Duplicate Inspections

[Firkin L]

Last year sometime there seemed to be moves to discontinue the requirements for duplicate inspections on certain vital systems. Anyone know anymore about it? Who suggested this idea, was it a bean counter with no idea of the implications and just trying to cut the wage bill? I would be alarmed if this foolish idea was still being considered. Comments?

[Coriolis]

See page 11 of CHIRP FB57 - contributor there seems horrified at such a prospect and I agree. Any sensible safety precaution like the 'Dup' must stay (USA practices notwithstanding) and I too will continue to get a 'second look' regardless of mandate or not!

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

[DoctorA300]

Hi Firkin L,
I don´t think that the requirement for the RII, as the duplicate inspection is now called, has been removed, but the JAR145 has fewer points than the CAA has. A good topic though, maybe we can get a thread going to shed some light on the subject.

[Firkin L]

I think the problem is that when an anomaly is found when conducting a dup. its usually sorted out there and then with no additional reporting action, leading those above us to believe that nothing is ever found whilst conducting these inspections so they are therefore a waste of time and costly. Of course we know otherwise don't we? I must admit that in all the years I've been doing them I've never uncovered the obvious - like a missing split pin or cross connected control but have found other problems. Such as incorrect interpretation of the MM, lack of knowledge of SBs etc, fouling of systems on adjacent systems or structure, incorrect routing, lack of understanding of how a system interacts with other systems leading to ommission of functional checks, etc. I could go on but I'm sure you get my drift. The duplicate inspection is vital to safety and any attempt to discontinue it should be opposed. I assume that as we haven't heard anything recently the idea has been binned.