Well done that engineer
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
From: northants
Well done that engineer
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
From: over here
Hmmm...it would be fascinating to learn quite how the two operators got around all the legalities of the matter. Not to say that it cannot be done, but to arrange for an off-duty engineer from one airline to work on another operator's aircraft at such short notice in this day and age must have required some real outside-of-the-box thinking and action from engineering and QA in both outfits. Well done to all concerned, really.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,415
Likes: 2
From: Europe
Some real out-of-the-box thinking
followed strict procedures
Not the first time a suitably qualified passenger has stepped in, in his/her own self-interest, by a long chalk.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,145
Likes: 31
From: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
yes its been done a few times in my experience.Good on him anyway.Good to see people kept happy.
If the location was good I think I'd shut up, sit back, order a beer and hope for an extra night at someone else's expense
If the location was good I think I'd shut up, sit back, order a beer and hope for an extra night at someone else's expense
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 733
Likes: 2
From: Andalucia
Going back to the "One Off Approvals" and the reciprocal arrangement. In the summer months TCA, Thomsonfly, and Monarch had/have an agreement whereby Tommy Cook covered the Greek Islands, Monarch did Mainland Spain, and Thomsonfly did the Balearics. Provided the Engineer had the required cover then the "one off" was implied and a quick chat between the various Maintrol departments was all that was required. Worked well for all concerned. I suspect that in this case all that was required was a quick phone call "do you know Bill Smith? has he got 757 B1?" etc.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,415
Likes: 2
From: Europe
At the risk of becoming boring, I doubt it was just a phone call.......the authorisation will have been properly issued.
Here's the relevant rule..
(b) In the following unforeseen cases, where an aircraft is grounded at a location other than the main base where no
appropriate certifying staff is available, the maintenance organisation contracted to provide maintenance support
may issue a one-off certification authorisation:
1. to one of its employees holding type qualifications on aircraft of similar technology, construction and systems; or
2. to any person with not less than five years maintenance experience and holding a valid ICAO aircraft maintenance
licence rated for the aircraft type requiring certification provided there is no organisation appropriately
approved under this Part at that location and the contracted organisation obtains and holds on file evidence of
the experience and the licence of that person.
All such cases must be reported to the competent authority within seven days of the issuance of such certification
authorisation.
The approved maintenance organisation issuing the one-off certification authorisation shall ensure that
any such maintenance that could affect flight safety is re-checked.
Here's the relevant rule..
(b) In the following unforeseen cases, where an aircraft is grounded at a location other than the main base where no
appropriate certifying staff is available, the maintenance organisation contracted to provide maintenance support
may issue a one-off certification authorisation:
1. to one of its employees holding type qualifications on aircraft of similar technology, construction and systems; or
2. to any person with not less than five years maintenance experience and holding a valid ICAO aircraft maintenance
licence rated for the aircraft type requiring certification provided there is no organisation appropriately
approved under this Part at that location and the contracted organisation obtains and holds on file evidence of
the experience and the licence of that person.
All such cases must be reported to the competent authority within seven days of the issuance of such certification
authorisation.
The approved maintenance organisation issuing the one-off certification authorisation shall ensure that
any such maintenance that could affect flight safety is re-checked.
Pilots' Pal
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
From: USA
Pretty much as above. Part 145 requires an agreement or contract to be in force; in the case of the one-off, the fact that an AMO requests another entity to perform maintenance is considered an agreement, with a fax or email to back it up. This "one-off" could have been between the engineer as an ICAO licensed engineer "in the desert" or between Thomas Cook and Thomson's respective Part 145 AMOs. ["One-offs go between Part 145 AMOs or Part 145 AMO/LAE and are not issued by operators as such (other than if they are approved under Part 145) but the operator has to be kept in the loop]
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,145
Likes: 31
From: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
asfkap
well done! Point taken lol,and I was of course only half serious.
I think I'd take the champers over the 15 minutes of fame too.
How many times have I been crawling on a mucky floor plugging SEB's back in?!
We ty-wrap strap the box lids on in some aircraft these days.
I think I'd take the champers over the 15 minutes of fame too.
How many times have I been crawling on a mucky floor plugging SEB's back in?!
We ty-wrap strap the box lids on in some aircraft these days.
Pilots' Pal
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
From: USA
How many times have I been crawling on a mucky floor plugging SEB's back in?!
We ty-wrap strap the box lids on in some aircraft these days.
We ty-wrap strap the box lids on in some aircraft these days.
While I worked for a major ME carrier in the 90s - one of the first to install seatback video in all classes - cabin crew had (have?) authority to replace screens, using a "scissor" type or insertion tool, depending on the screen. Invariably, they fitted them all wrong, in many case not even connecting the screen.
