Grey Maintenance

[Golden Rivet]

Stuck out on the ramp having just changed a widget,airplane ready to go,flight crew bitching about on time departure, cabin crew desperate to close the last remaining door - one last job to do before you get off - Fill in the Tech Log !
Bugger, you cant remember the maintenance manual reference. You have a dilemma. Do you hold up a plane full of punters for an insignificant widget, get back in the van, drive back to the office and dig out the mm ref only to pick up a tech delay for your troubles, or do you say Sod it and fill in the tech log "Widget replaced and functioned Satis " ?
The current trend requiring a maintenace Manual ref for everything including the sink can be a tad troublesome at times. I know according to the letter of the law its required, but not everything has a reference. Welcome to the area of maintenace where there are no definitive rights or wrongs. The area of Grey Maintenace !!

Have you ever tried to get a mm ref for fitting a bev maker of for adjusting a pax seat hydrolock ? No - because they are'nt listed. Does that mean you can't change them ? Ballcocks !

Its even worse in the hangar - a whole shed load of dubious goings on that have no right and wrong. Take for example rotopeening - allowable or not ? Fabricating your own brackets/angles, allowable or not ?. According the the airworthiness notice #3 you cant disassemble a complete riveted joint in a primary structure, but how many of us have had complete lap joints apart ? Special Bolted joints - now there's a laugh. Some would say once you've done one they're not special any more ? What does quality dept do if you quiz them on such aspects - yep turn and run the other way!

Thoughts/Comments on the subject




------------------
Happiness is a corroded shear deck

[Firkin L]

If there is no written procedure for a particular activity that you regularly do then why not raise a Quality Failure Report against the MM and let the QA dept sort it out. After about 10 their enthusiasm for chasing after you for not providing the reference may wane a little! But seriously, AWN3 obviously can't cater for every eventuality, most of the time its up to the licensed engineer concerned to make the final judgement. Our company has very clear procedures as to what people can and can't do within it which helps enormously. I've found, in the past, the only way to get any action from QA depts is to put any queries in writing. Food for thought?

PS I don't work on large aircraft - so what is a shear deck?

[martini lemon]

within my company we raise many tech services query notes( for some reason qa will not get involved ) which arrive on a small island in the Irish Sea on the desk of an unexperienced on type tech services engineer who will then try to teach the experienced line engineer how to suck eggs, with most query replies involve complying with the FIM. Talk about chimps!So I must agree with firkin , most of the time it is up to the discretion of the engineer to make the final judgement on whether or not to incur the wrath of qa, but at least we have a radio with which to contact the office to get the mm ref.

[LBMF]

Why do we need to put a reference anyway? It is only to help the unqualified people in Tech Services & QA! When we certify either under JAA or FAA we certify that the work has been carried out in accordance with the requirements .......... The requirements are all work is carried out iaw the approved MM.

Some companies also require statements that function test carried out also. Just bull sh** form office wallahs.

I have seen many mechs with lists of ATA references which they quote but never refer to the manual, they don't get letters from QA even though they have not followed the correct procedures.

[Golden Rivet]

where do you stand on certifying against instructions within an overhaul manual. Ever found a reference for topping up an O2 bottle in the mm ?
As for actioning some of the items contained within Boeing SB's is anyones guess. Own up if you've ever bored out a pylon fitting ? Legal - Who know's. What I'm trying to get at is that there is a whole host of activities going on out there that are seriosly ambiguous and I believe they are purposely left that way by the individual companies concerned.

An answer to a previous question about what is a shear deck. The term comes from the big slab on tin that can be found under a certain aircrafts rear galley. Designed to spread the galley loading and stabilise the floor beams directly below. Some would also say it is there to generate overtime ! Management quivver at the phrase as it almost certainly equates to a large amount of overtime and an aircraft late of check( If they cant secretly get someone to rub it down and put a coat of 90 thou paint over the top)
I would say fair proportion of these aircraft if inspected would exhibit corrosion to some degree

------------------
Happiness is a corroded shear deck

[spannerhead]

If I was unsure of the exact ATA chapter and verse to add to the paperwork then I would say that the hydrolock was adjusted IAW chapter 25.(Its gotta be in there somewhere). I also find that chap 20 is also a good one to quote when you aint got a clue where to look. It gets up the QA jobsworths noses but i'm sure we all have broad enough shoulders to take a little flack. Take a look at the joke about the Caa interview in the humour on this site, It could apply to QA aswell.

[jetfueldrinker]

For topping up O2 bottles, have you looked up in Chapter 12 of the MM? I am only guessing, but that is a good place to start. Failing that, Chapter 38 (Oxygen Systems)

For brackets etc. do you have access to the aircraft manufactures drawings? Everything you ever needed to know, including heat treatment requirements is there on the drawing. If you don't have access, then ground the aircraft! It is surprising what happens if it looks like hangar space is being taken up by an aircraft that is stuck for a little bit, but you cannot get it because of management shortcomings.

[Bus429]

Boring Bus statement coming up! A recently issued NPA (Notice of Proposed Amendment) to JAR 145 proposes that 145 organisations set up reporting systems for tech document discrepancies or omissions (some already exist). MEMS systems will help only if someone high up uses the information constructively.
Reading other comments in this thread, I can tell that you have all, at some time or other, experienced less than subtle pressure with regard to the job and paperwork.
I always think that it is best to put MM references down. If it all ends in disaster and the AAIB, NTSB, ATSB or whoever, starts going through the records, your last job will be recorded properly. You cannot account for the idiot who fools around with a system you have previously signed for without recording his/her subsequent involvement. I know a couple of people who have lost authorisations over this through no fault of their own.

------------------
Bus429 - the pilot's pal!

[This message has been edited by Bus429 (edited 10 February 2001).]

[Bus429]

A few critical remarks about QA in posts above. That is the fault of some QA systems either staffed by a bunch of young people with no experience of aircraft maintenance or people so far removed from the process so as to have forgotten the realities. Believe me, the first example I gave exists in two companies I know of. You cannot audit aircraft maintenance activities without knowing what the job is all about. However, I believe a strong, realistic QA is a boon to a company. A police force QA is not!

------------------
Bus429 - the pilot's pal!

[This message has been edited by Bus429 (edited 10 February 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Bus429 (edited 10 February 2001).]

[topman]

Gentlemen,
thought I should comment on the adverse comments made about tech. services engineers. We should all remeber that there are good and bad in all areas (ALAE's and Tech Services for example) and that in some of your bad experiences with tech. services people, you could be dealing with licenced guys.

Please lets try and remember that no-one knows everything and that its teamwork thats needed.

From someone who has experience on both sides of the fence.

[aeroguru]

Some airlines have MM/ATA refs on the card or log cover that you slip in to avoid write through to the next log page.(yes!that's how to avoid it)
Anyway they are usually good for chapter and sub chapter but if your co. requires more like page and paras then you are screwed anyhow.
If you have the luxury of a walkie you can always load it on to some seat shiner in control!
Incidentally and off the track slightly;if your co./airline has maint manuals on a LAN or other type of network whose responsibility is it to do the amendments???

[DoctorA300]

I don´t see what the problem is. Unless you hold a special approval, your B1/B2 or C approval only covers you for work as desdcribed in the manufactures Maintenance Manual incl. SRM and WDM, but NOT vendors Overhaul manuals, Seats, Galleys and certain other cabin equipment may be allowed, and that in my opinon makes it very simple, if it is not in the MM, you are not allowed to do it. Brackets and other ´hardware` you need an engineering drawing to comply with.

[Golden Rivet]

Bus-man

"QA, a police force it is not" Methinks maybe it should be.There are standards out there and someone should be enforcing them or we end up in a downward spiral into the oblivion. Take for example the yearly CAA Audit. Everyone runs around like headless chickens for a few weeks prior to the visit, tidying, puttting things right and hiding the rest! We all know ( or should do )what is right and wrong but just need a gentle reminder now and again.
Maybe QA could weed out the people that really should'nt be there, there are a few, we all know who they are, but what ever happens to them? It only takes one cowboy to ruin it for everyone.

[This message has been edited by Golden Rivet (edited 10 February 2001).]

[Ali Crom]

Greetings Gayboy , oops I mean Golden Rivet,
Don't you ever remember working to an EOI ( engineering Order Instruction ) whilst working at the 'world class' establishment .
That little piece of paper with a design signature giving the authority to deviate from drwgs & manuals , which also gave instructions on the processes used in overhaul manuals / SB's . I've lost count how many there are for pylon rework & I'd thought you'd remember there's one for the freezeplug instl. on the shear deck replacement.

HAPPINESS IS LEAVING ALL THE AWKWARD FASTENERS ON A SHEARDECK CHANGE TO THE OTHER SHIFT.

AC.

[Golden Rivet]

Ahh yes the EOI - That bit of paper that gave you the immunity from any number of illegal/immoral procedures!

------------------
Happiness is a bent fuse pin

[Ali Crom]

Illegal/immoral I hear you say but hang on wait a minute . Didn't the Jedi master Yoda himself , the great one who even trained you in the art of snagging use the EOI for all those sheardecks , aft freight & door 2 repairs?

Happiness is the orange glow of defect stickers in aft freight.

AC.

[Golden Rivet]

He that lives in hope dances to an ill tune !

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

[Ali Crom]

Yeah right , or maybe he's just been seduced by the dark side .
:rolleyes:

AC.

[Golden Rivet]

Old no 7 to be more precise !

Alright here's another dilemma.

Airplane comes in with FMC Nav database out of date. You scurry back to the office, grab the data loader and fish out the Nav data Disc. #hitbags !! Thats got the same date on it as the airplane - what do you do ?

1. Ignore it and hope the crew don't notice
2. raise an ADD for an out of date database
3. Load on the latest version of Flight Sim and keep your fingers crossed.
4. Get onto main base and get them to e-mail it to you. Spend half an hour trying to work out how to transfer it to floppy and then wizz out and stuff it in the data loader. AWN #45 whats that ?

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

[Ali Crom]

Or alternatively ,

1) Get a shift manager with one of those well worn roller stamps to do the business.

2) Get Fleet Technical to raise an 'illegal/immoral' EOI .

3) Try to get base to E-mail it to you only to find the're too busy downloading porn from the Net.

4) Change the L/H nosewheel.

Happiness is spending a Saturday night in babysitting & killing time on PPRuNe when I should be down the Pub getting completely wasted.

AC.

[Bus429]

Here's one - nav data bases transmitted by email by nav & performance. Legal?

------------------
Bus429 - the pilot's pal!

[Golden Rivet]

I know, dodgy to say the least. Definitely falls into the "grey" area between right and wrong. But wait,the CAA have replied to such a query ref Chirp Feedback FB55 (www.chirp.co.uk )

Quote

"There are considered to be sufficient safeguards built into the transmission of this data via the internet for this practice to be acceptable"

Well there you go !!



[This message has been edited by Golden Rivet (edited 11 February 2001).]

[DoctorA300]

What is the problem about the database being
out of date, you can release an aircraft in this condition acc to mel, navigation is then based on vor/ndb´s or manually inserted waypoints only.

[Ali Crom]

So going back to your original point about complete rivetted joints & the legality of splitting fuselage lap joints.
How do you define a complete joint ? Is it the length of a single skin panel or from nose to tail ? Does a round insert repair within a skin panel constitute a complete rivetted joint , who knows?
So is ' replacement of the part' in ch 51 of the srm sufficient to cover a skin panel change?
One could say that the single hi-lock at the end of the frame to skin shear tie makes it legal as it's no longer a complete rivetted joint.
I don't know where this illegal/immoral use of EOI's comes from .
The use of an EOI to cover work not specified in manuals or processes that would only normally be found overhaul manuals is perfectly legal from my stand point . The fact that the manufacturer specifies limits in an srm does not mean they have to be rigidly adhered to as they are written with a safety margin . Boeing , for example are telexed almost daily & given information on damage sustained to a/c structure or wear to components which exceeds mm/srm limits . This will either result in a concession or details of reqd repair/rework to restore the a/c back to an airworthiness condition.
As you well know EO's are documents approved by a CAA authorised design signature & aren't raised , as your statement would imply , as an illegal means of getting the a/c back in the air.
By working to an EOI you've covered your own arse & if your still not happy with it then simply don't sign the job off.

As far as special bolted joints are concerned I tend to agree but suspect that it was written in for a/c of a bygone era.
Dc3 wing joints I believe .

AC.

[time-ex]

It is a fact that aircraft are designed by a number of skilled individuals who have never even seen it. Once that aircraft is built and has seen service the knowledge database grows rapidly.
Anyone who holds the privelige of issuing an EOI has access to information that will assist him to assess the scenario and develop a strategic plan of action. Knowing the strong and weak points of an aircraft isn't difficult for the average LAE it is getting to grips with how different manufacturer's deal with problems (the SRM). The issuer of an EOI is tasked with staying in touch with all developments that happen during the life of an aircraft/engine, in addition s/he must demonstrate the ability to grow with the technology. It's a pity that these roles often involve promotion out of the ramp work area with the unfortunate side effect that these engineers lose their credability. I have grown up with many of my fellow apprentices who have aspired to these jobs and I can appreciate what they have to do. They are basically the same as us LAE's but they've got a better phone book of people they can call on for help. An EOI is an evaluation of circumstances with a view to getting the best commercial return on a product your employer has bought ot leased
and it allows flight to procede under certain conditions. Were the EOI not issued with signatories as mentioned above,we woul have aircraft sitting on the ground AOG for a widget that is within the strict tolerance laid down by the designer who has never even seen it in the flesh.

[spannerhead]

Do you not find that there is never a perfect repair in the SRM. You always have to make your own variation from the ideal.
Even if you only vary the rivet pitch!
I think that we make that decision to vary on experience and common sense. If we had to go to the manufacturer each time the land or pitch differs from their drawing then we would be there all day.(and night)
The SRM is the ideal, same as the MM. If we get somewhere near that ideal then surly that is good enough.
It may sound daft but the lowest acceptable standard is good enough.
We are not after new aeroplanes...only serviceable ones!!!

[Golden Rivet]

Ali-Crom

Ok the phrase illegal was maybe a tad strong but the Eng Order, Concession or what ever you like to call it can still be abused. When the going gets tuff its normally the management that turns to the tech service guy and tries to twist his arm into raising an EO for what may quite often be one of those marginal decisions. The infamous torque tube saga comes to mind.
Hands up all you tech service guys who have your arms twisted by management into raising an EO for something you would rather not.


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

[This message has been edited by Golden Rivet (edited 13 February 2001).]

[Bus429]

Funny that the CAA make a big thing out of software management and certification in AWN 45A but then make throwaway statements about adequate safegfuards in place justify the transmission of databases by email. OK, it is likely that the FMS/FMGC would throw out a corrupt database BUT YOU NEVER KNOW!

------------------
Bus429 - the pilot's pal!

[Blacksheep]

This started as a Grey Maintenance thread but my-oh-my! Haven't we raked up a pile of Grey?
The trend in our business has been towards more and more formal procedures. "Standard Industry Practice" has all but disappeared, and the maintenance training environment has changed. Modern training courses teach systems by flow charts and logic diagrams. We no longer learn how things work in depth, indeed how long would a B747-400 course take if we did? And imagine the cost! Horror of horrors, all those Lonely Planet world explorers would be unable to afford a ticket. The "Shell Suits" would have to take their holidays in Blackpool instead of Malaga and Aussies would have to stay Down Under. Only business men and the rich would be able to afford a plane ride.

Once the MM was a general guide in just two or three volumes. LAMES knew their stuff from in depth training. "B" & "D" licence holders certified Major Overhauls ('D' Check? What's that?) including engine strip down. Now we all have to follow the piles of formal written procedures to ensure standardisation and reduced costs.

Unfortunately, as we have seen above, the written procedures are full of holes, grey areas or they are simply downright wrong. What do we (unqualified?) Technical Services people do when we get a request for clarification of a MM test procedure that doesn't work out? Yes, we ask the manufacturer. Then they confirm that the manual is indeed wrong and they will correct it in the next MM revision cycle. But what mystifies me is how come 'Regal Backwoods Airlines' finds the B7x7 MM wrong 20 years after it was written? How has this test or task been performed previously? Just like the newspapers, can we believe anything we read in the MM? Or the WDM or the SRM? Where do we stop? If we do something wrong just because the procedure is wrong who is to blame? Us or the company? Perhaps the whole approach is wrong. Is slavish devotion to formal written procedures truly what engineering is about?

There's a whole pile of questions to be answered here but maybe its about time that the aircraft engineering industry began a proper internal debate into what direction we are heading. Personally, I suspect that our present course isn't doing anything to improve safety. Does anybody else share my scepticism? I don't propose a return to the 'good old days' of minimal Manuals and "B" and "D" licences (for one thing those days weren't really all that good) But maybe we have gone too far down the "Formal Procedures" route. Procedures do not and cannot cover everything; the engineer must be allowed to exercise skill and trained judgement. Just a thought and a bit of a stir...

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

[spannerhead]

Have you noticed how precise some MM's are nowadays. They are written by the manufacturer with possible lawsuits in mind!
If you don't use that stand which is 2.4M high or put that sign telling people not to start the APU (even if it's removed) and then the oven your changing drops on your foot...Airbus will have no sympathy.

[Jango]

Not really sure if the MM was intended as a general guide, I think the latter stement is more correct. The legal beagles and lawsuits have insisted that they have become more specific/elaborate, plus aircraft systems and the technology involved has evolved such that more information is required by the engineer even to perfom rudimentary tasks. But the problem will always be how up to date are the books/cd/tapes you're using?

As for software off email, Rockwell-Collins will not even allow IFE software to be sent via email, let alone nav databases!

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

[This message has been edited by Jango (edited 15 February 2001).]

[SchmiteGoBust]

Sorry I'm late,but that one about pylon reworking. Done a few in the past and worked to the letter of the boeing SB. Procedure for flap peining etc or whatever you want to call it was in there if I remember correctly.
Tiff Tiff and away we go!!!

[Paulf]

If you guys REALLY want to talk of grey maintenance it can be covered in three letters - M E L - enough to strike horror in any Engineer trying to dispatch an A/C legally.Having had too many occasions of "interpreting" the mel I asked my QA how to defer outwith it - I was informed that I can,but met with deafening silence when I asked how! Any clues??