Who's at your turnaround's?
 

The turning of the tide in our new accountant driven aviation engineering landscape is starting down under. Engineer's at turnaround's are on the decline as low cost carrier airlines reshape how we support their operation. LAME to ame ratios are visited at excective levels targeting the soft manpower target to cut costs. I know this is not new and I'm sure many part's of the world have made many an accountant happy not suppling technical staff coverage at turn arounds but....what I'm really interested in

Does this save money?
Is the business better off?
Have companies just been too cautious over the years?

or

Does this reduction in engineers just change where the operating costs or loss of income turn up on the spread sheet?

As call out's and loss revenue from penaty payments and disatisfied customers make a much larger impact on the bottom line.

or

Am I in a dream world of actualy thinking that good engineers making good decisions to keep aircraft flying safely on schedule make's the company money??

Your thoughts....

Under JAR-OPS/EASA there is no requirement for the issue of a Certificate of Release to Service (CRS) for Pre-Flight Inspections. Pilots may certify the transit - including refueling etc. provided they have received initial or continuation training in the procedures - including hands-on practical - and have been issued with an authorisation certificate under the Quality System.

Thus, there is no need to have a licensed engineer in attendance, unless there is a defect to be rectified (e.g. a wheel or brake unit change for example) or an A check is due. I don't see it as an accountant thing at all, its simple good management. Why would you waste a highly trained, experienced, expensive and scarce LAME on such menial work?

Turns
 

In Canada all wide body a/c require some form of check done at each turn, therefore a signature is needed.

Can you dig a reference pls?

FD.
(the un-real)

All our ETOPS aircraft have a transit check done before each ETOPS leg but other than that we only do call outs now. Ramp checks on long stops or overnight scoop up the rest.
Cabin stuff on the shorthaul aircraft is generally carried forward to the end of the day so long as it's nothing too drastic.

Try Part M Subpart B M.A.201(d) and AMC 145.A.30(j)(4) for a start.

The rules are a desert of shifting sand. Amendment 12 of JAR-OPS 1 (which finally eliminates Sub-part M) was published on 01 December. I just got my copy this morning and I'm still reading it.

We have been running our shorthaul fleet (including B767) with no enginers in attendance for some time now. At most airports we have an agrrement with someone to come out when called by the crew, but not all. It seems to work well. The costs go down, but the delays go up as the engineer that is called is not always available at once.
In Swden, SAS nightstops its domestic flights with no engineer on station. If a defect develops, an engineer flys up from ARN in the morning.
Many developments led to this. Loaders doing headset on pushback, the deicing crews releasing the aircraft,the refuellers controlling the refuel panel, and the cleaners converting the seats. These were all jobs that I did twenty years ago, but not any more.

Sadly, Like Black-hand magic, as an Aussie outstation LAME I too can see the writing on the wall. Unfortunately it isn't a case of because the accountant/management people couldn't give a toss about the all they see is the costs.

I know this because there is an emerging trend in Australia of base station LAMEs who have had the variety of doing tarmac duties taken off them by and are basically stuck on permanent nightshift wielding a grease gun, which funnily enough also seems a and are now seeking outstation positions at unlicensed engineer rates plus predetermined amount per signature, undercutting us and setting a precedent, in a not dissimilar fashion to LCC pilots undercutting their Legacy carrier workmates. The Incumbent Australian government's industrial relations policies contribute to the ease of this.

What I can't fathom is that I could not get an outstation job for 20 years because I wasn't qualified or experienced enough; but now those same qualifications and experience I worked my butt off to get will now, in all likelihood, be my downfall.

Luckily my port is 4 hours flight time away from any other, which sort of helps my continued existance, and my employer is happy for me to attend each turnaround (for now). Sadly that doesn't help my workmates in other ports closer to the Big Castle.

I watched a LCC turnaround the night before last taxi back to the gate and wait 2 hours for a LAME to be called out (at 3 in the morning) to clear a warning light, and it seems to me that society in general is prepared to wait a few hours every so often if it is going to save them a few bucks on the price of a seat...

Ave a good night...

Bang on! The KPI is 98% despatch reliability. Which is a posh way of saying that we can hack 2% of flights being delayed, as long as the other 98% are done in half the time, using half the resources.

The bottom line is that the bean counters only count the beans, but its the management who grow them. As for the front line, there are actually more aircraft flying, more front line jobs and more money to made by doing it this way. The work changes as a result and some people are bound to be unhappy, but that's life isn't it?.

This is all good info gang. With Australia about to adopt an EASA type system, we are all wondering where it will lead, and to see the experiences in Europe gives some idea.

Hopefully my isolation will see me through to retirement, both from an ETOPS and distance perspective. I wonder if SAS would just fly someone out from Arlanda to somewhere like Nuuk in Greenland to fix an overnighter...

What Sweden probably terms a 'domestic' flight in terms of distance is done in Australia with a 19 seat turboprop with similar nil engineering support (we'll fly a dude down to Kununnurra in the morning Captain, in the meantime, just sweat it out in that 45 degree heat).

However what Australians term a 'domestic' flight can be the same as Stockholm to Cairo, Reykjavik or Rome, but using the same narrow-body equipment that SAS would use for their 'domestic' flights.

'ave a good night!

I don't know about SAS 'aveagoodknight - or any others who may have a their own network-wide station staff. For those who want to do everything themselves and bear the cost of keeping a whole station running to cover a few flights a day, that's their business.

Most operators though, would have a contract with a local Part 145 maintainer at outstations, or if the local maintainer isn't Part 145 approved, extend their own QA system to the local maintainer. If the overnighter example was U/s it would be fixed locally on a one time work order, as provided for under the contract. (Usually IATA SGHA). But that would cost extra. The ground handling contract for pre-flight and transit wouldn't cover the defect rectification which comes at extra cost.

As an example, our maintenance in Darwin, Brisbane, Perth and Sydney is done by Qantas on an IATA SGHA (1998) contract and under extension of our own quality system - i.e. their ground staff are trained on our type differences by our own Part 147 people and hold our company approval. Our QA audit each station annually. We wouldn't expect them to field an approved LAE to a transit unless there was a problem that needed a CRS and then we'd pay for his services. That's been more or less the way things have operated for many years now, around the world, and the introduction of EASA rules changed nothing much. Maybe its time for Oz to catch up with the rest of us? ;)