Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nothing out of the normal here. If they replaced the pump (the most expensive option) then decided to not do a 2 minute safety check/reinspection my guess is they thought they were in compliance and someone dropped the ball. Minor issue, and I wouldn't worry to bits about it. The fine is a bit excessive, but I guess the FAA has to fund their existence somehow.
Nothing out of the normal here. If they replaced the pump (the most expensive option) then decided to not do a 2 minute safety check/reinspection my guess is they thought they were in compliance and someone dropped the ball. Minor issue, and I wouldn't worry to bits about it. The fine is a bit excessive, but I guess the FAA has to fund their existence somehow.
With good reason. If there was a fuel leak that they missed because they didn't do a safety check it could have potentially become a major issue.
The pump they replaced was already leaking...which was why it was replaced to begin with...
This is seriously such a small issue. The part was replaced and it was fixed. They didn't document doing a test.
Makes for a great news story for the naive though.
Yeah, here the local news interviewed a few dimwits at the airport, probably providing them with inaccurate or loaded information, and of course, those people will "think twice about flying with US Airways again".
But they'll probably jump on WN.
Quote:
The airliner was an ETOPS, or extended operations, plane: one certified to fly long distances on routes that previously were off-limits to single-engine or twin-engine aircraft.
Location: The Raider Nation._ Our band kicks brass
1,853 posts, read 9,692,270 times
Reputation: 2341
A US Airways spokeswoman said, "We are in the process of responding to the FAA and believe the flights were flown in compliance with applicable rules."
(CNN) -- Federal officials have proposed penalizing US Airways $354,500 because, they say, the airline flew a jet 916 times after failing to perform required tests and an inspection on an engine repair.
Those are the two most important parts of the article.
If you think about it, the pump was tested at least 916 times. That doesn't count engine starts that didn't involve flights.
Seriously though, I will guarantee that any replacement fuel pump was leak checked, and tested before the cowlings were closed.
The airline will most likely disagree with the way the FAA is interpreting the regulations in the MPPM. This was at the most a paperwork error, not a performance error.
I haven't read where the pump was replaced, but my guess would be PHL, CLT, PHX, or maybe even PIT. Every one of those stations is staffed with company mechanics. I would like to read more details on exactly what happened.
I guess this is the part that I should tell you that I am a 757 ETOPS qualified US Airways mechanic.
If you think about it, the pump was tested at least 916 times.
That's how I read it. Once it went up in the air, it got load tested in the working environment. Then it got banged around for 915 more flights. Can't ask for a better test.
I was intrigued that the media included ETOPS, which was, apparently, included to dramatize the event. I see the ETOPS component as being favorable; if the part had failed (which, after 916 flights, it is apparently holding up), the aircraft is certified to fly for an extended period of time... on one engine.
This is the part where I should say I'm just a frequent flyer. We're not all as gullible as I think the media wishes we were, when some non-event like this arises.
Journalists are taught how to sell stories. Exaggeration is their favorite way because it is so simple. Research takes too much time and effort.
I am willing to bet the repair was tested (hell, I test a replacement fuel pump on a car before I drive it) but the proper check box was not marked. Since the thing has flown over 900 times since the repair I would guess the job was properly done. IMHO the fine was unjustified as a verbal warning should have been sufficient
.
FAA can be finicky like this...I used to work for a major engine manufacturer as a field service mechanic under their O&R license. One time they sent one of my co-workers out with a crew to do warranty stuff on triple 7's for United. He wasn't in the "drug pool" and before he went out, they took a **** test from him and sent him out before getting results back. He worked on about 4 aircraft before his "positive" test came back (big pothead) and he was recalled immediately. FAA got wind of the positive test and every AC engine mod (4 planes) he did had to be re-done. FAA was so pissed they almost revoked our O&R license over this clown.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
