The issue that has been swept under the carpet by the media is the question of what kind of major maintenance Air Canada kept rescheduling. If you keep rescheduling maintenance, eventually it will cause a major safety concern. I, for one, would not like to be concerned about maintenance at 30,000 to 45,000 feet. I would also like to know how long Air Canada has been deferring work that is required on their fleet. If an airline does not get the heavy maintenance work done, it can result in catastrophic failure of safety and control systems possibly leading to a fatal accident. For the record, Air Canada has an extremely good safety record - it's last fatal accident was in June of 1983. That said, if you skimp on the maintenance, a serious accident such as Alaska Airlines Flight 261 in 2000 which involved insufficient lubrication of flight control systems sent the plane spiralling into the Pacific ocean killing all on board. I am not saying that will happen to Air Canada or any other Canadian airline for that matter, but flight 261 is a good example of how something as simple as insufficient lubrication of nuts, screws and assemblies will lead to a plane going down. Upkeep of control systems are considered heavy maintenance because you have to disassemble large parts of the aircraft in order to get to the parts.
I feel the media should ask the question regarding possible maintenance lapses and the increased likelihood of a critical incident occurring because of it.
Notes about the author of this post:
- I do not work for an aviation maintenance company or airline in any capacity
- I do not work for any aviation regulator ie Transport Canada, FAA etc.
- I am not part of an aerospace union
- I am not part of any trade organization
- I am not part of any media organization
- I study aviation accidents, safety and performance issues as a hobby
