What would you do.......

[redtail]

You work with someone who signs off work they do not understand. They get frustrated by the procedure or test equipement, and go for the pen to get it out of their hair. You cannot always be around to help or answer questions (which usually do not get asked). What do you do about it? What can you do about it? Some of this work is autoland checkouts, return to service.

Another co-worker cannot do any task. Even with manual references, they claim they do not know how to do the task. Explaining the procedure gets a blank look in return. They show no mechanical ability and no interest in learning, they just want to be on the clock and to be available for overtime. Most of their tasks are re-assigned to others who have finished their work already. What do you do? How do you feel about carrying others.

I don't have a problem helping someone who is trying to learn, but what about someone that does not want to learn? These people are causing a lot of morale problems.

How do the rest of you handle these problems?

[BigJETS]

I try to do twice a better job at what Im doing. I dont know what tasks you may be referring to but its all the same.

[Blacksheep]

One effective way of dealing with tossers is sabotage. Drop them in it big time and the problem solves itself. From what you say they are not too bright so dropping them in it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

An alternative is to tell your boss how great they are, then they get promoted out of the way. You are familiar with incompetence theory I presume?

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

[mriya225]

Redtail,
I'm going to second Blacksheep's motion on this one.
You shouldn't have to babysit your coworkers - let them stand or fall on their own merits (or lack thereof) while keeping your own high standards of performance.
I feel your stress though, people who're good for nothing better than fossilizing on the company dime have a distinct knack for sucking the life out of morale! Did you ever notice that people like this can invariably quote union privelege and protection policies chapter and verse? What I have a hard time understanding is why management and union leadership are so slow to realize the liablity that incompetent employees will ultimately be. That "path of least resistance" style of management has always proven itself to be a very expensive (disasterous) policy. Unfortunately, the workhorses that comprise the backbone of your force are weighted down, and overall performance suffers as a result.

Chin up Redtail! :)
It takes a while for the cream to separate - but when it does - it always rises. Try not to become too disheartened in the meantime! :)

[spannersatcx]

1st stop immediate manager, 2nd stop manager quality, 3rd stop Regulator, 4th stop go sick and see how they cope without you.

[redtail]

Thanks for the encouraging words. I am not about to say anything to management about my co-workers that is not positive, as I don’t want any responsibility for the repercussions. I like Blacksheep’s suggestions, but the reality is that those paths do not always pan out.

We have a new union, and it shows promise of encouraging professionalism, so that professional pay wages will appear justified. I hope it works out. I believe the pilot’s unions have used this philosophy to good effect.

All in all I think management is dropping the ball. The company is short mechanics, and some of our bad apples are “protected” people, considered untouchable due to the legal environment in the US, so there is reluctance on the part of management to discipline anyone for fear of harassment charges.

As a humorous aside, one individual (unprotected) was observed lounging in the breakroom between breaks. The individual was waiting for an aircraft he was to work on to come to the hangar. A manager walked by, noticed him, and told him to get out on the hangar floor and do something, anything, clean or such. The individual went to the union to file a grievance against the manager. It took three successive union stewards to convince him that he really wasn’t supposed to be in the breakroom between breaks and it would be silly to try to file a grievance.

Now if only they would fire everyone and hire them back as independent contracters……..
.

[Multi-X]

Redtail - while I understand you not wanting to drop a co worker in the **** - how will you feel if an aircraft signed off by one of them is involved in an incident resulting in loss of life?
You knew they were not up to the grade & said nothing! Will you be able to sleep at night?
With our AMELs & approvals comes responsibility, if someone is dangerous we can not sit back & ignore it. Quality issued the approvals, they should be a good place to start.

Maybe they can arrange refresher training or something but at least safety will come first.

The problems you have will become more & more widespread as the number of experienced engineers drops.

[redtail]

Multi-X, you have very valid concerns, and if the situation warranted it, I am capable of doing what has to be done. It is part of being an adult, of being a professional. What is maddening about these tossers (appropriate term) is their talent and luck for skating around the problems that would put them in the spotlight, that would get them into trouble. These are not the individuals who will get involved with flight controls or engine changes.

The problem is becoming more widespread, as you said. We are getting many new hires that are upgrades from other departments, such as baggage handlers and cleaners, who went to school to get a certificate so they could jump to a higher pay scale, not because of any mechanical calling.
Some work out, but most bring too much luggage and attitude from their previous airline positions. It makes one appreciate the people who join up with actual talent and ability.

[Multi-X]

Kiwi - LAEs are not failing if we can't bring someone up to speed.
It's the system - No proper apprenticeships, the ones that run are only for 2 or 3 years. At new hangars the first year apprentices are learning from people who have only just finished their apprenticeship; not much can be passed on by someone with only 3 years training!
I was on contract at one hangar & the only people with experience were the contract LAEs, there were not enough of us to help teach & watch what they were doing at the same time.

Now JAR 66 has taken away the oral exam any retard who can remember theory will get through, yet will be untested under pressure.

[trapper]

redtail, I sympathise with you about the sort of problem you see yourself facing. You mention two type of people, one is dangerous the other is lazy. If you don't take action against the former and an accident happens you will kick yourself, it is not professional to turn a blind-eye. Problem is, what do you do, especially as you have to work with this person? I have found in the past that it depends on the level of the person within the organisation that is causing you problems. If the person is above me I find the direct approach is the best pointing out that their license does not give them special priveleges over mine to allow them to sign-off work they have not done. Mention that you will not sign a final CRS for the aircraft concerned if this pactice takes place and that you are duty bound to report it if the practice continues. This has proved successful for me in the past. If the person is one whose work you certify then you simply refuse to do so untill it is of the required standard. This procedure rarely causes long term problems as the person gets used to your standards. Now comes the hard part, this is when the person concerned is a direct colleague at the same level as yourself. One method is to tell the person face to face that you are concerned, but I have rarely had success with this. Another method is to report your concerns to your department manager stating clearly your reasons. I feel that in doing this you have met your obligations and should be able to sleep well. If this causes problems for your colleague take comfort that it is far less than the problems which could be faced by relatives of dead passengers or crew. Hope this is of some help.Regards, trapper.

[redtail]

trapper, thanks for your suggestion. As I have indicated before, a safety issue would require me to respond. No way could that be ignored. (I have also found that standing one’s ground prevents being pushed around later on, helps to minimize later bullstuff) These are direct colleagues, each having their own A&P certificates to use and abuse. You are correct about the difficulty of explaining the problem face to face. The unmentioned practice is to use your reliable people for the sticky problems and save your safe jobs for the amateurs. In the US, at major airlines, usually the job is for life, and there is no proficiency requirements or review after hiring on and passing a probationary period. So we tend to accumulate problems. Figure a third are useless and should be replaced by something useful, like really nice rubber chocks. Another third are ok for changing parts, and the remaining few can actually troubleshoot and fix.


+++++++++++++++++++++

New Guy "It seems to be working ok"

Old Guy "Um.. I haven't started it yet"

[This message has been edited by redtail (edited 21 August 2000).]

[Grubbykev]

Hi guys, I know what you mean & it's a pain in the ass. The only thing you can do is bring it to the attention of your boss if your guys don't respond to you. I mean what the hell is your boss' job, if not to ensure that productivity goes ahead safely!! I sometimes find myself carrying others & like every one else I whinge about it & it does no good. Kiwiconehead has got the right idea though, just don't work with the useless twats! If you do that hopefully they'll make a balls up of a job & get found out. The best way I've found of pushing this option a little further is if you are working in a hangar situation nick all the easy job cards/entries for yourself & your mechs & leave them the bastard jobs. Next thing to do, make a cup of tea/coffee sit back & watch them fall to pieces. So much fun I assure you. Try not to get stressed mate, remember you must have loved aircraft at some point to get into the industry, so don't let total dickheads ruin that love. :mad:

------------------
So many brake packs, so little time. (:¬(

[This message has been edited by Grubbykev (edited 30 August 2000).]

[getitright]

hi, i find i'm dealing with idiots mainly away from the workplace. take for instance driving to and from work, purchasing anything slightly high tech, even dealings with my own family.
i don't see anything in my l.a.m.e. job description that requires training lesser staff. if your not happy with someones aptitude or attitude then treat them like defective/dangerous equipment, ie, keep the *!#% away from them.

[Supertron]

What about training apprentices? Ames? Signing SOE's?
Also the last line in your job description is almost always "duties as required", have a look, if its there you are obligated to train "lesser staff".
While it would be nice to stay away from them you cant on the line, they alway send you snags from other stations or shifts. Just keep working on them, stab them in the chest not the back.

[redtail]

NEWS UPDATE

From http://www.the-mechanic.com/mainbb.html

=============================================Received Thursday, September 21, 2:36 AM
Name: RAT PATROL
Email: ismellarat/[email protected]
Location: DTW
Employer: NORTHWEST
Comments:
WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON AT HANGAR ONE ON THIRD SHIFT IN GOOD OLD DTW? IT SEEMS HANGAR ONE HAS BEEN INFESTED WITH RATS, BETTER CALL THE ORKIN MAN. I'VE BEEN AT NORTHWEST FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS AND I AIN'T NEVER SEEN NOTHING LIKE THIS. IT SEEMS THAT A FEW RATHER HIGH PROFILE INDIVIDUALS DIDN'T SEEM TO THINK THAT A NEW (SEVEN MONTHS IN DTW) FEMALE MECHANIC DIDN'T QUITE FIT IN. THEY WERN'T HAPPY WITH JUST TRYING TO RUN THE LADY OFF, THEY ACCOMPLISHED A RATHER ELABORATE SET UP AND NOW SHE'S ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE.
ONE OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE SET UP WAS THE Deleted. PEOPLE NEED TO THINK BEFORE THEY ACT. I DON'T THINK RATTING MEMBERS OUT IS IN THE SPIRIT OF AMFA. NOW THE FAA IS INVOLVED AND OF COURSE, THE COMPANY HAS TO COVER ITS ASS, SO THE LADY WAS PUT ON ADMIN LEAVE. IF INDEED THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THIS PERSONS METHODS OF PERFORMING CERTAIN MAINTENANCE TASKS, WHY WASN'T THE SAFETY AND STANDARDS CHAIRMAN TALKED TO BEFORE THE FAA WAS TALKED TO?

WAS THIS PERSON GIVEN PROPER TRAINING AND WAS THE TRAINING RECORDED ON THE PROPER OJT FORM? BOYS, NOW THAT YOU HAVE ACTED, YOU MAY HAVE TO DEFEND YOUR OWN ACTIONS. DO YOU REALIZE THAT YOUR WHOLE CREW WILL PROBABLY BE Q&&AED BY THE COMPANY? OF COURSE THIS ACTION OF YOURS WILL UNDOUBTEDLY BE BROUGHT UP IN AN EOC LAWSUIT AGAINST THE COMPANY, THE UNION AND MAYBE EACH ONE OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY? BECAUSE ONE OF THE MASTERMINDS OF THE SET UP WAS Deleted, SHE CAN SUE FOR DFR UNDER THE LMRADA.

OF COURSE, YOU HIGH PROFILE HEROS, COULD CAUSE AMFA A BIG BLACK EYE. I FOR ONE THINK WE WORKED TOO LONG AND TOO HARD TO GET AMFA IN HERE. THIS WILL PROBABLY NOT GO AWAY AS EASY AS WE WOULD ALL LIKE. WHEN YOU GUYS TOOK THIS ACTION, YOU PUT THE TARGETS CAREER IN JEOPARDY, YOU PUT HER LEADS CAREER IN JEOPARDY AND ANYONE THAT SHE CLAIMS SHOWED HER HOW TO PERFORM A CERTAIN TASK, CAREER MY WELL BE IN JEOPARDY.

YOU GUYS MUST REALIZE THAT IF SHE DECIDES TO SUE, SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO SUBPEONA YOU IN COURT, BECAUSE SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO FACE HER ACCUSERS AND THERE'S NOTHING THE COMPANY OR THE UNION CAN DO ABOUT IT. IT WOULD SURE SEEM IRONIC TO ME IF LEE SEHAM HAD TO REPRESENT A Deleted FOR RATTING OUT A MEMBER HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE REPRESNTING. THE NEXT TIME YOU GUYS DON'T LIKE SOMEONE, TRY TO FIGURE OUT A DIFFERENT WAY OF MAKING THEM AWARE OF IT. RATS AND SCABS ARE THE DOWNFALL OF WORKING PEOPLE IN ANY UNION, IN ANY INDUSTRY. DON'T TRY TO LAY THE SAFETY OF FLIGHT SERMON ON ME, I KNOW YOU GUYS, I'VE BEEN THERE AND DONE THAT.

=============================================

The person involved was considered a "tosser", if I understand the term correctly, and some of the person's co-workers would not cover for the person, such as signing for the work involved. After an inflight incident the person's co-workers stepped forward to do something about it. A report was sent to the FAA, and the union's safety committee was contacted. I do not envy their responsibility, but I respect their actions.

Any comments?

[Jango]

The main comment is that Northwest have out sourced heavy checks to SASCO in Singapore and Haeco in Hong Kong, nose to tail aircraft from now until Dec 2001.

So what do the company really care about ? .... bottom line.

[redtail]

As the bottom line, are you aware that union members at major airlines like to make all parties aware of problems found with outsourced maintenance? Word up.

SASCO has provided a lot of overtime opportunities for line maintenance, when the post-check repairs need to be made. I do have to say that the paint looks very good. None of those pesky Environmental Protection Agency rules on chemical handling and disposal that stops many companies from painting aircraft in the United States.

And now back to our topic.

[Jango]

Actually, SASCO/Singaporean environmental restrictions are probably stricter than the EPA really. But that is beside the point.

The point is the companies are very clever are appeasing the unions and diverting attention away from the problems of hiring unskilled personnel and expecting licensed or senior staff to cover for them. If they have to hire more skilled staff it will cost them more, if the unions work to rule and delay the aircraft, it will cost them more again.

If they out source to third party facilities..it is cheaper and the relevant cost of a few snags and a bit of overtime is worth bearing over a year or so.

To a degree I would defend the third party work done by sasco. At the end of the day Northwest have/had a number of reps on site in Singapore who call the shots. Doesn't some responsibility lie with them?

The best course of action is stand by your word, if you are not happy with the work performed by your crew...speak up now or forever hold thy peace.

[redtail]

"The point is the companies are very clever are appeasing the unions and diverting attention away from the problems of hiring unskilled personnel and expecting licensed or senior staff to cover for them."

Care to explain how companies appease unions while farming out their work, work that is traditionally performed in house?

As for my word, unairworthy is simply that, and per the FARs I would have to do something if I had knowledge of it. Hopefully I can lead by example.

[Jango]

How do companies appease ? How they all do, offer a pay incentives here, promises there, pull out that old nutmeg "we'll have to close the place down if you don't do this .." they can draw out any negotiating process for as long as they want to.

Why do they continue to farm out work...ask your union reps that one.

Sadly if the aircraft you receive from any base maintenance be it home or abroad is considered not airworthy, you have problems. How/why does the company rep/crew accept the aircraft from the heavy maint input?

I would certainly take my hat off to you sir, if you have to continue to work under those conditions, everyday must be a battle.

[redtail]

It is hard to determine if your comments are sincere or sarcastic.

[Lu Zuckerman]

It appears that some of the responses to redtails' initial question are being skewed slightly. It is obvious that redtail is working under FAA guidelines and individuals that are working under CAA guidelines and British labor laws are generating most of the responses. This is not to say that the responses are not valid as most are related to human relations and not necessarily labor relations. I would advise redtail to read the reverse side of his A&P ticket.

I quote,”THE HOLDER HEREOF SHALL NOT PERFORM OR APPROVE ALTERATIONS, REPAIRS OR INSPECTIONS OF AIRCRAFT EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE AIRWORTHINESS REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS OR SUCH METHOD, TECHNIQUES, AND PRACTICES FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE ADMINISTRATION.

The words above are your guidelines. If you refuse to sign off for what you consider to be defective or poor workmanship then don’t do it. If your company management tries to override your decision and forces you to sign off, then report them to the FAA standards branch. Of course, don’t use your real name. If you reveal your name and it gets back to your company you could very well lose your job but you still have your ticket in your wallet.

I speak from experience. I reported to the FAA that the German firm I worked for was building systems for the Airbus A310 that were defective. I told the FAA not to use my name but they did. The VP and the program manager were fired and, I was blacklisted from ever working on Airbus Programs. Little do they know my last contract position was on the cargo handling system for the A340 and the A3XX.

Now back to the subject. If you do not report the offending individual and it is determined that you were responsible for his work then you may as well paint a target on your chest. If an aircraft crashes and the eventual lawsuits ensue the lawyers will go for the deep pockets and the not so deep pockets. In one case involving the crash of a commercial CH-47 in Scotland the lawyers went after Boeing Helicopters and their chief designer for approving a design which eventually caused the crash. They also got the designer.

The best advice I can offer is to follow your conscience. And remember if you are involved in a lawsuit you can have your ticket revoked and quite possibly pay a very heavy fine to the US Government.


------------------
The Cat

[Jango]

Redtail, I am sincere mate. I got out of the big company game for these kind of reasons. Working for the small outfits maybe less pay but certainly more rewarding and you do not have to put up with the union/management/bean counters games. These jokers are playing with folks livelihoods usually to satisfy their own egos. I have known managers who would sell their frigging mothers if they thought it would get them another step up the imaginary ladder. They love to crow to the board.."look how much money I have saved you " ... and sod the consequences. If they could get Bangladesh Biman approved to do the maintenance for ten bucks an hour...you know as well as I do thats where your aircraft would go.

Rest assured you are not the only ones. Lufthansa use SASCO in S'pore heavily for B747-400 C checks (7 done so far I think) meanwhile LHT are laying guys off in Hamburg!

[Mice]

Redtail,
I appreciate your predicament. I recently had one of these lazy useless clods foisted upon me. I did not know of this person's reputation at the time, but rapidly became aware of his utter uselessness. Cannot even read an IPC, yet is licensed for many years. They do still get through the cracks, everywhere.
There was little the management wanted to do, and as I had no say in his employment initially, I could do nothing but point out the danger he represented to the operation, to the Manager responsible.
Now some time afterwards, I have yet to find anyone who has ever worked with him that has anything good to say about him. Yet, he still manages to pull the wool over management's eyes and get the occasional job.

I appreciate your situation, and can tell you there is little you can do. I actually delayed the aircraft if he did not carry out the work properly (I was on the following shift), and did it properly myself. At least my conscience was then clear.
Be patient, it eventually comes to them that they deserve, while the rest of us keep the aircraft safe.

------------------
When all else fails, read the manual!

[Jango]

The situation is the same in so many companies in that there are a few good guys holding it together. Mean time, there are guys who seem to get away with so much. What goes around, comes around and they will get get caught out in the end.

[redtail]

I am becoming more and more envious of the pilots, who have to meet a recurring set of standards. Their group has a harder time of hiding incompetence.

Jango, I agree with you on your point. If it weren’t for a minority of workers at an airline who cared and tried to excel in their field, usually out of personal pride, the various operations would grind to a halt. These people need to be rewarded, somehow. I doubt if any organization’s operational manuals can actually work in the real world without some savvy individuals knowing all of the work arounds. When the airlines finally break their spirit, watch out.

If I come across as a hard-nut, well, chalk that up to the nasty old mechanics who showed me the ropes. They preached a “zero defect” ideal.

[redtail]

NEWSFLASH

The person that the quoted rant was about has resigned after the company held them out of service for falsifying maintenance documents.

Now to see if they stay resigned.