posted Tue November 30 2004 01:06 AM
Posted 11/28/2004 8:58 PM

Editorial from USA TODAY regarding swissair:





Today's Top News Stories


FAA flies blind to risks
For employees in many fields, "outsourcing" is a dirty word. Airline
passengers may now have reason to feel the same way.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), guardian of air safety,
depends on more than 13,000 private companies and individuals to
perform a variety of safety-related tasks: testing applicants for
pilot's licenses, signing off on the installation of complex airline
equipment, and the like. As in the private sector, it's a money
saver.

But a new report from Congress' Government Accountability Office
(GAO) finds gaps in the system, with dangerous implications.

The report was requested after USA TODAY exposed laxities that may
have contributed to the 1998 crash of a Swissair jumbo jet that
caught fire and plunged into the Atlantic off Canada, killing all
229 aboard.

Canadian safety officials couldn't pinpoint the location of the
short-circuit that started the fire, but the plane's entertainment
system was a primary suspect. The installation of that system was
overseen by a company that the FAA had repeatedly criticized, even
briefly lifting its authorization to do FAA safety work.

Problems at the company were plentiful. On one Swissair plane, the
inspection firm certified the entertainment system before it was
functional. And prior to the Swissair job, the FAA found problems in
11 other safety certifications that the company had issued.

Now, the GAO has found numerous other weaknesses in the outsourcing
system, including:

•Lax oversight. During the past seven years, the FAA's Washington
headquarters has evaluated only six of the 18 programs that use
outsourcing. Even when red flags have appeared, the FAA hasn't
always followed up. For instance, in 1999, the FAA found that
inspection firms in the Orlando area had signed off fraudulently on
test results for hundreds of airline mechanics seeking certificates
to work on planes. The FAA was forced to retest them. Yet, the
mechanics program, which includes 385 private examiners, has not
been evaluated since then, according to the GAO.

•No penalties. Inactive, unqualified or poorly performing firms are
not identified and removed expeditiously. FAA field offices told the
GAO that the firing process is too time-consuming. In one case, an
FAA engineer said it took two to three years.

•Overworked inspectors. Some FAA inspectors had too great a workload
to conduct required surveillance.

The FAA points to the GAO's conclusion that there are no "systematic
safety problems" in the agency's oversight.

That, however, sidesteps the real danger: The FAA's spotty oversight
leaves it blind to potential problems. Its lack of follow-up leaves
questionable operators in place to approve pilots, mechanics and
complex aircraft alterations, such as Swissair's system.

Crashes are rare, and millions of flights each year operate safely
under the system. But the FAA shouldn't need another Swissair to
know that without quality control, its outsourcing system is flying
blind.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-11-28-our-
view_x.htm