G,day guys
mono I believe you are still missing the point. Troubleshooting can require x amount of time to complete. How long is a piece of string?
Should commercial pressure force troubleshooting to be broken off before completion and the link to the TOWS system has not yet been established as part of the troubleshooting process and the regs allow for MEL use without troubleshooting, who takes the rap?
Well we now know, the techs.
As an engineer I would have thought your instincts would kick in to support your fellow colleagues in need and not kick them in the groin.
However, the maintenance crew did make some mistakes
The techs in my opinion after reading the report many times did nothing wrong. They went on board a defective aircraft, commenced troubleshooting in a genuine and honest manner, yet were let down by regulations designed to keep the commercial machine moving.
There is NO requirement in the regulations to troubleshoot prior to using the MEL. Pilots can use the MEL without troubleshooting. Therefore there is no requirement to be a hotshot and come directly to the cause of a defect in a short period of time whilst under pressure.
Those techs were in the middle of their troubleshooting actions, were put under pressure break off the troubleshooting to get the aircraft under way. Their mindset at the time, in the middle of the troubleshooting process was that the probe heating was defective. There was no regulatory support for the techs to keep that aircraft on the ground as the MEL allowed an escape route.
99% of you would have done exactly the same under the same circumstances without the benefit of hindsight.
And the icing on the cake is that when a body apparently representing engineers raises the issue, you criticise them too (not u mono).
I am quite surprised at this response from the investigators and AEI.
How about this for a scenario?
Forget the actual defect. Aircraft manufacturers inform the operators that the MEL should only be used after troubleshooting has traced the defective item.
Real life is completely opposite as we all know and the MEL is the first port of call for most defects and this is supported by the operator. The regulations are vague and you as a tech are going to get slaughtered in a court of law for your actions because as the judge said "you were more concerned about avoiding a delay rather than finding the cause of the defect"
Under those circumstances I support anybody or organisation calling for tougher regs and I absolutely support my fellow colleagues in what must be a bloody awful experience for them.
Sorry if this is a bit rantish but similar thing going on here with the sunstate engineers.