Archangel7
Verified Law Enforcement
- Joined
- May 15, 2013
- Messages
- 1,420
- Reaction score
- 16
Which statement isn't attributed to AS? Do you mean the statement about the red mohawk?
We only have a report from AS to suggest DM did not clear vehicles, in this particular article. IMO it seems also to suggest that AS failed to carry out his responsibilities to bring contracts for the hangar, and DM was not impressed. Safe to say IMO that Mr S was not happy about being challenged by the son of the head of the company and therefore had nothing good to say about him regardless. JMO
DM was getting the cart before the horse on the signed contracts.
Before any reputable air carrier will physically sign contracts with a MRO they will need to be informed about several areas of certification and in many cases and that may involve reviewing their(the MRO) safety records and their supply chain with generally a no tolerance for substitution on parts or materials of construction WITHOUT written notification to the air carrier and the air carrier's permission. Some of this by federal law. A US carrier would likely be under at least the Safety Management System for Air Operators, MROs, and Training Organizations. http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/sms/specifics_by_aviation_industry_type/air_operators/ and possibly CFR 1910 on PSM Hazardous(flammable) Jet A or JP-4
Also much surrounds the security of a MRO and the employee documentation prior to a contract being physically signed, tours would highlight any issues, and boy would a hanger full of freaks and stolen cars/trailer/motorcycles be a negative security impression..
JMO