Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Another article on the crash

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Jetmech41

Active member
Joined
Aug 27, 2003
Posts
41
FAA relies on honor system
Colgan Air's maintenance records scrutinized in fatal crash investigation.

By K.C. MYERS and DAMIAN PALETTA
STAFF WRITERS
HYANNIS - Federal aviation regulators lean on airlines to police themselves in matters of maintenance and safety procedures.

Whether proper maintenance procedures were followed is a key question for investigators looking into Tuesday's crash of a Beechcraft 1900D, 100 yards off Point Gammon in West Yarmouth. The accident killed Hyannis-based pilot Scott Knabe, 39, and co-pilot Steven Dean, 38.

On Monday night the plane, operated by Colgan Air for US Airways Express, underwent regular maintenance to its trim mechanisms, which control the plane's equilibrium while in flight. The plane crashed into Nantucket Sound on its first flight after that maintenance was performed.

The Federal Aviation Administration ordered airlines to make changes to the maintenance of all 154 Beechcraft 1900s in service in the United States, after the crash of a Beechcraft 1900D killed 21 people in Charlotte, N.C. The FAA is working with the National Transportation Safety Board to determine whether another order regarding Beechcraft maintenance is necessary because of the Cape crash.

But even if another order is issued, it can take time for authorities to make sure airlines adhere to the regulations.

Those investigating Tuesday's crash say they don't know whether the FAA orders issued earlier this year were followed correctly.

The NTSB and the FAA don't know because the FAA doesn't always require certification from airlines, or their contracted maintenance providers, to make sure government orders are carried out.

"The responsibility is put on the shoulders of the airlines or the maintenance company," FAA spokesman Jim Peters said. "It's in their own self-interest."



Cape investigation
Colgan Air continues to operate, and the company's maintenance workers who worked on the doomed plane are still on the job, according to NTSB air safety investigator Robert Gretz. Colgan uses the Beechcraft 1900D to carry about 200 passengers a day between the Cape, islands, Boston and New York City.
The NTSB has not yet determined the cause of Tuesday's crash. A full investigation will take six to eight months, Gretz said.

Before the plane crashed, the pilots reported that they had lost control of the 19-seat airplane. Gretz said the black box showed the plane took a 30-degree plunge shortly after takeoff.

Mechanics had worked on the plane's elevator cables the night before. Three parts of the elevator system were replaced, Gretz said. Elevator cables affect the plane's pitch, or up and down direction.

The procedures mechanics use to service the elevator equipment were changed after the Charlotte crash. That plane, operated by Air Midwest for US Airways Express, had also undergone similar, but not identical, maintenance days before the fatal January accident.

The NTSB's preliminary report in the Charlotte crash found that an incorrect cable adjustment in the tail caused the pilots to lose control of the plane.

Following the North Carolina crash, the FAA issued an "airworthiness directive" requiring all owners of the Beechcraft 1900s to report the results of an elevator inspection within 10 days after the Jan. 27 directive.

These elevators, located in the tail of the plane, were the first pieces of equipment NTSB inspectors examined in Tuesday's crash.

"The team that is working at the hangar, they are working on the tail first," Gretz said.

He added investigators would inspect every part of the plane, not ruling anything out for the cause, in the early stages of the investigation.



Inspections, audits
After the initial inspection from the Jan. 27 maintenance order, the FAA asked for no further certification to assure that the directive would be carried out.
The FAA directive stated that without proper maintenance the elevators could be "mis-rigged."

"This could lead to insufficient elevator control authority and loss of control of the airplane," the FAA directive said.

The directive required all work on the Beechcraft 1900s' elevator systems to be done by two mechanics, FAA spokesman Jim Peters said. One mechanic is required in the cockpit operating the controls that move the elevator up and down, and one looking at the tail, where the elevators are, to see if they move properly, he explained.

This directive must be followed every time work is done to the elevator system, Peters said.

But the FAA leaves it up to the airlines to make sure it gets done.

"We cannot have an FAA inspector standing over every single mechanic, doing every little thing," said Les Dorr, FAA spokesman at the Washington, D.C., headquarters.

But airlines are supposed to keep detailed maintenance records on each airplane, Peters said. The NTSB obtained Colgan's maintenance records Friday and investigators said they would examine them immediately.

If the records show a violation of FAA rules, the FAA could fine the maintenance company or the airline, Peters said.

The FAA inspects every maintenance hangar in the country annually, Dorr said.

The FAA also can do random audits, to see if records and maintenance schedules are in order, Peters said.

The NTSB could take months to find out why the Colgan Air flight that left Barnstable Municipal Airport on Tuesday crashed into Lewis Bay three minutes later.

Colgan Air Vice President Mary Finnigan did not return calls for comment Friday.

(Published: August 31, 2003)
 
If the records show a violation of FAA rules, the FAA could fine the maintenance company or the airline, Peters said.

A violation ??

How about criminal charges of 2 counts of criminal negligence and manslaughter.
 
rjcap said:
A violation ??

How about criminal charges of 2 counts of criminal negligence and manslaughter.

Occasionally the FAA gets dinged by the NTSB in cases like these for improper rules or oversight etc. etc.. The Feds sure are defensive in their comments early on in this case. What are they trying to head off?:confused:
 
Jetmech41 said:
...and the company's maintenance workers who worked on the doomed plane are still on the job...

This is outrageous! If a Police Officer shoots someone he is put on administrative leave pending investigation. These guys just clock in and are allowed back to work?????????

Every 1900 pilot in the States, with backing of the unions, should park the things!

PS...I sort of agree with rjcap
 
NJA Capt,

I've been wondering the same thing...there have been three Beech 1900 accidents/incidents involving flight control malfunctions after the aircraft coming out of maintenance in the last three months - SkyWay at Milwaukee, Air MidWest at Charlotte, and now Colgan in Hyannis.

Why are the 1900s still flying? The Lear 45 fleet was grounded and, I believe, there was no accident or loss of life preceding it. Is this just politics or what?
 
This is outrageous! If a Police Officer shoots someone he is put on administrative leave pending investigation. These guys just clock in and are allowed back to work?????????

How does this correlation between the use of deadly force in a justified/unjustified police shooting case and a currently unexplained crash of an airliner work?

In one case, you're assuming that the mechanics did something wrong, even before a full investigation has proven anything.

In the case of the policeman, you know he fired his gun and you know someone got shot. The only unkown, is whether or not the shooting was justifiable.

I don't see the correlation.
 
chperplt,

When you write, "Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers", are you referring to printed reports regarding maintenance being accomplished on Colgan's Beech 1900 the night before the crash, to reports that the maintenance workers are still on the job, or ?
 
WrightAvia said:
I don't see the correlation.

In either case, there is a loss of life, whether intentional or not, as a direct result of someone performing their duty. (Don't confuse a police officer shooting someone in self defense with accidental/colateral injuries.)

If a mechanic is rigging things backwards, don't you think he should be sidelined until they figure out what happend? Or should he keep misrigging airplanes until then, and hope the CGs stay in a comfortable position?
 
Last edited:
Huh??!?

NJA Capt said:
In either case, there is a loss of life, whether intentional or not, as a direct result of someone performing their duty. (Don't confuse a police officer shooting someone in self defense with accidental/colateral injuries.)

If a mechanic is rigging things backwards, don't you think he should be sidelined until they figure out what happend? Or should he keep misrigging airplanes until then, and hope the CGs stay in a comfortable position?

Without putting words in WrightAvia's mouth, it hasn't been shown that it was a mechanic's actions that caused this. Why should the mechanic(s) be pulled?

AF:)
 
Without putting words in WrightAvia's mouth, it hasn't been shown that it was a mechanic's actions that caused this. Why should the mechanic(s) be pulled?

Why shouldn't they??

Let's do that math. Airplane goes in for service (1); Airplane takes first flight since service (2); airplane crashes less than 120 seconds after lift off (3); aircrew reports problem with the same system that was serviced (4); Aircrew is dead (5).

Just on the chance that a mechanic made a fatal error should be enough reason to pull said mechanic off line until the situation is resolved. Take them off the floor and make the parts clerk or let them do the paperwork.. What ever you do, keep him away from my airplane until the matter is resolved.
 
Okay

Fair enough...........but how would these guys/gals be compensated? A parts clerk or paper pusher doesn't get paid the same.

They don't do this for the fun of it. It keeps a roof over their heads.

AF:)
 
Fellas,
I think the point(s) Chprplt is trying to make is:

1. The mechs involved need to be put on administrative leave, paid mind you, until they're READY to come back. Many folks have been suffering through this, and the quality of work will obviously be questionable. I know that I can't concentrate worth a ding dang.
2. For the sake of morale, confidence and integrity our aircrews need not observe the same mechs working on aircraft until we at the very least have some sort of direction from the NTSB. I appreciate that this contributes to stress system wide as mechs are TDY'd to HYA and so forth, but this should not be a concern. Our teams mental health should be the prime directive at this point.

And finally, Articflier, for my two cents worth...

I would be willing to bet you that a paper pusher makes more money than an F/O, and doesn't have to pay back an $80,000 to $100,000 student loan. So forgive me sir, but in looking at your hours and profile, I can only assume that you've forgotten about the struggle most of us endure for this job. I think that your comment was, thus far, the most pointless and misdirected.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top