The Disturbing Truth About How Airplanes Are Maintained Today (2015)
vanityfair.com
vanityfair.com
I think for the planes in the air now I'd want to know what kind of refurbishment happened for planes that had to be put in long-term storage during 2020, and what pressures the crews that did those rebuilds were under to get planes back in the air quickly, as opposed to routine offshoring from 10 years ago.
A “licensed” mechanic needs to “certify” or sign off on the paperwork that a given task was done to a given standard following a given procedure.
The person certifying the work does not have to be the one that did the actual work, but it’s their license on the line so they tend to make sure it was done correctly.
This is how unlicensed mechanics / apprentices actually learn and eventually get their “license”.
There are varying levels and abilities for these licensed mechanics too in terms of what they are allowed to do, and also the organisation licenses too they’re working for.
It’s not quite as sinister or as “Wild West” the author wants to make it out, but outsourcing was inevitable in the airlines economic model.
US regulators are at fault for not setting regulations which define whatever behavior you think is missing here.
Under regulation: the government’s fault.
Airlines run the planes, and it is their duty not to kill their passengers. It’s their fault. If they kill people, that’s their fault, and they should go to jail for it. The lack of regulation can in no way be used an excuse by dangerous businesses to avoid responsibility for their dangerous behavior.
I do agree the government should increase airline regulation. The airlines ran the lobbying campaigns to deregulate to begin with. That should also be made illegal.
It was the entrants who wanted deregulation. The old-time airlines did not welcome the competition. (as mentioned in Southwest history in US and Virgin's in the UK and etc...)
The system works pretty well for the amount of flights it carries, compared to the olden days when it was more risky.
This is a 2015 snapshot of how it was before almost a decade of further decline to where we are now . . .
Maybe I’m missing something but wtf does being able to speak English have to do with the ability to maintain an aircraft?
Is everyone at Embraer or Airbus or Bombardier expected to speak English?
I’m starting to feel like this is some kind of gaslighting. Boeing aircraft have had major design flaws that have resulted in the death of hundreds of people, why suddenly are we seeing discussions about maintenance?
If the maintenance crew speaks one language, and airline management, pilots and regulators speak another, that’s a problem.
On the other, the vast majority of technical and scientific literature worldwide is English language based. As is all air traffic control. So, reasonable chance the maintenance manuals are in English.
That said I am with you on disliking the implicit xenophobia in the question.
From TFA:
> The work is labor-intensive and complicated, and the technical manuals are written in English, the language of international aviation. According to regulations, in order to receive F.A.A. certification as a mechanic, a worker needs to be able to “read, speak, write, and comprehend spoken English.”
I mean how can Vanity Fair claim on one hand that English is a necessity for FAA certification, and on the other hand claim that these workers don’t speak English? Is this a fault of the airlines, the maintenance workers, or the FAA? Or is it just xenophobic reporting? Do workers in Mexico even need to be FAA certified? I know for a fact that’s not the case for LAMEs in Australia.
In terms of the technical manuals, the ones for Boeing may well be in English, but I suspect the ones written in Brazil, France and Italy don’t start life in English. And the use of English is certainly not universal in aviation (just see how often Simon complains about accident reports at AVH).