So I just spoke to a mechanic at United. He told me this ratio has more to do with the amount of hours a plane is in the air compared with the amount of man-hours of work put in on the plane, including during mandatory overhaul. Hope that helps!Originally Posted by ryanbryan
One more little tidbit-- a plane's maintenance needs are very different from a car's. For example, the F-22 in the news these days? The Office of the Department of Defense says the plane requires 34 hours of maintenance for every single hour of flight it makes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22#Maintenance
Yes, and they indicate in the referring article that the plane requiring that many hours to service/maintain is a very big problem. And fighter jets are a completely different story to airliners - for one thing, they are not designed to make money, and they fly under and are maintained under completely different conditions.
Forget everything you've read, and think about it:
Who would buy anything that is out of service being repaired or maintained MORE than it is in service? It just does not make sense, and is most certainly not true. Not by hours, not by ratio, not by nothing. If it were true, every airline would have gone out of business a long time ago.
Last edited by ryanbryan; 08-09-2009 at 12:49 AM.
The FAA has requirements for maintenance that are met by aircraft owners according to the rules under which they operate. It is all spelled out and very simple. Military operates under their own jurisdiction. You need not wory about that.
There's a lot about the airline industry that is counter-intuitive to folks who cannot understand how high-precision it is. I spoke again to a commercial pilot today in Chicago. I mentioned to him what you said. He said "and just how does he think anything ever gets into the air?"
air crafts should be given great TLC as they are very expensive and they carry lives. I hope that there will be less tragedies that will happen in the future.
The EU doesnīt act as any kind of "Spectra" hidding facts to people, because we live in democracies as well. They may try to do so, but at the ends things will be uncover. We have free media. The most interested in finding the black boxes are AF and Airbus for obvious reasons. Passengers and the French has lost their confidence on the airline and Airbus is absolutely interested in clearing the reputation of its model, which is so far impressive. Even if the weather radars didnīt work properly, these have been fitted by american company called Honeywell. So they might be interested in changing the causes, never not to find the boxes. Doesnīt make sense to me.
Airbus has been designing fine and excelent planes for generations. Sometimes itīs hard for Boeing understanding that Europeans can design good planes too. EADS as itīs called now, has inherited the European excelence of aircraft manufacturing, which throughout history has given excelent pieces like BAC-1-11, VC10, Concorde, Caravelle, Fokker. And throughout years they have been able to sell planes even in the US. Airlines, pilots, technicians, who trust Airbus are not stupid, and wouldnīt fly planes which are not safe. Airbuses are flown regularly in the US, and used by reliable airlines with so significant problem issues. Of course all models develop some specific failures, but not as to tell them they are unsafe. Presidents, VIP, kings and queens use corporative planes. Even President Sarkozy uses a brand new A330 to fly himself and his wife.
So far any, any Airbus in their long history has never developed any flaw, nor even crashed by a design mistake. At least until now.
Last edited by keltic; 12-07-2009 at 10:13 AM.
View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
Reply With Quote
Visit Homepage