This article left me with as many questions as I had before. Maybe more.
U.S. passenger and cargo airlines Tuesday sought to stop, or at least change, a Federal Aviation Administration proposal to overhaul management of structural fatigue in older aircraft.
There are no easy answers here.
Wow. Obviously safety is the primary issue here.
The biggest passenger carriers and their cargo counterparts said the agency’s proposal last April was premature and incomplete.
They also said the FAA significantly underestimated what it would cost the airlines in maintenance and aircraft retirement costs to comply with the regulation.
Safety, yes. But tell that to a family whose breadwinner loses their job because their employer went out of business.
For the first time, the FAA proposed strict criteria for determining life limits for commercial aircraft, potentially affecting thousands of aircraft already in service.
The plan would also push new costs — at least $360 million over 20 years — onto an industry with several carriers that fly many older planes, the FAA said.
I'm glad I don't have to come up with a solution to this.
Manufacturers, such as The Boeing Co. and Europe’s Airbus, would pick up about 10 percent of the cost while airlines would pay the rest. But industry estimates costs in excess of $3 billion, if certain scenarios involving aircraft retirements were considered.
But then there are the scary issues.
Currently, manufacturers must determine an expected aircraft life and show serious fatigue damage will not occur in new designs. There is no rule limiting operation once a plane exceeds its estimated life and fatigue becomes a concern.
Well there's one thing for certain.
A House aviation subcommittee hearing on FAA safety programs is scheduled for Wednesday.
An intelligent solution will probably not be forthcoming soon. Politicians are involved.
<grin>
Comment Preview