British Aircraft Maintenance On The Decline
The truth is that there is no formal standard for an unlicenced 'fitter' to work in MROs - only supervisors need to have "proper" qualifications and in some MROs they somehow get around having what I would like to see as a "fair" amount of B1/B2 guys.
So it doesn't matter, EASA-wise, what the fitters' background is, and if they have local training to give him/her an idea of what is required, whats the issue?
Yes, there is a money-wise background to MRO contracts, but we're all out here to make money first. We are paid to do what we do as safely as possible, and that opinion of safety varies in different peoples minds.
So it doesn't matter, EASA-wise, what the fitters' background is, and if they have local training to give him/her an idea of what is required, whats the issue?
Yes, there is a money-wise background to MRO contracts, but we're all out here to make money first. We are paid to do what we do as safely as possible, and that opinion of safety varies in different peoples minds.
Everybody knows the answer to Safety Concern's question. Which is why nobody wants to answer it.
Log and own eye springs to mind
Log and own eye springs to mind
PS.I hope Safety Concerns is on a wind up,if not he'll need an awful lot of Sarsons to put on his chips.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All a bit airmech-ish this isn't it.
Safety concerns does have a point though, even though I would have advocated in a different way!
Let me educate you on the position engineers are in. Poachers turned gamekeepers like yourself are part of a top heavy management structure making often poor decisions. We are over-ruled and under represented, we cannot make a stand because we do not have the resources. The spanner turners are not interested in climbing the ladders, but we are small in numbers.
Failures are everywhere. From the regulation structure, airlines, managers, and engineers.
Examples
My companies quality manager wanted to bring in the unlicensed company approved CRS holder.
The authorities have sanctioned a management performance related pay structure for CRS holders with operational key indicators!
The engineers that took this supervisors role signed a half written t&cs contract!
Who needs enemies when you have friends like that!! Until a solidarity culture is employed from the top, a bit of respect is seen from all sides, we are in a sticky situation. These are some of the views from someone with 30 odd years until retirement.
Unfortunately the bean counter will always prevail!
Safety concerns does have a point though, even though I would have advocated in a different way!
Let me educate you on the position engineers are in. Poachers turned gamekeepers like yourself are part of a top heavy management structure making often poor decisions. We are over-ruled and under represented, we cannot make a stand because we do not have the resources. The spanner turners are not interested in climbing the ladders, but we are small in numbers.
Failures are everywhere. From the regulation structure, airlines, managers, and engineers.
Examples
My companies quality manager wanted to bring in the unlicensed company approved CRS holder.
The authorities have sanctioned a management performance related pay structure for CRS holders with operational key indicators!
The engineers that took this supervisors role signed a half written t&cs contract!
Who needs enemies when you have friends like that!! Until a solidarity culture is employed from the top, a bit of respect is seen from all sides, we are in a sticky situation. These are some of the views from someone with 30 odd years until retirement.
Unfortunately the bean counter will always prevail!
Unfortunately as a group,engineers have handed the stick to management with which they can beat us. The 'Can'Do' ethos seems to be part of our DNA,it can be a great thing,but habitually we continue to get the job done minus large elements of support,which should be in place.
We underrate our importance,we don't seem capable of presenting a united front.
We underrate our importance,we don't seem capable of presenting a united front.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LALALAND COZ THATS WHAT PEOPLE TINK!!!
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry!!! I am not an aircraft engineer so maybe should not be posting here. However, I have been in the Aviation Business for 23 years looking after the maintenace records and making sure the aircraft that you guys work on is fat dumb and happy as far as it's maintenance and paperwork is concerned.
I take a great deal of concern in insuring that maintenance is called up and done on time. If it isn't I crawl all over the engineers. However, now in Business management, my belief is that, you might be able to afford a great big lump of metal, but that is not all there is to it. Owners, from my opinion, and it is only my opinion, fail to realise that their aircraft need maintenance. My biggest bug bear is that there seems to be a huge lack of understanding within the rest of the unit ie: operations that the aircraft MUST BE ON THE GROUND FOR MAINTENANCE!!!!.
BOTTOM LINE, WE NEED GOOD QUALITY ENGINEERS AND FACILITIES OR ELSE THER WILL BE MANY, MANY PROBLEMS AROUND AIRWORTHINESS.
LOOK AFTER THOSE THAT MAINTAIN AND THERE IS NO PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!
I take a great deal of concern in insuring that maintenance is called up and done on time. If it isn't I crawl all over the engineers. However, now in Business management, my belief is that, you might be able to afford a great big lump of metal, but that is not all there is to it. Owners, from my opinion, and it is only my opinion, fail to realise that their aircraft need maintenance. My biggest bug bear is that there seems to be a huge lack of understanding within the rest of the unit ie: operations that the aircraft MUST BE ON THE GROUND FOR MAINTENANCE!!!!.
BOTTOM LINE, WE NEED GOOD QUALITY ENGINEERS AND FACILITIES OR ELSE THER WILL BE MANY, MANY PROBLEMS AROUND AIRWORTHINESS.
LOOK AFTER THOSE THAT MAINTAIN AND THERE IS NO PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My biggest bug bear is that there seems to be a huge lack of understanding within the rest of the unit ie: operations that the aircraft MUST BE ON THE GROUND FOR MAINTENANCE!!!!.
Engineers are stuck on Earth, Pilots live up in the clouds & Ops people live on Pluto - so remote you just have to wonder!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: CUPBOARD
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree with you woptb, the management do beat the Engineers with a rather large wooden stick, demanding more for less, and as you put it we all have that can do attitude, no matter what, well within reason.
It is true that us Engineers should unite and band together but for some unknown reason,we don't.
Now i think it was only recent that a rather large exclusive airline had a vote too enable the ALAE too become their political voice, but there was'nt enough proportional representation too allow this too go ahead, please do correct me if i have got my facts wrong, as this was gleamed from a colleague, and well rumour network as anybody knows is an active zone.
I mean the Pilots have BALPA, and, ok from reading a few of the posts from some of the Bus Drivers,(No Offense any pilots reading this) on their thread, their union does have quite a strong political voice.
It would be interesting if some bright spark could actually forge interest in a national unionised body that Licensed and unlicensed Engineers would feel a benefit of joining, that also would include drumming up support for the current ALAE. As currently i talk too some of my work colleagues some are in favour and some are'nt of joining a union.
But all in all i have read some interesting replies and beeline you actually too spoke of home truths within the industry.
It is true that us Engineers should unite and band together but for some unknown reason,we don't.
Now i think it was only recent that a rather large exclusive airline had a vote too enable the ALAE too become their political voice, but there was'nt enough proportional representation too allow this too go ahead, please do correct me if i have got my facts wrong, as this was gleamed from a colleague, and well rumour network as anybody knows is an active zone.
I mean the Pilots have BALPA, and, ok from reading a few of the posts from some of the Bus Drivers,(No Offense any pilots reading this) on their thread, their union does have quite a strong political voice.
It would be interesting if some bright spark could actually forge interest in a national unionised body that Licensed and unlicensed Engineers would feel a benefit of joining, that also would include drumming up support for the current ALAE. As currently i talk too some of my work colleagues some are in favour and some are'nt of joining a union.
But all in all i have read some interesting replies and beeline you actually too spoke of home truths within the industry.
Shell Management,some interesting points raised in the presentation you linked to.
HF training is compulsory within 145 organisation,as is an errror reporting/management system but, the training is useless without a Just Culture. At its most basic if people can't put their hands up to error its a dead duck,likewise Maintenance Resource Management can work,but only with management who buy into its ethos.
Whilst engineers are viewed purely as a cost rather than an assett,management philosophy will remain short termist,problems will keep repeating themselves & we are condemned continually to re-inventing the wheel.
Its my experience that compliance is a fiction & will remain so until the bean counters realise 'it' (compliance), error management & effective reporting systems make sense both in terms of safety but,(more importantly to the bean counters) commercially.
The Commercial imperative blindly drives non-compliance.Until there is a real awareness of the dangers,metaphorically they'll continue to fiddle while Rome burns.
HF training is compulsory within 145 organisation,as is an errror reporting/management system but, the training is useless without a Just Culture. At its most basic if people can't put their hands up to error its a dead duck,likewise Maintenance Resource Management can work,but only with management who buy into its ethos.
Whilst engineers are viewed purely as a cost rather than an assett,management philosophy will remain short termist,problems will keep repeating themselves & we are condemned continually to re-inventing the wheel.
Its my experience that compliance is a fiction & will remain so until the bean counters realise 'it' (compliance), error management & effective reporting systems make sense both in terms of safety but,(more importantly to the bean counters) commercially.
The Commercial imperative blindly drives non-compliance.Until there is a real awareness of the dangers,metaphorically they'll continue to fiddle while Rome burns.
If by compliance monitoring, you mean process/procedure monitoring, then unfortunately you’re missing a trick.
There is very often (nearer to always!) a gap between what procedures & processes require & what actually happens. If you did relieve all non-compliant engineers of certification privileges; you’d have very few maintainers!
The majority of violations (Rule Breaking) are system induced (around 80%).You have to understand why they aren’t following procedure; Very often procedures aren’t fit for purpose, whether they be too prescriptive, confusing or often just plain wrong. Is the organisation (metaphorically) giving them the tools to carry out tasks safely, timely & effectively, what’s the work environment like?
I wouldn’t say a Just Culture is important it’s vital; we HAVE to understand why people violate, the behaviours & particularly the intent (very few people set out to do a bad job). If the organisation’s are 145's or if they operate under your 145, they’re required to have a reporting system or use yours, do they? High levels of (MEMS) reporting are a mark of high reliability organisations. If they don’t have high reporting levels you need to find out why, you need to know what type of culture they have.
There have been many so called ‘Quality Assured’ aircraft accidents, procedures/processes on paper can appear perfect, but do they work in the real world?
There is very often (nearer to always!) a gap between what procedures & processes require & what actually happens. If you did relieve all non-compliant engineers of certification privileges; you’d have very few maintainers!
The majority of violations (Rule Breaking) are system induced (around 80%).You have to understand why they aren’t following procedure; Very often procedures aren’t fit for purpose, whether they be too prescriptive, confusing or often just plain wrong. Is the organisation (metaphorically) giving them the tools to carry out tasks safely, timely & effectively, what’s the work environment like?
I wouldn’t say a Just Culture is important it’s vital; we HAVE to understand why people violate, the behaviours & particularly the intent (very few people set out to do a bad job). If the organisation’s are 145's or if they operate under your 145, they’re required to have a reporting system or use yours, do they? High levels of (MEMS) reporting are a mark of high reliability organisations. If they don’t have high reporting levels you need to find out why, you need to know what type of culture they have.
There have been many so called ‘Quality Assured’ aircraft accidents, procedures/processes on paper can appear perfect, but do they work in the real world?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: England
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
""There is very often (nearer to always!) a gap between what procedures & processes require & what actually happns" writes woptb
As a long-retired Quality Assurance Manager, the first page of the quality manual which I wrote, and audited against, quoted what I was taught as an apprentice "Work to the procedures or get them changed if they are unworkable or wrong"
If you dont, then it is tantamount to saying "There are potholes in the road so I will drive on the pavement [sidewalk for the benefit of our transatlantic cousins!].
Maybe because we, as groundcrew ,very often flew in the aircraft we maintained we had a slightly stricter view of getting it right. Also, if the aircraft is carring things that go bang [as ours were] this also concentrated the mind somewhat.......
As a long-retired Quality Assurance Manager, the first page of the quality manual which I wrote, and audited against, quoted what I was taught as an apprentice "Work to the procedures or get them changed if they are unworkable or wrong"
If you dont, then it is tantamount to saying "There are potholes in the road so I will drive on the pavement [sidewalk for the benefit of our transatlantic cousins!].
Maybe because we, as groundcrew ,very often flew in the aircraft we maintained we had a slightly stricter view of getting it right. Also, if the aircraft is carring things that go bang [as ours were] this also concentrated the mind somewhat.......
I love the pot holes in the road/pavement analogy.I agree wth everything you say,bye the bye,I'm also ex mil now civvy,but really can you truely say you 'always' followed procedures throughout your career?;
Fair play if you did,although I'd say you're in a tiny minority.
I like to think I was a safe engineer when on the tools - I look back on my career & if the truth be known,I've increased risk,'at the time' & for lots of different reasons-I thought it was the right thing to do,but I was wrong.Some of the stuff I did it makes my hair curl!
I've worked with some truely exceptional engineers over the years & I know they didn't always work to procedure.
Fair play if you did,although I'd say you're in a tiny minority.
I like to think I was a safe engineer when on the tools - I look back on my career & if the truth be known,I've increased risk,'at the time' & for lots of different reasons-I thought it was the right thing to do,but I was wrong.Some of the stuff I did it makes my hair curl!
I've worked with some truely exceptional engineers over the years & I know they didn't always work to procedure.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: England
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may gather, from my log-in name, where I started.
To the best of my knowlege I did obey the rules.
Incidentally, it seems that the post I referred to way back in this thread was not passed by the webmaster. Possibly because I name the airline. In essence I said that if the sevicing of the electronics in the cabin was the same as that on the flight deck, then I was worried!
To the best of my knowlege I did obey the rules.
Incidentally, it seems that the post I referred to way back in this thread was not passed by the webmaster. Possibly because I name the airline. In essence I said that if the sevicing of the electronics in the cabin was the same as that on the flight deck, then I was worried!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Quahog
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do these threads always descend into a "let's knock the foreigners/management/pilots" theme? Why does it have to be somebody else's fault? Anybody's fault? The world is changing, and aviation has been largely responsible by making it a smaller place. We have to move with that world.
The traditional mindset was "we must maintain our own airplanes". That was fine as long as the costs could be passed on to the customers. Trouble is, customers don't want to pay them any more, so air transport providers are pushed to reduce costs which in turn means looking at different ways of working. Unsurprisingly when aircraft can be flown to a country where labour rates are half of their home base rates, it makes economic sense to position larger checks in the cheaper location where the cost of the journey is offset by the labour savings, and keep only small jobs close to home.
I can understand we might not like this, but the economic imperatives are so strong what is the point of arguing about it? Operators who don't reduce their costs will lose money and go out of business. What of UK jobs then?
I can't understand though, why people seem to insist on equating low wage economies with unskilled labour. EASA through its various rules provides a framework to control maintenance organisations, their staff skills and the ratio of skilled to unskilled staff. If you guys feel this is not being addressed is that simply an issue of oversight? Or just sour grapes?
The traditional mindset was "we must maintain our own airplanes". That was fine as long as the costs could be passed on to the customers. Trouble is, customers don't want to pay them any more, so air transport providers are pushed to reduce costs which in turn means looking at different ways of working. Unsurprisingly when aircraft can be flown to a country where labour rates are half of their home base rates, it makes economic sense to position larger checks in the cheaper location where the cost of the journey is offset by the labour savings, and keep only small jobs close to home.
I can understand we might not like this, but the economic imperatives are so strong what is the point of arguing about it? Operators who don't reduce their costs will lose money and go out of business. What of UK jobs then?
I can't understand though, why people seem to insist on equating low wage economies with unskilled labour. EASA through its various rules provides a framework to control maintenance organisations, their staff skills and the ratio of skilled to unskilled staff. If you guys feel this is not being addressed is that simply an issue of oversight? Or just sour grapes?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
is that simply an issue of oversight?
I've seen time and time again over the years substandard work from certain parts of the world where labour may be cheap. I'm not saying that every British engineer is perfect but outsourced cheap labour can sometimes be cheap for a reason.
These lads abroad may be more than capable with the right training and experience but an MRO with a tight contract will pile on the pressure to get the job done for its customer to a set standard rather than to a high standard.
Having seen some very poor wiring repairs, swarf left all over the stringers after skin repairs and corrosion conveniently not seen on c-checks when it blatantly would have been obvious it does seem apparent that some corners are being cut.
It's not all bad from these places but I think most of us would like to see standards all round lifted rather than constantly lowered with MROs outbidding each other to the bottom whereby they can't afford to employ the right staff to do the work.
Fargoo,
Your on the money with your comments.The regulators have the regulations,but NOT the will to enforce them,unfortunately it comes back to money/economics.Their role is to maintain safe flight,nothing more - there must be political will to give them the impetus,this is missing. The European airlines are a powerful economic lobby & it seems the regulators are powerless to resist.
Your on the money with your comments.The regulators have the regulations,but NOT the will to enforce them,unfortunately it comes back to money/economics.Their role is to maintain safe flight,nothing more - there must be political will to give them the impetus,this is missing. The European airlines are a powerful economic lobby & it seems the regulators are powerless to resist.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well heres my two pennorth.
In the past working in the gulf I have seen some horrendous practices. very high pressure was applied to the mechanics in particular, i.e. say 'no' and you might not have a job. A carefull licensed engineer soon learned to check everything for his own protection nevermind that of the passengers. I saw one or two grisly accidents based on using poorly trained staff under minimal supervision.
Back here in the UK I percive things as beginning to move down the same road. Too many people running engineering departments have no real understanding of the operational environment, as some one has already said they know the cost but not the value. secondly too many licensed engineers do not have the courage to stand their ground. I have enjoyed every minute of it but I'll be glad to be out of it.
In the past working in the gulf I have seen some horrendous practices. very high pressure was applied to the mechanics in particular, i.e. say 'no' and you might not have a job. A carefull licensed engineer soon learned to check everything for his own protection nevermind that of the passengers. I saw one or two grisly accidents based on using poorly trained staff under minimal supervision.
Back here in the UK I percive things as beginning to move down the same road. Too many people running engineering departments have no real understanding of the operational environment, as some one has already said they know the cost but not the value. secondly too many licensed engineers do not have the courage to stand their ground. I have enjoyed every minute of it but I'll be glad to be out of it.