Inter check actioned - satis
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ali, you're spot on mate, not possibly keeping numbers of certifying staff, I would guarantee it. Might be worth at look at your company exposition and see what numbers they quote and who are the named signatories etc..and then do a real head count!
------------------
Old age and treachery will always triumph over youth and enthusiasm.
------------------
Old age and treachery will always triumph over youth and enthusiasm.
Cunning Artificer
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,125
Likes: 7
From: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
And of course managers are traditionally used for strike breaking. Only with the appropriate certifying authorisations naturally, so they have to keep current...
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
[This message has been edited by Blacksheep (edited 20 February 2001).]
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
[This message has been edited by Blacksheep (edited 20 February 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
We were just discussing the BAC 1-11 incident that nearly caused a catastrophy some years ago when the wrong bolts were fitted to a windscreen. Correct me if I am wrong, but was a managers' stamp used in that incident? We feel that the issuing of stamps for managers who used to be shop floor guys should be eliminated now before any more disasters occur. We feel that QA should have an approval renewal scheme whereby each approval is granted on the understanding that the holder is a 'hands on' person.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whenever, a situation like that arises, you are obligated to report an illegal activity to the regulating authority, such as the FAA, CAA, etc.. Too bad if it gets anybody in trouble. Could you live with yourself if the aircraft crashed? I was a couple of times in that situation, when a supervisor tried to cover up corrosion found during an inspection. Usually when you tell them you have no choice but to immediately report them, they buckle down and perform the necessary repairs. Your days may be numbered working for them, but, there a lot of companies out there that are not that unscrupulous.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jetfueldrinker,
You are correct that a manager's stamp was used to sign off the w/s replacement on the bac1-11 which was near catastrophic but to my knowledge he actually carried out the job too . Rather ironically the engineers were out on strike at that time & of course you guessed it , it fell upon the middle managers with cover to maintain the airline's engineering operation .
This only provides fuel to the arguement that people who are not hands on should have their authorisations removed. Our Quality department like to use the word 'recentcy' ( I think thats how you spell it ) when refering to indivuals maintaining their authorisations .I believe the requirement is that as long as you certify once within a 6 month period on the a/c type you hold you are considered to be current. How conveinient you just have to sign off a simple panel removal & you keep your cover without leaving the comfort of your office desk & chair!
No doubt even this reqiurement could be quickly waivered should 'operational needs' be quoted.
You are correct that a manager's stamp was used to sign off the w/s replacement on the bac1-11 which was near catastrophic but to my knowledge he actually carried out the job too . Rather ironically the engineers were out on strike at that time & of course you guessed it , it fell upon the middle managers with cover to maintain the airline's engineering operation .
This only provides fuel to the arguement that people who are not hands on should have their authorisations removed. Our Quality department like to use the word 'recentcy' ( I think thats how you spell it ) when refering to indivuals maintaining their authorisations .I believe the requirement is that as long as you certify once within a 6 month period on the a/c type you hold you are considered to be current. How conveinient you just have to sign off a simple panel removal & you keep your cover without leaving the comfort of your office desk & chair!
No doubt even this reqiurement could be quickly waivered should 'operational needs' be quoted.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is going to cause a bit of screaming, but I´m not trying to insult anyone.
If you witness a manager, or an engineer, act as describe in numerous posts above, and you do not do something, anything, you are in my mind guilty by assosiation.
The Jar 66 might solve a part of the problem. The date of your approval does not imply that you hold a RIGHT or privilege, but that you on that particular date passed an exam, your approval is based on involvment in the maintenance of the type of aircraft on which you hold the approval, and on your partisipation in the contiuation training program, both the technical and the administrative part. Therefore, if a manager does not partisipate in the daily work and dosn´t pass the CT program, the Quality Dept. will have no option but to revoke his/her approval, it has already happened a couple of times in a major scandinavian airline,
With regards to the 1-11 windscreen senario, was the problem not that the windscreen had been installed with 8/32" bolts and not 1/4"???.
Doc.
To Brakeson: STOP LEAVING MY F!"#¤% HEADSET IN THE SNOW.
[This message has been edited by DoctorA300 (edited 24 February 2001).]
If you witness a manager, or an engineer, act as describe in numerous posts above, and you do not do something, anything, you are in my mind guilty by assosiation.
The Jar 66 might solve a part of the problem. The date of your approval does not imply that you hold a RIGHT or privilege, but that you on that particular date passed an exam, your approval is based on involvment in the maintenance of the type of aircraft on which you hold the approval, and on your partisipation in the contiuation training program, both the technical and the administrative part. Therefore, if a manager does not partisipate in the daily work and dosn´t pass the CT program, the Quality Dept. will have no option but to revoke his/her approval, it has already happened a couple of times in a major scandinavian airline,
With regards to the 1-11 windscreen senario, was the problem not that the windscreen had been installed with 8/32" bolts and not 1/4"???.
Doc.
To Brakeson: STOP LEAVING MY F!"#¤% HEADSET IN THE SNOW.
[This message has been edited by DoctorA300 (edited 24 February 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
PenPusher has a good point.
CAA now seem to be getting keen on removing stamps off people with commercial interests(ie managers). The company I work for will not allow managers to have stamps because of this temptation.Good company and good managers because they agree with the principle!!!
CAA now seem to be getting keen on removing stamps off people with commercial interests(ie managers). The company I work for will not allow managers to have stamps because of this temptation.Good company and good managers because they agree with the principle!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
A few pertinent points regarding the the Bac 1-11
The left windscreen had been replaced and the task certificated by the same Shift Maintenance Manager with the appropriate British Airways authorisation 27 hours before the accident flight and the aircraft had not flown since its replacement.
The replacement windscreen had been installed with 84 bolts (A21l-8C) whose diameters were approximately 0.026 of an inch below the diameters of the specified bolts (A21 1-8D), and 6 bolts (A211-7D) which were of the correct diameter, but 0.1 of an inch too short.
The windscreen fitting process was characterised by a series of poor work practices, poor judgements and perceptual errors, each one of which eroded the factors of safety built into the method of operation promulgated by British Airways.
A series of cues were available to the Shift Maintenance Manager to draw attention to the use of incorrect bolts but all went unnoticed or unheeded.
Although an independent final inspection would have had a high probability of detecting the error, the task of the windscreen installation was not designated a 'Vital Point' and consequently no duplicate inspection was called for and none took place.
The work of the Shift Maintenance Manager was not subject to review by another manager and thus the there was no backstop with any chance of detecting his errors. Errors that were made more likely by the sleep deprivation and circadian effects associated with the end of a first night shift.
The practices employed by the Shift Maintenance Manager which permitted such errors were not considered to be 'one-offs' but were symptomatic of a longer term failure on his part to observe the promulgated procedures.
The British Airways local management, Product Samples and Quality Audits had not detected the application of inadequate standards by the Shift Maintenance Manager, because they did not monitor directly the working practices of Shift Maintenance Managers.
The windscreen replacement task may have been unique in that it alone could accommodate the errors associated with its fitment, such that they were exposed so dramatically the first time that the windscreen was called upon to resist cabin pressure.
The Shift Maintenance Manager required mild corrective lenses to read small print or figures but did not use his glasses whilst performing the windscreen replacement.
A safety critical task, not identified as a 'Vital Point', was undertaken by one individual who also carried total responsibility for the quality achieved and the installation was not tested until the aircraft was airborne on a passenger carrying flight.
The Shift Maintenance Manager's potential to achieve quality in the windscreen fitting process was eroded by his inadequate care, poor trade practices, failure to adhere to company standards and use of unsuitable equipment, which were judged symptomatic of a longer term failure by him to observe the promulgated procedures.
The British Airways local management, Product Samples and Quality Audits had not detected the existence of inadequate standards employed by the Shift Maintenance Manager because they did not monitor directly the working practices of Shift Maintenance Managers.
------------------
Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread
[This message has been edited by Golden Rivet (edited 25 February 2001).]
The left windscreen had been replaced and the task certificated by the same Shift Maintenance Manager with the appropriate British Airways authorisation 27 hours before the accident flight and the aircraft had not flown since its replacement.
The replacement windscreen had been installed with 84 bolts (A21l-8C) whose diameters were approximately 0.026 of an inch below the diameters of the specified bolts (A21 1-8D), and 6 bolts (A211-7D) which were of the correct diameter, but 0.1 of an inch too short.
The windscreen fitting process was characterised by a series of poor work practices, poor judgements and perceptual errors, each one of which eroded the factors of safety built into the method of operation promulgated by British Airways.
A series of cues were available to the Shift Maintenance Manager to draw attention to the use of incorrect bolts but all went unnoticed or unheeded.
Although an independent final inspection would have had a high probability of detecting the error, the task of the windscreen installation was not designated a 'Vital Point' and consequently no duplicate inspection was called for and none took place.
The work of the Shift Maintenance Manager was not subject to review by another manager and thus the there was no backstop with any chance of detecting his errors. Errors that were made more likely by the sleep deprivation and circadian effects associated with the end of a first night shift.
The practices employed by the Shift Maintenance Manager which permitted such errors were not considered to be 'one-offs' but were symptomatic of a longer term failure on his part to observe the promulgated procedures.
The British Airways local management, Product Samples and Quality Audits had not detected the application of inadequate standards by the Shift Maintenance Manager, because they did not monitor directly the working practices of Shift Maintenance Managers.
The windscreen replacement task may have been unique in that it alone could accommodate the errors associated with its fitment, such that they were exposed so dramatically the first time that the windscreen was called upon to resist cabin pressure.
The Shift Maintenance Manager required mild corrective lenses to read small print or figures but did not use his glasses whilst performing the windscreen replacement.
A safety critical task, not identified as a 'Vital Point', was undertaken by one individual who also carried total responsibility for the quality achieved and the installation was not tested until the aircraft was airborne on a passenger carrying flight.
The Shift Maintenance Manager's potential to achieve quality in the windscreen fitting process was eroded by his inadequate care, poor trade practices, failure to adhere to company standards and use of unsuitable equipment, which were judged symptomatic of a longer term failure by him to observe the promulgated procedures.
The British Airways local management, Product Samples and Quality Audits had not detected the existence of inadequate standards employed by the Shift Maintenance Manager because they did not monitor directly the working practices of Shift Maintenance Managers.
------------------
Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread
[This message has been edited by Golden Rivet (edited 25 February 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guys - please don't knock someone just because they are a Shift Manager. Some of the best engineers I know are Shift Managers and I used to be a damn good one before I took to paper pushing. I used to fly with the aircraft and worked aircraft on a daily basis not once a month from my chair to keep my ticket as somone suggested. Knock someone because they are a s**t engineer by all means. In my book that includes people who stamp off work not done. There is no defence and if you allow it to pass then you are just as guilty. Remember please people there are human beings on those aircraft who trust us with their lives. DO NOT ABUSE THAT TRUST.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bigshot, Glad to see there is someone who is willing to stick up for & speak on behalf of shift managers. You must lead quite a lonely existence being the only one.
I know we all like to bitch & moan about the managements shortcomings but after years of conditioning it's not surprising .
But joking aside I'll be the first to admit I wouldn't want to do your job having to take s$%t from above & below so for now I'll settle for taking it from above only. And no doubt there are good Engineers who are now managers but unfortunately where I work the're not exactly what I'd call prolific.
After they take that first step on the ladder , it would appear the microchip they have inserted programs them to commit all sorts of misdemeanours for example;
The latest episode regarding 'Sid the unsrupulous shift manager' to come to my attention is the subject of PER books ( Personal Experience Record ) or lack of .
Several months ago our very own quality dept. took the questionable decision to change their policy on reviewing applicants PER books prior to granting company authorisations.
They entrusted Sid and a suitably qualified engineer within the hangar to carry out the afore'said review on their behalf thus reducing their own heavy workload ( allegedly).
With the onset of the JAR 66 & the deadline for 'Grandfather Rights' looming ever closer this placed Sid at top of the class in the eyes of his overseers . But although his entire shift of technicians are now 'qualified' & their practical experience effectively waivered it transpires that no-one bothered to tell him that at any time quality could still demand a small percentage and sample some of the PER books already passed .
"Oooops! But I told the lads not to bother .Quick get that damn photocopier working again . I only need one book to keep them interfering b#$%@#ds of my back".
I know we all like to bitch & moan about the managements shortcomings but after years of conditioning it's not surprising .
But joking aside I'll be the first to admit I wouldn't want to do your job having to take s$%t from above & below so for now I'll settle for taking it from above only. And no doubt there are good Engineers who are now managers but unfortunately where I work the're not exactly what I'd call prolific.
After they take that first step on the ladder , it would appear the microchip they have inserted programs them to commit all sorts of misdemeanours for example;
The latest episode regarding 'Sid the unsrupulous shift manager' to come to my attention is the subject of PER books ( Personal Experience Record ) or lack of .
Several months ago our very own quality dept. took the questionable decision to change their policy on reviewing applicants PER books prior to granting company authorisations.
They entrusted Sid and a suitably qualified engineer within the hangar to carry out the afore'said review on their behalf thus reducing their own heavy workload ( allegedly).
With the onset of the JAR 66 & the deadline for 'Grandfather Rights' looming ever closer this placed Sid at top of the class in the eyes of his overseers . But although his entire shift of technicians are now 'qualified' & their practical experience effectively waivered it transpires that no-one bothered to tell him that at any time quality could still demand a small percentage and sample some of the PER books already passed .
"Oooops! But I told the lads not to bother .Quick get that damn photocopier working again . I only need one book to keep them interfering b#$%@#ds of my back".
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thank you for those few kind words Ali! You are right about the !!!!! from both directions but I find that I can reduce it from below if I am seen to be fair. Obviously your Sid created his own problem by not managing the guys OJT propoerly in the first place. It is not a case of getting anyone off his back more that he is clearing up his own mess trying to blame others.
he may think he is star for a while by cutting corners but is he turning out reliable safe aircraft? Unlikely.
All the more reason why LAE's should not falsify records to cover for an idiot like that. Any manager worth his salt knows who needs less OJT than others. He can use that knowledge but not abuse it.
he may think he is star for a while by cutting corners but is he turning out reliable safe aircraft? Unlikely.
All the more reason why LAE's should not falsify records to cover for an idiot like that. Any manager worth his salt knows who needs less OJT than others. He can use that knowledge but not abuse it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
ali crom, you have opened up the big pandoras box,this is the dark side of aviation, (does it could come under duty of care?, oz caa love that phrase) that the public dont know about and caa,casa etc do not want to know,it,s called ruffling feathers,suffice to say i'm the wrong side of 50,and this must have been going on since the wright brothers came in for the first nifty 50 hour check,and please beware of the discreet phone call to the powers that be, here in oz,in perth a licenced sparky did just that, company found out,no such thing as private phone calls, and they always will find out in the end, it just takes them time,and phone calls, that guy became unemployable overnight, if you dont like it dont sign it,i know it's easier said than done, but its a hard life being an engineer trying to walk that getting finer line.i've seen a trend towards getting younger guys to signe off iffy areas, which is a bit of a concern (but it's still better than working for a living)
[This message has been edited by innocent bystander (edited 09 March 2001).]
[This message has been edited by innocent bystander (edited 09 March 2001).]
[This message has been edited by innocent bystander (edited 09 March 2001).]
[This message has been edited by innocent bystander (edited 09 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Having been in the position of being "thumb screwed" for a moody sign off, i found my self 'almost' buckling ,after a series of phone calls, the straw that almost broke my resolve was a message from the QA manager (delivered 2nd hand so he didnt get his hands dirty)explaining my out if i was captured by the CAA !.As a regulatory body the CAA are pretty toothless having seen them accept replies from companies at face value.The only thing we have as engineers is the ability to say "no", when you are in this position you feel very isolated generally the only support i have received has been from fellow engineers.If i sound a little bitter its because i am !
Guest
Posts: n/a
A number of years ago I grounded a newly purchased second hand helicopter,(with a public tranport CofA), due to multiple defects and record keeping deficencies. The only way the owner could get the CAA to attend was to threaten them with legal action. Not just toothless but gutless as well.
