3 ms·

Going down the wikipedia rabbit hole, the Aeroflot page refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_

Going down the wikipedia rabbit hole, the Aeroflot page refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261 A few days ago I'd asked how the NTSB gets good co-operation from the airlines in these cases (thanks for the answers at the time!) The interesting point to me was the contrast between the 2 cases. In the Aeroflot case: > Three engineers who signed the jackscrew drawings were convicted. In the Alaska Airlines case: > The investigation then proceeded to examine why scheduled maintenance had failed to adequately lubricate the jackscrew assembly. In interviews with the Alaska Airlines mechanic at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) who last performed the lubrication it was revealed that the task took about one hour, whereas the aircraft manufacturer estimated the task should take four hours. This and other evidence suggested to the NTSB that "the SFO mechanic who was responsible for lubricating the jackscrew assembly in September 1999 did not adequately perform the task". Laboratory tests indicated that the excessive wear of jackscrew assembly could not have accumulated in just the four-month period between the September 1999 maintenance and the accident flight. Therefore, the NTSB concluded that "more than just the last lubrication was missed or inadequately performed". I couldn't find any mention of personal sanction. Just surprised by the difference in treatment between the 2 cases...

starfallg 7y ago
If you read further, there is an even more interesting bit - > In 1998, an Alaska Airlines mechanic named John Liotine, who worked in the Alaska Airlines maintenance center in Oakland, California, told the Federal Aviation Administration that supervisors were approving records of maintenance that they were not allowed to approve or that indicated work had been completed when, in fact, it had not. Liotine began working with federal investigators by secretly audio recording his supervisors. On December 22, 1998, federal authorities raided an Alaska Airlines property and seized maintenance records. In August 1999 Alaska Airlines put Liotine on paid leave, and in 2000 Liotine filed a libel suit against the airline. The crash of AS261 became a part of the federal investigation against Alaska Airlines because in 1997, Liotine had recommended that the jackscrew and gimbal nut of the accident aircraft be replaced, but had been overruled by another supervisor.In December 2001 federal prosecutors stated that they were not going to file criminal charges against Alaska Airlines. Around that time Alaska Airlines agreed to settle the libel suit by paying about $500,000; as part of the settlement, Liotine resigned. The deficiencies of the FAA regulator regime should be obvious from this case, but it seems that no-one was held accountable for Alaska Airline's lack of safety culture in its maintenance operation.

starfallg 7y ago

If you read further, there is an even more interesting bit - > In 1998, an Alaska Airlines mechanic named John Liotine, who worked in the Alaska Airlines maintenance center in Oakland, California, told the Federal Aviation Administration that supervisors were approving records of maintenance that they were not allowed to approve or that indicated work had been completed when, in fact, it had not. Liotine began working with federal investigators by secretly audio recording his supervisors. On December 22, 1998, federal authorities raided an Alaska Airlines property and seized maintenance records. In August 1999 Alaska Airlines put Liotine on paid leave, and in 2000 Liotine filed a libel suit against the airline. The crash of AS261 became a part of the federal investigation against Alaska Airlines because in 1997, Liotine had recommended that the jackscrew and gimbal nut of the accident aircraft be replaced, but had been overruled by another supervisor.In December 2001 federal prosecutors stated that they were not going to file criminal charges against Alaska Airlines. Around that time Alaska Airlines agreed to settle the libel suit by paying about $500,000; as part of the settlement, Liotine resigned. The deficiencies of the FAA regulator regime should be obvious from this case, but it seems that no-one was held accountable for Alaska Airline's lack of safety culture in its maintenance operation.