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

This has gotta suck for FLYI

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
If I remeber correctly, UAL and AA encountered a similiar problem at about the same time frame. All due to a software problem
 
tarp said:
Old news.

The violations occurred under the old ACA banner and during a time when company was switching maintenance computer programs.

Blame it on the computer. How convenient.
 
anotherwannabe said:
Blame it on the computer. How convenient.

Well, no. Garbage in garbage out... more like the user.

There is probably a perspective here that the instant gratifiy-ers don't want to see....
 
The stupity of some people amazes me.

1.) We use a system called MAXIMO for MX records. It is a system that works much like MS Access on steriods. It is great once you get everything up and running, but as JM pointed out garbage in garbage out. We have had several times when instead of checking parts at flight hours it was put it in the computer as checking at cycles. We have had several simple math errors that ALL airlines have when moving to a new system. Nothing too big that has not been corrected.

2.) One aircraft in question came from Midway, instead of uploading all the flight time the aircraft had at Midway they started it with zero time. Thus when it was due for a MX check on our records it was in reality overdue. Stupid, yes it was, dangerous not at all. All aircraft and parts have lifespans, but all manuufactors put in a "fudge factor" just in case something happens the part will not fail right at 1000 hours of flight time for example.

3.) We self disclosed, that right there shows you it was not a big deal. With all the paperwork associated with running an airline it is VERY easy to hide a few, or several, infractions from the FAA. If we disclosed it on ourselves it must be because we wanted the FAA to know about it.

4.) If you are in the airline buisness you know that this sort of crap happens EVERY single day. You CANNOT, repeat CANNOT, run an airline without bending some rules here and there. If you think you can you not being honest with yourself. It is all about risk managment, some things you overlook, some big things you do not. If you made a mistake you own up to it and move on. I mean how many people here have exceeded an aircraft limitation once of twice , either it being riding the barberpole and hitting the clacker or putting the flaps down 3 knots fast. Like I said this crap happens all the time.

Finally, people in glass houses should not throw stones. UAL/AA/DAL/MESA/SKYW/AW/REP ect have al had the run ins with the FAA for either MX issues, training issues, flight issues, manual issues, ect...... For one pilot to take pleasure on something like this is stupid.
 
Peleton said:
For one pilot to take pleasure on something like this is stupid.

Nope. It's just flightinfo.
 
AutoCars Armed said:
That is really scary. 455 flights! WTF...Like how mgmt gambles with peoples lives to make $$$..

I think you mean to LOSE $$$. These guys are just like the legacies when it comes to spending in the red . . .
 
Peleton said:
The stupity of some people amazes me.

1.) We use a system called MAXIMO for MX records. It is a system that works much like MS Access on steriods. It is great once you get everything up and running, but as JM pointed out garbage in garbage out. We have had several times when instead of checking parts at flight hours it was put it in the computer as checking at cycles. We have had several simple math errors that ALL airlines have when moving to a new system. Nothing too big that has not been corrected.

2.) One aircraft in question came from Midway, instead of uploading all the flight time the aircraft had at Midway they started it with zero time. Thus when it was due for a MX check on our records it was in reality overdue. Stupid, yes it was, dangerous not at all. All aircraft and parts have lifespans, but all manuufactors put in a "fudge factor" just in case something happens the part will not fail right at 1000 hours of flight time for example.

3.) We self disclosed, that right there shows you it was not a big deal. With all the paperwork associated with running an airline it is VERY easy to hide a few, or several, infractions from the FAA. If we disclosed it on ourselves it must be because we wanted the FAA to know about it.

4.) If you are in the airline buisness you know that this sort of crap happens EVERY single day. You CANNOT, repeat CANNOT, run an airline without bending some rules here and there. If you think you can you not being honest with yourself. It is all about risk managment, some things you overlook, some big things you do not. If you made a mistake you own up to it and move on. I mean how many people here have exceeded an aircraft limitation once of twice , either it being riding the barberpole and hitting the clacker or putting the flaps down 3 knots fast. Like I said this crap happens all the time.

Finally, people in glass houses should not throw stones. UAL/AA/DAL/MESA/SKYW/AW/REP ect have al had the run ins with the FAA for either MX issues, training issues, flight issues, manual issues, ect...... For one pilot to take pleasure on something like this is stupid.



You need to hang out with some of our MX guys and buy them a beer...after a couple you'll find out that MAXIMO is not "great when it's up and running". We are the only airline that uses it...WHY????....because other airlines are smart enough not to buy a cheap program used for tracking MX for TRUCKS.

There's no excuse for a MX fine...
 
We did not buy MAXIMO, it was a given to us, though we have paid for updates that always seem to be lacking. Checking the website of MRO it is kinda nice to see the many companies that use MAXIMO, including Boeing, USMC ect. It is not the super program like UAL'S, or other major airlines, but it is light years ahead of what we once had.

Secondly, MAXIMO is not so much the problem as the lack of training and the low quality individuals you get for 9/hour in the IAD region, that input information into the program. Management does not hire the right individuals for the data processing and software management functions. Like ALL airlines they are trying to get by with the least amount of people they can. The program is an asset tracking program, and it does what it is designed to do.

No excuse for a MX fine....are freaking kidding me. Every part of an airplane must be FAA/PMA approved, tracked, serviced, ROR, ect and everything has to be documented for the FAA and kept on file for years. Just the shear size of that task guarentees that errors will occur. It is just a matter of when and if the FAA finds about it and if they choose to fine the company. I mean UAL got in trouble for using speed tape illegally on a 727 a couple of years ago, yet I did not see that talked about too much. AA/AE did not service the oil correctly on the ERJ's for years and the got less of a fine than what was proposed to us. MX issues can and will occcur daily in this industry, just no way around that fact. The idea is to minimize the errors and try to learn from them.

BTW..The Mx guys are great to hang out with, if you get a chance check out the tool boxes in CAE. They have all the confiscated pictures from the 328 years taped to the tops.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top