Velo probably knows about this more than I do, but I don't believe Alaska skipped any required mx checks. My recollection is that they received approval prior to extending their mx intervals along with prior approval from Boeing for the new inspections. Big difference than what we have here.
They did skip checks and pencil whip some of them.
The investigation then proceeded to examine why scheduled maintenance had failed to adequately lubricate the jackscrew assembly. In interviews with the Alaska Airlines SFO mechanic who last performed the lubrication it was revealed that the task took about 1 hour, whereas the aircraft manufacturer estimated the task should take 4 hours.
[6] 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."
[6] Laboratory tests indicated that the excessive wear of jackscrew assembly could not have accumulated in just the 4 months period between the September 1999 maintenance and the accident flight.
[6] Therefore, the NTSB concluded that "more that just the last lubrication was missed or inadequately performed."
[6]
In order to monitor wear on the jackscrew assembly a periodic maintenance inspection called an "end play check" was used. The NTSB examined why the last end play check on the accident aircraft in September 1997 did not uncover excessive wear. The investigation found that Alaska Airlines had fabricated tools to be used in the end play check that did not meet the manufacturer's requirements.
[6] Testing revealed that the non-standard tools ("restraining fixtures") used by Alaska Airlines could result in inaccurate measurements, and that it was possible that if accurate measurements had been obtained at the time of the last inspection, these measurements would have indicated the excessive wear and the need for the replacement of the affected components.
[6]
FAA oversight
A special inspection conducted by the FAA in April 2000 of Alaska Airlines uncovered widespread significant deficiencies that "the FAA should have uncovered earlier."
[6] The investigation concluded that "FAA surveillance of Alaska Airlines had been deficient for at least several years."
[6] The NTSB noted that in July 2001, an FAA panel determined that Alaska Airlines had corrected the previously identified deficiencies. However several factors led the Board to question "the depth and effectiveness of Alaska Airlines corrective actions" and "the overall adequacy of Alaska Airlines' maintenance program."
[6]
Systematic problems were identified by the investigation in the FAA's oversight of maintenance programs, including inadequate staffing, its approval process of maintenance interval extensions, and the aircraft certification requirements.
[6]
I'm not even responsible for checking for the airworthiness certificate, FCC permit, registration, etc... It's all considered a mx function. And I want nothing to do with any of it. I have enough responsibilities as it is. I'm happy to hand off some responsibility to mx.
