jetcareers - View Single Post - United adds another layer to cockpit security

MikeD · September 7th, 2004, 05:28

[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I still contend that it took the original hydraulic/flight control design flaw plus the maintenance error to cause this crash. Remove the maintenace error and THAT crash doesn't happen, but with the design flaw eventually one of these airplanes was coming down. So I'd put more weight on that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give the maintenance error, but the leading edge slats were torn away because the engine departed the aircraft in a way it wasn't designed to do. It departed in that way because of the type of damage sustained during installation that wouldn't have happened had the engine/pylon not been installed in a one-piece manner with a forklift. Any way you want to look at it, the corner-cutting maintenance practice created an unforeseen damage possibility that very likely wouldn't have existed had the established procedures been used.

[ QUOTE ]

But the way the history channel made it sound, using maintenance procedures "not approved" by the manufacturer was in itself negligent, when in fact it is an industry standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure they sensationalized it a bit, but when the "non-approved" maintenace practices work, no one notices. The minute it goes wrong (as in 191s case), then the airline buys it. Roll the dice to save time/money and you can win, but when you hit the snake eyes, you buy the fault. American's maintenance practice was perfectly legal, it was just a risky endeavor with some unforeseen consequences. They took the risk, 271 people paid for it. IMO, this stuff just needs to be taken more seriously by the airlines. It's not like cutting corners at Lou Grubb Ford's maintenance department when installing alternators on a 2002 Ford Crown Vic. Cutting corners in airline/aviation maintenance needs to have the possibilities researched far more in-depth before implementation.

September 7th, 2004, 05:28	#39
MikeD Administrator Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pinal Airpark Posts: 6,897	Re: United adds another layer to cockpit security [ QUOTE ] Yeah, I still contend that it took the original hydraulic/flight control design flaw plus the maintenance error to cause this crash. Remove the maintenace error and THAT crash doesn't happen, but with the design flaw eventually one of these airplanes was coming down. So I'd put more weight on that. [/ QUOTE ] I'll give the maintenance error, but the leading edge slats were torn away because the engine departed the aircraft in a way it wasn't designed to do. It departed in that way because of the type of damage sustained during installation that wouldn't have happened had the engine/pylon not been installed in a one-piece manner with a forklift. Any way you want to look at it, the corner-cutting maintenance practice created an unforeseen damage possibility that very likely wouldn't have existed had the established procedures been used. [ QUOTE ] But the way the history channel made it sound, using maintenance procedures "not approved" by the manufacturer was in itself negligent, when in fact it is an industry standard. [/ QUOTE ] Sure they sensationalized it a bit, but when the "non-approved" maintenace practices work, no one notices. The minute it goes wrong (as in 191s case), then the airline buys it. Roll the dice to save time/money and you can win, but when you hit the snake eyes, you buy the fault. American's maintenance practice was perfectly legal, it was just a risky endeavor with some unforeseen consequences. They took the risk, 271 people paid for it. IMO, this stuff just needs to be taken more seriously by the airlines. It's not like cutting corners at Lou Grubb Ford's maintenance department when installing alternators on a 2002 Ford Crown Vic. Cutting corners in airline/aviation maintenance needs to have the possibilities researched far more in-depth before implementation.