soc.veterans

"Nebuchadnezzar II" wrote in message
news:huwMj.9303$tw3.9082@trnddc03...
> "Larry Hewitt" wrote in message
> news:fttu0m$16m$1@news04.infoave.net...
> >
> > "Nebuchadnezzar II" wrote in message
> > news:E6rMj.4673$bx3.1275@trnddc02...
> >> "Larry Hewitt" wrote in message
> >> news:fttc9t$fgu$1@news04.infoave.net...
> >>>
> >>> "SwampMidget" wrote in message
> >>>
news:32ad4e01-8094-464b-9542-0ac0405f466c@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "...The Republican FAA, stockholders and owners instructed the
workers
> >>>> to skip inspections so the Republicans could pocket more profits... "
> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> LMFAO!
> >>>> Yes indeed, the 'Republican FAA' had a secret meeting and told
> >>>> airlines to skip inspections for more profit. lol
> >>>>
> >>>> You lefty libs live in a cartoon fantasy world.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Actually, it's the right that is living in a fantasy world.
> >>>
> >>> The expectation that businesses of any kind will forgo profits or
> >>> business execs will reduce their bonuses and chances for advancement
so
> >>> they can rigorously police themselves is like a fairy tale.
> >>>
> >>> Business execs are insulated from consequences for their actions and
> >>> have absolutely no incentive to behave ethicallly or follow civil
> >>> law ---- in fact the compensation system in place today disincents
them
> >>> from "doing the right thing".
> >>>
> >>> Southwest, well, actually the stockholders of Southwest, paid a huge
> >>> fine, yet the _people_ who made the decisions , hid the violations,
and
> >>> endangered the flying puplic (admittedly, a small danger) pocketed
their
> >>> huge bonuses and got away with it scot free.
> >>>
> >>>> p.s. The FAA was responsible for grounding nearly the entire
American
> >>>> Airlines' fleet for improper spacing of wires, (an infraction
> >>>> considered very minor by many engineers). But don't let facts get in
> >>>> the way of a good hysterical rant.
> >>>
> >>> As the article noted, the FAA probably went too far.
> >>
> >> Not at all. The FAA issues Airworthiness Directives (ADs) on all types
> >> of aircraft.
> >
> > I did not mean to imply that correcting the problem was not necessary.
>
> I didn't infer it either. I'm just trying to offer some insight to clear
up
> some misconceptions.
>
> > But perhaps correcting the problem in 3 days was unreasonab le given
the
> > very low probability of a catastrophic failure. The thousands of
stranded
> > passebgers might agree that giving them a week to perform the
inspections,
> > with the option to ground hte fleet is a single failure was found, might
> > have been more reasonable.
>
> It wasn't 3 days. They were given 18 months to comply with the AD. The
FAA
> didn't ground AA planes. They did that themselves.
>
> >
> >>It's up to the owner/operator to comply with them.
> >
> > And, as noted, this is the crux of the matter.
> >
> > Relying on for profit entities with absolutely no sanctions available
> > against those ultimately responsible for failure to comply (the
> > stockholders pay the fines, not the corporate execws), is ludicrous.
>
> The stockholders own the airline. It's entirely appropriate for them to
> pay.
>
> >
> > I own two
> >> aircraft and if I don't comply with an AD, you can bet the FAA would
> >> issue a fine and perhaps even revoke my pilot's certificate.
> >
> > And yiou have a personal incentive to comply woth regulations --- it is
> > literally your butt on the line.
>
> Sometimes, but not always. Sometimes the FAA issues ADs which are
pointless
> and expensive to comply with, however they are the ones who are the
> regulating agency and their results over the past 50 years or so the FAA
has
> been around speak for themselves. Everyone has to comply. It's the cost
of
> doing business.
>
> >
> > Sadly, though, itis not unheard fo for provate planes to go down because
> > of lack of maintenance. Soem are willing to trade a few bucks for
> > increased risk.
>
> It's more rare than you think. Pilot error is responsible for the largest
> share of accidents by far despite some very old aircraft that are out
there
> still flying. Each aircraft that flies in the US has to be inspected at
> least once per year to maintain airworthy status.
>
> > The FAA isn't holding
> >> AA to a standard that's any different from any other owner/operator.
> >
> > Never said.
>
> You said the FAA "probably went to far". I'm just saying the exact same
> rules apply to many more besides AA. If the FAA does indeed go to far,
they
> do it consistently with everyone, but the result is the safest system in
the
> world.
>
> >
> > The
> >> FAA always gives a time frame for compliance and this time frame is
> >> commensurate with the urgency of the AD.
> >
> >
> > And this is the central point of hte issue.
> >
> > It was a relatively old AD that was ignored. And hte AD was not of a
> > critical nature --- fleets were not grounded when the AD was originally
> > issued. A delay of a few says in complettion of hte inspections would
not
> > have had any effect _except_ int eh minds of the public. That is, the
rush
> > may have been aimed to calm some unreasonable fears and help with a pR
> > problem for the airlines and hte FAA.
>
> Any PR problems AA might have had were brought on exclusively by them.
The
> FAA was probably lax in their inspections, but ultimately the airline was
> responsible for compliance.
>
> >
> > In the case of the MD-80, the FAA
> >> gave 18 months for compliance which is a very big window.
> >
> > Exactly. SO a week more was not critical.
>
> Evidently AA disagreed because they are the ones that grounded their
fleet.
>
> > AA had plenty of
> >> time to comply. AA is also not the only owner/operator of the MD-80.
> >> How many other airlines did you see having a problem with the AD?
> >
> >
> > We dpn;t now. But rushing AA's compliance does nothing to further
rroting
> > out the answer to that question.
>
> I wouldn't call 18 months rushing. The FAA in no way rushed them. The AD
> became effective on Sept 6, 2006 with 18 months to comply. This means AA
> would have had until March 6, 2008 to comply. The FAA doesn't inspect for
> compliance until AFTER the window has run out. So the FAA inspected AA in
> April and found most AA S80s were not in compliance.
>
> Let's say I don't comply with one of my ADs for one of my planes, the FAA
> inspects my aircraft and discovers noncompliance. Do you think they are
> going to let it slide simply because there's no rush to get it done?
>
>
> >
> > AA was simply
> >> relying on their cozy relationship they had developed with the Bush
> >> controlled FAA and waiting until they had the planes in for major
> >> overhauls before they complied. It's simply an instance where they
were
> >> trying to increase their bottom line at the expense of safety.
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
> > Which is why I am advocating elimination of he cozy relationship that
has
> > been born under Bush and going back to active inspection.
>
> At least one senior FAA manager has been canned as a result, so I don't
> really see that happening again anytime soon. However there are far more
> serious problems that remain at the FAA as a result of poor management.
> This is just the particular one that happens to be making the news right
> now.
>

This was one of the most informative threads I have ever witnessed. Too bad
"Swampmentalmidget" polluted it with his non-post, but kudos to the rest.