search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
FROM THE EDITOR


COMMON SENSE?


Just as we were preparing to go to press with this issue, I received a press release from Congressman John Garamendi (D-CA) announcing the passage of his bipartisan “Aircraft Maintenance Outsourcing Disclosure act of 2019 (H.R. 5119). The press release states: “...[H.R.4374] would require airlines to


EDITORIAL DIRECTOR


JOE ESCOBAR jescobar@DOMmagazine.com 920.747.0195


disclose the maintenance history for their aircraft fl eets, specifi cally the location and date an aircraft underwent heavy maintenance — the most comprehensive test for an aircraft. Airlines would also be required to submit an annual report to a new Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) database that tracks the maintenance history of their aircraft fl eets. The database will also indicate whether maintenance was conducted in the United States or abroad; by FAA-certifi ed mechanics or not; or by airline employees or third-party contractors. Recent airline accidents raise serious concerns about the increasing trend of outsourcing maintenance, particularly to countries in Central America and Southeast Asia. These foreign outsourcers do not have to be FAA certifi ed, and are not subject to the drug and alcohol testing required in the United States for mechanics. Outsourcing has also eliminated thousands of middle-class jobs in the United States and created signifi cant safety concerns for passengers. ‘At my fi rst hearing as a member of the


Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I asked the CEOs of several major airlines if their planes were maintained in the United States. Sadly, none of them knew the answer. Airline passengers have the right to expect that the planes they fl y on are maintained under the highest possible safety standards by qualifi ed mechanics,’ says Congressman Garamendi. ‘My bipartisan bill prioritizes transparency so that FAA regulators and the public know who services the planes they fl y on and where the service takes place.’ ‘I’m pleased that the Transportation and


Infrastructure Committee passed this critical legislation, and I thank Chairman DeFazio for including my bill in the committee’s larger legislative package,’ Garamendi concludes.”


How is this going to increase Airline safety?”


I believe it won’t. First of all, the FAA is well aware of the maintenance outsourcing practices at the Airlines. Second, the fl ying public’s fl ight decisions seem to be driven mostly by cost. I doubt they would change their purchasing habits based on where the aircraft are maintained. After all, the mainstream media has been reporting on the increased outsourcing trend, yet I’m not aware of any signifi cant changes in fl ying trends. Here’s an idea — how about ensuring that all foreign-based FAA certifi ed repair stations are held to the same regulatory oversight and standards as U.S.-based repair stations? They would be subject to the same enforcement actions for non-compliance such as fi nes and certifi cate revocation. There is another piece of legislation making its way through the House — the Safe Aircraft Maintenance Standards Act (H.R. 5119). If passed into law, the bill would require security background checks for foreign maintenance workers, impose risk-based safety and security inspections for foreign repair stations, require drug and alcohol testing for mechanics performing safety-sensitive work, require unannounced inspections by FAA aviation safety inspectors and ensure foreign mechanics and supervisors meet FAA certifi cation standards. This would basically level the playing fi eld for domestic and international repair stations. Past eff orts to do this have failed. From what I understand, national sovereignty trumps (no pun intended) FAA regulatory requirements. In my mind, the common sense answer to this dilemma is simple — if you want an FAA repair station certifi cate, you must meet all of the regulatory requirements mandated by the FAA. If you can’t or choose not to do that, then you don’t get a repair station certifi cate — period! Unfortunately, common sense doesn’t seem to be too common these days. Thanks for reading, and we appreciate your feedback! – Joe Escobar


4 DOMmagazine.com | dec 2019 jan 2020


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68