Another Republican created failure of government : FAA

April 13, 2008

Behind Air Chaos, an F.A.A. Pendulum Swing

By MATTHEW L. WALD and MICHELINE MAYNARD

WASHINGTON

For all the headaches of flying in the United States, the domestic airlines

were until recently considered a logistical marvel, moving two million

people a day with remarkably few accidents.

Now they are in chaos, with airlines grounding more than 500 planes and

thousands of flights so far because they may not meet safety requirements.

Travelers have seen this before but only rarely, when all planes were

grounded after the Sept. 11 attacks and when the government grounded all

DC-10s after an engine fell off one of them in 1979, killing 273 people.

But there is a big difference this time: there has been no crash.

What happened?

One answer is that some whistle-blower inspectors for the Federal Aviation

Administration disclosed that they had been discouraged from cracking down

on Southwest Airlines for maintenance problems, and they found a sympathetic

audience with some Washington lawmakers.

That prodded the F.A.A. to order a national audit to check whether airlines

were in compliance - and to propose a record penalty of $10.2 million

against Southwest.

Then F.A.A. inspectors discovered the mistakes that prompted American to

cancel more than 3,000 flights last week. Delta, United, Alaska and others

also canceled hundreds of flights.

But more broadly, the turmoil is better understood as a reaction - or

overreaction, in the eyes of some in the industry - to a long-term shift,

over two presidencies, in the way the F.A.A. oversees the airlines.

In the 1990s, the agency was more of a cop on the beat, handing out

penalties to those who broke the rules.

"You used to fear an F.A.A. inspector showing up," said Joseph Tiberi, a

spokesman with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace

Workers. "They checked everything from the nuts and bolts in your tool kit

to the paperwork in the cockpit."

But then a different, more collaborative approach emerged that critics say

went too far. After the 2001 terrorist attacks, which crippled the industry,

the agency began "a creep away from their rigorous oversight of

maintenance," said Representative James L. Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota

and the chairman of the House committee that has pushed the issue.

That arrangement was "coddling the airlines," he added, which eased the

burden on the F.A.A., with its inspectors spending more time on paperwork

than on airplanes.

The change began after the T.W.A. 800 and ValuJet disasters in the

mid-1990s, when regulators and the industry convened a "safety summit." Then

the Clinton administration formed a national commission in 1997 on aviation

safety and security, led by Vice President Al Gore and known as the Gore

Commission. It set a goal of cutting the rate of fatal accidents 80 percent

over 10 years.

One idea was for the F.A.A. to start working more closely with the industry.

If airlines shared their mistakes or problems without fear of retribution,

the reasoning went, the system would benefit from these shared lessons.

And it seems to have. Over the next decade, the accident rate fell 65

percent, and this new approach is widely seen as having played a role in the

drop.

Then the F.A.A., under the Bush administration, took on a role after the

Sept. 11 attacks to help the industry recover - "through technology, through

greater efficiencies, through sensible and non-burdensome regulatory

schemes," Marion C. Blakey, the F.A.A. administrator in 2002, said at the

time. She declined to be interviewed for this article.

This more collaborative approach was reflected in a "customer service

initiative" announced by the F.A.A. in April 2003.

The customers in this case were not passengers; they were the airlines the

F.A.A. regulates. The core principles of the new initiative, which

inspectors could print up on pocket-size cards, included creating for the

airlines "an environment without fear of retribution if you challenge our

decisions" and "clear guidance on how you can elevate your concerns to the

next higher level of authority."

The F.A.A.'s watchdog role, to many Democrats in Congress who now oversee

airline regulators, grew toothless. "We had drifted a little bit too much

toward the over-closeness and coziness between regulator and regulated,"

said H. Clayton Foushee Jr., a former F.A.A. official who led a recent

inquiry by Mr. Oberstar's committee.

Some inspectors in the field were also concerned by the drift. In early

2003, Charalambe Boutris, an inspector in the F.A.A.'s Dallas office, began

reviewing Southwest's engine maintenance records.

The task would seem the equivalent of the Maytag repairman's job, since

Southwest has a stellar safety record. But Mr. Boutris discovered the

airline's record-keeping was inconsistent and varied from aircraft to

aircraft, according to the United States Office of Special Counsel, which

reviewed his accusations.

After raising the issue with a supervisor, Mr. Boutris was told he could

send Southwest a letter expressing concern, but not a more serious "letter

of investigation," which is what regulations called for under such

circumstances.

He continued to find problems with the airline's record-keeping, and again

pressed for an investigation. But his supervisor again chose a

slap-on-the-wrist letter, and Southwest officials began to lobby for Mr.

Boutris's removal.

Yet problems remained. In January 2007, the airline discovered cracks on

some of its Boeing 737s. Less than two months later, an unidentified

whistle-blower in the F.A.A.'s Chicago office noticed a crack in a Southwest

jet that had been flown the day before.

Earlier this year, Southwest told the F.A.A. that it had flown 46 planes

without the required inspections of fuselage panels, operating the defective

planes for up to nine months on more than 61,000 flights. That

"self-disclosure" normally would have allowed Southwest to avoid financial

penalties as long as it fixed the problems. And it kept flying the planes.

It also flew 27 planes that were not in compliance with an F.A.A. directive

requiring inspections of cargo doors.

Before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearings on

April 3, Mr. Boutris and another inspector, Douglas Peters, testified about

being told by supervisors to ignore violations by Southwest. "My supervisor

was suppressing my authority and responsibility to report them in accordance

with mandated F.A.A. guidance," Mr. Boutris testified.

The two men, who say they have received threats over their decision to

expose the airline, have become "rock stars" within aviation safety circles,

Mr. Foushee said.

Mr. Foushee said he began to hear "noise" as soon as he joined the committee

in January 2007 about the relationship between the airlines and the agency.

"F.A.A. people would call me, and contact me, saying, 'We're not able to do

our jobs anymore,' " said Mr. Foushee, who worked for a law firm in

Washington before joining the committee staff.

He spoke first with Mr. Peters, who contacted him anonymously. He then spoke

with Mr. Boutris and began the committee's investigation into the conduct of

the airlines and the agency.

The two men "turned over incontrovertible evidence that what happened

happened," he said.

When the committee began circulating a damning report on how the agency had

treated the two whistle-blowers, written by the Special Counsel's office,

the F.A.A. decided it had to act. It ordered a nationwide audit and relieved

Mr. Boutris's supervisor of his safety responsibilities.

Now the F.A.A. is conducting a broad national audit, which led to the

grounding of all MD-80s in the American Airlines fleet. More groundings of

other planes throughout the industry are likely to occur in coming weeks as

the audit continues. American, for its part, said it would resume its normal

schedule on Sunday.

More disclosures about lax inspections are likely, Mr. Oberstar said.

"There are more people coming to us with reports of stuff," he added. "They

said, 'No one was listening to us for last six or seven years; now we've got

someone who understands the problems, understands the safety implications. "

He said the new reports came from all around the country, not just the

regional office responsible for Southwest Airlines.

"Pilots talk to me, flight attendants talk to me, ramp mechanics have

stopped me and said, 'I want you to know this is happening,' " Mr. Oberstar

said.

A number of industry officials, however, call the latest crackdown an

overreaction, pointing to American's decision to park all 300 of its MD-80s

while it checked whether their wiring complied with a safety directive.

One senior executive at another airline, who spoke on the condition of

anonymity, said the agency's new stance reflects the new tone in aviation

safety.

"In the past, you wouldn't have grounded the whole fleet," the executive

said. "There's a question of what's rational and what's not."

A change in procedures seems likely. Tom Brantley, president of the

Professional Aviation Safety Specialists, the inspectors' union, testified

on April 3 that inspectors have been defanged by the F.A.A. itself.

For example, he said, if the inspectors show up without warning, he said,

airlines would complain to their F.A.A. superiors that "they're slowing us

down, they're asking people questions, they're costing us money."

And the agency seems likely to change its procedure for "self-reporting" and

avoiding penalties. Two F.A.A. managers have been transferred, and others

may lose their jobs.

Passengers will have to endure more canceled flights in coming weeks. But

they are also left to make sense of mixed signals - about planes that rarely

crash anymore but whose safety is suddenly in doubt, and about an agency

that was long considered best-in-class that suddenly seems broken.

The unraveling relationship between the F.A.A. and the airlines is "like a

divorce," said James E. Hall, a former chairman of the National

Transportation Safety Board. "And the children are the passengers."

Mr. Oberstar said these were "difficult times for the passengers," with, by

his count, 568 aircraft grounded so far. "But I think they'd rather be on

the ground than 7 miles in the air, with no way to pull over to the curb and

check under the hood," he said.

On Apr 13, 10:38�am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> April 13, 2008

>

> Behind Air Chaos, an F.A.A. Pendulum Swing

>

> By MATTHEW L. WALD and MICHELINE MAYNARD

>

> WASHINGTON

>

> �For all the headaches of flying in the United States, the domestic airlines

> were until recently considered a logistical marvel, moving two million

> people a day with remarkably few accidents.

>

I used to fly American Airlines at least once a year and had no idea

that the airplanes had not been inspected in years. I am afraid to fly

again.

The Republican FAA, stockholders and owners instructed the workers to

skip inspections so the Republicans could pocket more profits.

Inspecting airplanes, for safety, cuts into the Republican's profit

margin. The Congress will find a link between the FAA Republicans and

the stockholders. I bet that colostomy Bag Cheney, also, has stock in

these airlines that skipped the inspections, recklessly putting

American lives in danger.

On Apr 13, 11:23 am, DickCheneysT...@aol.com wrote:

> On Apr 13, 10:38�am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>

> > April 13, 2008

>

> > Behind Air Chaos, an F.A.A. Pendulum Swing

>

> > By MATTHEW L. WALD and MICHELINE MAYNARD

>

> > WASHINGTON

>

> > �For all the headaches of flying in the United States, the domestic airlines

> > were until recently considered a logistical marvel, moving two million

> > people a day with remarkably few accidents.

>

> I used to fly American Airlines at least once a year and had no idea

> that the airplanes had not been inspected in years. I am afraid to fly

> again.

>

> The Republican FAA, stockholders and owners instructed the workers to

> skip inspections so the Republicans could pocket more profits.

>

> Inspecting airplanes, for safety, cuts into the Republican's profit

> margin. The Congress will find a link between the FAA Republicans and

> the stockholders. I bet that colostomy Bag Cheney, also, has stock in

> these airlines that skipped the inspections, recklessly putting

> American lives in danger.

I am a lifetime gold member with American and have been executive

platinum/platinum for 10 years running until I stopped traveling on

business every week.

I am deeply disappointed in American. Yes the FAA screwed up and let

the airlines off the hook but American's standard for themselves

should have been much higher and they should have gone far beyond the

requirements of the FAA to inspect their planes.

"...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.

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. Keep up the entertaining

silliness! McCain is loving the lead in the polls. Perhaps you could

get Ward Churchill, Rosie O'Donnell, Hugo Chavez, or Cindy Sheehan to

weigh in on some issues. ;-)

"SwampMidget" <webmaster@101click.com> 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.

>

> 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. Keep up the entertaining

> silliness! McCain is loving the lead in the polls. Perhaps you could

> get Ward Churchill, Rosie O'Donnell, Hugo Chavez, or Cindy Sheehan to

> weigh in on some issues. ;-)

This is another failure

of "privatization" where

Republican politics

superseded good sense.

"SwampMidget" <webmaster@101click.com> 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.

But as a couple of posters to this group noted, nothing affects the airline

industry as much as the flying public's perception of hte saftey of air

travel. It ain't political (except in the fevered minds of a few rightard

corporate apologists). Airliner crashes are rare but spectacular and command

intense public attention. Yet the reality that there are years when zero

people die in a plane crash vs tens of thousands on the roads does nothing

to assuage public fears.

TWA, and other airlines, went bankrupt and disappeared mostly because the

flying public feared to fly with them.

Larry

Keep up the entertaining

> silliness! McCain is loving the lead in the polls. Perhaps you could

> get Ward Churchill, Rosie O'Donnell, Hugo Chavez, or Cindy Sheehan to

> weigh in on some issues. ;-)

"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:_VoMj.32539$dT.10784@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

> April 13, 2008

>

> Behind Air Chaos, an F.A.A. Pendulum Swing

The person responsible is ultimately Bush for appointing Marion Blakey as

FAA Administrator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Blakey

As is typical for most Bush employees, Blakey had almost no experience in

aviation. She isn't even a pilot. Her only aviation experience was

spending less than a year as NTSB Administrator. FAA Administrators are

appointed to fixed 5 year terms, so firing her was practically impossible.

In her 5 year tenure, she royally screwed up the FAA, general aviation, and

commercial aviation. She ran off hundreds of controllers and other skilled

FAA employees which will take years to replace while delays rack up as a

consequence. She proposed a disasterous restructuring of the FAA which has

put modernization years behind, and she blamed all her screw ups on the

airlines and other organizations and never took any responsibility for her

failures. When her time at the FAA was over, she immediately went to work

for AIA, which she had awarded numerous contracts.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-09-11-Blakey_N.htm

"SwampMidget" <webmaster@101click.com> 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.

>

> 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. Keep up the entertaining

> silliness! McCain is loving the lead in the polls. Perhaps you could

> get Ward Churchill, Rosie O'Donnell, Hugo Chavez, or Cindy Sheehan to

> weigh in on some issues. ;-)

Once again perennial loser, Mark Draper weighs in with his usual flavor of

nonsense.

Shall I count the ways he's a complete fucking moron?

1) The corruption of Bush's FAA appointee, Marion Blakey has already been

well established.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-09-11-Blakey_N.htm

2) "minor infraction(s)" can and do bring down airliners and kill people.

The reason the US has the safest aviation system in the world is because the

FAA investigates them before they cause problems. The Airworthyness

Directive (AD) was issued 2 years prior and AA had plenty of time to act on

it before they grounded anything. Instead they relied on their cosy

relationship with the Bush controlled FAA to keep them flying.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/08/griffin.landing.gear/

3) The "entire American Airlines'(sic) fleet" consists of over 900 aircraft

and less than a third are MD-80s.

http://www.aa.com/content/amrcorp/corporateInformation/facts/fleet.jhtml

4) McBush doesn't have a "lead in the polls".

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message

news:fttc9t$fgu$1@news04.infoave.net...

>

> "SwampMidget" <webmaster@101click.com> 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. It's up to the owner/operator to comply with them. 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. The FAA isn't holding

AA to a standard that's any different from any other owner/operator. The

FAA always gives a time frame for compliance and this time frame is

commensurate with the urgency of the AD. In the case of the MD-80, the FAA

gave 18 months for compliance which is a very big window. 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? 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.

So this is a news?

Whenever republicans take over government, they always put pro-

business (anti-consumer) people in charge of these offices to do the

OPPOSITE of what they were originally set-up to do.

Look at the FCC, FTC, EPA and the FDA. Instrad of being a watchdog

and protecting people from harm, all of these officies are enabling

greed at the expense of human suffering.

And the chickens ahve come home to roost. The FDA is even allowing

the drug companies to MAKE-UP diseases (like fibro-myalgia and

restless leg syndrome) and create fear so they can sell more

prescriptions.

"bushlyed" <bushlyed@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:91bf1a1f-4022-48a2-9647-bce3ca49b42c@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 13, 11:23 am, DickCheneysT...@aol.com wrote:

> > On Apr 13, 10:38�am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> >

> > > April 13, 2008

> >

> > > Behind Air Chaos, an F.A.A. Pendulum Swing

> >

> > > By MATTHEW L. WALD and MICHELINE MAYNARD

> >

> > > WASHINGTON

> >

> > > �For all the headaches of flying in the United States, the domestic

> > > airlines

> > > were until recently considered a logistical marvel, moving two million

> > > people a day with remarkably few accidents.

> >

> > I used to fly American Airlines at least once a year and had no idea

> > that the airplanes had not been inspected in years. I am afraid to fly

> > again.

> >

> > The Republican FAA, stockholders and owners instructed the workers to

> > skip inspections so the Republicans could pocket more profits.

> >

> > Inspecting airplanes, for safety, cuts into the Republican's profit

> > margin. The Congress will find a link between the FAA Republicans and

> > the stockholders. I bet that colostomy Bag Cheney, also, has stock in

> > these airlines that skipped the inspections, recklessly putting

> > American lives in danger.

>

> I am a lifetime gold member with American and have been executive

> platinum/platinum for 10 years running until I stopped traveling on

> business every week.

>

> I am deeply disappointed in American. Yes the FAA screwed up and let

> the airlines off the hook but American's standard for themselves

> should have been much higher and they should have gone far beyond the

> requirements of the FAA to inspect their planes.

What you have to understand is the rise in fuel prices has created a

critical situation for the airlines and most notably AA. To give you an

idea of the extent of the problem, AA is actually replacing their stainless

steel silverware in 1st class for lighter metals to reduce the weight on

flights.

It's cheaper for the airlines to comply with Airworthiness Directives during

overhaul time, but if the FAA specifies a fixed time limit rather than at

major overhaul, they don't have a choice. This is simply a matter of AA

taking a gamble that they could make use of their friendly relationship with

the FAA to save some money, but unfortunately they were gambling with safety

in the process. This is something the airlines do routinely.

<scudetto_001@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:5b7f96bc-2497-434e-bee1-40a27730ecff@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

> So this is a news?

>

> Whenever republicans take over government, they always put pro-

> business (anti-consumer) people in charge of these offices to do the

> OPPOSITE of what they were originally set-up to do.

>

> Look at the FCC, FTC, EPA and the FDA. Instrad of being a watchdog

> and protecting people from harm, all of these officies are enabling

> greed at the expense of human suffering.

>

> And the chickens ahve come home to roost. The FDA is even allowing

> the drug companies to MAKE-UP diseases (like fibro-myalgia and

> restless leg syndrome) and create fear so they can sell more

> prescriptions.

Don't forget irritable bowel syndrome, which strangely enough only affects

Republicans.

"Nebuchadnezzar II" <nebuchadnezzar@microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:E6rMj.4673$bx3.1275@trnddc02...

> "Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message

> news:fttc9t$fgu$1@news04.infoave.net...

>>

>> "SwampMidget" <webmaster@101click.com> 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.

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'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.

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.

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.

The FAA isn't holding

> AA to a standard that's any different from any other owner/operator.

Never said.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Larry

"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message

news:fttu0m$16m$1@news04.infoave.net...

>

> "Nebuchadnezzar II" <nebuchadnezzar@microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:E6rMj.4673$bx3.1275@trnddc02...

>> "Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message

>> news:fttc9t$fgu$1@news04.infoave.net...

>>>

>>> "SwampMidget" <webmaster@101click.com> 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.

>

> 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'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.

>

> 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.

>

> 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.

>

>

> The FAA isn't holding

>> AA to a standard that's any different from any other owner/operator.

>

> Never said.

>

> 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.

>

> 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.

>

> 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.

>

> 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.

>

> Larry

>

The Bush Republican

administration was lax

in its duty to protect the

public thought the FAA.

When called out by

whistle blowers it decided

to punish the airlines

with NO regard for the

American public.

Typical arrogance by

this administration led

by, demonstrably, the most

arrogant non-caring

president ever

"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message

news:fttu0m$16m$1@news04.infoave.net...

>

> "Nebuchadnezzar II" <nebuchadnezzar@microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:E6rMj.4673$bx3.1275@trnddc02...

>> "Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message

>> news:fttc9t$fgu$1@news04.infoave.net...

>>>

>>> "SwampMidget" <webmaster@101click.com> 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.

"Nebuchadnezzar II" <nebuchadnezzar@microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:RQrMj.4686$bx3.3230@trnddc02...

> <scudetto_001@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:5b7f96bc-2497-434e-bee1-40a27730ecff@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

> > So this is a news?

> >

> > Whenever republicans take over government, they always put pro-

> > business (anti-consumer) people in charge of these offices to do the

> > OPPOSITE of what they were originally set-up to do.

> >

> > Look at the FCC, FTC, EPA and the FDA. Instrad of being a watchdog

> > and protecting people from harm, all of these officies are enabling

> > greed at the expense of human suffering.

> >

> > And the chickens ahve come home to roost. The FDA is even allowing

> > the drug companies to MAKE-UP diseases (like fibro-myalgia and

> > restless leg syndrome) and create fear so they can sell more

> > prescriptions.

>

> Don't forget irritable bowel syndrome, which strangely enough only affects

> Republicans.

And causes "Wide-Stance Syndrome" in airport restrooms.

"Nebuchadnezzar II" <nebuchadnezzar@microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:huwMj.9303$tw3.9082@trnddc03...

> "Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message

> news:fttu0m$16m$1@news04.infoave.net...

> >

> > "Nebuchadnezzar II" <nebuchadnezzar@microsoft.com> wrote in message

> > news:E6rMj.4673$bx3.1275@trnddc02...

> >> "Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message

> >> news:fttc9t$fgu$1@news04.infoave.net...

> >>>

> >>> "SwampMidget" <webmaster@101click.com> 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.

"Nebuchadnezzar II" <nebuchadnezzar@microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:huwMj.9303$tw3.9082@trnddc03...

> "Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message

> news:fttu0m$16m$1@news04.infoave.net...

>>

>> "Nebuchadnezzar II" <nebuchadnezzar@microsoft.com> wrote in message

>> news:E6rMj.4673$bx3.1275@trnddc02...

>>> "Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message

>>> news:fttc9t$fgu$1@news04.infoave.net...

>>>>

>>>> "SwampMidget" <webmaster@101click.com> 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

In article

<5b7f96bc-2497-434e-bee1-40a27730ecff@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,

scudetto_001@yahoo.com wrote:

> So this is a news?

>

> Whenever republicans take over government, they always put pro-

> business (anti-consumer) people in charge of these offices to do the

> OPPOSITE of what they were originally set-up to do.

>

> Look at the FCC, FTC, EPA and the FDA. Instrad of being a watchdog

> and protecting people from harm, all of these officies are enabling

> greed at the expense of human suffering.

>

> And the chickens ahve come home to roost. The FDA is even allowing

> the drug companies to MAKE-UP diseases (like fibro-myalgia and

> restless leg syndrome) and create fear so they can sell more

> prescriptions.

Bottom line is, without regulation and oversight, people will do

whatever makes MONEY for them, ethics be damned. And they have damned

us, the people of this country, in the process.

--

"If you can

In article <fttc9t$fgu$1@news04.infoave.net>,

"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:

> 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.

Yup, more "magical thinking" by the repugs, just like those flowers and

candy we were gonna get when we invaded IRaq...and just like the

so-called "democracy" we were gonna establish in the middle East, an

example for all others there....Yep, they are the experts in screwing up!

--

"If you can

replytome@thenewsgroup.purtyplease (Mamamia) wrote in

news:HkLMj.33413$dT.30737@bignews1.bellsouth.net:

> Bottom line is, without regulation and oversight, people will do

> whatever makes MONEY for them, ethics be damned.

Presumably then, all the regulators and overseers are candidates for

sainthood?

--

Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

In article <Xns9A80721CEBCDCVeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1>,

Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

> replytome@thenewsgroup.purtyplease (Mamamia) wrote in

> news:HkLMj.33413$dT.30737@bignews1.bellsouth.net:

>

> > Bottom line is, without regulation and oversight, people will do

> > whatever makes MONEY for them, ethics be damned.

>

> Presumably then, all the regulators and overseers are candidates for

> sainthood?

There are obviously going to be bad apples in every barrel...HOWEVER,

oversight is, in general, far better than NO oversight.

--would you like to be on the next plane that falls apart in flight,

like that stewardess that flew out of the plane several years ago?

--would you like to be the one eating the food with e. coli in it?

--How about lead paint? You want your kid playing with it?

--Nuclear energy--would you want a plant in your neighborhood without

someone reporting problems and keeping up maintenance?

--

"If you can

replytome@thenewsgroup.purtyplease (Mamamia) wrote in

news:9BLMj.33421$dT.4080@bignews1.bellsouth.net:

> In article <Xns9A80721CEBCDCVeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1>,

> Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

>

>> replytome@thenewsgroup.purtyplease (Mamamia) wrote in

>> news:HkLMj.33413$dT.30737@bignews1.bellsouth.net:

>>

>> > Bottom line is, without regulation and oversight, people will do

>> > whatever makes MONEY for them, ethics be damned.

>>

>> Presumably then, all the regulators and overseers are candidates

>> for sainthood?

>

> There are obviously going to be bad apples in every

> barrel...HOWEVER, oversight is, in general, far better than NO

> oversight.

It appears that you're willing to forgive your "bad apples" if they're

armed agents of The State, but assume that all businessmen, without

exception, will cheerfully murder their customers for a one-time-only

shot at making a few bucks.

Do you really think that American Airlines wants to kill its

customers? What's in it for them, really?

> --would you like to be on the next plane that falls apart in flight,

> like that stewardess that flew out of the plane several years ago?

> --would you like to be the one eating the food with e. coli in it?

> --How about lead paint? You want your kid playing with it?

> --Nuclear energy--would you want a plant in your neighborhood

> without someone reporting problems and keeping up maintenance?

Oddly enough, all of your horror-story examples occurred despite your

fine system of overseers.

--

Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

"Nebuchadnezzar II" <nebuchadnezzar@microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:huwMj.9303$tw3.9082@trnddc03...

> "Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message

> news:fttu0m$16m$1@news04.infoave.net...

>>

>> "Nebuchadnezzar II" <nebuchadnezzar@microsoft.com> wrote in message

>> news:E6rMj.4673$bx3.1275@trnddc02...

>>> "Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message

>>> news:fttc9t$fgu$1@news04.infoave.net...

>>>>

>>>> "SwampMidget" <webmaster@101click.com> 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.

>

I know it wasn't originally 3 days, but this time it was.

Still an overreaction, and the FAA could have intervened to keep them

flying.

>>

>>>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.

>

Except the stockholders were not responsible for the failure to comply,

corporate executives were. The execs got awway with the violations scot free

whiel stockholders got fined.

How can you insist on ethical behavior when the execs are _di9sincented_ for

behaving ethically with bonuses and promotions and there are no sanctions

for unethical behavior?

This incident was minor. But what is to rpevent a catqastrophic failure in

the future?

>>

>> 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.

>

Your butt may not be endangered for failure to vcomply, but as yoiu noted

your license may be.

_You_ are respnoible and are incented to compley, unlike airlin execs who

are resonsible but not liable.

>>

>> 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.

>

Agreed. But rare or not, it still happens.

>> 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.

>

I know and knew that.

But as I noted in another note in this thread apparently much of hte fluing

public does not, fearing a plane crash (when there are many years with 0

deaths) more than a car crash (when 10's of thousabnds die every year).

>>

>> 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.

>

Exactly.

But my point is that to assuage their PR problem they stranded thousands

unnecessarily.

Another case of the wrong people paying.

>>

>> 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.

>

I am sure AA did not act out of a concern for safety.

>> 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.

>

You misunderstood.

If 18 months was good enough for hte original AD then immediate compliance

forcing the gorundung of the fleet was rushing unecessarily.

> 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?

>

Not what I meant.

But I'll bet even someone as diligent as you would not ground your entire

fleet immediately to perform the inspection, but would schedule the

inspections to minimize disruption.

>

>>

>> 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.

>

You are far more trusting than I.

Larry

>

On Apr 13, 9:59 am, "Nebuchadnezzar II" <nebuchadnez...@microsoft.com>

wrote:

> 3) The "entire American Airlines'(sic) fleet" consists of over 900 aircraft

> and less than a third are MD-80s.http://www.aa.com/content/amrcorp/corporateInformation/facts/fleet.jhtml

The Embras and CRJs really can't count in the same tally where you put

the 757s and MD80s. 300 of 655 big jets are MD80s.

The small planes cannot be put into service to substitute for the big

planes, not even if you double or triple up. This could (and should,

IMHO),

be the end of the company.