Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Wed May 31, 2017 11:31 am

Sloppy inspection work at UA results in a $435,000 penalty:

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes a $435,000 civil penalty against United Airlines for allegedly operating an aircraft that was not in an airworthy condition.

The FAA alleges that on June 9, 2014, United mechanics replaced a fuel pump pressure switch on a Boeing 787 in response to a problem that a flight crew had documented two days before. However, the airline failed to perform a required inspection of the work before returning the aircraft to service, the agency alleges.

United operated the aircraft on 23 domestic and international passenger flights before performing the required inspection on June 28, 2014, the FAA alleges. Two of those flights allegedly occurred after the FAA had notified United that it had not performed the inspection.


Article
https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases ... wsId=21714
 
traindoc
Posts: 381
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:35 am

Re: UA fined for operating 787 in not an airworthy condition

Wed May 31, 2017 11:41 am

The aircraft was airworthy, just not the paperwork.
 
User avatar
HighBypass
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon May 22, 2017 3:03 am

Re: UA fined for operating 787 in not an airworthy condition

Wed May 31, 2017 11:42 am

That's a black eye in the face of in-house maintenance. Particularly with the focus recently falling upon outsourced (and often offshore) MRO work as a subject worthy of concern.
 
backseatdriver
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:13 pm

Re: UA fined for operating 787 in not an airworthy condition

Wed May 31, 2017 11:51 am

traindoc wrote:
The aircraft was airworthy, just not the paperwork.


FAA does not distinguish between the two.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3646
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: UA fined for operating 787 in not an airworthy condition

Wed May 31, 2017 11:56 am

HighBypass wrote:
That's a black eye in the face of in-house maintenance. Particularly with the focus recently falling upon outsourced (and often offshore) MRO work as a subject worthy of concern.


Problems related to Human Factors don't care what company someone works for. A mechanic not correctly reading or understanding the dispatch deviation guide can happen anywhere in the world.

Most dispatch deviation guide procedures to deactivate a component don't have a test requirement. While it is not excuseable, it is possible that someone under pressure may miss a step in the procedure. It can have big consequences, but unfortunately it is all too common around the world.
 
Virtual737
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: UA fined for operating 787 in not an airworthy condition

Wed May 31, 2017 11:58 am

traindoc wrote:
The aircraft was airworthy, just not the paperwork.


The article suggests that the inspection wasn't done, not just the paperwork on the inspection. This would further suggest the maintenance guys didn't know the aircraft was airworthy or not. Paperwork wouldn't have made any difference to the actual safety of flight.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: UA fined for operating 787 in not an airworthy condition

Wed May 31, 2017 12:17 pm

Virtual737 wrote:
traindoc wrote:
The aircraft was airworthy, just not the paperwork.


The article suggests that the inspection wasn't done, not just the paperwork on the inspection. This would further suggest the maintenance guys didn't know the aircraft was airworthy or not. Paperwork wouldn't have made any difference to the actual safety of flight.


This event is 3 years old. In 2014 the 787 and its mechanics were still brand new. No excuse however the drama in the article title is a bit overblown. The plane was never unsafe or "unfit". Not airworthy is a term that most people outside the industry don't understand. The phrase makes people think the plane could not stay airborne.

I used to fly an airplane that wasn't airworthy if the tire pressure wasn't checked every 48 hours.
 
Revo1059
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:14 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Wed May 31, 2017 12:51 pm

This is the part that is the most concerning to me.

Two of those flights allegedly occurred after the FAA had notified United that it had not performed the inspection.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3646
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Wed May 31, 2017 1:13 pm

Revo1059 wrote:
This is the part that is the most concerning to me.

Two of those flights allegedly occurred after the FAA had notified United that it had not performed the inspection.


That shows a bit of a disconnect between engineering in headquarters and the operation. It may have taken a few hours for the FAA notification to make its way through the planning organization. There is no colored phone to stop the plane when the FAA calls like in the movies.
 
luftaom
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 4:29 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Wed May 31, 2017 1:14 pm

Whilst the initial oversight is concerning and shouldn't happen (but invariably does from time to time) - What is particularly concerning is the fact that once the FAA notified them about the unairworthy aircraft, the aircraft was operated for a further 2 services. If an airline can't react immediately to a notification from the regulator that there is an unairworthy aircraft currently in revenue service then that doesn't reflect especially well on the airline and something needs to change to ensure that they can and do react immediately to the regulator notifying them that a plane is not airworthy.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9833
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Thu Jun 01, 2017 3:54 pm

It seems to be that the frame was operated 23 times in not airworthy condition.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/b ... cebook.com
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2927
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:07 pm

Wonder how many UA employees get axed over this ? :(
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:10 pm

Sooner787 wrote:
Wonder how many UA employees get axed over this ? :(


Mistakes happen. Remember the wiring bundle fiasco at AA on the MD-80s? No one will lose there job.
 
iahcsr
Posts: 4777
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 2:59 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:31 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
It seems to be that the frame was operated 23 times in not airworthy condition.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/b ... cebook.com

If I understand this correctly a repair/replacement was done on this switch, but the required inspection step afterwards was missed. An audit of the paperwork a week+ later caught the error, yes? Who was doing the audit, FAA personnel or UA? Presuming FAA, the additional delay would be slightly more understandable than if UA spotted the problem and didn't call flight ops first to hold the aircraft for the inspection AND then notify the FAA.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 9100
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:46 pm

iahcsr wrote:
...Who was doing the audit, FAA personnel or UA? Presuming FAA, ..


Industry is self regulated . FAA audits paperwork years later and fines airline. Usually airline pays 10% of initial fine amount after 10 years. There are several examples in the past.
 
iahcsr
Posts: 4777
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 2:59 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:43 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
iahcsr wrote:
...Who was doing the audit, FAA personnel or UA? Presuming FAA, ..


Industry is self regulated . FAA audits paperwork years later and fines airline. Usually airline pays 10% of initial fine amount after 10 years. There are several examples in the past.

That's what I thought. The logical explanation for the two additional flights was a simple case of damage being done, wait for the plane to arrive back at a location where the inspection could be completed.
 
B737900ER
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:26 am

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Thu Jun 01, 2017 6:30 pm

iahcsr wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
iahcsr wrote:
...Who was doing the audit, FAA personnel or UA? Presuming FAA, ..


Industry is self regulated . FAA audits paperwork years later and fines airline. Usually airline pays 10% of initial fine amount after 10 years. There are several examples in the past.

That's what I thought. The logical explanation for the two additional flights was a simple case of damage being done, wait for the plane to arrive back at a location where the inspection could be completed.

It wasn't a safety of flight issue. Since it was paperwork related it was logical to fly it out of wherever it was to satisfy the additional inspection requirement.

Maintenance paperwork can be complex and at times confusing when you're trying to figure out who needs to see what and when. UA does a pretty good job of paperwork audits before an aircraft is released for service so these types of errors are not common but also not unheard of either.
 
kellmark
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 12:05 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:16 pm

If the inspection was not accomplished it was not airworthy. If the paperwork was not done it was not airworthy. The only legal way to have moved it would have been to obtain a special ferry permit to maintenance approved by the FAA. No passengers allowed.

Also, if anyone in maintenance knew that the airplane was not airworthy, especially if notified officially by the FAA, they could have contacted the Operational Control Center and advised them that the aircraft was grounded. That should have been the end of it. Normally something like this would go through the Director/VP of Maintenance to the Director/VP of Operations and then right to the Ops control center. It can happen very quickly. You advise the captain and dispatcher that the airplane is grounded and flight is cancelled unless they have another aircraft to operate the flight. No reason that the airplane should operate two additional flights after being notified.
 
QueenoftheSkies
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 4:48 am

Re: UA fined for operating 787 in not an airworthy condition

Fri Jun 02, 2017 1:03 am

traindoc wrote:
The aircraft was airworthy, just not the paperwork.


Right and how is it be known that the aircraft is truly airworthy if the paperwork is not on point? It has to be black and white. Minimizing the severity of any sort of safety related matters is inexcusable.
 
B737900ER
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:26 am

Re: UA fined for operating 787 in not an airworthy condition

Fri Jun 02, 2017 3:30 am

QueenoftheSkies wrote:
traindoc wrote:
The aircraft was airworthy, just not the paperwork.


Right and how is it be known that the aircraft is truly airworthy if the paperwork is not on point? It has to be black and white. Minimizing the severity of any sort of safety related matters is inexcusable.

Airworthiness and safety can at times be unrelated. There are times where the paperwork is complete but the job is done in an unsafe condition. Which would you rather have?

Not minimizing safety, just speaking logically.
 
QueenoftheSkies
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 4:48 am

Re: UA fined for operating 787 in not an airworthy condition

Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:07 am

B737900ER wrote:
QueenoftheSkies wrote:
traindoc wrote:
The aircraft was airworthy, just not the paperwork.


Right and how is it be known that the aircraft is truly airworthy if the paperwork is not on point? It has to be black and white. Minimizing the severity of any sort of safety related matters is inexcusable.

Airworthiness and safety can at times be unrelated. There are times where the paperwork is complete but the job is done in an unsafe condition. Which would you rather have?

Not minimizing safety, just speaking logically.


So it's unlogical to say that both the paperwork and the work has to be done appropriately? The only acceptable "option" is BOTH are to be done appropriately otherwise face the penalties. That is what I meant by black and white......
 
juliuswong
Posts: 2021
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:22 am

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Fri Jun 02, 2017 5:53 am

Both paperwork and repair/ maintenance must be done effectively and efficiently in timely manner. No compromise AT ALL.
 
TigerFlyer
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:51 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:03 am

iahcsr wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
iahcsr wrote:
...Who was doing the audit, FAA personnel or UA? Presuming FAA, ..


Industry is self regulated . FAA audits paperwork years later and fines airline. Usually airline pays 10% of initial fine amount after 10 years. There are several examples in the past.

That's what I thought. The logical explanation for the two additional flights was a simple case of damage being done, wait for the plane to arrive back at a location where the inspection could be completed.


There are a number of misconceptions here.

First, as an airline, you NEVER fly an airplane with known airworthiness discrepancy, whether legal or physical. That turns an inadvertent and innocent violation into a willful one (much higher penalty), and calls your overall compliance disposition into question. You get the inspection done on the spot (which was most likely available to United), or get a ferry permit to where the inspection can be done. Likely a regular Airframe and Powerplant mechanic (A&P) performed and signed off the work, but it did not receive the second set of eyes by an Inspector Authorization mechanic (IA). As has been noted, this was likely caused by a breakdown in internal communications, after United was put on notice by FAA.

Second, the industry is not self regulated. Airlines strive to maintain the highest service standards and do self audit. But it is the FAA that regulates and imposes fines.

Third, FAA civil penalty cases take nowhere near 10 years to work their way through the system. There is some delay between when the FAA maintenance inspector finds the discrepancy, and when the civil penalty notice is issued. It has to be evaluated by legal, and in a high dollar case like this, approved by FAA senior leadership.

Fourth, usual settlement is not 10% of the proposed penalty. More likely 80% of the proposed penalty if you can show mitigating circumstances, or zero dollars if you have a great defense and can prove the FAA inspector was wrong. Also, if you discover the error through your own internal audit program and self-report before the FAA finds it, the proposed penalty is likely to be much less when and if the notice of civil penalty is issued.

In my opinion FAA penalty amounts have gotten out of hand, as airlines are indeed highly self-motivated to be compliant. High penalties, except for egregious and willful violations, does not serve much of a purpose other than to drive up the cost of doing business. United has generally very good maintenance and procedures, and unfortunately it had to dual failures here in not getting the required secondary IA sign off, and in not getting the word out quickly enough to the field to prevent the final two flights.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:55 am

If an aircraft is flown in a defined non-airworthy condition, whether due to physical and/or document deficiencies, unless 'ferry' type approval is obtained, then the airline will have breached the terms and conditions of it's insurance and finance (or leasing) agreements. Not a small matter.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 9100
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:21 am

No misconceptions here

Southwest
For a violation 2006, FAA proposed $12 Million fine in 2014, settled for $2.8 Million in December,2015.
https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases ... wsId=16754
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... /77717566/

American
For a violation in 2006, FAA proposed $162 Million fine in 2012, settled for $24.9 Million in 2013.
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/air ... n-airlines
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/air ... lty-to-faa

So from initial violation to final payment, it is 10 years.
 
B737900ER
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:26 am

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:25 am

juliuswong wrote:
Both paperwork and repair/ maintenance must be done effectively and efficiently in timely manner. No compromise AT ALL.

Mistakes will get made. It's called human factors, and they are built into aircraft procedures to prevent disasters. My point is that unknowingly missing a sign off block on paperwork is different from a safety of flight standpoint then knowingly missing an o ring or safety wire on a component.
To say that there is no compromise AT ALL is to be ignorant of the human factor of aviation. That's why pilots and mechanics can self report mistakes to the FAA and NASA without fear of reprisal. If there were no compromise AT ALL as you suggest aviation would be a much more dangerous place.
 
User avatar
thewizbizman
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed May 03, 2017 4:15 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:31 am

Paperwork needs to be done before that plane makes it to the runway. Sounds like United to me. They really need to get there act together. Every airline should follow all aspects of aviation, aviation law and FAA regulation.


~Zac
 
TigerFlyer
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:51 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:34 pm

thewizbizman wrote:
Paperwork needs to be done before that plane makes it to the runway. Sounds like United to me. They really need to get there act together. Every airline should follow all aspects of aviation, aviation law and FAA regulation.


Absolute perfection is just not realistic. Every major airline has numerous civil penalty cases a year, some for minor foot-faults, some for more serious issues. Work properly performed by an A&P and missing a secondary IA sign off falls in the realm of a foot fault. The FAA has started jacking up civil penalty amounts and issuing press releases to accompany them. So now they are news whereas the thousands of these cases that have gone on in the past were routine behind the scenes administrative procedures. Should United have had the secondary IA sign off. Of course. Do human mistakes happen. Inevitable.
 
TigerFlyer
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:51 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:57 pm

In the scheme of things, this was a minor screw up compared to events past:

"Southwest Airlines Co. grounded 128 of its Boeing 737-700 aircraft Tuesday after it discovered that the airplanes had not received required inspections."
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/air ... nspections

"American Airlines canceled about 325 flights Wednesday so its crews could inspect wiring aboard its MD-80 aircraft.
The action came after a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) audit raised questions about how a certain bundle of wires is secured to the MD-80 aircraft"
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... of-wiring/
 
User avatar
thewizbizman
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed May 03, 2017 4:15 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Fri Jun 02, 2017 1:00 pm

TigerFlyer wrote:
thewizbizman wrote:
Paperwork needs to be done before that plane makes it to the runway. Sounds like United to me. They really need to get there act together. Every airline should follow all aspects of aviation, aviation law and FAA regulation.


Absolute perfection is just not realistic. Every major airline has numerous civil penalty cases a year, some for minor foot-faults, some for more serious issues. Work properly performed by an A&P and missing a secondary IA sign off falls in the realm of a foot fault. The FAA has started jacking up civil penalty amounts and issuing press releases to accompany them. So now they are news whereas the thousands of these cases that have gone on in the past were routine behind the scenes administrative procedures. Should United have had the secondary IA sign off. Of course. Do human mistakes happen. Inevitable.


Yes, however an airline knows what planes they can fly and which ones they can't. They pay people to plan flights, they knew they were not regulated to book that specific airplane. Doing so, they took a risk and they got reprimanded by the FAA. This way 100% there fault.

~Zac
 
TigerFlyer
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:51 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Fri Jun 02, 2017 1:19 pm

thewizbizman wrote:
Yes, however an airline knows what planes they can fly and which ones they can't. They pay people to plan flights, they knew they were not regulated to book that specific airplane. Doing so, they took a risk and they got reprimanded by the FAA. This way 100% there fault.


From what little we know from the article, there is no evidence that this was a willful violation and that United knowingly "took a risk". Yes, there was an oversight, but no airline is going to risk enforcement action from FAA when getting an IA sign off for previously and property performed work is a simple thing.
 
B737900ER
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:26 am

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Fri Jun 02, 2017 1:43 pm

thewizbizman wrote:

Yes, however an airline knows what planes they can fly and which ones they can't. They pay people to plan flights, they knew they were not regulated to book that specific airplane. Doing so, they took a risk and they got reprimanded by the FAA. This way 100% there fault.

~Zac

Yes it was UAs fault. As mentioned above paperwork can sometimes be a tricky thing to sort out. When you have literally 350,000+ blocks for mechanics to sign on service checks fleet wide daily, some things will get missed. New technology helps mitigate a lot of it with a computer program double checking task compliance, but with paper and manual sign offs human factors play a role. And UAs 787s are not yet electronically controlled. But to paint it as them knowingly operating an aircraft in an unsafe condition is disingenuous.
 
B737900ER
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:26 am

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Fri Jun 02, 2017 1:44 pm

Delete
Double post
 
luftaom
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 4:29 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:10 pm

B737900ER wrote:
... to paint it as them knowingly operating an aircraft in an unsafe condition is disingenuous.


They flew it for 2 more revenue services after being told there was an issue.
 
ac888yow
Posts: 412
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:29 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:38 pm

kellmark wrote:
If the inspection was not accomplished it was not airworthy. If the paperwork was not done it was not airworthy.
These are the only statements that truly matter in relation to this story.

People often shrug off "paperwork" as if it's a minor detail, but a lack of auditable evidence is as good as "it wasn't done".
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9833
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Sat Jun 03, 2017 12:56 am

TigerFlyer wrote:
thewizbizman wrote:
Yes, however an airline knows what planes they can fly and which ones they can't. They pay people to plan flights, they knew they were not regulated to book that specific airplane. Doing so, they took a risk and they got reprimanded by the FAA. This way 100% there fault.


From what little we know from the article, there is no evidence that this was a willful violation and that United knowingly "took a risk". Yes, there was an oversight, but no airline is going to risk enforcement action from FAA when getting an IA sign off for previously and property performed work is a simple thing.


The moment UA new about it and kept flying it was wilful.
 
User avatar
thewizbizman
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed May 03, 2017 4:15 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:04 am

mjoelnir wrote:
TigerFlyer wrote:
thewizbizman wrote:
Yes, however an airline knows what planes they can fly and which ones they can't. They pay people to plan flights, they knew they were not regulated to book that specific airplane. Doing so, they took a risk and they got reprimanded by the FAA. This way 100% there fault.


From what little we know from the article, there is no evidence that this was a willful violation and that United knowingly "took a risk". Yes, there was an oversight, but no airline is going to risk enforcement action from FAA when getting an IA sign off for previously and property performed work is a simple thing.


The moment UA new about it and kept flying it was wilful.


I think you meant *Knew
But, yes that is correct and I am sure they knew before the FAA repiminded them. They probobly did not ground them so they could complete the pre-planned flights assigened to the airport.
 
TigerFlyer
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:51 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:41 am

thewizbizman wrote:
...I am sure they knew before the FAA repiminded them. They probobly did not ground them so they could complete the pre-planned flights assigened to the airport.


On what basis are you "sure" UA knew about the missing sign off?

I am not "sure", but based on a few decades of airline experience, regulatory compliance, and defending dozens of FAA cases for multiple carriers, I think this is a very unlikely scenario. UA committed a violation, and dropped the ball on internal communication when it was put on notice. But it is highly unlikely that it was done intentionally.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:55 am

thewizbizman wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
TigerFlyer wrote:

From what little we know from the article, there is no evidence that this was a willful violation and that United knowingly "took a risk". Yes, there was an oversight, but no airline is going to risk enforcement action from FAA when getting an IA sign off for previously and property performed work is a simple thing.


The moment UA new about it and kept flying it was wilful.


I think you meant *Knew
But, yes that is correct and I am sure they knew before the FAA repiminded them. They probobly did not ground them so they could complete the pre-planned flights assigened to the airport.


Yeah that's not the case at all. You fail to recognize and understand the safety culture at United. There is no plane pushing, crew pushing or maintenance pushing. If the plane is broke flight is cancelled. To say that an airline with the safety culture of United willfully flew an unairworthy aircraft is misguided and inflammatory.
 
Kiwigondi
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:25 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Sat Jun 03, 2017 4:30 am

As the switch is a chapter 28 task its also a CDCCL item and my suspicion is that these additional steps were the missed inspection. Its a pretty major thing to miss and was certainly an AD but has now been incorporated into the AMM so not sure if the AD has expired or not.
 
luftaom
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 4:29 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Sat Jun 03, 2017 3:29 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:

Yeah that's not the case at all. You fail to recognize and understand the safety culture at United. There is no plane pushing, crew pushing or maintenance pushing. If the plane is broke flight is cancelled. To say that an airline with the safety culture of United willfully flew an unairworthy aircraft is misguided and inflammatory.


I agree that UA don't deliberately push the envelope when it comes to safety.

However, I think that it is fair to say that UA need to make some improvements as a result of this - if they can't pull a plane out of service immediately upon being told by the FAA (no less) that something wasn't right - then they need to improve their systems in order to make sure that they can (and do) pull a plane immediately.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9833
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: FAA fines UA for failure to inspect 787 maintenance

Sat Jun 03, 2017 4:19 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
thewizbizman wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

The moment UA new about it and kept flying it was wilful.


I think you meant *Knew
But, yes that is correct and I am sure they knew before the FAA repiminded them. They probobly did not ground them so they could complete the pre-planned flights assigened to the airport.


Yeah that's not the case at all. You fail to recognize and understand the safety culture at United. There is no plane pushing, crew pushing or maintenance pushing. If the plane is broke flight is cancelled. To say that an airline with the safety culture of United willfully flew an unairworthy aircraft is misguided and inflammatory.


It is very simple a fact and United is fined for exactly that, flying an aircraft not airworthy knowingly.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos