F
R

4
-
2
0
0
0

HOW SAFE IS SAFE?

Just a few days after the tragic end of Alaska Airlines flight 261 at the Californian coast, defects in the horizontal stabilisers were found in further 21 aircraft of the same type (MD-83) operated by the US airline. The suspected reasons were maintenance works that were confirmed as being accomplished by those responsible, yet the tasks were not fully completed or did not occur at all. Understandably, the airline heavily rejected this accusation.

But how can such a thing possibly happen? The answer is rather simple: pressure resulting from lack of time.

"Nothing is more expensive than an airliner on the ground." This is the motto according to which maintenance experts in international air traffic rise to higher and higher levels of efficiency.

An aircraft in a hangar does only one thing: it is costing money. Money not only for the hangar fee but even more for working and spares costs as well as costs of opportunity. This is the economic summing-up of what an aircraft could perform if it only could do what it has been built to do, which is flying and therefore carrying passengers and earning money.

But a hangered aircraft cannot achieve this, and that is why it has to be brought up into the air as fast as possible. This continues to be even more important regarding the price wars in the international air traffic business and the resulting fierce competition. Basically a competitor is able to take use of the business opportunity created by his rival's grounded airplane.

The business with ground times has to be fast, even that fast that occasionally one or more eyes are shut at maintenance tasks. What has to appear as unbelievable to the passenger who trusts his life to the world's airlines, appears to be gruesome reality at some places: flight safety as Russian roulette.

The reasons are obvious: time is money, and when there is too few of the first and not enough of the last, a deadly combination may arise.

For example the German Lufthansa invests approximately eight percent of its passage division's expenses, around 1,5 billion DM, in maintenance of a fleet which belongs to the newest fleets in the international airline business. The results are new aircraft in best possible condition.

But if some airline that is not to be specified here, is lingering in the loss zone with a three-digit deficit and a, in comparison to Lufthansa, larger and older fleet, therefore requiring more intensive maintenance, there certainly will not be 1,5 billion DM available to sufficiently service this fleet.

If one remembers the Boeing forecast saying that there will be one major crash every week from the year 2005 onwards regarding the present growth of air traffic and the resulting successive overload of the infrastructure which even today is insufficient in some areas, then a horrifying scenario develops which has to be avoided at all costs.

Such an endangerment of safety in air traffic is to be prevented for all reasons. This poses a clear task to the International Civil Aviation Organisation ICAO, the International Air Transport Association IATA, all national aviation authorities with their agencies as well as all airlines without any exceptions.

It is no overdrawn claim to be able to think of sufficient safety when buying a flight ticket. Personally, I do not want to draw out my last wish before every flight.

From page 6 of FLUG REVUE 4/2000