United Maintenance Fumble

Oh, it is a big deal. They failed to follow their General Maintenance Manual pertaining to Required Inspection Items, and the FAA caught it. The airline continued to operate the aircraft even after being notified. We would have grounded it instantly. Had the airline caught it themselves, and filed a VDR, it would have been no big deal.
 
Last edited:
No arguing about the procedure error. Just the effect on the airplane of not doing the inspection. I agree it could have been really serious if the procedure was incorrectly done but in this specific case, the aircraft apparently wasn't affected. Ignoring the inspection problem after it was found was pretty dumb.

The FAA penalty was fully justified in their contemplated action/fine IMHO.

Cheers
 
Ive often wondered if airline maintenance is really more strict that GA airplane maintenance or if it is about the same. I guess it depends.
 
I always wonder how much a maintenance system on a (frakking) computer is involved in these things.
 
All it proves, unless the FAA was watching the replacement, is the mechanic failed to sign off an ops check. How can they say, two or three years after the fact, the pressure test was never actually done? The fact that the records show the inspection was done several days later could simply mean the records people at the airline noticed the oversight too, so they redid the pressure check. Not saying that's what happened, just saying it's as plausible as the FAA's contention.

dtuuri
 
Frankly, I don't see how this issue can even happen. We have an electronic logbook system. An issue is entered in the system, the work is done, a mechanic signs it off in the computer and it is done. The only way I can see this issue happening is if the 787 is not on the electronic logbook system.

IOW. I wonder what the rest of the story is.
 
dtuuri said:
All it proves, unless the FAA was watching the replacement, is the mechanic failed to sign off an ops check. How can they say, two or three years after the fact, the pressure test was never actually done? The fact that the records show the inspection was done several days later could simply mean the records people at the airline noticed the oversight too, so they redid the pressure
Larry in TN said:
I don't think that the 787 is on the ELB yet and it certainly wasn't back when this incident took place.
Click to expand...
i guess I don't know when it happened. Even with a paper logbook, it would have gone through several Captain's reviews and not gotten caught.
Click to expand...
 
dtuuri said:
All it proves, unless the FAA was watching the replacement, is the mechanic failed to sign off an ops check. How can they say, two or three years after the fact, the pressure test was never actually done? The fact that the records show the inspection was done several days later could simply mean the records people at the airline noticed the oversight too, so they redid the pressure check. Not saying that's what happened, just saying it's as plausible as the FAA's contention.
dtuuri
Click to expand...
A Required Inspection is much more than that. The RII qualified individual is a second set of eyes that ensures that proper parts, tooling and procedures are followed. This includes part # effectivity verification for all parts being installed, inspection of the new part and mount area for defects, ok to install given, witness lubrication, intall, torque, safety, leak check and adjustment and tests as required . And then be the second signature for the maintenance task. That is s Required Inspection. Obviously that second signature was missing.
 
For Glenn: Doesn't the FAA approve maintenance procedures for each airline? IOW, do your procedures match those of any other airline?
 
I've worked for 4 airlines, they all had very similar maintenance procedured, all based upon the same FAR's, especially pertaining to required inspections, read 121.369 and 121.371
 
Last edited:
coloradobluesky said:
Ive often wondered if airline maintenance is really more strict that GA airplane maintenance or if it is about the same. I guess it depends.
Click to expand...

Much stricter. More procedures. More documentation. More requirements. More inspections including required inspections on certain maintenance tasks.

What seems to have happened in this case by reading the verbiage in the article is that the replacement of the switch was listed as an Required Inspection Item (RII) in the airline's manual. This means that someone with RII authority who was not the person performing the actual maintenance has to perform a final inspection on the install. A second set of eyes is how it is commonly referred to. At most airlines there is a block to check on the log page to signify that a task is a RII. It is up to the mechanic performing the task to check this block and to coordinate with an RII inspector to ensure it gets done. Also the individual who signs the airworthiness release after all maintenance is complete is supposed to check that any item that is RII has had the inspection complied with. This is done by verifying that not only did a mechanic sign off on the task but so did an inspector. It would appear that either the mechanic failed to check the box and coordinate with inspection or that the inspector failed to sign the log. Then it was missed on the airworthiness release audit. Later a sharp eyed FAA ASI caught it while performing a records review.

You do not see these checks and balances in GA, do you?
 
From 121.369 - "items of maintenance and alteration that must be inspected (required inspections), including at least those that could result in a failure, malfunction, or defect endangering the safe operation of the aircraft, if not performed properly or if improper parts or materials are used."

Most consider RII responsibility to be more than performing a final inspection on the install, but that is part of it.
 
X3 Skier said:
No arguing about the procedure error. Just the effect on the airplane of not doing the inspection. I agree it could have been really serious if the procedure was incorrectly done but in this specific case, the aircraft apparently wasn't affected.
Click to expand...

That could be a serious misconseption. Items that are not secured properly, or have improper parts or materials, can take some time before failing.
Ref: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20150928X72825&key=1
 
Last edited:
GlennAB1 said:
From 121.369 - "items of maintenance and alteration that must be inspected (required inspections), including at least those that could result in a failure, malfunction, or defect endangering the safe operation of the aircraft, if not performed properly or if improper parts or materials are used."

Most consider RII responsibility to be more than performing a final inspection on the install, but that is part of it.
Click to expand...
From the article, "According to CNBC, the replacement took place on June 9, 2014, and it wasn’t until June 28, 2014 that United performed the required inspection." I don't see how that proves the inspection was not done in the first place and may have been done a second time just to make sure because of a lack of a signature attesting so. Yeah, the paperwork needs to be done, but c'mon, a HALF MILLION DOLLAR fine? Unless somebody knowingly deferred the inspection against the requirement, that seems obscene. It's hard to imagine mechanics not inspecting the install for leaks before calling QC (RII, whatever).

dtuuri
 
The signature constitutes completion of the task. The fact that the airline continued to fly the aircraft after knowing of the discrepancy, really exposes serious procedural problems with that airline.
 
SkyDog58 said:
You do not see these checks and balances in GA, do you?
Click to expand...

Not officially, but having known some really good mechanics and shops, many do implement "two sets of eyes" on critical things.

Even my ATP/A&P-AI rated CFI asks other mechanics over to his hangars when he's doing critical stuff on his aircraft. And a couple (but not all) shops around here that are good shops implement similar.)

But yeah, if you're not paying attention to how your shop does maintenance -- it's a crap shoot.

The shop that decided to replace our right aileron hinges a few years ago told us they had a seven way vote amongst seven mechanics that day on it. It came out 4:3 so they called us and told us they recommended it. Ha. They said they'd let it go "one more year" if we really didn't want it done, but the vote leaned toward doing it. We responded the only appropriate way owners really should... "We didn't buy it to maintain it like a crappy rental. Do it."

Which is pretty much our motto on suggested items. We know from experience that something else will break and need work before there is ever any "benefit" from deferring crap like that and it won't help even out the bills.

Work with your mechanics. See what they're doing. Especially in GA. Talk to them. You'll figure out which ones are cocky and cowboying stuff -- it doesn't take long to figure that out.
 
GlennAB1 said:
The certificated repair stations I've worked at have had required inspection policies written into their repair station manual.
Click to expand...
So, do the airlines that hire these stations conform to the repair station's manuals or do the repair stations conform to the airline's manuals?
 
Both. The repair station will have guidance in their RSM pertaining to providing maintenance for airlines which will basically say the must comply with the airlines requirements.
 
When I worked at ATA, we provided line maintenance for a couple other airlines. We followed their GMM and had to be qualified by them. I'll bet SkyDog58 recalls.
 
dtuuri said:
a HALF MILLION DOLLAR fine?
Click to expand...
And, that's chicken feed for a major airline, senior Captain's probably make that.

My company just changed all the fan blades on a 757 engine (RB211-535) due to high vibes, 22 blades at $160k each, and it didn't fix the problem. Airlines throw around an ungodly amount of $$$
 
GlennAB1 said:
And, that's chicken feed for a major airline, senior Captain's probably make that.

My company just changed all the fan blades on a 757 engine (RB211-535) due to high vibes, 22 blades at $160k each, and it didn't fix the problem. Airlines throw around an ungodly amount of $$$
Click to expand...
If that were my airline, I'd send the blades back and deduct the restocking fee from the troubleshooter's paycheck.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
If that were my airline, I'd send the blades back and deduct the restocking fee from the troubleshooter's paycheck.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

The restocking fee is likely around 5 years total compensation the troubleshooter makes...
 
LOL

After a couple days of following Engineering directives, Engineering made the call.

Then, the fact that someone removed balance weights they shouldn't have, and then reinstalled them (obviously where they shouldn't have)...

There's no returning/restocking fan blades once they have been lubricated with DGF and installed, they are used.

At least the removed blades were sent to company stores as removed serviceable, so it's not a complete loss.
 
Last edited:
How did it get fixed? Multiple high power engine runs while monitoring vibes with specific weights located at specific locations, dialed in with a program on the laptop that the Rolls Royce Rep brought with him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top