Grey Maintenance
 

Stuck out on the ramp having just changed a widget,airplane ready to go,flight crew bitching about on time departure, cabin crew desperate to close the last remaining door - one last job to do before you get off - Fill in the Tech Log !
Bugger, you cant remember the maintenance manual reference. You have a dilemma. Do you hold up a plane full of punters for an insignificant widget, get back in the van, drive back to the office and dig out the mm ref only to pick up a tech delay for your troubles, or do you say Sod it and fill in the tech log "Widget replaced and functioned Satis " ?
The current trend requiring a maintenace Manual ref for everything including the sink can be a tad troublesome at times. I know according to the letter of the law its required, but not everything has a reference. Welcome to the area of maintenace where there are no definitive rights or wrongs. The area of Grey Maintenace !!

Have you ever tried to get a mm ref for fitting a bev maker of for adjusting a pax seat hydrolock ? No - because they are'nt listed. Does that mean you can't change them ? Ballcocks !

Its even worse in the hangar - a whole shed load of dubious goings on that have no right and wrong. Take for example rotopeening - allowable or not ? Fabricating your own brackets/angles, allowable or not ?. According the the airworthiness notice #3 you cant disassemble a complete riveted joint in a primary structure, but how many of us have had complete lap joints apart ? Special Bolted joints - now there's a laugh. Some would say once you've done one they're not special any more ? What does quality dept do if you quiz them on such aspects - yep turn and run the other way!

Thoughts/Comments on the subject




------------------
Happiness is a corroded shear deck

If there is no written procedure for a particular activity that you regularly do then why not raise a Quality Failure Report against the MM and let the QA dept sort it out. After about 10 their enthusiasm for chasing after you for not providing the reference may wane a little! But seriously, AWN3 obviously can't cater for every eventuality, most of the time its up to the licensed engineer concerned to make the final judgement. Our company has very clear procedures as to what people can and can't do within it which helps enormously. I've found, in the past, the only way to get any action from QA depts is to put any queries in writing. Food for thought?

PS I don't work on large aircraft - so what is a shear deck?

within my company we raise many tech services query notes( for some reason qa will not get involved ) which arrive on a small island in the Irish Sea on the desk of an unexperienced on type tech services engineer who will then try to teach the experienced line engineer how to suck eggs, with most query replies involve complying with the FIM. Talk about chimps!So I must agree with firkin , most of the time it is up to the discretion of the engineer to make the final judgement on whether or not to incur the wrath of qa, but at least we have a radio with which to contact the office to get the mm ref.

Why do we need to put a reference anyway? It is only to help the unqualified people in Tech Services & QA! When we certify either under JAA or FAA we certify that the work has been carried out in accordance with the requirements .......... The requirements are all work is carried out iaw the approved MM.

Some companies also require statements that function test carried out also. Just bull sh** form office wallahs.

I have seen many mechs with lists of ATA references which they quote but never refer to the manual, they don't get letters from QA even though they have not followed the correct procedures.

where do you stand on certifying against instructions within an overhaul manual. Ever found a reference for topping up an O2 bottle in the mm ?
As for actioning some of the items contained within Boeing SB's is anyones guess. Own up if you've ever bored out a pylon fitting ? Legal - Who know's. What I'm trying to get at is that there is a whole host of activities going on out there that are seriosly ambiguous and I believe they are purposely left that way by the individual companies concerned.

An answer to a previous question about what is a shear deck. The term comes from the big slab on tin that can be found under a certain aircrafts rear galley. Designed to spread the galley loading and stabilise the floor beams directly below. Some would also say it is there to generate overtime ! Management quivver at the phrase as it almost certainly equates to a large amount of overtime and an aircraft late of check( If they cant secretly get someone to rub it down and put a coat of 90 thou paint over the top)
I would say fair proportion of these aircraft if inspected would exhibit corrosion to some degree

------------------
Happiness is a corroded shear deck

If I was unsure of the exact ATA chapter and verse to add to the paperwork then I would say that the hydrolock was adjusted IAW chapter 25.(Its gotta be in there somewhere). I also find that chap 20 is also a good one to quote when you aint got a clue where to look. It gets up the QA jobsworths noses but i'm sure we all have broad enough shoulders to take a little flack. Take a look at the joke about the Caa interview in the humour on this site, It could apply to QA aswell.

For topping up O2 bottles, have you looked up in Chapter 12 of the MM? I am only guessing, but that is a good place to start. Failing that, Chapter 38 (Oxygen Systems)

For brackets etc. do you have access to the aircraft manufactures drawings? Everything you ever needed to know, including heat treatment requirements is there on the drawing. If you don't have access, then ground the aircraft! It is surprising what happens if it looks like hangar space is being taken up by an aircraft that is stuck for a little bit, but you cannot get it because of management shortcomings.

Boring Bus statement coming up! A recently issued NPA (Notice of Proposed Amendment) to JAR 145 proposes that 145 organisations set up reporting systems for tech document discrepancies or omissions (some already exist). MEMS systems will help only if someone high up uses the information constructively.
Reading other comments in this thread, I can tell that you have all, at some time or other, experienced less than subtle pressure with regard to the job and paperwork.
I always think that it is best to put MM references down. If it all ends in disaster and the AAIB, NTSB, ATSB or whoever, starts going through the records, your last job will be recorded properly. You cannot account for the idiot who fools around with a system you have previously signed for without recording his/her subsequent involvement. I know a couple of people who have lost authorisations over this through no fault of their own.

------------------
Bus429 - the pilot's pal!

[This message has been edited by Bus429 (edited 10 February 2001).]

A few critical remarks about QA in posts above. That is the fault of some QA systems either staffed by a bunch of young people with no experience of aircraft maintenance or people so far removed from the process so as to have forgotten the realities. Believe me, the first example I gave exists in two companies I know of. You cannot audit aircraft maintenance activities without knowing what the job is all about. However, I believe a strong, realistic QA is a boon to a company. A police force QA is not!

------------------
Bus429 - the pilot's pal!

[This message has been edited by Bus429 (edited 10 February 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Bus429 (edited 10 February 2001).]

Gentlemen,
thought I should comment on the adverse comments made about tech. services engineers. We should all remeber that there are good and bad in all areas (ALAE's and Tech Services for example) and that in some of your bad experiences with tech. services people, you could be dealing with licenced guys.

Please lets try and remember that no-one knows everything and that its teamwork thats needed.

From someone who has experience on both sides of the fence.

Some airlines have MM/ATA refs on the card or log cover that you slip in to avoid write through to the next log page.(yes!that's how to avoid it)
Anyway they are usually good for chapter and sub chapter but if your co. requires more like page and paras then you are screwed anyhow.
If you have the luxury of a walkie you can always load it on to some seat shiner in control!
Incidentally and off the track slightly;if your co./airline has maint manuals on a LAN or other type of network whose responsibility is it to do the amendments???

I don´t see what the problem is. Unless you hold a special approval, your B1/B2 or C approval only covers you for work as desdcribed in the manufactures Maintenance Manual incl. SRM and WDM, but NOT vendors Overhaul manuals, Seats, Galleys and certain other cabin equipment may be allowed, and that in my opinon makes it very simple, if it is not in the MM, you are not allowed to do it. Brackets and other ´hardware` you need an engineering drawing to comply with.

Bus-man

"QA, a police force it is not" Methinks maybe it should be.There are standards out there and someone should be enforcing them or we end up in a downward spiral into the oblivion. Take for example the yearly CAA Audit. Everyone runs around like headless chickens for a few weeks prior to the visit, tidying, puttting things right and hiding the rest! We all know ( or should do )what is right and wrong but just need a gentle reminder now and again.
Maybe QA could weed out the people that really should'nt be there, there are a few, we all know who they are, but what ever happens to them? It only takes one cowboy to ruin it for everyone.

[This message has been edited by Golden Rivet (edited 10 February 2001).]

Greetings Gayboy , oops I mean Golden Rivet,
Don't you ever remember working to an EOI ( engineering Order Instruction ) whilst working at the 'world class' establishment .
That little piece of paper with a design signature giving the authority to deviate from drwgs & manuals , which also gave instructions on the processes used in overhaul manuals / SB's . I've lost count how many there are for pylon rework & I'd thought you'd remember there's one for the freezeplug instl. on the shear deck replacement.

HAPPINESS IS LEAVING ALL THE AWKWARD FASTENERS ON A SHEARDECK CHANGE TO THE OTHER SHIFT.

AC.

Ahh yes the EOI - That bit of paper that gave you the immunity from any number of illegal/immoral procedures!

------------------
Happiness is a bent fuse pin

Illegal/immoral I hear you say but hang on wait a minute . Didn't the Jedi master Yoda himself , the great one who even trained you in the art of snagging use the EOI for all those sheardecks , aft freight & door 2 repairs?

Happiness is the orange glow of defect stickers in aft freight.

AC.

He that lives in hope dances to an ill tune !

------------------
Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread

Yeah right , or maybe he's just been seduced by the dark side .
:rolleyes:

AC.

Old no 7 to be more precise !

Alright here's another dilemma.

Airplane comes in with FMC Nav database out of date. You scurry back to the office, grab the data loader and fish out the Nav data Disc. #hitbags !! Thats got the same date on it as the airplane - what do you do ?

1. Ignore it and hope the crew don't notice
2. raise an ADD for an out of date database
3. Load on the latest version of Flight Sim and keep your fingers crossed.
4. Get onto main base and get them to e-mail it to you. Spend half an hour trying to work out how to transfer it to floppy and then wizz out and stuff it in the data loader. AWN #45 whats that ?

------------------
Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread

Or alternatively ,

1) Get a shift manager with one of those well worn roller stamps to do the business.

2) Get Fleet Technical to raise an 'illegal/immoral' EOI .

3) Try to get base to E-mail it to you only to find the're too busy downloading porn from the Net.

4) Change the L/H nosewheel.

Happiness is spending a Saturday night in babysitting & killing time on PPRuNe when I should be down the Pub getting completely wasted.

AC.