PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Haddon-Cave, Airworthiness, Sea King et al (merged)
Old 3rd Aug 2010, 21:06
  #233 (permalink)  
Rigga
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anglia
Posts: 2,076
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
First, Many thanks to Mandator for clarifying BBGs points so well - even I understand it now! (Do I know you?)

In the civil world we have ETOPS aircraft and non-ETOPS aircraft.
Often worked on by the same (Ground and Flight) staff but the work is conducted using a separate ethos in the care of ETOPS with specific regard to certain checks and standards, all of which are to maintain levels of redundancy within specific systems and components using timely and accurate process adherances in actions and documentation.

These methods, developed to improve Twin Engined aircraft reliability for flights over large distances without suitable support, are so effective that many multi-engined aircraft types have also now adopted the rules and also improved their reliability.

I don't see any reason for not applying these types of practice changes to military maintenance while fleets go through their programmes of certification conversions - indeed to practice the new policies for all the fleets would help with subsequent Airworthiness Reviews and certifications.

If there is a "real" reason to fly (such as in a war for instance) then this would be DECLARED as an "Uncontrolled Environment" and any missing maintenance could be performed or re-checked on re-entry to a "Controlled Environment". It also requires honesty and willingness by all to operate with all the books open (no secret-squirrel domains)

Trouble is - this "dream" means that ALL the maintenance staff (IPT, EngO, SNCOs, Lineys and even Contractors) sticking to the rules and waiting for queries to be answered before allowing crews to punch holes in clouds.

The details quoted are civil but the practices can easily be adopted with a bit of willpower and some decent leadership. They cost nothing but training sessions, supervision and the enforcement of intended standards by REGULATORS, who know what is needed and what tricks are used to get around it, not short-term career climbers or long-term pension seekers.

As I stated before, there is no reason to cut short any maintenance checks - except for REAL reasons (and excercises at home or abroad aren't one of them)

...Rant over.
Rigga is offline