Originally Posted by
ProleOnParole
A classic example of what? Non sequitur?
And does CI fall under FAA's supervision too? If not, then it wouldn't exactly be surprising that they have not been "cited by the FAA" as much.
The premise is:
Originally Posted by
garykung
Even periodical maintenance can't eliminate problems 100%.
Why is WN a classic example? WN is a known airlines in the U.S. that has systemic issue with periodic maintenance. So it get cited and fined big time by FAA. But does that mean WN is unsafety?
On the other hand, many airlines (like CI) have been properly maintained their aircrafts. Still incidents occurs.
So it goes back to my point: periodic maintenance can't eliminate problems 100%
Originally Posted by
ProleOnParole
And does CI fall under FAA's supervision too? If not, then it wouldn't exactly be surprising that they have not been "cited by the FAA" as much.
Yes in some way. CI's aircrafts used in the U.S. must meet the U.S. requirements.
Also, since many of CI's aircrafts are made by Boeing, FAA does have passive jurisdiction on those aircrafts through Boeing. It also explained why NTSB was involved during CI's Naha total-loss incident.