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.
>
>
What happened happened...to late for passengers caught in the mess.

The initial responsibility lies
with the Republican managed
FAA to do their job and do it
according to their rules.

They let it all slip because they
they did not do their job. This is
the same behavior we see in
the EPA and other federal
agencies operating under the
Republican Norquist rules for
wrecking our federal government