http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/business/7240497.htm

This was the first plane that Mobile Aerospace did the "S"-check on. Moreover, besides the "minor" hydraulic system failure in flight, other sources indicate that such "minor" things as the coupled ILS (for Cat III approaches) was hosed, as was the GPS subsystem of the FMS.

You would think they would have learned from the B-1900 in CLT that was "maintained" outside of house.

Further, word is (from the usaviation.com crowd) that the plane did not have a test hop coming out of overhaul. Unreal.

------------------
Don't feed the trolls.

That makes two times this week:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23987-2003Nov10.html

Here is the follow-up to the article recounting the emergency landing at IAD.

U is getting really bad press over this.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28170-2003Nov11.html

The IAD incident would not have received a followup piece had Corporate Communications at CCY actually told the truth to the reporter the first time.

------------------
Don't feed the trolls.

As a corp comm guy, these guys really need some coaching and/or help from an outside agency. The response given was 1) a lie and as mentioned before would not have even illicited a follow-up story had the proper response been given.

US is on its last leg as it is...I'd be shocked if they are around past next summer.

WOW - 2 in one week. Thankfully no one was injured !!


But one was an Airbus and one was a Boeing so if I understand only the Airbus was related to outsourcing - correct?

Phillyguy

PS: Haven't Companies learned that if you don't tell the truth it will come around and bite you in the a** later!!!!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by phillyguy:
WOW - 2 in one week. Thankfully no one was injured !!</font>

That kind of freaks me out.. we are flying LGW-CLT-ROC this weekend on the Airbii.
--Alex

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by phillyguy:
But one was an Airbus and one was a Boeing so if I understand only the Airbus was related to outsourcing - correct?</font>

That is correct.

The airbus had a total failure of one hydraulic system (fortunately, the plane has two).

The boeing had an indicator light fail, although it does appear that the landing gear was down (the indicator light was the wonky item).

I ask you, which of these would you prefer to have happen?



------------------
Don't feed the trolls.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">"I ask you, which of these would you prefer to have happen?"</font>

Well of course neither and this certainly does not make U look good in anyone's eyes - including my own!

My point was that only 1 of these is a direct result of the outsourcing fiasco that U undertook.


[This message has been edited by phillyguy (edited Nov 12, 2003).]

I have no idea if Mobile Aerospace is a good organization or not, but outsourcing heavy maintenence is not necessarily an evil. Southwest has outsourced ALL of their heavy checks from day one.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by geo1005:
I have no idea if Mobile Aerospace is a good organization or not, but outsourcing heavy maintenence is not necessarily an evil. Southwest has outsourced ALL of their heavy checks from day one.</font>

Depends on how you define "heavy." Southwest does all of their A, B, C, and partial D (or what US calls the "S") checks in house. Only the full blown "D" goes to Tramco.

Southwest apparently has a rather draconian quality control process in place with their outsourcing shops, and is rumored to perform test hops before the aircraft reenters revenue service. It is rumored that US did not require a test hop for this bird. Further, you can probably assume that in Southwest's case, if there was any kind of quality control problem they would either force the vendor to fix the problem, or take their 300+ planes somewhere else. In US' case, the contract (drumroll) went to a firm in Alabama. Do you really think that US management would be permitted to take that contract anywhere else, given Bronner's position? Mobile Aerospace was probably handed this thing on a silver platter--they have absolutely no incentive for quality work.

Outsourcing maintenance, if done properly, can work. Southwest has never had a fatal accident, and part of that is presumably due to the quality of the work done on their aircraft, some of which is outsourced. I'd submit to you that if Mobile Aerospace had such a large Charlie Fox on the first bird they got their hands on, it's not a good sign. You would think, that given the glaring error that resulted in the B-1900 crash at CLT, that US think twice about such things (the mis-tensioned trim cables were serviced by a third party vendor).



------------------
Don't feed the trolls.

Cx4: I think we agree. If you outsource then you better well do it right and have the quality control in place to make sure things are done right the first time and every time.

Has US done this? I have no idea. I just did not want outsourcing of heavy checks to become synonymous with poor work and dangerous airplanes. Southwest is a perfect example of how it can be done and done right.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ClueByFour:
Southwest apparently has a rather draconian quality control process in place with their outsourcing shops, and is rumored to perform test hops before the aircraft reenters revenue service. It is rumored that US did not require a test hop for this bird.
</font>

I believe there is an FAA reg that requires planes be 'test' flown without passengers after any maintenance. That could be as simple as a circuit around the field, or some specific tests for affected systems.

I was on the flight that landed at Richmond. The pilot came on about 25 minutes before landing and announced the problem. Passengers were pretty oblivious to the seriousness of the problem. The mood in the cabin was almost normal as we came in. I think the pilot did a good job of calmly explaining what happened and what to expect on landing. He said the hydraulics problem would affect steering on landing - basically, he couldn't steer. He said after touching down we'd coast to the end of the runway where a tug would come out to tow us in. He told us to expect to see the fire trucks out waiting for us and they were. We came in very slow with a very high nose up attitude. He touched it down as gently as could be. We rolled to the end and wating about 10 mins for the tug to come out and get us. The pilot made mention of the Alabama maintance the day before and said "those people are going to hear about this."

A few firemen met the flight at the gate. That was about it.

Did I dodge a major bullet?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by FLL2002:
Did I dodge a major bullet?</font>

That's why they have two hydraulic systems.

------------------
Don't feed the trolls.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by FLL2002:

A few firemen met the flight at the gate. That was about it.

Did I dodge a major bullet?

</font>

Needless to say, glad it turned out as it did. But, yes it could have been a different outcome.

Two good friends of mine were working the flight that landed in Dulles, and they were pretty surprised with the article that appeared in the Washington Post. The article leads one to believe that there was a lot of hysteria on the flight, but my friends said that all of the passengers remained very calm and composed. I had the very same thing happen on a DC-9 several years ago in PHL and the passengers were great throughout the whole incident. I agree that it's a shame that there was a conflict in information about this incident but hopefully a lesson was learned to get all of the facts straight before making a statement.
With the incident in Richmond, the airplane had flown all day before this one occurred from what I understand. The airplane was flown from Alabama back into position on the line without passengers on board without any problems. To suggest that US would blatantly not "test fly" an airplane if it was supposed to is a little bit far-fetched, that would be a major breach with the FAA. The airlines aren't required to do test flights on airplanes too much anymore, with the exception of a few things.

How does the airplane get from the maintenence facility to the airport where it is re-entering service without a test flight?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ClueByFour:
Depends on how you define "heavy." Southwest does all of their A, B, C, and partial D (or what US calls the "S") checks in house. Only the full blown "D" goes to Tramco.

Southwest apparently has a rather draconian quality control process in place with their outsourcing shops, and is rumored to perform test hops before the aircraft reenters revenue service.

</font>

Check out the related thread on usaviation for the latest on A/C 700. Now in the shop for a recurring flap problem!

Is it possible this was a problem with an Airbus design; something that wouldn't show up until you mess with in maintenance?

I deal with computers all day long, and I wouldn't put my life in the hands of a computer. They are stupid.

Pilots may be a bunch of overpaid primadonnas, but, IMHO, they are a lot smarter than computers.

------------------
"It's as easy as 1, 2, C" -- Kelly, Married With Children

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JS:
Is it possible this was a problem with an Airbus design; something that wouldn't show up until you mess with in maintenance?
</font>

If that was the case, you would have seen this happen long ago with the Airbuses operated by UA or NW (who've had 'em longer than US), or even AF (and other European carriers). Or you would have seen this happen after other earlier checks (remember, the aircraft would have had other maintainence - the heavy check is what the Mobile folks handled). So I doubt this is a design issue at all.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JS:
I deal with computers all day long, and I wouldn't put my life in the hands of a computer. They are stupid.</font>

Make sure you ask to be let out before you are on a plane that attempts a Cat III ILS approach in bad weather, then--most (if not all) domestic airlines require such things to be flown with both autopilots functional and coupled.

In fact, the odds that the pilots of any airbus 320 are actually handling the physical aircraft controls from about 100 feet off the runway until about 100 feet before the runway are pretty low. You punch commands into the FMS.



------------------
Don't feed the trolls.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
I deal with computers all day long, and I wouldn't put my life in the hands of a computer. They are stupid.
[/B]</font>

A computer is only as stupid as their programmer. I think Airbus has some pretty smart programmers.

Like anything electronic, stuff can break unexpectedly. That is why you have more than one engine, backup systems, pilots and emergency equipment on board.

When I was studying for my Aeronautical Engineering degree, we had to design an aircraft as a project. Most of us plumped for the multi-engine approach (it was a smallish jet trainer/COIN aircraft), and our lecturers said, "yes, it might be safer....but doubling the number of anything means doubling the amount of things that can go wrong"
I guess they're right. Consider a direct flight as opposed to one connecting in PHL http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif