Inter check actioned - satis

[Ali Crom]

So many inspections , so little time.
Not to worry , Keith 'King of the Grabbers' can do the known problem areas with his welding goggles as a viewing aid in return for a hundred hours O/T and he's not even got cover.
That's not a problem as Sid ' The unsrupulous shift manager' will clear the cards later with his trusty ,well worn , communal stamp , conveniently left in the unlocked desk drawer for the other Masonic lodge members to abuse. It just needs another re-ink before the dirty deed is done.

Now it's last day of the hangar check , all but a few defects complete , routine actioned , function & leak checks finished , but hang on , where did all these additional job cards come from ?
Lucky there's Sid's stamp to hand.

Fact or fiction you decide but there's one thing remaining that bothers me .
In a safety dependant industry such as this , is it ethical to have a manager who although a full CRS holder & who's role is essentially an admin one is allowed continued use of his/hers stamp for other than signing the CMR and who's pay structure is performance related?
Conflict of interest, of course not!
So what should you do in a senario such as above , do you ?
A) Commit the ultimate sin by spilling the beans , assuming you can prove the allegation & suffer the retribution for your whistle blowing.
or
B) Turn a blind eye & carry on as usual because after all he/she is one of us , a licenced engineer & if you s##t on them your s######g on the rest of us.
or
C) Do the same as they do & succumb to peer pressure because it must be the norm if you want to get the a/c out on time .

AC.

[This message has been edited by Ali Crom (edited 16 February 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Ali Crom (edited 18 February 2001).]

[The Invisible Man]

Reminds me of the time, having just left The Air Force, working for a company long gone. A couple of ageing Viscounts had to depart that night for an African buyer. Runway was to close at 2200hrs. I saw the Crew Chief with a wad of job cards stamping like crazy. I thought all the inspection had been completed, on checking the cards later, none had been looked at, just stamped off to get he aircraft out on time.......FACT.....Still happens....who knows??

[LBMF]

T.I.M

Those wouldn't have been Alidair 700 series going to fly freight Zaire??


Great days working for Fu ( Ron ) Cannel!

[jetfueldrinker]

Yes it still goes on, supervision with a roller stamp boshing off stuff that hasn't been properly inspected. But that is all I am prepared to say on the subject.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the bean counters have won. The very people who depend on us to keep them in clover recon that maintenance can be done cheaper, quicker and more efficiently elsewhere, and we had better jolly well do our job faster, work anti social shifts that are slowly killing us, the aircraft must go out of the door on time and we must show that we are competative in a global market place or we will all be out of a job. Sound familiar?

[spanners]

Why not have an informal chat with your local surveyor?
No names are mentioned. I have done this before!!

[spannersatcx]

Not the real answer, but, due to previous unscrupulous people, maybe, we don't have stamps and have to sign everything. Point is get rid of stamps and the draw can't be left open!

[Bus429]

Ali, it's time to be brave. Your allegations should (must) be reported! This falls into the classification of a practice likely to endanger an aircraft or its occupants. Therefore, you MUST raise an MOR - it is MANDATORY. Theoretically, you have no choice.
Back in the real world, a CHIRP should be the choice if you are squiffy. Or, as Spanners suggests, a chat with the local office.
I have trouble understanding why an engineer would seek to jeopardise the safety of an aircraft, and his career, for the sake of commercial pressure.
It is time to act.

[Golden Rivet]

Now let me work that one out !

(Number of aircraft in fleet) X (number of maintenance inputs per year) X (length of time in service) = a sh#t load of MOR's

You'll have to get weasel to give you a hand to fill them all out!

Do you remember the time when a complete rack of uncertified job cards was found in an overhead locker 3 days after the check was completed and aircraft in service ?

------------------
Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread

[This message has been edited by Golden Rivet (edited 17 February 2001).]

[HeliEng]

This is, I believe, one of the many minefields of the aviation industry. At the end of the day, it HAS to be down to the individual.

YOU do not HAVE to sign for anything you are not happy with.

I too know an engineer who would stamp anything you put infront of him.

In this industry, the pressure is really on, when you have a customer shouting down your ear about getting their aircraft out which is now 2 days over time, there are some decisions which have to be made and I believe should be made from an experienced point of view.

Personally I would not sign for ANYTHING that I was not completely happy with, and if there is another engineer who will, fine, they can sign, at least then it isn't my career and life that is one the line if, God forbid, anything were to happen.

Maybe I am not taking the right point of view and I am being selfish, but you have to look out for No. 1 as no-one else will.

As far as telling someone goes, I think that you would be in a very dodgy situation. The person holding that authority has been given it for a reason, they didn't just get it out of a Cornflake box! Whether you are licensed or not, the desicions they are making may be made through knowledge and experience. Be careful. You have to remember that if all goes wrong he is going to be in BIG trouble, and depending on the extent, could be in the position of facing a prison sentance, and NEVER working in Aviation again.

Keep your mind clear, use YOUR licence and authority wisely and you cannot go wrong.


Fly safe and remember:-

Some days you are the statue and some days you are the Pigeon.

[This message has been edited by HeliEng (edited 17 February 2001).]

[diwai]

let the b******D hang himself if he likes, but let the rest of us keep our standards!!!!!
sloppy engineering is costing us MONEY cos some of us do not take a stand on unsafe practices.
the more of us that take a stand on unsafe or unworked signings/stampings, the more d**kh**ds we can get get kicked out...

safty first = job safety

[Rob_L]

Contacted CAA on two occasions, once to report a private owner flying a helicopter around with a main gearbox problem.
Response and this is a quote, "if he flies it past the window we might do something about it".

Reported a commercial operator who was falsifying techlog hours 25 missing in a 50
hour period!!!!!!!!

Well if it's more than three months ago we wont take action. The fact that the aircraft were still flying public transport didn't seem to bother them.

Don't waste your time talking to the disinterested.

[The Weasel]

Ali-Crom...Fact or fiction you ask? The only fiction here is that you've changed the names!The sorry state of affairs is that the regulatory authorities are failing to regulate. If that's not bad enough,they have now, in response to the worldwide shortage of engineers, lowered the standards to allow limited CRS authorisations to be issued to anyone capable of using a photocopier, all controlled by the maintenance organisations themselves. They charge you a fee to hold a licence,in return for which you are expected to police your own employer's violations, which could result in you losing your job for blowing the whistle.Little wonder nobody is reporting what goes on. Presumeably the regulatory authorities work on the principle that no news is good news. Unfortunately we are going to have to suffer the fate of the railway industry before we will see any improvement.I just hope the good guys amongst us can weather the storm ahead.Nice to see you all putting the message across in this post.

[Blacksheep]

Always remember, the licence doesn't give you authority to certify a job so much as the authority to refuse certification. Stamping things off without checking that the job is done properly doesn't make you an LAE, even my 5 year old nephew can manage to do that.

Though I'm no longer certifying I still regard my licence as a qualification to withold certification until I'm satisfied that the job is complete and the aircraft airworthy. Any fool can stamp a job off, but I have pride in my work. There are those who think that it is 'macho' to sign everything off regardless. They are worthy only of our contempt. While they may regard themselves as "Company Men" they are actually imposing additional costs and bigger delays later, when the shoddy or uncompleted work fails and the aircraft suffers extended down time for repairs. Or worse.

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[Kalle]

This is not something i come across in my everyday work, but i have seen tendensies from time to time in less serious organizations. Something that i think we should be aware of is that not all people think and act the same way as ourselves. The characters that we sometimes think just exist on a movie screen as a matter of fact also live beside us in real life. People with disturbances of literally psychopathic nature have a tendency to end up in management positions as the society today is sometimes awarding the qualities that comes with that kind of nature. Paranoia and theories of conspiracy, you might say, but both me and other colleagues have met people in these positions that, besides from taking the kind of descisions that you mention, also lack any kind of ability to show sympathy for other people. I hope to god it stays with just a couple of these cases and that it is not something style-forming for the society.

Life is a pitch, then you dive.


------------------
737

[NFF_PRF]

Where I used to work, a manager would stamp job cards to give the impression the check was running better than it actually was.
Example....he stamped elevator function check cards on day one of the check.
A little worrying because the elevators and horizontal stab were removed during the check.
His excuse was "someone will raise a job card for this anyway"
Eventually someone decided enough was enough and called in the CAA (give the man a medal)
Did the manager lose his job? NO he still works for the same company, in the same job!
He should of lost his job without question.
On the other hand there was a witch hunt to find the bloke that called the CAA.
Your opinions please.........

[PinPusher]

We have all slagged off "the world's favourite airline" before but they have been pulling engineering managers' stamps for the last year or so to remove this conflict of interest.

Doing something right for once?

[redtail]

Keep in mind that if you decide to do something about this type of behavior, it is up to you to make the case. A phone call to ask someone else to do all of the legwork doesn't go very far. Take a look at what is going on at Alaska Airlines, where the government and the airline are trying to put the cat back in the bag. Prepare to be the bad guy until everything is eventually resolved.

Good luck, as it is a difficult position to be in.

[NFF_PRF]

Engineering manager's stamps being removed. Not if you have avionic licences.
Less than a month ago a shift manager was signing the tech log!

[Ali Crom]

What a can of worms I've opened .
O.K. I admit such a serious issue will provoke & sadly , judging by some of the responses the senario is not an isolated one . I believe there are more of us who either suspect or know of individuals who carry out these acts of gross misconduct.

I have no doubt as to which was the correct answer to the last question I asked & was unwise to even suggest the other two as possible alternatives but sometimes sarcasm gets the better of me.
It would be equally irresponsible to take action against these individuals acting on suspicion & hearsay alone so without evidence to back up the allegation I would not be able to take It further. However it is the very people who work with these individuals everyday & who witness the illegal & immoral actions who are in the best position to act. If they have already but to no avail & as some have stated the CAA won't do anything anyway then what do you do?
And yes , our Quality Dept are passivating authorisations held by staff currently in positions & areas which don't require them to hold them but why are the dragging their heels? As I understand this has been going on for over 1 1/2 years now.
Could it be possible to artificially inflate the numbers of current certifying staff so as to maintain the company AOC?

[This message has been edited by Ali Crom (edited 19 February 2001).]

[NFF_PRF]

Ali.
I think you have hit the nail on the head with the thoughts about inflated numbers of licence holders.
I still have authorisations that I haven't used for several years and quality are not bothered about taking them away.
It will be interesting to see what happens on June 1st when JAR66 comes into action.

[Jango]

Ali, you're spot on mate, not possibly keeping numbers of certifying staff, I would guarantee it. Might be worth at look at your company exposition and see what numbers they quote and who are the named signatories etc..and then do a real head count!



------------------
Old age and treachery will always triumph over youth and enthusiasm.

[Blacksheep]

And of course managers are traditionally used for strike breaking. Only with the appropriate certifying authorisations naturally, so they have to keep current...

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[This message has been edited by Blacksheep (edited 20 February 2001).]

[jetfueldrinker]

We were just discussing the BAC 1-11 incident that nearly caused a catastrophy some years ago when the wrong bolts were fitted to a windscreen. Correct me if I am wrong, but was a managers' stamp used in that incident? We feel that the issuing of stamps for managers who used to be shop floor guys should be eliminated now before any more disasters occur. We feel that QA should have an approval renewal scheme whereby each approval is granted on the understanding that the holder is a 'hands on' person.

[rpm]

Whenever, a situation like that arises, you are obligated to report an illegal activity to the regulating authority, such as the FAA, CAA, etc.. Too bad if it gets anybody in trouble. Could you live with yourself if the aircraft crashed? I was a couple of times in that situation, when a supervisor tried to cover up corrosion found during an inspection. Usually when you tell them you have no choice but to immediately report them, they buckle down and perform the necessary repairs. Your days may be numbered working for them, but, there a lot of companies out there that are not that unscrupulous.

[Ali Crom]

Jetfueldrinker,
You are correct that a manager's stamp was used to sign off the w/s replacement on the bac1-11 which was near catastrophic but to my knowledge he actually carried out the job too . Rather ironically the engineers were out on strike at that time & of course you guessed it , it fell upon the middle managers with cover to maintain the airline's engineering operation .
This only provides fuel to the arguement that people who are not hands on should have their authorisations removed. Our Quality department like to use the word 'recentcy' ( I think thats how you spell it ) when refering to indivuals maintaining their authorisations .I believe the requirement is that as long as you certify once within a 6 month period on the a/c type you hold you are considered to be current. How conveinient you just have to sign off a simple panel removal & you keep your cover without leaving the comfort of your office desk & chair!
No doubt even this reqiurement could be quickly waivered should 'operational needs' be quoted.

[DoctorA300]

This is going to cause a bit of screaming, but I´m not trying to insult anyone.
If you witness a manager, or an engineer, act as describe in numerous posts above, and you do not do something, anything, you are in my mind guilty by assosiation.
The Jar 66 might solve a part of the problem. The date of your approval does not imply that you hold a RIGHT or privilege, but that you on that particular date passed an exam, your approval is based on involvment in the maintenance of the type of aircraft on which you hold the approval, and on your partisipation in the contiuation training program, both the technical and the administrative part. Therefore, if a manager does not partisipate in the daily work and dosn´t pass the CT program, the Quality Dept. will have no option but to revoke his/her approval, it has already happened a couple of times in a major scandinavian airline,

With regards to the 1-11 windscreen senario, was the problem not that the windscreen had been installed with 8/32" bolts and not 1/4"???.

Doc.

To Brakeson: STOP LEAVING MY F!"#¤% HEADSET IN THE SNOW.

[This message has been edited by DoctorA300 (edited 24 February 2001).]

[SchmiteGoBust]

PenPusher has a good point.
CAA now seem to be getting keen on removing stamps off people with commercial interests(ie managers). The company I work for will not allow managers to have stamps because of this temptation.Good company and good managers because they agree with the principle!!!

[Golden Rivet]

A few pertinent points regarding the the Bac 1-11

The left windscreen had been replaced and the task certificated by the same Shift Maintenance Manager with the appropriate British Airways authorisation 27 hours before the accident flight and the aircraft had not flown since its replacement.

The replacement windscreen had been installed with 84 bolts (A21l-8C) whose diameters were approximately 0.026 of an inch below the diameters of the specified bolts (A21 1-8D), and 6 bolts (A211-7D) which were of the correct diameter, but 0.1 of an inch too short.

The windscreen fitting process was characterised by a series of poor work practices, poor judgements and perceptual errors, each one of which eroded the factors of safety built into the method of operation promulgated by British Airways.

A series of cues were available to the Shift Maintenance Manager to draw attention to the use of incorrect bolts but all went unnoticed or unheeded.

Although an independent final inspection would have had a high probability of detecting the error, the task of the windscreen installation was not designated a 'Vital Point' and consequently no duplicate inspection was called for and none took place.

The work of the Shift Maintenance Manager was not subject to review by another manager and thus the there was no backstop with any chance of detecting his errors. Errors that were made more likely by the sleep deprivation and circadian effects associated with the end of a first night shift.

The practices employed by the Shift Maintenance Manager which permitted such errors were not considered to be 'one-offs' but were symptomatic of a longer term failure on his part to observe the promulgated procedures.

The British Airways local management, Product Samples and Quality Audits had not detected the application of inadequate standards by the Shift Maintenance Manager, because they did not monitor directly the working practices of Shift Maintenance Managers.

The windscreen replacement task may have been unique in that it alone could accommodate the errors associated with its fitment, such that they were exposed so dramatically the first time that the windscreen was called upon to resist cabin pressure.

The Shift Maintenance Manager required mild corrective lenses to read small print or figures but did not use his glasses whilst performing the windscreen replacement.

A safety critical task, not identified as a 'Vital Point', was undertaken by one individual who also carried total responsibility for the quality achieved and the installation was not tested until the aircraft was airborne on a passenger carrying flight.

The Shift Maintenance Manager's potential to achieve quality in the windscreen fitting process was eroded by his inadequate care, poor trade practices, failure to adhere to company standards and use of unsuitable equipment, which were judged symptomatic of a longer term failure by him to observe the promulgated procedures.

The British Airways local management, Product Samples and Quality Audits had not detected the existence of inadequate standards employed by the Shift Maintenance Manager because they did not monitor directly the working practices of Shift Maintenance Managers.

------------------
Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread

[This message has been edited by Golden Rivet (edited 25 February 2001).]

[Brakeson]

A300: I did not, repeat DID NOT leave your f¤#?ng headset in the snow. Don´t trust Andreas, he is a minor!

[bigshot]

Guys - please don't knock someone just because they are a Shift Manager. Some of the best engineers I know are Shift Managers and I used to be a damn good one before I took to paper pushing. I used to fly with the aircraft and worked aircraft on a daily basis not once a month from my chair to keep my ticket as somone suggested. Knock someone because they are a s**t engineer by all means. In my book that includes people who stamp off work not done. There is no defence and if you allow it to pass then you are just as guilty. Remember please people there are human beings on those aircraft who trust us with their lives. DO NOT ABUSE THAT TRUST.

[Ali Crom]

Bigshot, Glad to see there is someone who is willing to stick up for & speak on behalf of shift managers. You must lead quite a lonely existence being the only one.
I know we all like to bitch & moan about the managements shortcomings but after years of conditioning it's not surprising .
But joking aside I'll be the first to admit I wouldn't want to do your job having to take s$%t from above & below so for now I'll settle for taking it from above only. And no doubt there are good Engineers who are now managers but unfortunately where I work the're not exactly what I'd call prolific.
After they take that first step on the ladder , it would appear the microchip they have inserted programs them to commit all sorts of misdemeanours for example;

The latest episode regarding 'Sid the unsrupulous shift manager' to come to my attention is the subject of PER books ( Personal Experience Record ) or lack of .

Several months ago our very own quality dept. took the questionable decision to change their policy on reviewing applicants PER books prior to granting company authorisations.
They entrusted Sid and a suitably qualified engineer within the hangar to carry out the afore'said review on their behalf thus reducing their own heavy workload ( allegedly).
With the onset of the JAR 66 & the deadline for 'Grandfather Rights' looming ever closer this placed Sid at top of the class in the eyes of his overseers . But although his entire shift of technicians are now 'qualified' & their practical experience effectively waivered it transpires that no-one bothered to tell him that at any time quality could still demand a small percentage and sample some of the PER books already passed .
"Oooops! But I told the lads not to bother .Quick get that damn photocopier working again . I only need one book to keep them interfering b#$%@#ds of my back".

[bigshot]

Thank you for those few kind words Ali! You are right about the sh*t from both directions but I find that I can reduce it from below if I am seen to be fair. Obviously your Sid created his own problem by not managing the guys OJT propoerly in the first place. It is not a case of getting anyone off his back more that he is clearing up his own mess trying to blame others.

he may think he is star for a while by cutting corners but is he turning out reliable safe aircraft? Unlikely.

All the more reason why LAE's should not falsify records to cover for an idiot like that. Any manager worth his salt knows who needs less OJT than others. He can use that knowledge but not abuse it.

[innocent bystander]

ali crom, you have opened up the big pandoras box,this is the dark side of aviation, (does it could come under duty of care?, oz caa love that phrase) that the public dont know about and caa,casa etc do not want to know,it,s called ruffling feathers,suffice to say i'm the wrong side of 50,and this must have been going on since the wright brothers came in for the first nifty 50 hour check,and please beware of the discreet phone call to the powers that be, here in oz,in perth a licenced sparky did just that, company found out,no such thing as private phone calls, and they always will find out in the end, it just takes them time,and phone calls, that guy became unemployable overnight, if you dont like it dont sign it,i know it's easier said than done, but its a hard life being an engineer trying to walk that getting finer line.i've seen a trend towards getting younger guys to signe off iffy areas, which is a bit of a concern (but it's still better than working for a living)

[This message has been edited by innocent bystander (edited 09 March 2001).]

[This message has been edited by innocent bystander (edited 09 March 2001).]

[ragspanner]

Having been in the position of being "thumb screwed" for a moody sign off, i found my self 'almost' buckling ,after a series of phone calls, the straw that almost broke my resolve was a message from the QA manager (delivered 2nd hand so he didnt get his hands dirty)explaining my out if i was captured by the CAA !.As a regulatory body the CAA are pretty toothless having seen them accept replies from companies at face value.The only thing we have as engineers is the ability to say "no", when you are in this position you feel very isolated generally the only support i have received has been from fellow engineers.If i sound a little bitter its because i am !

[Rob_L]

A number of years ago I grounded a newly purchased second hand helicopter,(with a public tranport CofA), due to multiple defects and record keeping deficencies. The only way the owner could get the CAA to attend was to threaten them with legal action. Not just toothless but gutless as well.