and when the 1 avionics LAME per crew are CR'ed out, that will leave 0 avionic licences to cove 3 or more aircraft. There are not enough B2 licences to cover each super crew as it is and there is no training in the future. It just won't work! :ugh:

This is when licence holders HAVE to make sure they are checking each and every job for which they are signing.
The blame stops with him/her and there will be no company support, even though the company will push to get the documents signed to met schedules.

No chair......just pressure.

These are the uncontrolled situations and responsibility for work carried out are borne by the B2 signatory.

Problem with guys coming up from the south none will be Snr LAME when they arrive in BNE. I'm sure most will struggle with this concept and may have to bring their tools in from home and learn how to use them again .

As far as I am aware the chap that returned to MEL struggled with the family side of things as both his children were not prepared to move to Brisbane as they are in last years of high school.

Hopefully most guys can get past the uncertainty of moving BNE .... We all did it many years ago and haven't looked back.

There is a massive network of people willing to help all those that do move up.

From what I am hearing, some LAMEs will make anything work. The other day we received a report that LAME started shift, was asked to certify for all the AMEs on the previous shift because they didn't have any 330 licences. He did. Work unsighted and carried out while he was not there. Highly illegal and costing him his own job. He earnt some nice overtime though. Should be able to buy his kid a new ipod touch for crissy with it.

Steve,

I hope that you have enough to go on to at least counsel those B2 LAME's doing this sort of thing.
The request and compliance contravenes all aspects of safety and underpins "schedule before safety".

I am not telling you what to do, but I think that this kind of thing needs a firm response from the ALAEA.

As disturbing is the fact that people were willing to carry out maintenance knowing there was no certifier on shift, wake up guys! This needs to be reported to casa if true fedsec.

This is the problem with us LAMES. Sh%t all over our brothers. It will get to a point where we some people obviously will not get the hint so we need, as sad as I think it is to do so, report these people directly to CASA. they have been warned.

Seems crazy that a LAME would sign for that and an AME would carry out the work without a LAME around in the first place. Be interesting to hear how much pressure the AME was put under to carry out the work without an appropriate LAME there and how much pressure the LAME was under to sign it.

Is this still the definition of "Supervision of Maintenance" ? or has it changed ?

A person (the supervisor) is supervising the carrying out of maintenance
done by another person if the supervisor:
• is physically present at the place that the maintenance is being carried out;
and
• is observing the maintenance being carried out to the extent necessary to
enable the supervisor to form an opinion as to whether the maintenance is
being carried out properly; and
• is available to give advice to, and answer questions about the maintenance
from, the person carrying it out.

Middleman, are you serious? AME's have been carrying out work unsupervised for years. CASA's definition seems to be grey when it suits them. I would trust most QF AME's long before most LAMEs from asia.

That said empire4, this is the perfect opportunity for the company to wheel out its own policies, together with the regulations of CASA, sit the LAME down and read him/her the riot act for not following policies, procedures and CASA regulations within the confines of LAME responsibilites.

There is no legal comeback from either the LAME, AME or any union. This won't earn the LAME or AME a redundancy, but termination of employment coupled with some hefty fines against the LAME.

If the said LAME wasn't on shift, he'she should have the intestinal fortitude to say NO! If the work hasn't been supervised whilst being carried out, or can't be inspected after the work has been completed (due to being paneled up, or requires installation inspections along the way) then say NO! It's the LAME who owns the licence, not QANTAS or any other company.

LAME's, exercise your rights as one. If you don't get made redundant now, don't fear, we will all get a turn. I'd rather be made redundant than sacked for not complying with my responsibilites as a LAME.

QF94, I totally agree with you. I was merely trying to point out what actually happens. To think a LAME would sign off work for someone on another shift is totally illegal and something that needs to stop. It should never happen.

Very true but Lets get real its been going on for years there is always someone who will sign anything to try and impress management and climb the ladder .

We know it's true, so be it on these clowns heads when they are in the firing line for acting illegally and with contempt. I wonder if management would back their star LAME at an inquest. A one word answer, NO!!!

Correct.

As I said ........ no chair.!!

unsupervised yes but still within the realm of "Supervision of Maintenance".

An AME agreeing to doing work without a LAME on type even being there is a whole different thing.

I disagree with you on BOTH counts.

If the LAME is snuggled up in bed when the task occurs then there is NO WAY that this would meet any definition of "supervision".

On the other hand, if "Qantas" says to an AME, "Go and change that component, in accordance with the AMM" I cannot see how it is an issue for the AME.

They remove the component they are told to, inspect the area as required and reinstall the new component and then sign as an AME that they have done the work as required and in accordance with the "approved data".

What happens after that is NOT the AMEs problem.

I am not aware that there is a requirement on an AME to get a LAME to supervise him, as I understand it is the LAMEs responsibility to ensure that they do the supervising.

ST

I have seen what happens to these clowns they get Promoted to a better position and anyone who points out what they were up to gets screwed .

Yes JG. These clowns become part of MOC, or end up in the news for screwing a LAME in BNE for asking for his entitlements when on an outstation posting in Japan.

These clowns that bend over for the company to get a promotion, end up becoming one of the twits that enforce the order.

It takes a certain breed to "climb" up the slippery ladder. The higher you go, the more you have to lube up for your position.

Spanner Twister,

There is a couple of issues here.

It's true that the LAME does not have to be standing over the AME's shoulder, but someone has to find a suitably endorsed LAME to certify anything an AME has done, and this could be the AME, supervisor, another LAME,etc.

The task itself and document procedures dictate who should be doing what and when if carried out IAW the approved data. The AME does not have to be there after completing the task. The crew leader or supervisor then delegates or carries out the certification process.
If the task is multi-stage, then it gets more complex.

Assuming that it is not the end of shift, it would be prudent for the AME to be around if required in the event of a discrepancy.