On 21 Dec 2005 12:12:52 -0800, wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:
Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:04:54 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

I doubt an 18 passenger 1946 seaplane is an Al Qaida target. Radio
reported a witness said the wing was on fire and then fell off.
===================

I agree, probably a blown engine.

....and that's exactly why I rarely set foot in an airplane any more. I
know
that the mechanic who works on my truck is obsessive about details. As
far
as aircraft, I have to assume that the mechanics have intravenous
heroin
drips in their arms. Actually, "assume" is wrong. I was on a USAir
commuter
prop plane last year which had bald tires. That's all I need to know.
Bald tires are good. More rubber in contact with the runway. The
brake control software and antiskid will make sure hydroplaning doesn't
happen.

Look at the tires on a drag racing car.

Yeah OK.

Meanwhile, lots of the aircraft are severely old, and the airlines are
bankrupt.
And a number of airlines have contracted out maintenance to third-world
depots.

You saying those 3rd world people are stupid and incompetant?



I would say that third-world airline plane mechanics are more likely to
sign off on maintenance and repair than a US mechanic would, are more
likely to be working for a company whose licensing and record-keeping
requirements are looser than a US company's, are less likely to have the
same level of training and experience as US mechanic, et cetera.
Therefore, they are less competent. No, I don't think they are stupid.

Those third world depots are owned and operated by US or european
maintenance contractors. Lufthansa Technick usually runs all of the
depots handling airbus planes, and I don't know the name of the
american company that handles boeing planes. In addition,
Pratt&Whitney has third-world maintenance depots to keep their engines
running, as do most of the companies that make the various
subassemblies in an airplane. If any of those planes fly to the US,
the FAA reviews their maintenace record. It is the contractor's best
interest to make sure they are maintaining the hardware to the
standards set forth by the FAA, Airbus and Boeing. If they dont, the
two airframers and/or the airlines will happily contract someone else
to do the work.

Having these depots in the US and/or Europe will mean the labor would
be extremely high (thanks to unions). The labor is cheap in the third
world. Gotta be an idiot not to take advantage of it.

I heard on the radio that there were cracks found in the wing that broke off.
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 21 Dec 2005 12:12:52 -0800, wrote:


Harry Krause wrote:
Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:04:54 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

I doubt an 18 passenger 1946 seaplane is an Al Qaida target.
Radio
reported a witness said the wing was on fire and then fell off.
===================

I agree, probably a blown engine.

....and that's exactly why I rarely set foot in an airplane any
more. I
know
that the mechanic who works on my truck is obsessive about
details. As
far
as aircraft, I have to assume that the mechanics have intravenous
heroin
drips in their arms. Actually, "assume" is wrong. I was on a USAir
commuter
prop plane last year which had bald tires. That's all I need to
know.
Bald tires are good. More rubber in contact with the runway. The
brake control software and antiskid will make sure hydroplaning
doesn't
happen.

Look at the tires on a drag racing car.

Yeah OK.

Meanwhile, lots of the aircraft are severely old, and the airlines
are
bankrupt.
And a number of airlines have contracted out maintenance to
third-world
depots.

You saying those 3rd world people are stupid and incompetant?



I would say that third-world airline plane mechanics are more likely to
sign off on maintenance and repair than a US mechanic would, are more
likely to be working for a company whose licensing and record-keeping
requirements are looser than a US company's, are less likely to have the
same level of training and experience as US mechanic, et cetera.
Therefore, they are less competent. No, I don't think they are stupid.

Those third world depots are owned and operated by US or european
maintenance contractors. Lufthansa Technick usually runs all of the
depots handling airbus planes, and I don't know the name of the
american company that handles boeing planes. In addition,
Pratt&Whitney has third-world maintenance depots to keep their engines
running, as do most of the companies that make the various
subassemblies in an airplane. If any of those planes fly to the US,
the FAA reviews their maintenace record. It is the contractor's best
interest to make sure they are maintaining the hardware to the
standards set forth by the FAA, Airbus and Boeing. If they dont, the
two airframers and/or the airlines will happily contract someone else
to do the work.

Having these depots in the US and/or Europe will mean the labor would
be extremely high (thanks to unions). The labor is cheap in the third
world. Gotta be an idiot not to take advantage of it.

I heard on the radio that there were cracks found in the wing that broke
off.
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

Normally is when a wing falls off.
Reminds of years ago, when a car had the front spindle break, My buddy was
contracted by the attorney to go cut off the A arms and take the spindle
assy to a testing lab. Report came back that the A arms had been hacksawed.
I gusee the lab could not see or get the part about a broken spindle.

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:32:46 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:



It is the FAA that sets documentation requirements.


What is your point? If the tail number doesn't start with an "N,"
don't expect "American" standards to be followed.

I don't know what the point is, really. I just don't like flying as much as
I used to. When I was a kid, I loved it, but the equipment was young, many
of the pilots were mature and battle-trained, there weren't labor issues
leading to disgruntled employees, etc. Now, the industry seems like a great
big cluster phuque.

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:02:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


I don't know what the point is, really. I just don't like flying as much
as
I used to.

I pretty much just refuse to fly commercial.... it just isn't worth
the hassle. My interests are in General Aviation, which is seeing a
resurgence... since businesses are trying to regain some control of
the flying experience....



.......there weren't labor issues
leading to disgruntled employees, etc. Now, the industry seems like a
great
big cluster phuque.

That's a pretty apt description. Corporate raiders have cruised in and
stolen most of the real value of the airlines.... stepping out the
open door trailing their platinum parachute... leaving a certain
demise to those left behind.

Exactly. Now, if you knew this was the situation at your preferred auto
shop, and the specific mechanic who'd been working on your cars for 20 years
suddenly had a ****y attitude and started doing sloppy work, I think you'd
find another shop.