as well?


User currently offlineDragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1203 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9454 times:



Quoting Hiflyer (Reply 17):
One FAA office looking the other way?

I dont think this or WN was a matter of an FAA office looking the other way. Its a matter of one official being able to use experience and ability to interpret laws and regulations to keep an airline operating safely. Another official thinks differently, only believes whats in black and white, or only follows the black and white to make a name and feel important (this is the same guy that probably asks a cop to cut him a break when he gets pulled over for speeding mind you).



Phrogs Phorever
User currently offlineKrsw757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9342 times:

All flights from DFW, STL, AND ORD to RSW are cancelled. I see that they have a 737 running to MIA in replace of an atr. Talk about an upgrade. I

User currently offlineCtermua From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 37 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9304 times:



Quoting LACA773 (Reply 14):
As we all know AA bases a great many S80s @ ORD and that seems to be where the bulk of the canceled flights were based. Was there any success getting these passengers accomodated on other carrier's or where AA serves the market with 757s as well?

Looks like AA has cancelled all or most of the BOS-ORD flights today and some of the BOS-DFW flights. UA is trying to get an extra BOS-ORD section this morning to help alliviate what could be a very long day for the folks over at AA.


User currently offlineNycaa From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9288 times:

As an AA Flight Attendant I am far from a company cheerleader. While upper management has cut every possible amenity and customer service item to the bare bone, I do have complete faith in the men and women that maintain our aircraft. Along with these flight cancellations come our trips to be cancelled, with that our Flight Attendants are losing money. Maybe if the FAA had done the job we (the U.S. tax payers) pay them to do to ensure "ALL" airlines in the U.S. are operating per FAA guidelines and safely, we would not have seen these events over the past few weeks. Since 2003 our elected leaders in D.C. have found the money to rebuild a country in the Middle East, maybe instead if they had used those hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild our aviation infrastructure (and U.S. infrastructure in general), these types of situations may have been avoided. Just my two cents.....

User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3495 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9132 times:



Quoting Echster (Reply 16):
The FAA inspected 10 x MD-80s for compliance with the AD and found 9 of them to have not been adequately fixed to their liking.

Not even close to the truth. Less than 20 planes (out of more than 300) were found to be potentially out of specifications for AA's method of compliance --the issue was something not even required by the AD to begin with so NO AA aircraft was out of compliance with the AD.

Quoting Hiflyer (Reply 17):
sn't that how the whole Southwest mess got started? One FAA office looking the other way? And just happened to be the office located at the biggest hub of AMR as well?

Not quite. WN contracted with outside vendor to complete the required airframe inspections and the FAA inspector responsible for that vendor approved the inspections. The planes were returned to WN and the FAA inspector at WN approved of the vendor's inspections. Later, two other FAA inspectors at WN decided they did not like the wording in the maintenance logbooks that stated the inspections were completed and claimed WN had not completed the inspections (based upon the wording in the logbooks). WN maintenance tried to explain things to them, but were unsuccessful. So WN maintenance managers went to their FAA POI (head FAA maintenance inspector assigned to them) who agreed (and authorized) WN to continue to fly the planes until they could be routed back to a WN maintenance station for reinspection (remember, the planes had already been looked at and approved by FAA twice). The two FAA "gentlemen" didn't agree and used the gov't "whistleblower" program (and its potential multi-million dollar "award" program) claiming WN intentionally flew "unsafe" aircraft. FAA senior management response: fine WN $10M and reassign the FAA maintenance inspectors assigned to WN. Since those folks are based and living in DFW area, guess which airline they they got "reassigned" to.

Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 18):
I dont think this or WN was a matter of an FAA office looking the other way. Its a matter of one official being able to use experience and ability to interpret laws and regulations to keep an airline operating safely. Another official thinks differently, only believes whats in black and white, or only follows the black and white to make a name and feel important (this is the same guy that probably asks a cop to cut him a break when he gets pulled over for speeding mind you).

Having the unfortunate experience of having one of the "gentlemen" on my jumpseat a month before the WN thing blew up... you are 100% correct. This is very much two INDIVIDUALS on a power trip and happily making a name for themselves.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineHiflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2177 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9086 times:

Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 18):
Another official thinks differently, only believes whats in black and white, or only follows the black and white to make a name and feel important

Lessee....the original AD, the first grounding, and the second grounding are all due to one guy with a complex?

No single FAA inspector can ground a large fleet on his own without coordination with others within the FAA both within his office and with Washington. Further no carrier would agree to a single inspector fleet grounding....it has to run at a higher level than that.

So the original AD said do this A B C....neither DL or AA did it that precise way...they both elected to interpret it so they grounded to do it A B C...except AA apparently continued to not do it that way, flew the aircraft for weeks, and was caught during ramp inspections at two airports by multiple inspectors with failures on multiple aircraft.

Would you not call that arrogance?

I have not heard of any other groundings for other operators of the same fleet types....just the AMR I and II and the DAL I....no others. I find that interesting in that does it mean they have not been inspected...doubtful with all the attention being paid to it....or that these other carriers had it done right originally?

and re those two 'rogue' Southwest Inspectors....don't think so. Watched the hearing last week...far more than two were being disciplined and transferred in an attempt to hush it up. End result is that the ones that were permitting the action by Southwest to defer have been removed from air carrier oversight completely.....and the investigations are continuing within the department. The 'whistleblower' program is not that lucrative and is designed to assist those who are either losing or lost their jobs due to government errors.....

[Edited 2008-04-09 07:43:29]

User currently offlineAABB777 From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 613 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9075 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

American has cancelled approximately 850 flights today. On top of about 460 yesterday.

Approximately 30 MD80s were back in service as of 7am. More are expected back in service throughout the day.

Hope the cancellations don't go into tomorrow, but I'm afraid they may.


25 AAR90 : No, and nobody has even suggested that. The original AD was issued by FAA Long Beach (manufacturer FAA office) due to a perceived problem --hydraulic
26 BOAC911 : I suspect there's much more going on here than meets the eye. AA's disgruntled workforce, an aging MD-80 fleet that is bound to cost the airline more
27 SANFan : It's kind of nasty to see it expressed all at once (for the entire rest of the day) as this snapshot from SAN.org's website shows: Flight Information
28 Kiramakora : AA has 301 M80s which represent 60% of their domestic fleet.
29 AABB777 : It now appears AA has cancelled 1000+ flights. Nearing HALF of their scheduled flights (approx 2300 per day domestic) Here's an AA press release just
30 Post contains links Hiflyer : 9 of 10 inspected at DFW failed. Aircraft at LGB failed....yes that LGB. Multiple inspections at multiple facilities by multiple personnel. The last t
31 Flighty : This is just ridiculous. 1,000+ flights down according to NYT. Major, major f-up.
32 SlcDeltaRUmd11 : How is AA routing people. it seems like many cities like COS for example only see MD service. Is AA rebooking them on say DL or UA. In COS for example
33 AABB777 : Yes, passengers are being re-booked on other carriers, space permitting. A personally know of someone who was supposed to fly DEN-DFW on AA, but was
34 Airbazar : Yes, it's the price of Oil that is driving up costs. The fact that they're having to cancel 1000+ flights due to "safety compliance issues" will have
35 Manfredj : This is just non-sense....they are perfectly fine aircraft...workhorses and moneymakers for one of the only US airlines that has avoided Chap 11. Thi
36 UAL747 : All flights to DFW from OKC have been cancelled for today. Not sure if it is because of the weather, but I think other flights are going out delayed,
37 Post contains links Hiflyer : Carriers can do several things in this situation if they have joint ticketing agreements.....normally your LCC's do not. So that would leave AA out of
38 AirTranTUS : I saw a picture on the news today of rows and rows of AA MD-80s lined up. Quite a sight. Unfortunately for stations only served by the MD-80 (like PHX
39 AABB777 : It appears the cancellations will continue tomorrow, Thursday. Already 900+ cancellations on the books. Not good news for anybody flying AA tomorrow.
40 Stl30l : My flight for Thursday night MCO-STL has already been canceled. I am trying to get through to AA to rebook, but the phone number just disconnects on t
41 AAtakeMeAway : I was supposed to fly from RDU to DFW on THURSDAY leaving around 6PM, and they canceled that flight around 5PM today (Wed.)! I'm rebooked on the first
42 AAR90 : It hints that AA is tired of being the scapegoat for FAA inspectors who want to define things their own way and not how all the other FAA personnel w
43 LMP737 : What's interesting about that is in all my years of working on the MD-80/90 family I have used that pump probably once. Most of the time we use a bow
44 Post contains links Hiflyer : http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080409/ameri..._airlines_cancellations.html?.v=43 Daniel Garton, American's executive vice president, acknowledged that the bu
45 LMP737 : Could you tell me what these "failures" mean?
46 Hiflyer : Will let the FAA explain it as you are an AMT and familiar with type per your profile. "FAA spokeswoman Diane Spitaliere said inspectors found problem
47 AAR90 : The string (special aviation security ties, but they look like ordinary nylon twine) were supposedly wraped in the "wrong direction." Not sure how th
48 Post contains links Hiflyer : http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/a...merican-airlines-garton-expla.html VP Garton presser this afternoon in Dallas plus Q and A
49 United787 : This is starting to feel like the shut down after 9/11. I can't imagine what kind of impact this having to AA and their financials. From what I have
50 PSU.DTW.SCE : This single incident, no. In reality, this will not have much more of a immediate financial impact that a really bad snowstorm (i.e., the one that to
51 EXAAUADL : zero impact long term...short term they will lose a couple hundred million
52 EXAAUADL : This is no worse than AMRs 1993 FA strike..which had no long term impact.
53 RFields5421 : This is the interpretation I get from the television news in Dallas this morning. IT MAY BE WRONG. During the previous inspection, maintenance workers
54 PSU.DTW.SCE : Where are the MD-80's grounded at? Were they able to get them back to hubs versus how many are at various outstations?
55 RJ777 : I think any passenger who has the gall to say they won't fly American again should actually be grateful that AA is taking steps to ensure their safety
56 LMP737 : Whose aircraft at LGB? Can't be AA MD-80 since AA no longer flies into LGB Then you should know how hard it is to get fired at an airline with union
57 Jumbojet : OK, you send your thank you notes and be glad that AA didnt fix there planes right the 1st or 2nd time? You have A LOT of people who are missing enti
58 Jamincan : I don't understand this. If this isn't a major safety issue, why would AA take the extraordinary measure to voluntarily cancel over 1000 flights? I'm
59 UAL777UK : Wow, if only UA had a spare 747 floating around at ORD, they could have given a few AA passengers a treat down to DFW and then some. I cannot fathom w
60 Airbazar : Big difference. The airline does not have to compensate passengers for Weather delays. They'll be lucky if they don't find themselves on the end of a
61 Kiramakora : Why should I be grateful? It is part of AA's corporate responsibility to ensure safe operations. It is against the law to operate sub-standard and un
62 RFields5421 : One FAA office says the documentation is correct, and other office/ inspectors says it is not. Southwest Airlines had documentation and the FAA still
63 ProPHX : AA used to fly 757s between PHX and DFW/ORD during the peak travel season. Now I believe that there is only one 757 flight to ORD. I don't know why A
64 NYC2theworld : This sounds like someone was shopping around for an answer to clarify the directive so they wouldn't have to do more work. Kind of like a child asking
65 AirTranTUS : There schedule actually shows all MD-80's to ORD. I did forget the daily 738 to MIA, but other than that, it's all MD-80's.
66 Hiflyer : I seem to recall that several years ago AA had done what they called a fleet rationalization on their narrowbody fleet mix....grouping MD80's in and o
67 Movingtin : You obviously have no clue how AD's are issued and handled by major airlines! Do you think the airline prints out a couple hundred copies of the AD a
68 LMP737 : Could you show me where AA was operating unsafe aircraft related to this wiring issue?
69 Commavia : Again, as others have said - this was never an issue of unsafe aircraft. Never. These planes were not unsafe before this week, and they are - despite
70 PHLBOS : IIRC, AA's so-called fleet rationalization is indeed still in effect. This is one case where this philosophy has a downside.
71 AAR90 : Unlike most folks, you have the basic concept correct. The actual details are that the AD does NOT specify any distances --or any other specifics. It
72 Oznznut : As a former A&P I would like to know what the applicable documents REALLY say. I have a copy of the AD, its 2006-15-15 available at faa.gov/airworthin
73 DL1011 : If it is AD 2006-15-15 that applies to this entire mess then Service Bulletin MD80-29A070 is also involved. If I have the correct AD and SB, then the
74 NwaLAS : Hello Everyone I just joined tonight because I wanted to comment on the AA Maintenance situation with the MD-80's. I think AA is a smart airline for d
75 Commavia : That's now what I've heard. Multiple people I've talked to have said that the original SB and the follow-up mandatory AD were both extremely vague an
76 MD80fanatic : You're absolutely correct. They would be bankrupt instead. It's profit from MD80 operations that fund the pretty new tin cans AA flies currently.
77 Commavia : Amen to that. I am so sick and tied of all these uninformed morons in the media talked about how this is all an issue of old airplanes, and this may
78 AirNZ : With all due respect, in your substantial attempt to impart your perceived 'superior knowledge', relative to others (and exemplified by your complete
79 Commavia : There are many AA mechanics who would beg to differ with this summation. According to them, there was no such precise and exacting specification comi
80 AAR90 : Yes, but NONE with the wire bundle involved with the SB. Yes, but the pump HANDLE that MIGHT cause chaffing of the wire bundle to the Aux pump is NOT
81 Post contains links 777DEN : CNN now covering the FAA "intense" inspections. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1730285,00.html?cnn=yes "Was Airline Chaos Avoidable?"
82 LMP737 : You bet I beg to differ. When posting on the a.net borads I try to be polite as possible. However to be totally honest it has gotten a bit old. What
83 DL1011 : OK, I'll have another go at it. I'm looking at SB MD80-29A070 right now. Yes it is vague and confusing. However, there IS a reference to the wire ties
84 Post contains links Diamond : Please continue the discussion at: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...eneral_aviation/read.main/3933340/
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
JetBlue Proactively Cancels Flights Due to Expected Snow posted Mon Feb 26 2007 08:04:52 by Continental123
TK Cancels Flights Due To Fog @ IST posted Wed Jan 10 2007 22:48:59 by TK787
AA Cancels Flight Due To Fuel Costs posted Fri Sep 30 2005 22:50:40 by Freedomtofly
F9 Cancels Flights Due To Airbus Mistake posted Tue Sep 28 2004 08:14:00 by UAL747DEN
AA Temporarily Cancels Flights To Haiti! posted Wed Feb 1 2006 19:08:05 by MIASkies
AA Cancels 200 Flights For Safety Tests posted Wed Mar 26 2008 06:11:20 by MrSTL
AA,UA,CO,NW Flights Diverting To Remote Airfields? posted Mon Oct 22 2007 07:13:22 by Tallguy14
Eagle Down To Two FWA-DFW Flights Again posted Thu Oct 11 2007 07:33:05 by FWAERJ
AA Cancels SAN-ORD Flight Due To Iraqi Passengers posted Thu Aug 30 2007 13:23:52 by UnitedTristar
B6 Cancels 215 Flights Due To Storm posted Fri Mar 16 2007 13:06:00 by Norcal773
Alaska To Inspect MD-80's. Cancels Flights posted Wed Apr 9 2008 09:52:29 by Socalatc
AA Temporarily Cancels Flights To Haiti! posted Wed Feb 1 2006 19:08:05 by MIASkies
AA Cancels 200 Flights For Safety Tests posted Wed Mar 26 2008 06:11:20 by MrSTL
AA,UA,CO,NW Flights Diverting To Remote Airfields? posted Mon Oct 22 2007 07:13:22 by Tallguy14
Eagle Down To Two FWA-DFW Flights Again posted Thu Oct 11 2007 07:33:05 by FWAERJ
Alaska To Inspect MD-80's. Cancels Flights posted Wed Apr 9 2008 09:52:29 by Socalatc
AA Temporarily Cancels Flights To Haiti! posted Wed Feb 1 2006 19:08:05 by MIASkies
AA Suspends Flights To Bolivia posted Wed Sep 24 2008 10:00:28 by LAXintl