Share This Page

FAA oversight of fixes to aircraft called lax

| Monday, May 6, 2013, 6:45 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The government's oversight of hundreds of domestic and overseas repair stations that service airliners is ineffective and doesn't target the factors most likely to present safety risks, the Department of Transportation's inspector general said Monday.

The Federal Aviation Administration's supposedly risk-based safety inspection system “falls short of being truly risk-based,” especially for foreign repair stations, a report by the inspector general said. Among the inspector general's criticisms is that the FAA's oversight lacks the rigor needed to identify safety deficiencies and verify that problems are corrected once identified.

To save money, airlines have increasingly outsourced their aircraft repair and maintenance to repair stations in countries where labor rates are cheaper. The FAA annually inspects 559 repair stations worldwide, while aviation authorities in France, Germany and Ireland inspect 162 other stations under agreements with the United States.

Auditors from the inspector general's office visited or contacted FAA inspection offices and 27 aircraft repair stations in the United States, Brazil, China, New Zealand, Peru and Singapore.

“The FAA's ability to conduct effective and consistent inspections of foreign and domestic repair stations is hindered by a lack of standardized inspection processes,” the report said.

Inspectors don't use a standardized checklist for conducting inspections, don't enter complete information on their inspections into FAA's inspection database and don't effectively communicate the results of their inspections with repair station officials afterward, the report said. Inspectors were often vague about the problems they found, citing the safety regulation that was violated without explaining what specifically the facility was doing that violated the regulation.

“Officials from one foreign repair station were so frustrated by poor communication with its inspectors that they decided it was easier and more efficient to fly to the United States to meet with FAA for clarification and guidance,” the report said.

In another case cited in the report, officials for a repair station told auditors they didn't hurry to address oversights because the FAA inspector wrote out the requested changes by hand instead of typing, therefore they assumed the changes weren't significant. FAA inspectors are supposed to use web-based spreadsheets and other risk-assessment tools. But nearly all the inspectors interviewed by auditors said they were not trained to use the tools, did not recall the training or regarded it as poor, the report said.

Since FAA inspectors don't have the time during inspection visits to examine in depth each area of a repair station's operations, the agency decided five years ago that inspectors would analyze data from past inspections to decide which areas deserved the most attention. However, the report said inspectors have been using only the results of the previous year's inspections to guide their decisions .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.