Newspaper Reports trigger Panic Attack!!!

[Blacksheep]

Someone senior in the Finance Department (Yes. A beancounter) forwarded a copy of a "Cracks in Wings - Engines might fall off Oh God we're all gonna die! shock-horror! Gasp!" newspaper report about an airline having to ground their old B767-200 fleet to someone else senior in Management. Result? A directive is handed down from on high and we have to rummage through the Boeing Master Service Bulletin Index and our assessment files to ensure that we haven't missed the Bulletin as well. We haven't. The bulletin is not applicable to our machines.

Not good enough. Another instruction to check with Boeing to ensure that we haven't missed it and that it really isn't applicable to our fleet - obviously engineers are too thick to manage themselves properly. The newspaper report didn't include anything useful such as a fact for example. Rumour and innuendo were deemed sufficient. The report DID mention that the problem was related to something called "High Frequency Cracks" Presumably these are the cracks that we detect by using "High Frequency Eddy-Current Crack Detection?"

Now. Are we engineering or what? Who is in charge of airworthiness these days? The industry or the newspapers? How do we deal with this sort of nonsense? Can we sue? Only if we are named in the report I suppose.
Why does the press have to sensationalise everything to do with aviation?

The report refers to a situation where a reputable airline made a decision to deal with a non-mandatory Alert Service Bulletin in one way, while the airworthiness authority took a different view. The authority reacted by issuing an immediate A.D. to force the airline to ground its fleet and carry out the work immediately instead of later. Regardless of the merits of one course of action over the other this is a purely engineering matter. The FAA and other national airworthiness authorities have never mandated the inspection/repair and this is an engineering disagreement. It should remain so and non-engineers who, by definition don't understand the issues, have no business interfering.

What is the general consensus among airline engineers then? Or pilots and journalists for that matter, all sensible comments are welcome. (Please keep the airline name out of it. Company names are irrelevant and, for the sake of the good name of engineering, please be polite.)

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


[This message has been edited by Blacksheep (edited 13 April 2001).]

[mriya225]

I can certainly understand your frustration Blacksheep. Keep in mind though honey that journo's don't have your knowledge/understanding and their main objective is to create copy that sells. Management (and those who're vying for position in upper management) immediately respond by making a big (read: conspicuous) issue of covering their behinds and "taking the matter very seriously".
As for the issue of any emergency A.D.; I'm reluctant to dismiss that offhandedly myself, given that it's the grandaddy of all airworthiness directives. I won't even comment on it until I've read it (you wouldn't happen to have the AD ref.# handy would you?). But, I tend to believe that they wouldn't issue it if they weren't genuinely concerned based on coroborating data (maybe through M&D's or service difficulty programs?).
Nevertheless, I wouldn't take it too personally--there are an awful lot of agendas involved in a situation like this.

[Blacksheep]

That's what makes me angry Mriya, it wasn't even an AD originally. Apart from a single country it still isn't, it's simply an Alert SB. I believe the SB in question was ASB 767-54A0070, an inspection of the Wing/Pylon attachment area of certain older B767-200s for cracks. Serious enough certainly, but the whole affair did not concern our airline or this country. One particular airworthiness authority made it an AD specifically to ground a single operator's fleet as a result of a dispute between that operator and the regulator about engineering standards.

The result of the sensational approach was that our own Finance Department raised the matter internally at Corporate level in such a way as to question the integrity of airline engineering in general and our own Engineering Department in particular by insisting that they are given an explanation from Boeing. Technical Services' word was considered insufficient. Now, who the hell is controlling engineering and on what basis? Have the Press become regulators with the Beancounters as Quality Assurance? Where is all this leading? Is anyone else experiencing outside interference in engineering matters? From some of the stuff in the press after the Concorde accident I suspect that this may be so. It might sell more newspapers but I don't believe that it does anything to improve safety.

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

[This message has been edited by Blacksheep (edited 13 April 2001).]

[redtail]

In better days the head of maintenance would have led the beancounters down the rosy path until the beancounters realized the foolishness of their ways and ran off to concern themselves with subjects they are knowledgable about.

I'm afraid the lions and tigers are becoming extinct, and we are living in a world of pussycats.

[mriya225]

I hear you Blacksheep but, whether any of us like it or not, financial departments are carrying more and more weight in corporate profiles these days (ahhh, the Almighty Dollar--or Pound as the case may be)...

I still think your beef may really be more with your corporate structure and the disproportionate influence that the beancounters have on the direction of industry, internally and externally, instead of journalism though.
A journalist can write the most sentaional, baseless, piece of garbage article--but (theoretically) that should have no bearing on your operation if there's no substance to the assertions behind the appeal for cynicism or panic.

Perhaps engineering departments everywhere need to stand up--back down the financial bullies within--and reclaim their influence.

Afterall, what you say is true--the ultimate responsibilty for knowledge and action behind all maintenance matters rests squarely on your shoulders.

PS. A smarter and more even tempered engineer than yourself is a rare commodity on these boards, and I suspect, in your work environment as well; I trust your insticts--and heartily encourage you to do the same--go get 'em tiger!

------------------
"You screw up, just this much; you'll be flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog-sh*t outta Hong Kong"!

[The Weasel]

I can certainly confirm your assessment of the 'Journo's'. Here in the UK in March 2000 we had a chief reporter from an aviation newspaper write a load of old crap about Concorde having an inflight emergency with one of it's TWO engines plus it's TAILPLANE INCIDENCE INDICATOR. In case there was any doubt about the guy's stupidity, he even printed a photo with the article clearly showing he did'nt have a clue what he was talking about. When challenged about the accuracy of his article the response was that the info was direct from the CAA and totally accurate, even though the rest of the planet know different. That is how ignorant and arrogant the press can be. Having said that, if we could rely on a reasonable degree of competence and integrity from media reporters I would support full and free reporting of the more serious maintenance violations. The best quality control would be by fare paying passengers using their freedom of choice to force the beancounters to act responsibly. In the UK we have TV documentaries which 'name & shame' dodgy builders,plumbers, car dealers etc etc. Why not do the same with dodgy maintenance organisations and/or corrupt individuals within? This would be far more efficient than the present system where QA are too scared of the corrupt management above them to take any action. The beancounters could even take comfort from the fact that you don't have to pay the reporters to publicize such incidents so could cut costs on the innefective QA dept. After all it's the fashion to hive off large chunks of the organisation such as engine shops and stores, etc,etc, so why not chop the bits that don't work instead of the bits we need?

[This message has been edited by The Weasel (edited 13 April 2001).]

[Coriolis]

I don't think any of us really mind too much if someone wants to jog an elbow now & then (hey guys,did you know about this?)- better than keeping schtoom and getting a smoky hole, but you're quite right otherwise. Maybe we out to try ambling into the Finance dept make a fuss about the seat/mile profit margin or something...everybody else always seems to know just how you ought to fix it -until one day you step back & offer the pen - (oh, sorry, no licence? oh dear, never mind, shouldn't take long...) :rolleyes:
Been there (Blacksheep, see email) done that.


------------------
Ground tested, no fault found

[dogs body]

I totally agree with you guy's, it's a sad reflection of the times that things are being run by the bean counters, & with or without our help thats the way it is, unless the companies concerned look at their structures in a different light, as was said in a letter to CHIRP recently re: this subject, it may be cost effective to run your maintenance down to or below the barest minimum, but you have an accident, and see how cost effective that is.

------------------
Those who say it cannot be done, shouldn't interrupt the engineer doing it.

[Blacksheep]

Of course, the financial difficulties in which certain engineering departments are forced to operate are the result of the "Beanies" inability to perform. I've had a poke or two at them myself already. For example, why is money spent on Product Improvement Service Bulletins accounted as expenditure when it is clearly a capital investment. Surely the proper accounting practice is to increase tha asset value of the modified part and reflect the investment in the balance sheet? Beancounters? Hell we'll just have to carry on teaching them what beans look like I guess. Then they'll be able to count them properly. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif

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

[itwilldoatrip]

Weasel is right journalists only look for the senastional story (with a little bit of credibility)to get the public (you and I) to believe it.
As an engineer who flies with the aircraft if I had a £ for everytime I was asked what was that or is it safe and you're sure it is safe I would be a rich man.
Mind you it's nice to know that the bean counter's are now begginning to question. Is it that they are now using staff travel and realising hold on I know what I have been doing with engineering.
Blacksheep how is Christian doing give my regards.

[This message has been edited by itwilldoatrip (edited 15 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by itwilldoatrip (edited 15 April 2001).]

[Ali Crom]

I find it almost incomprehensible that any Engineer (with the exception of a certain shift manager) given the task of carrying out/embodying a mandatory service bulletin would knowingly, deliberately lie & certify that the s/b had been action in full compliance when clearly it had not . However I would not be at all suprised that by, from my own experience that accurate recording of completed tasks is anywhere near foolproof.
Having been issued from our planning Dept the latest revision of an s/b , mod ( EOC ) etc. I have occasionally found that on inspection the requirements had already been previously met on another check.
Whether this is simply down to a typing error by a clerk in the Airworthiness Records Dept in the 'Back of beyond' or a failure by the certifying Engineer carrying the task to record the action taken, I couldn’t say. And why do we always get requests to do physical checks of pt#/ser# for ETOPS critical parts already fitted to a/c that have seen several years service & were purchased new from the manufacturer?
Perhaps the manufacturers supplied inventory of installed parts or the component change recording systems used during scheduled & unscheduled maintenance can't be relied upon hence the need to double check.
Another common problem encountered is the unnecessary duplication of tasks called up on a check. It’s normally left up to the LAE to highlight this to the planner so the duplicated job cards can be cancelled or cross referred . Unfortunately these duplicated cards can be missed & some jobs eg. inspections , oil servicing & panel refit clearances maybe repeated inadvertently by the oncoming shift therefore wasting even more time & resources .The Planner hits the ‘print’ button & all the job cards spew out but it's deemed to be all too much effort to sort out at the planning stage so it’s left up to the Engineers.
As far as what the media says they will always use whatever means necessary to boost sales & movie films are no exception . One such example was Bruce Willis in Die Hard II where he jams a 747 spoiler panel with his jacket & opens a conveniently mounted fuel jettison handle in the pylon whilst the a/c taxis under power ( Mmm.... now which s/b covers that particular mod I wonder?)always makes me cringe. OK its only fiction but as movies cover such a wide audience these days I can’t help but wonder just how influential they are to the general puplic’s including journalists & senior airline executives view of how an aircraft or aircraft systems operate by what is portrayed to be factual .


[This message has been edited by Ali Crom (edited 15 April 2001).]