Grey Maintenance
Guest
Posts: n/a
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).]
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).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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!!!
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!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
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).]
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).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
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!
------------------
Bus429 - the pilot's pal!
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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).]
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).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
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??
