Showing posts with label FAA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FAA. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

FAA faults Phl repair station

AP, Rainier Allan Ronda, Rudy Santos
Published June 23, 2011  The Philippine Star

WASHINGTON – A repair station in the Philippines that services planes for nearly 50 airlines around the world has shown a pattern of stubborn problems that safety experts say underscore concerns about the airline industry’s outsourcing of maintenance to facilities in developing countries.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspections of Lufthansa Technik Philippines in Manila said the facility had repeated difficulties in following US regulations on matters ranging from record keeping to calibrating tools used to make repairs.

The records, which cover inspections from 2008 through last month, also cite recurring problems with training workers to FAA standards and unfamiliarity by in-house inspectors at Lufthansa Technik, a subsidiary of Lufthansa Airlines, with US regulations.

Lufthansa Technik’s “quality assurance department demonstrated an inability to effectively audit the repair station for compliance with all aspects of (US regulations), specifically, appropriate facilities, tools/equipment, personnel and training requirements,” according to an inspection in May.

A 2009 inspection noted that two in-house inspectors were unfamiliar with FAA aircraft maintenance regulations. The inspectors had recently received four hours of training in the regulations, but weren’t tested for their knowledge afterward, it said.

The same inspection noted that “throughout the repair station numerous personnel are not aware of which airline they are providing maintenance for” and which country’s regulations applied.

The reports show problems scattered throughout the facility rather than in one department, which indicates the problems are systemic, said John Goglia, a former National Transportation Safety Board member and an expert on aircraft maintenance. The result, he said, is an erosion of the margin of safety.

“As they expand into Third World countries to take advantage of the labor rates and lower costs these problems keep coming back because you just don’t have the people infrastructure,” Goglia said. “How many trained people do you think there are in the Philippines, in Malaysia and in Indonesia? They are expanding a big operation with a relatively thin technical workforce.”

The company recently began construction of a new hangar so that Airbus A380s – the world’s largest airliner capable of seating up to 853 passengers – can be serviced at the facility.

The records were obtained from the FAA through a Freedom of Information Act request by a labor union, Unite Here, which represents employees of Lufthansa’s catering subsidiary in North America, SkyChef. The union and the airline are in contract negotiations.

“None of the mentioned FAA audit findings had significant impact on safety and reliability of aircraft and components,” Lufthansa Technik said in a statement.

“Each finding has been treated as an opportunity to enhance the existing system, as it is an industry standard to deal with findings from internal and external audits,” the statement said. “Corrective actions have always been implemented and accepted by the FAA.”

However, the report on last month’s inspection said numerous problems cited in an August 2010 inspection still had not been corrected. “An acceptable corrective plan has been submitted, but due to recent failures, an on-site follow-up inspection ... is required,” it said.

Bill Voss, president of the Flight Safety Foundation, an industry-supported group that promotes aviation safety worldwide, said the inspections indicate Lufthansa Technik Philippines has a problem with quality control, but he cautioned against making more general judgments about offshore aircraft repair stations.

“It’s a huge leap to suggest this is representative of all foreign repair stations,” Voss said. “I’m not sure offshore equals bad.”

The FAA said in a statement that it holds foreign repair facilities to the same standards as US facilities. Repair facilities that don’t meet those standards can lose their certification. The FAA has certified Lufthansa Technik Philippines for repairs since 2000.

The Transportation Department Office of Inspector General announced in December it has launched an investigation of the FAA’s oversight of maintenance performed for US passenger airlines by outside contractors, including oversight of overseas repair stations.

A 2008 report by the inspector general said nine big US airlines farm out aircraft maintenance at twice the rate of four years earlier and hire outside contractors for more than 70 percent of major work. While most of the outsourced work is still done in the US, often at nonunion repair shops, more than one-quarter of the repairs are done overseas, it said.

A bill backed by House Democrats that would have required the FAA to step up inspections of foreign repair stations from once a year to twice a year died last year. It was opposed by the European Union, which threatened to cut back on planes its airlines send to repair facilities in the US.

Lufthansa, one of the world’s largest airlines, owns 51 percent of Lufthansa Technik Philippines, while the Philippine MacroAsia Corp. owns 49 percent.

The only US carrier that sends planes to Lufthansa Technik Philippines for major maintenance work is Hawaiian Airlines, which flies to destinations in the Western United States, the Pacific and Asia.
 Lufthansa, Swiss Air, Qantas, LAN, Philippine Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Vietnam Airlines, Gulf Air, Kuwait Airways and Jet Airways are among some of the other airlines that use the facility for major work.

Meanwhile, Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) director general Ramon Gutierrez said they would still look into FAA’s report even if Lufthansa Tecknik services mostly foreign airlines and is subject to inspection only by FAA or Europe’s DGAC (Générale de l’Aviation Civile).

Gutierrez said CAAP’s Aircraft Maintenance Organization inspection unit should also audit Lufthansa Technik.

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Cessna AD "Will Affect 36,000 Airplanes"



By Glenn Pew, Contributing Editor, Video Editor
Published June 15, 2011  AvWeb.com


The FAA's final rule regarding Cessna seat rails applies to all serial numbers of Cessna aircraft ranging from Cessna 150A to T337H-SP models -- 36,000 aircraft, according to the FAA -- and is effective as of June 17, 2011. The Airworthiness Directive (AD) supersedes a prior one; it clarifies inspections that look for cracks in seat rails and details under what circumstances parts must be replaced. Action, unless already taken, is required within the next 100 hours time-in-service or within the next 12 calendar months. The FAA estimates that the inspections alone should cost each owner about $85 and combine to produce $3.06 million for the repair shop industry. Cost of replacement parts and work as needed could add another $395 to an individual owner's tab. Specifics follow.
The AD covers 150, 152, 170, 172, 175, 177, 180, 182, 185, 188, 190, 195, 206, 207, 210, T303, 336, and 337 series airplanes. It aims to prevent seats from slipping while the aircraft is in flight, potentially leaving a pilot out of reach of the controls, or leading to dangerous unwanted control inputs. The old AD requires repetitive inspections and replacement of parts under specific conditions. The new AD (PDF) retains all the requirements of the previous AD, but adds steps to the inspection procedure and improves associated graphics.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Part 121 Rules May Come to Part 135 Carriers

By Kerry Lynch
Published June 14, 2011  AVIATIONWEEK.COM

FAA, in the throes of finalizing new flight, rest and duty regulations for Part 121 carriers, is considering extending the rules to Part 135 operators, says FAA Flight Standards Director John Allen. Speaking during the National Air Transportation Association’s Air Charter Summit June 8 in Chantilly, Va., Allen did not provide a time line on a potential proposal for Part 135, and concedes the agency has its hands full with mandates from last summer’s Airline Safety and FAA Extension Act of 2010, which stemmed in part from the 2009 Colgan Air crash near Buffalo, N.Y. He added, however, that future rulemakings will include a flight-and-duty-time proposal for on-demand operators, and “what you see in 121 will translate to 135.”

The science of fatigue has emphasized human physiology, he says, adding, “Flight rest is a human issue, not just [based on] how you operate.” He thinks the Part 121 final rule, expected to be released in August, will have enough flexibility to work for Part 135.

John Duncan, manager of FAA’s Flight Standards Air Carrier Division, adds, “It’s coming for everybody.” He echoes sentiments that the “commonality is human physiology. It applies to everybody.”

National Air Transportation Association President James Coyne expressed concern about the costs and manpower requirements that would be necessary should on-demand operators be subject to regulations designed for scheduled operations. “Should we be worried by the economic impact of the proposal?” he asked Allen. Noting that FAA officials previously had pledged to treat 135 differently than 121 flight and duty time, Coyne adds that a straightforward application of the Part 121 rules to Part 135 “just seems unfair.”

Coyne notes that the government’s response to air traffic control fatigue issues is to hire more controllers. “If [FAA] treats the 135 world just like 121, can we send the bill to the government [to hire more pilots]?” he asked. Coyne urged FAA to consider the differences between the two types of operations when formulating the 135 flight-and-duty-time proposal.

Allen responded that any rule will have to “move through the regulatory juggernaut,” and that industry should stress the differences between the operations during the comment period that would come with the Part 135 flight-and-duty-time notice of proposed rulemaking. Comments hold FAA accountable, he says, adding, “We made significant adjustments” to the 121 rules as a result of the comments. “We learned a lot from the comments” and Part 135 will benefit from that.

Allen also notes that “real-world issues will be taken into consideration” in developing the flight-and-duty-time rules. When asked by an Air Charter Summit attendee to consider the recommendations of the Part 125/135 Aviation Rulemaking Committee when formulating the Part 135 flight-and-duty-time proposal, Allen responded that those recommendations would remain part of the conversation. “We know it’s a different community than 121,” he says. “We are aware of the great work the [ARC] did and will take that into account,” adds Duncan.

But Duncan also reiterates Allen’s sentiments about their full regulatory plate, and says of Part 135 flight and duty time, “It’s not going to happen soon because there are other priorities.”