KFLLCFII wrote:

I am shocked that I may be forced to put Allegiant higher on my "fly" list now than AA...

freakyrat wrote:

KFLLCFII wrote:

I am shocked that I may be forced to put Allegiant higher on my "fly" list now than AA...

Allegiant is flying an all Airbus A320 family fleet of aircraft including 20 brand new aircraft. All Airbus aircraft have onboard diagnostics much like your automobile and report problems to Allegiant maintenance as well as Airbus.

sadde wrote:

FAA is a completely inept agency that's understaffed to boot.

freakyrat wrote:

KFLLCFII wrote:

I am shocked that I may be forced to put Allegiant higher on my "fly" list now than AA...

Allegiant is flying an all Airbus A320 family fleet of aircraft including 20 brand new aircraft. All Airbus aircraft have onboard diagnostics much like your automobile and report problems to Allegiant maintenance as well as Airbus.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2021/10/22/faa-oversight-american-airlines/
However, the FAA also defended its oversight approach, characterizing it as a “risk management-based approach that has sustained an exemplary safety record.”
In some instances, the IG’s findings mirror those in previous examinations focused on the FAA’s oversight of maintenance practices at Allegiant Airlines and Southwest Airlines. Those reviews also identified shortcomings in training and the agency’s ability to ensure carriers were taking actions to remedy problems cited by inspectors.
Lax FAA oversight allowed Southwest to put millions of passengers at risk, IG says.
American Airlines said Friday it welcomed the scrutiny and emphasized that safety guides every decision at the airline.
“In addition to the FAA, we are in constant communication with other regulators and welcome their review and feedback,” American said in a statement. “We plan to work with the FAA to ensure we take positive action and continuously refine and improve our safety controls.”".

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/faa-oversight-american-airlines-flawed-watchdog
The inspector general’s office said that in 171 of 185 of cases that it examined, FAA inspectors took American’s word and accepted airline analyses "that did not identify the true root cause of the problem." In nearly two dozen cases, the FAA closed compliance cases before American fixed the problems, the report said. The report also said FAA didn’t train inspectors to judge whether American’s safety-management system is effective. Those are top-down systems that are supposed to help identify and fix potential safety problems. The FAA required airlines to adopt such systems in 2018.

American has about 9,000 certificated mechanics and aircraft inspectors at stations in the U.S. and around the world, with its largest maintenance base in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The FAA has about 60 inspectors in Texas and Pennsylvania to oversee American’s maintenance facilities. That ratio means that the FAA relies heavily on the airline’s safety-management system to prevent unsafe planes from flying. In 2015, the FAA shifted its method of ensuring safety from enforcement to working cooperatively with airlines. In that time, the number of enforcement actions against American dropped from 572 to 31. Incidents that were previously treated as enforcement matters were routinely classified as "compliance actions," in which the airline agrees to make changes.

kalvado wrote:

I wonder how typical these problems are. This is not AA inspection, this is inspection of FAA oversight, so a tip of an iceberg is exposed.
2.5 years with slide inop or 1000 cycles with incorrect engine install, or no inspection after birdstrike sounds like nobody actually cares.
And this certainly sheds some light on "shady third world maintenance" context.

Boof02671 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

I wonder how typical these problems are. This is not AA inspection, this is inspection of FAA oversight, so a tip of an iceberg is exposed.
2.5 years with slide inop or 1000 cycles with incorrect engine install, or no inspection after birdstrike sounds like nobody actually cares.
And this certainly sheds some light on "shady third world maintenance" context.

It was the correct engine, there was a bushing missing on the pylon.

Boof02671 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

I wonder how typical these problems are. This is not AA inspection, this is inspection of FAA oversight, so a tip of an iceberg is exposed.
2.5 years with slide inop or 1000 cycles with incorrect engine install, or no inspection after birdstrike sounds like nobody actually cares.
And this certainly sheds some light on "shady third world maintenance" context.

It was the correct engine, there was a bushing missing on the pylon.

SteelChair wrote:

This smacks of an internal (government) fight between two agencies with AA being used as the lever and the mainstream media being used by the agency making the case. It appears imho to be an almost textbook example of a well used formula.....all that's lacking is some "expert" like Mary Schiavo going on TV to make the case.

Having said that, in my experience these types of errors are fairly common at large airlines. Outsiders would never believe how hard it is to run a large airline. But there are lots of layers in the Swiss cheese and the holes rarely line up, most accidents aren't due to mechanical problems, the airplanes have never been better than they are now.

kalvado wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

I wonder how typical these problems are. This is not AA inspection, this is inspection of FAA oversight, so a tip of an iceberg is exposed.
2.5 years with slide inop or 1000 cycles with incorrect engine install, or no inspection after birdstrike sounds like nobody actually cares.
And this certainly sheds some light on "shady third world maintenance" context.

It was the correct engine, there was a bushing missing on the pylon.

Comes from same company which used forklift to install correct engine on AA191. Isn't that encouraging?

Boof02671 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

It was the correct engine, there was a bushing missing on the pylon.

Comes from same company which used forklift to install correct engine on AA191. Isn't that encouraging?

And I doubt anyone involved in that is still at AA. That was 42 years ago.

kalvado wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Comes from same company which used forklift to install correct engine on AA191. Isn't that encouraging?

And I doubt anyone involved in that is still at AA. That was 42 years ago.

So what? We're talking about cultural things. If "this is still the right engine" is the best response, different people doesn't mean different culture...

On a more serious note, sounds like there was more than one issue with that engine install. Report explicitly calls that "unairworthy condition", but AA explicitly didn't bother to assess the risk of 1000 flights in such condition. Since this came up from AA SMS, I assume it was AA to assign "unairworthy" tag to it, or what?
Things really don't add up to me. Either things are way overblown in the report for this particular event, or AA carefully protects their dirty laundry.

Boof02671 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

And I doubt anyone involved in that is still at AA. That was 42 years ago.

So what? We're talking about cultural things. If "this is still the right engine" is the best response, different people doesn't mean different culture...

On a more serious note, sounds like there was more than one issue with that engine install. Report explicitly calls that "unairworthy condition", but AA explicitly didn't bother to assess the risk of 1000 flights in such condition. Since this came up from AA SMS, I assume it was AA to assign "unairworthy" tag to it, or what?
Things really don't add up to me. Either things are way overblown in the report for this particular event, or AA carefully protects their dirty laundry.

And I can pull up the same or similar
Issues at all airlines.

And it’s not a cultural thing. Mechanics go by the paperwork. And the slide overhaul is outsourced

kalvado wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

So what? We're talking about cultural things. If "this is still the right engine" is the best response, different people doesn't mean different culture...

On a more serious note, sounds like there was more than one issue with that engine install. Report explicitly calls that "unairworthy condition", but AA explicitly didn't bother to assess the risk of 1000 flights in such condition. Since this came up from AA SMS, I assume it was AA to assign "unairworthy" tag to it, or what?
Things really don't add up to me. Either things are way overblown in the report for this particular event, or AA carefully protects their dirty laundry.

And I can pull up the same or similar
Issues at all airlines.

And it’s not a cultural thing. Mechanics go by the paperwork. And the slide overhaul is outsourced

Sure, everyone has issues. Some are really bad issues. Same goes for any human activity. It is all about addressing these issues to keep things going smoothly.
Essence of the report is not issues themselves, it is the way AA is unwilling to resolve things and FAA unwilling to keep AA on their toes. I would understand such approach if issues themselves were minor, but some things look serious enough to warrant attention.
Maybe this is business as usual, after all nothing is perfect in this world. SO far business as usual at Boeing brought some pretty interesting consequences, though.

Boof02671 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

And I can pull up the same or similar
Issues at all airlines.

And it’s not a cultural thing. Mechanics go by the paperwork. And the slide overhaul is outsourced

Sure, everyone has issues. Some are really bad issues. Same goes for any human activity. It is all about addressing these issues to keep things going smoothly.
Essence of the report is not issues themselves, it is the way AA is unwilling to resolve things and FAA unwilling to keep AA on their toes. I would understand such approach if issues themselves were minor, but some things look serious enough to warrant attention.
Maybe this is business as usual, after all nothing is perfect in this world. SO far business as usual at Boeing brought some pretty interesting consequences, though.

And that’s AA’s management not the rank and file mechanics doing the work.

kalvado wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Sure, everyone has issues. Some are really bad issues. Same goes for any human activity. It is all about addressing these issues to keep things going smoothly.
Essence of the report is not issues themselves, it is the way AA is unwilling to resolve things and FAA unwilling to keep AA on their toes. I would understand such approach if issues themselves were minor, but some things look serious enough to warrant attention.
Maybe this is business as usual, after all nothing is perfect in this world. SO far business as usual at Boeing brought some pretty interesting consequences, though.

And that’s AA’s management not the rank and file mechanics doing the work.

Well, AA believes it is about rank and file not doing job right. Two thirds of root case investigations from the sample they considered concluded that it is about human factors, aka rank and file messing up.

Boof02671 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

And that’s AA’s management not the rank and file mechanics doing the work.

Well, AA believes it is about rank and file not doing job right. Two thirds of root case investigations from the sample they considered concluded that it is about human factors, aka rank and file messing up.

You aren’t grasping AA, the manufacturer and the FAA sign off on AA’s maintenance program.

Mechanics follow the manuals and job cards.

If those are wrong, it’s not the mechanics’ fault.

Everything a mechanic does is signed for on the job card and logbook and put into the maintenance computer system.

And if the mechanic is at fault their would be discipline from the company and possible action against the mechanic from
The FAA.

So I call BS on AA’s explanation.

kalvado wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Well, AA believes it is about rank and file not doing job right. Two thirds of root case investigations from the sample they considered concluded that it is about human factors, aka rank and file messing up.

You aren’t grasping AA, the manufacturer and the FAA sign off on AA’s maintenance program.

Mechanics follow the manuals and job cards.

If those are wrong, it’s not the mechanics’ fault.

Everything a mechanic does is signed for on the job card and logbook and put into the maintenance computer system.

And if the mechanic is at fault their would be discipline from the company and possible action against the mechanic from
The FAA.

So I call BS on AA’s explanation.

Which is great.
But there are 2 events specifically mentioned in the report:
Mechanic failed to perform a bird strike damage inspection
Mechanic documented that tire pressure checks were performed, but never used a tire pressure gauge

Something doesn't add up with your explanations!

Boof02671 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

You aren’t grasping AA, the manufacturer and the FAA sign off on AA’s maintenance program.

Mechanics follow the manuals and job cards.

If those are wrong, it’s not the mechanics’ fault.

Everything a mechanic does is signed for on the job card and logbook and put into the maintenance computer system.

And if the mechanic is at fault their would be discipline from the company and possible action against the mechanic from
The FAA.

So I call BS on AA’s explanation.

Which is great.
But there are 2 events specifically mentioned in the report:
Mechanic failed to perform a bird strike damage inspection
Mechanic documented that tire pressure checks were performed, but never used a tire pressure gauge

Something doesn't add up with your explanations!

Once again ALL work done on an airplane is documented and signed for.

One the mechanic does work per the maintenance manual and enters it in the logbook and into the computer system, and the signed off logbook page is turned into management and sent off to aircraft records.

Also if a job card is involved it’s signed off or stamped and turned into management along with a copy of the logbook which then gets sent to aircraft records.

If work was signed off and not done the FAA would go after the mechanic and management would discipline the mechanic.

Something isn’t adding up.

FAA (inspectors) could not verify whether the 73 percent of findings that American Airlines rated as “low” or “very low” were indeed low risk. This also limits FAA’s ability to effectively assess the carrier’s controls for those safety risks.

kalvado wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Well, AA believes it is about rank and file not doing job right. Two thirds of root case investigations from the sample they considered concluded that it is about human factors, aka rank and file messing up.

You aren’t grasping AA, the manufacturer and the FAA sign off on AA’s maintenance program.

Mechanics follow the manuals and job cards.

If those are wrong, it’s not the mechanics’ fault.

Everything a mechanic does is signed for on the job card and logbook and put into the maintenance computer system.

And if the mechanic is at fault their would be discipline from the company and possible action against the mechanic from
The FAA.

So I call BS on AA’s explanation.

Which is great.
But there are 2 events specifically mentioned in the report:
Mechanic failed to perform a bird strike damage inspection
Mechanic documented that tire pressure checks were performed, but never used a tire pressure gauge

Something doesn't add up with your explanations!

Wacker1000 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

You aren’t grasping AA, the manufacturer and the FAA sign off on AA’s maintenance program.

Mechanics follow the manuals and job cards.

If those are wrong, it’s not the mechanics’ fault.

Everything a mechanic does is signed for on the job card and logbook and put into the maintenance computer system.

And if the mechanic is at fault their would be discipline from the company and possible action against the mechanic from
The FAA.

So I call BS on AA’s explanation.

Which is great.
But there are 2 events specifically mentioned in the report:
Mechanic failed to perform a bird strike damage inspection
Mechanic documented that tire pressure checks were performed, but never used a tire pressure gauge

Something doesn't add up with your explanations!

Because all sides are guilty. It isn't just rank and file or management. Both have culpability.

jetmatt777 wrote:

freakyrat wrote:

KFLLCFII wrote:

I am shocked that I may be forced to put Allegiant higher on my "fly" list now than AA...

Allegiant is flying an all Airbus A320 family fleet of aircraft including 20 brand new aircraft. All Airbus aircraft have onboard diagnostics much like your automobile and report problems to Allegiant maintenance as well as Airbus.

OBD is not a mechanic, nor an inspector. It also cannot evaluate every situation. It is a system that raises its hand and says “look at me” when something it can detect is out of its tolerance. It cannot tell you that a slide is defective, it cannot tell you that an engine is mounted incorrectly, it cannot tell you that an inspection was actually carried out. There are a few things it can do and a million things it can’t.

Boof02671 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

And I doubt anyone involved in that is still at AA. That was 42 years ago.

So what? We're talking about cultural things. If "this is still the right engine" is the best response, different people doesn't mean different culture...

On a more serious note, sounds like there was more than one issue with that engine install. Report explicitly calls that "unairworthy condition", but AA explicitly didn't bother to assess the risk of 1000 flights in such condition. Since this came up from AA SMS, I assume it was AA to assign "unairworthy" tag to it, or what?
Things really don't add up to me. Either things are way overblown in the report for this particular event, or AA carefully protects their dirty laundry.

And I can pull up the same or similar Issues at all airlines. And it’s not a cultural thing. Mechanics go by the paperwork. And the slide overhaul is outsourced

alfa164 wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

So what? We're talking about cultural things. If "this is still the right engine" is the best response, different people doesn't mean different culture...

On a more serious note, sounds like there was more than one issue with that engine install. Report explicitly calls that "unairworthy condition", but AA explicitly didn't bother to assess the risk of 1000 flights in such condition. Since this came up from AA SMS, I assume it was AA to assign "unairworthy" tag to it, or what?
Things really don't add up to me. Either things are way overblown in the report for this particular event, or AA carefully protects their dirty laundry.

And I can pull up the same or similar Issues at all airlines. And it’s not a cultural thing. Mechanics go by the paperwork. And the slide overhaul is outsourced

Really? Then "pull up the same or similar issues" at any of the other major US airlines, and show us where they are equally complacent about these safety issues.

Boof02671 wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

And I can pull up the same or similar Issues at all airlines. And it’s not a cultural thing. Mechanics go by the paperwork. And the slide overhaul is outsourced

Really? Then "pull up the same or similar issues" at any of the other major US airlines, and show us where they are equally complacent about these safety issues.

Southwest Airlines is operating 49 planes that may not have been properly inspected, top FAA official says

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/tr ... utType=amp

Southwest cancels 180 flights after unusually high number of planes grounded for maintenance

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/southw ... intenance/

Delta faces stiff fines over alleged delayed repairs

https://www.cnn.com/2012/07/11/travel/d ... index.html

United Faces $435,000 Fine, Accused of Flying Plane 23 Times Without Inspecting Repair, F.A.A. Says

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/busi ... e.amp.html

RyanairGuru wrote:

While I’m not going to discount the human factor out right, I’m agreeing with Boof here. The article is about the FAA not properly regulating the industry, more so than it is about AA. Unless you believe that Delta and United aircraft are maintained by the hands of angels, it is likely that similar issues are cropping up there. The role of the FAA is to ensure the airplanes are safe, not just take the airlines word for it.

GlobalAirways wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

freakyrat wrote:

Allegiant is flying an all Airbus A320 family fleet of aircraft including 20 brand new aircraft. All Airbus aircraft have onboard diagnostics much like your automobile and report problems to Allegiant maintenance as well as Airbus.

OBD is not a mechanic, nor an inspector. It also cannot evaluate every situation. It is a system that raises its hand and says “look at me” when something it can detect is out of its tolerance. It cannot tell you that a slide is defective, it cannot tell you that an engine is mounted incorrectly, it cannot tell you that an inspection was actually carried out. There are a few things it can do and a million things it can’t.

Right, and I'm having trouble finding anything in the article or attachments that identify what specific aircraft they are writing about.