Feedback

Correction:

We incorrectly wrote that Japan recently changed rules permitting the use of PMA parts in Japan in the article Wencor/JAL Alliance Signals PMA Influx in Asia (June 2004, page 8). While Wencor's contract with Japan Airlines is another step in the adoption of PMA parts by Asian operators, Japanese airlines have been using PMA parts for many years, thanks to a relaxation of Japanese rules that took place more than six years ago. PMA parts companies Heico and McKechnie have been selling their parts to Japanese companies since that change. — Matt Thurber, Editor

(Re: Howie Fuller's letter "Why Mechanics Should Join Associations," April, page 6) I agree with all seven of his technician traits. My problem with joining PAMA would deal more with not belonging to an organization that seems to be more centered on its own survival rather than providing the services outlined in a charter created a number of years ago by a group of real aviation mechanics.

I belong to PAMA and I also belong to a local PAMA chapter. The subject of supporting PAMA National was discussed at our last local meeting, and there was little to no interest in even talking about them. Howie's rule # 2 seems to apply (low tolerance for incompetents). PAMA National's determination to run the average maintenance technician off, by raising the dues to an absolutely stupid amount ($70) and trying to lure the big money airline union mechanics into their membership has really turned us all off.

The $70 membership fees and lavish conventions geared toward A&Ps with corporate backing (I am one of those) have just about run off the average guy who loves aviation and works for a shop that cannot afford to pay these new dues or send them to the conventions. Join your local PAMA Chapter, or if you do not have one to join, start one. I find it much more rewarding and certainly more enlightening.

Dave Wheat, A&P
Columbus, Ohio

The one mechanic that told you he would not say anything about damaging an airplane does not belong in aviation! No matter how screwed up a company or their policies are, peoples' lives are more important than anybody's job! We can all find another job.

Joel Stackman
Indianapolis, Indiana

Just read your "Editors Notebook" column (May 2004, page 3). Let me guess, FedEx, right? How do I know? Because I'm a victim of an anal micro-managing individual who slapped three letters against me on technicalities, which incidentally are abused on a daily basis at FedEx. FedEx is good place to be, if you've got a good manager that knows how to trust his mechanics. The infraction letters? By the way, it's three in a 12-month period, and they don't have to be for the same infraction. Again, if you have a good manager, it's generally not a problem.

The bottom line is the managers in this business are nothing more than pen pushers. Practically none have actually wrenched on aircraft. And in my opinion, therein lies the real root of the problem. These guys know nothing of what it's like to get out there in 10- or 20-degree weather and get a plane up. Or change a #2 CSD on a DC-10 in the winter or rain or both.

Former Purple-Tail Mechanic

(via e-mail)

Note: the above reader admits that his final letter was for closing his eyes near the end of his shift after all his work was done. "...and I was tired," he wrote, "so I went to the back break room and kicked back for the remainder of my shift."

I enjoy reading your magazine every month but feel you missed the mark on the increase of maintenance-related incidents (Fundamental Focus, March 2004, page 3). To find the cause I think you have to look at what has changed in the last decade, that is the increased use of outside contractors. I am not condemning all of these facilities, but I can tell you the quality of the work I have seen leaves a lot to be desired.

I work for a major carrier that has dramatically shifted its maintenance work to outside contractors. I work at one of the line stations that get these airplanes after a check has been done. Upon arrival the crew normally has several write-ups regarding aircraft performance, some that cause it to go out of service. We have found rig pins left in place, which snapped under hydraulic pressure but caused binding, instruments and instrument panels unsecured, bolts not properly safetied, just to name a few. Our latest encounter is with the repainting of our aircraft. They have been using sanders over windows and static ports. They have even painted over static ports.

With cost-cutting a major concern, these facilities must make bare-bones bids, which in turn puts a lot of pressure on the mechanics on the floor to get the airplane out. Neither the FAA nor the airlines the work is being performed for are able to supply the proper oversight to these facilities to assure a quality product. Both need to take a greater responsibility in quality assurance.

The incidents will continue to increase until someone steps up to say more oversight is needed. I hope this is done prior to more crashes.

I agree with your last point that it is all of our responsibilities to triple check our work and maintain the professionalism of our trade. When we all do that at the majors, commuters, vendors, and general aviation the respect, pay, and attributes will surely follow.

Name withheld by request

I am writing on behalf of the entire workforce that constituted the United Airlines Indianapolis Maintenance Center (closed since May 2003). By way of publishing this "view" from AeroStrategy (MRO Forecast, May 2004, page 16), you have enabled yet another travesty of American business ethics to go unpunished.

My diatribe might at first appear to be self absorbed, but if you dare to look at the financial results published on United's own website, you could read this small footnote to the lives of 1,500 A&P technicians and figure out who is lying to whom.

"April 29, 2004, First Quarter Operating Loss of $211 Million Reflects Strong Improvement of $602 Million Year-Over-Year."

And I point you to this glaring fact: aircraft maintenance, which includes primarily maintenance outsourcing and maintenance materials, increased $67 million or 57 percent year-over-year. So, how in the world does an analyst (AeroStrategy) continue to blather on about the potential of 50 percent or more savings by outsourcing?

I will not let anyone perpetuate the lie that it was a group of greedy mechanics that caused any financial trouble at UAL. I will sleep better when the entire board at United is in jail for swindling shareholders and taxpayers.

Tom Gould
Carmel, Indiana

Send letters to: Editor, Aviation Maintenance, 1201 Seven Locks Road, Suite 300, Potomac MD 20854. Fax: 301-340-8741. E-mail: am@pbimedia.com. Include name, address, and phone number. We will withhold contact information if desired. Aviation Maintenance reserves the right to edit letters.