People have repeatedly posted here on mercedesshop using aircraft maintenance as the gold standard of mechanical work. There have been big changes in the world of aircraft maintenance in recent years. Do a little google searching to get the story.

Here is a start:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=outsourcing+airline+aircraft+maintenance

Links to a google search.

Thanks, Twitch, driving is looking better all the time.

__________________
" We have nothing to fear but the main stream media itself . . . ."- Adapted from Franklin D Roosevelt for the 21st century

OBK #55

1998 Lincoln Continental - Sold
Max 1984 300TD 285,000 miles - Sold
The Dee8gonator 1987 560SEC 196,000 miles - Sold
Orgasmatron - 2006 CLS500 90,000 miles
2002 C320 Wagon 122,000 miles
2016 AMG GTS 12,000 miles

Looking at the pictures of WVO's planes, thats aircraft maintenance!

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

Like everything else in this world, you have some repair centers that perform an exemplary job and others that perform mediocre work, at best.

However, the workmanship and the degree of professionalism at outside maintenance facilities varies in similar vein to the workmanship and professionalism within the carrier itself.

There are several crashes of large commercial airliners that were the result of shoddy maintenance by the carrier's own staff. Keeping the work in house is no guarantee of quality. It depends on the supervision of the mechanics and whether they deviate from the established procedure. It's all to common for experienced mechanics to find "a better way", deviate from the procedure, and fail to engage the engineering personnel. Provided the airplane doesn't crash, their solution becomes part of the daily ritual at the airline. I know, personally, many instances where the letter of the overhaul manual is violated on a daily basis. Nobody gets very much alarmed unless the FAA discovers it.

When an "event" occurs, the FAA will then get involved in a major way. When a CF6-80 engine blew apart in LA on an AA B-767, the FAA was at the Tulsa facility for weeks checking every single line of the assembly procedure against the work done by the mechanics.

This supervision by the FAA is generally lacking until a problem occurs. If there is a pattern of problems at an airline or overhaul facility, the FAA will step up the supervision and the pressure. It's no different than any other government agency oversight.

waiting to hear from WVO-

__________________
"It's normal for these things to empty your wallet and break your heart in the process."
2012 SLK 350
1987 420 SEL

Actually - I think Brian pretty much covered it.
I would only add that we shouldn’t expect the FAA to have someone watching every mechanic turn every nut and bolt (not that he implied they should). That’s not realistic. So it only makes sense that they are going to show up and get tight with a certified center/carrier when something “goes wrong“. Or at least that’s the only time you’re going to hear about it anyway. I can guarantee you that there are plenty of Feds inspecting plenty of repair centers and air carriers, and finding plenty to be rectified that you never hear about.

As far as “overseas for cheap unskilled labor”. That’s one of those statements that might not be all that fair to the air carriers. Sure, cheap rates are probably found overseas. What‘s new? It’s a basic: income-cost=profit business like any other. (Don’t get me going again on the unions here.) As far as “unskilled” goes. I wouldn’t bet too much on the actual critical maintenance procedures being accomplished by too many “unskilled” laborers. Most (routine) transport category aircraft maintenance is a lot of tear down. That, and cleaning and spraying of say LPS-3 (corrosion protection). I could care less who’s accomplishing that. Neither does the FAA. Most of the local carriers that do maintenance here in the US or “in-house” have way too many high-paid (read overpaid if you wish) “certified” mechanics accomplishing a lot of mundane, “no certification required” maintenance tasks. Keep in mind too, that any Part 121 air carrier that is certified to operate within US airspace is doing so under an FAA certified maintenance package that complies with manufacturers and FAA certified requirements, accomplished at FAA certified/approved repair facilities. Overseas or no.
To translate “outsourcing their maintenance” to mean: “taking their aircraft to Juan Antonio’s Bargan Basement and Shade Tree Aircraft Shack” is not correct at all. Most who like to state such tripe are usually speaking on behalf of someone here, possibly loosing a job. i.e. A union spokesperson. But I wont go there.
Note too, that none of this references “pencil whipping”, or the signing off of tasks/procedures not actually accomplished. That’s a whole ‘nother issue all together. As for more of that being accomplished Here vs. There - I can’t say. Seems though, that there’s been plenty of it here for sure.



Mistress - you should be there at MC Airpark/MCA when the FAA rep comes to inspect the place and your fleets maintenance. Good learning experience for you.

As for us. We’re not Part 121 air carriers. We’re Part 119/135 (the biz was all 135 with the exception of the IFR 121 operations) and Part 91. A totally different set of rules and maintenance requirements (though all FAA and Manufacturer certified). The only aircraft we have now that are 135 compliant are the C-150 Aerobat for primary training (which we try to avoid). The MD530F and the 300L that DJ teaches aerobatics in (and it’s got a list of allowed deviations a mile long). We do everything in-house with the only exception being major component overhauls. Those are pretty much done locally (in state) and by very reputable repair stations.

Also - We love our FAA rep and he loves us.

__________________
1980 300D - Veggie Burner !

The same article I read said that the airlines have been cutting in-house maintenance personnel as outsourcing increased. Some airlines may have only a small percentage of the number of mechanics they had a few years ago.

Most outsourced work is done by workers who do not speak english and the maintenance manuals for the airplanes are written in english.

Offshore facilities are not required to use licensed personnel to perform the work. Only a few supervisors must be licensed.

Fatal accidents have been attributed to these practices.

Can you say "acceptable losses"? Your insurance company can.

Downtime was not acceptable in the past . Now they have time to fly the planes overseas for maintenance.

Pay rates for workers decrease while executives take huge bonuses and pilfer the worker's retirement accounts.

Hell, Boeing's outsourcing some of it's assembly



take a look at the 747-E: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_Large_Cargo_Freighter

My company makes parts for this plane. Not how it's just big enough to fit some 747 parts in?

__________________
-1983 VW Rabbit LS Diesel (5speed, VNT/Giles build)

First off, like anything else you read, you need to consider who wrote it before you decide on whether or not it’s biased one way or another. Most business articles, especially regarding aviation that I’ve ever read, are just that. As for shrinking maintenance staffs: Well - Duh - If you don’t need them - Why keep them? Yet, if you visit most any major US air carriers’ career web page, they all seem to be taking mechanic applications. Odd, that.

Are we supposed to be surprised at the fact that most people who live in foreign countries (overseas) may not (or do not) speak English? I figure: Most Germans speak German. Most French speak French......
Here’s a fact - The maintenance manuals for the airplanes (every one that you find being operated by most any air carrier worldwide) are written in just about any language you request them in. Just like all the manufacturer provided flight, operations, maintenance training and various/recurrent manuals and live seminars are provided in the requested/required language as well. The US based operators are not the only people operating US built aircraft.

Here’s news for ya (you might want to sit down): US facilities are not required to use licensed personnel to perform the work either !! Only a few supervisors must be licensed. And even that’s not always the case.

Fatal (maintenance related) accidents have been attributed to just as many US based “in-house” maintenance facilities/practices with 121 air carriers as any offshore facilities/practices, if not more so.
Though most fatal accidents are not maintenance related at all. Pilot error(s) are the majority. “Pencil Whipping” and (licensed mechanic) “Complacency” relate most to those that are.

I can say “acceptable losses” just fine.
Find me a Part 121 air carrier who incorporates that thought into any of their maintenance practices. I’m pretty sure in maintenance related accidents, nobody thought to themselves: “We can accept the loss if it goes down.” while performing (or not) the related task.
Yep - I’d bet all insurance companies can. It’s the nature of their business.

Downtime has never been (very) acceptable with any airline. Empty seats don’t make money. Neither do airplanes sitting on the ground (for any reason). The one fact the article left out (or perhaps you didn’t consider) is that quite often the “local” and/or in-house facilities are full. In which case - yes - there is less AOG (aircraft on the ground) out of service downtime for said aircraft, even when the time is spent flying it overseas for maintenance. I’d imagine the term “cost effective” plays in here as well.

The pay rates that you’ve seen decrease were more than likely with operators with books well into the red, or on the brink of bankruptcy. Not because the operator decided to OSV (outside vendor) the maintenance.
As for the executive’s practices - I agree with you 100%. CEOs (any management for that matter) who’s salaries are not based on their personal performance make me sick.


I’m not saying the outsourcing of aircraft maintenance is either good or bad. In a perfect world, the operators would professionally train and license the homeless and/or unemployed for the task. And none of the travelers would see the costs. But that’s never going to happen.
Just bare in mind that there are two sides to the issue, and most US air carriers have many, many more variables involved with the issue than most any (biased or not) article is going to ever touch on.

__________________
1980 300D - Veggie Burner !

Like most every auto manufacturer. Most every aircraft manufacture outsources some, if not many, of their components and/or assemblies. I might add that most of them are not required to hold any form of FAA certification/licensing either.

Now that's a big one!!


I hate it when they use the word “Dream” in the name of an aircraft. 747 - Dreamlifter. 787 - Dreamliner.
If I’m going to fly in the thing - everything about it had better be “reality”, and not some dream.

__________________
1980 300D - Veggie Burner !

Well its a business, and if you want to fly to FL for $69.99 guess what they need to trim the fat to stay profitable.

If you want to fly on a jet that was only serviced in the US in protest go for it, I'm sure WVO can hook you up.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

It's a tough one. I don't want to insult mechanics in 3rd world countries but I think it's safe to say that standards in general are higher here. Have you ever seen Mexican police cars rattling down the road?

The English as a second language aspect you mention is not comforting. I wonder where that Alaska airlines jet with the un-lubed screw gear on the rear rudder (aileron, what do they call that part?) was maintenanced?

I could ask one of my clients. He's an expert witness in metallurgy and he worked on that trial.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Third world countries? I’m picturing a bunch of mechanics in grass huts with stone tools here. Let’s be real.
And, ESL has little to nothing to do with an aircrafts maintenance.

Go with: Horizontal Stabilizer Jack Screw on that Alaska Airline Flight 261.
Per the NTSB final report:
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was a loss of airplane pitch control resulting from the in-flight failure of the horizontal stabilizer trim system jackscrew assembly’s acme nut threads. The thread failure was caused by excessive wear resulting from Alaska Airlines’ insufficient lubrication of the jackscrew assembly.
Contributing to the accident were Alaska Airlines’ extended lubrication interval and the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) approval of that extension, which increased the likelihood that a missed or inadequate lubrication would result in excessive wear of the acme nut threads, and Alaska Airlines’ extended end play check interval and the FAA’s approval of that extension, which allowed the excessive wear of the acme nut threads to progress to failure without the opportunity for detection. Also contributing to the accident was the absence on the McDonnell Douglas MD-80 (series) of a fail-safe mechanism to prevent the catastrophic effects of total acme nut thread loss.

Sounds like maybe we have more to be concerned about than outsourced maintenance.

BTW - The Alaska Airlines Flight 261 aircraft (an MD-83) was last serviced at the airlines’ maintenance base in Oakland California. Go figure....

Yea - Let's talk to an "expert witness" for the details. But first, let's ask whose side he was on. The families of the PAX, or the airlines? Just curious of course.

What the PM said. Plus: "...and sometimes I wonder."

__________________
1980 300D - Veggie Burner !

All the maintenance in the world, couldn't have prevented this...

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so. Robert A. Heinlein


09 Jetta TDI
1985 300D

Good one.

Here's another (fake) one. I'm the bozo on the right. Student in the left seat. PA-31. Dallas skyline out front.

__________________
1980 300D - Veggie Burner !