Punching Bag

I get the feeling that the editor thinks some erroneous aircraft maintenance is the result of over worked maintenance personal (see Editor's Notebook, February 2006, page 6). He may be right in some cases, but more often than not their workload has increased due to added requirements by the FAA. Now, if they were government employees like the FAA, they could address the problem like the FAA does and simply say we cannot do the work until we get more help or allotted more overtime pay.

I think our aviation industry has problems and in many cases maintenance personnel are not the source but are the punching bag for many of them. Our poorly managed airlines are a big part of our industry and a big problem in the industry. When they get in financial trouble, they lay off experienced pilot and service personnel and their efficiency decreases until they go bankrupt. Recently one of the large airlines came out of bankruptcy by cutting services and service personnel. We are to believe this is a move to a higher standard of aircraft maintenance and overall safety?

In my opinion, the main reason why much of our aircraft maintenance is contracted to non-certified repair facilities or done outside of the FAA Certified Repair Stations is due to the simple fact that the FAA has made it very expensive to maintain an FAA Certified Repair Station. They simply cannot compete with non-certified repair facilities. Ask any FAA Certified Repair Station what the FAA has done over the past several years to help improve the overall efficiency of their operation? I am not sure what the answer would be, but I would bet it would not be favorable to the FAA.

In the general aviation segment of our industry we have fewer aircraft than we had a decade ago and more FAA personnel and paper trails that they provide us with. We get less production with more FAA intervention.

I think it is only human nature for one to look for less work and more pay. The FAA has a standing line of personnel from the aviation maintenance industry wanting employment in the FAA. While many have the qualifications, I have not heard nor do I know of any FAA personnel looking for employment in the aviation maintenance field.

Ralph Graves, President

ASCO Aeronautical, Inc

Columbus, Ohio

Editor's response: The issue of maintainer fatigue was brought up by the National Transportation Safety Board as a problem in its hearing on "Most Wanted" safety improvements. Recall that, unlike for pilots, there are no duty time restrictions on hours worked by maintenance technicians.

A trained maintainer's back-up should be the quality of supervision and inspection. If that's not happening, then the industry is short-cutting its responsibilities.

With respect to FAA oversight, the Department of Transportation Inspector General (DOT/IG) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have produced reports citing shortages and deficiencies in FAA oversight of maintenance. Some of those problems relate to the geographic distribution of inspectors as well as the shortage of people.

The FAA is probably guilty of giving the aviation maintenance industry what it wants. And what does it want? In short, to prosper and profit. It can only do that via efficiencies and productivity - but that's too often re-interpreted among the less scrupulous as short-cutting. That is what has to be guarded against.

-- David Evans, Editor