AMTonline Blogs

AMT received a press release this past Monday. It discussed legal action being taken to increase mechanics pay at Great Lakes Aviation.

There is a dispute going on between Great Lakes Aviation and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) over pay raises for the mechanics working at Great Lakes.

Since the press release was distributed by Great Lakes Aviation, I thought it would be about how the company was pursuing legal action to fight pay raises sought by the union.

Boy was I wrong. Instead, the company is taking legal action in order to give its mechanics MORE MONEY! The union is contesting the company’s proposed pay raises for various reasons including hoping to increase union membership at the facility (there is currently an open shop agreement, and only 10 percent of employees are union members).

You can click here to read the full story.

So, what are your thoughts on this strange situation at Great Lakes Aviation?

Thanks for reading,

Joe Escobar

Yesterday, the NTSB cited a wide range of safety issues as a result of its first investigation of an unmanned aircraft accident (To read the press release click here). NTSB chairman Mark V. Rosenker said the recommendations address “a wide range of safety issues involving the civilian use of unmanned aircraft.”

The investigation involved the April 25, 2006 accident in which a turboprop-powered Predator B operated on a surveillance mission by the United States Customs and Border Protection (CPB) crashed in a sparsely populated residential area near Nogales, Arizona.

I found several things interesting about the report. First of all, there was no “cockpit” voice recorder. Even though pilots of UAVs are in remote control stations, there are no recorders that can give investigators a record of communications between each other, other pilots and air traffic control. It makes sense that these requirements should extend to UAVs.

Second, the NTSB determined that the probable cause of the accident was the pilot’s failure to use checklist procedures when switching operational control from a console that had become inoperable due to a “lockup” condition, which resulted in the fuel valve inadvertently being shut off and the subsequent total loss of engine power.

The NTSB discovered that the “lockup” condition had been experienced before, but not corrected.

The FAA would not let any other aircraft take off with a known problem with the pilot’s control system. Why would anyone think it was OK to do so with an unmanned aircraft?

We shouldn’t allow a lower level of maintenance standards on unmanned aircraft. Equally important, we should not allow a lower level of operational procedures or airworthiness requirements.

You can read the whole report here.

Thanks for reading,

Joe Escobar

This week, I visited Messier Services new maintenance facility in Queretaro, Mexico. The facility does landing gear and hydraulic component work for Bombardier CRJ and Airbus A320 aircraft, with expansion to 737NG and A300 components expected soon.

I had visited Messier Services’ U.S. facility in Sterling, Virginia about four years ago. There were many A&Ps working there, and the facility was performing a lot of landing gear and hydraulic component work.

Two years ago, Messier Services realized it had outgrown the Sterling facility, and needed to open a new facility to accomodate expected growth. It eventually chose Queretaro.

The Sterling, Virginia facility has since been shut down, with all the work that was previously done there now being done in Queretaro. Most of the equipment was moved from Sterling to the new facility.

As I walked around the facility, I must admit I was impressed. The work was being performed just like any top-notch facility I have seen in the U.S. The processes were meticulous, with every attention to detail being paid. Current maintenance manuals, detailed inspection processes, and quality assurance steps were all incorporated. By the way, before the facility opened, Messier sent many of the technicians (who are certified by Mexico’s aviation authority) to facilities in the U.S, France, U.K., and Singapore for intensive training on the landing gear systems and processes they would be working with. Training lasted from several weeks to several months, depending on the job being performed.

During a press conference, I asked about drug and alcohol testing. The facility is certified as an FAA Part 147 repair station, and I asked if Messier Services’ technicians at the facility were required to undergo random drug and alcohol testing as workers at repair stations in the United States are. The facility manager told me that although there are no requirements for drug testing, they chose to implement a program anyway, and it is in effect.

Messier Services’ V.P. of sales and marketing told me he tries to get potential customers to visit the facility. He said there is a negative perception about foreign repair stations by some, and he likes to counter that objection by having the customers visit the facility and see first-hand what a top-notch facility it is.

After my visit, I would agree it is a top-notch facility. Messier Services has invested a lot in the facility and the workers to grow its business. It seems to be in a good position to accomplish that growth.

Thanks for reading.

Joe Escobar

While at NBAA last week, it struck me the growing number of aviation companies that have been purchased and sold by private investment companies. I have seen quite a few companies go through these types of acquisitions in the seven years I have been with AMT. It is sometimes difficult to keep up with who owns what company.

I often speak with with the companys’ public relations folks during these acquisitions. They tell me “this is a positive step forward for the company” or “these investors are in it for the long run.”

But how do these acquisitions affect the aircraft maintenance professionals who actually perform the work? If you have gone through one of these transitions, how has it affected you and your fellow aircraft mechanics?

I have heard one side of the story. Is there another side of the story that needs to be told?

Private investment acquisitions in aviation — good, bad, or ugly?

Thanks for the feedback,

Joe Escobar