Ladies and gents,
Have to say I have seen good and bad maintenance all over the world.
Once, did some ad-hoc work at a certain small, grass airfield, near a motorway inter-change in the north of England.Observed several pilot/owners, who were not LAEs, doing their own maintenance, well beyond that allowed under the terms of their PPLs.
Unfortunately, conscientious engineers are often ridiculed (sometimes by their peers!) for applying the right standards. You will always find a gash hand somewhere. In my experience, some owners of aircraft are quite prepared to pay large sums for their toys but are unwilling to pay for good maintenance. I have seen some horrendous wiring behind the panels of most light aircraft I have had the misfortune to work on. This is often carried out by pilots themselves or engineers with a licence but not the right licence!
I've seen the industry from hands-on to QA and back again. To be frank, a very, very few members of the maintenance fraternity are happy to pull flankers as a way of ingratiating (apologies to those pilots for whom this is a big word)themselves to managers. Some managers are only too happy to condone or encourage this.
It surprises me all the more now that we have a large database of information and empirical evidence showing that failure to follow procedures can cause serious trouble.
An engineer needs to remember that his signature lasts for the life of the aircraft and then some.
I have also seen pilots "conniving" (or attempting to connive) with engineers to minimise the impact of a defect, especially on tight turn arounds. "It's not in the book but...." or "...should I write it up?"
Here's another. Tech log entry: "For info...." followed by a bona-fide defect! The engineer's response is often "Info noted". The implication of the "For info" is "it's probably OK!" This generates a similar mind set with the engineer. Remember, "For info" means nothing. A defect is a defect!!
Let's all remember this, you get bad pilots too! Remember the "Bristol Cowboy" (dodgy 707)?
