AEI makes a stand against deteriorating safety standards.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: england
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AEI makes a stand against deteriorating safety standards.
The EU won't argue with its member states over many things (in the interests of unity) and so no surprises that they turn a blind eye in this case; it happens all over Europe when rules are inconvenient. The UK on the other hand generally follows the rule book to the chagrin of its citizens who see all the others being selective; ergo Brexit.
This is probably the biggest threat to the incredibly high levels of safety achieved in the Air Transport Industry over the last 80 odd years, this method of maintenance effectively removes a major part of the prevention of errors by removing the requirement of Licensed Engineers to inspect and oversee the unlicensed mechanics work. These mechanics are permitted to work completely unsupervised on the vast majority of tasks called up on Base Maintenance inputs, they are even given Duplicate Inspection rights, and of course the B1 B2 support staff remain 100% legally responsible for any errors these mechanics might make as the CRS paperwork is issued by these Licensed Engineers.
These German maintenance providers operate in many different countries, including the UK and bring with them this method of so called certification, you may be flying next on a 'G' reg aircraft that has been maintained in this way, it is utter madness, EASA is effectively powerless and now the AEI have had to resort to asking the EU to get this sorted, I am a B1 Engineer with 40 years in the Industry, old school British I admit, but have never ever seen such a flagrant misuse and deliberate 'bending of the rules'
These German maintenance providers operate in many different countries, including the UK and bring with them this method of so called certification, you may be flying next on a 'G' reg aircraft that has been maintained in this way, it is utter madness, EASA is effectively powerless and now the AEI have had to resort to asking the EU to get this sorted, I am a B1 Engineer with 40 years in the Industry, old school British I admit, but have never ever seen such a flagrant misuse and deliberate 'bending of the rules'
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Marvo999: One can only think that this circumventing of reg's is cost saving and because to comply was inconvenient. Is that your perspective? For it to happen in Germany, of all places, is unexpected.
RAT 5: I can only speculate why some German MRO's use this system, perhaps because it is similar to what the Germans did prior to JAA66 and have failed to adopt the EASA common, and improved standards, whatever the reasons these Companies are now vigorously defending these practices and don't forget these are approved by the German LBA and so when these German MRO's operate in EU countries other than Germany, as they do, they remain under control of the LBA and therefore audited by the LBA not the NAA in which EU Country that particular facility is located in.
Join Date: May 2015
Location: LGW
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone read the document by following the link at the bottom of the press release.
Incredible. How has the EU allowed this to happen?
Document says Germany was audited and findings raised which remain open whereas Turkey had the same but the came into line. Also Holland is using this method, one of the attachments shows a letter from the Dutch NAA who say this alternative method is ok.
Wonder how many more there are?
Incredible. How has the EU allowed this to happen?
Document says Germany was audited and findings raised which remain open whereas Turkey had the same but the came into line. Also Holland is using this method, one of the attachments shows a letter from the Dutch NAA who say this alternative method is ok.
Wonder how many more there are?
Join Date: May 2015
Location: LGW
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
these Companies are now vigorously defending these practices and don't forget these are approved by the German LBA and so when these German MRO's operate in EU countries other than Germany, as they do, they remain under control of the LBA and therefore audited by the LBA not the NAA in which EU Country that particular facility is located in.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: LOndon UK
Age: 79
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember, this is an organisation whose accounts were not signed off by its auditors as "fair and accurate" from 1994 to 2006 and not certified as "free from material error" until, for the first time, last year!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse my ignorance and perhaps wrong assumptions. I remember JAA was a recommendation & guideline organisation. You signed up or you didn't. I thought EASA was EU law. In both cases you could adopt a higher standard, but never a lower standard.
This would appear to be adopting a lower standard against a law making ruling. How does that work?
This would appear to be adopting a lower standard against a law making ruling. How does that work?
Last edited by RAT 5; 16th Apr 2018 at 08:11.
RAT5: EASA seems to agree with us that this system is to a lower standard than 'standard' however their finding against the LBA remains open................................ explain that one Mr EASA.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London
Age: 49
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standards in Germany
I can say from personal experience that the Inspection Standards in Germany are not always what they should be. I worked for a major MRO in Germany in the hangar carrying out heavy maintenance.
We were tasked with performing Control Cable Inspections on large Boeing passenger aircraft. This wouldn't be quite as bad but we were employed as Aircraft Sheet Metal Workers; some had no prior experience of the task. I had to advise some of my collegues to at least run a rag down the cables to knock the dust off (a technique for inspecting for broken strands), but which also would give away that the cables had not been inspected. I never met the German Licensed Engineer who was oversigning our work; nobody ever asked any of us how we had inspected the cables. Shocking really.
There is a good reason the LBA is known as the "Lufthansa Bundesamt"
We were tasked with performing Control Cable Inspections on large Boeing passenger aircraft. This wouldn't be quite as bad but we were employed as Aircraft Sheet Metal Workers; some had no prior experience of the task. I had to advise some of my collegues to at least run a rag down the cables to knock the dust off (a technique for inspecting for broken strands), but which also would give away that the cables had not been inspected. I never met the German Licensed Engineer who was oversigning our work; nobody ever asked any of us how we had inspected the cables. Shocking really.
There is a good reason the LBA is known as the "Lufthansa Bundesamt"
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Nr Aston Down, Cotswolds
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m afraid it’s an illustration of how the “European Dream” has failed us all. Years ago they set out with the aim of developing a common standard within the industry, based broadly on the FARS and sprinkled with some of the best bits from various NAA within Europe. JARS were developed, there was much argument about how these rules could be implemented by the different states, so acceptable means of compliance guidelines were then drawn up. These could then be interpreted in different ways by the various NAAs.
As a result, after 40 years of bureaucratic gobbledygook, we now find ourselves back where we started, without a common standard. Still I’m sure there’s a new generation of Eurocrats waiting in the wings, with their expense accounts, pensions and salaries all sorted. Ready for the next round of talks to resolve the issue. Don’t hold you’re breath!
As a result, after 40 years of bureaucratic gobbledygook, we now find ourselves back where we started, without a common standard. Still I’m sure there’s a new generation of Eurocrats waiting in the wings, with their expense accounts, pensions and salaries all sorted. Ready for the next round of talks to resolve the issue. Don’t hold you’re breath!
Last edited by Epsomdog; 15th Apr 2018 at 22:12. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yotty & Marvo999: Why is this 'whistle-blowing' not going higher up the food chain inside the EU commission? I assume the commissioner for transport/aviation is responsible for EASA. Are they being lobbied/informed?
I once had a similar but much less critical situation at local council level. I could not get a response and lots of buck passing. Eventually I discovered the 'responsible person'. Even then I hit brick walls. Only when I said that any accident caused by XYZ, and any child injured because of lack of action, would be laid directly and personally at their door and in full glare publicity.
Things then moved fast.
If the commissioner was similarly told they would be held to account after the first crash attributed to such maintenance failings, I wonder if they will continue to allow such risks to remain. Indeed, do they even know of this situation. If EASA is blocking any common sense then they need to be by-passed directly to their boss.
I once had a similar but much less critical situation at local council level. I could not get a response and lots of buck passing. Eventually I discovered the 'responsible person'. Even then I hit brick walls. Only when I said that any accident caused by XYZ, and any child injured because of lack of action, would be laid directly and personally at their door and in full glare publicity.
Things then moved fast.
If the commissioner was similarly told they would be held to account after the first crash attributed to such maintenance failings, I wonder if they will continue to allow such risks to remain. Indeed, do they even know of this situation. If EASA is blocking any common sense then they need to be by-passed directly to their boss.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The sunny side
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not news 
EASA have been working on this for years - Functions and responsibilities of B1 and B2 support staff - link with sign-off
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objectives of this NPA are the following:
1. Address the need for Part-145 organisations to better evaluate the complexity of each maintenance task and assign it to appropriately qualified personnel authorised to sign off or to non-authorised personnel under supervision.
2. Better define who can be authorised to sign off maintenance tasks, under which qualification criteria and under which authorisation process.
3. Clarify how the licensed support staff evaluate that maintenance tasks are performed to the required standard and which level of supervision they should place on the personnel authorised to sign off.
4. Clarify how the licensed support staff should record that all maintenance tasks have been carried out to the required standard, in particular those carried out by non-licensed ‘signoff’ personnel.
Consideration has been given to the fact that, although objectives 3 and 4 above apply only to the base maintenance environment, objectives 1 and 2 can only be achieved in a consistent manner if they are addressed for all the maintenance environments (line and base maintenance, as well as component maintenance).
Can't work out why it has taken so long to level the playing field though
EASA have been working on this for years - Functions and responsibilities of B1 and B2 support staff - link with sign-off
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objectives of this NPA are the following:
1. Address the need for Part-145 organisations to better evaluate the complexity of each maintenance task and assign it to appropriately qualified personnel authorised to sign off or to non-authorised personnel under supervision.
2. Better define who can be authorised to sign off maintenance tasks, under which qualification criteria and under which authorisation process.
3. Clarify how the licensed support staff evaluate that maintenance tasks are performed to the required standard and which level of supervision they should place on the personnel authorised to sign off.
4. Clarify how the licensed support staff should record that all maintenance tasks have been carried out to the required standard, in particular those carried out by non-licensed ‘signoff’ personnel.
Consideration has been given to the fact that, although objectives 3 and 4 above apply only to the base maintenance environment, objectives 1 and 2 can only be achieved in a consistent manner if they are addressed for all the maintenance environments (line and base maintenance, as well as component maintenance).
Can't work out why it has taken so long to level the playing field though
Would we be any better after Brexit after all people are much the same everywhere therefore bureaucrats are much the same everywhere.
And if our bureaucrats and politicians are stupid enough to blindly enforce rules they know others dont (and therefore know they wont be challenged) will anything actually change.
Seeing as organisations like RR, Airbus UK , do vast amounts of business in Eu , far more than in UK alone they a will always go for Eu rules over UK ones anyway .
I will confess I am pro EU even though it could be run more efficiently -but then what government organsiation couldnt
And if our bureaucrats and politicians are stupid enough to blindly enforce rules they know others dont (and therefore know they wont be challenged) will anything actually change.
Seeing as organisations like RR, Airbus UK , do vast amounts of business in Eu , far more than in UK alone they a will always go for Eu rules over UK ones anyway .
I will confess I am pro EU even though it could be run more efficiently -but then what government organsiation couldnt
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.icao.int/safety/airnavig.../standard.aspx
The regions and the NAA's follow.
Go look at ICAO Annex 19 -
https://www.icao.int/SAM/Documents/2...dition_eng.pdf
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/def...O-annex-19.pdf
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is from the link at the bottom of the very first document that was linked in this thread here: "This would have had to result".
Have they seen the audit report? Do they know for sure? Maybe LBA demonstrated safeguards that satisfied the auditors?
"With regard to Germany, the same inadequate verification procedures had been approved by
the German Luftfahrt Bundesamt (“LBA”). LBA continues to approve these procedures even though
it has been audited by EASA on 30th June 2015 and this would have had to result in a finding which
ought to have been of level 1 requiring immediate action within 2 weeks because it affects safety in
respect of every release to service issued in Germany. At the very least, it would have resulted in a
level 2 finding, requiring action within 12 months, failing which EASA is required to report the matter
to the EC. Article 17 EU Reg 628/2013. (Appendix 5).
Page 4 of 4
It is a matter of great concern in respect of an audit carried out in 2015, that there is an open finding
on this issue which can only mean that LBA have not corrected their procedures. EASA has not
reported this issue to the EC within 12 months of the audit and is therefore in breach of Article 22
Reg 628/2013."
Have they seen the audit report? Do they know for sure? Maybe LBA demonstrated safeguards that satisfied the auditors?
"With regard to Germany, the same inadequate verification procedures had been approved by
the German Luftfahrt Bundesamt (“LBA”). LBA continues to approve these procedures even though
it has been audited by EASA on 30th June 2015 and this would have had to result in a finding which
ought to have been of level 1 requiring immediate action within 2 weeks because it affects safety in
respect of every release to service issued in Germany. At the very least, it would have resulted in a
level 2 finding, requiring action within 12 months, failing which EASA is required to report the matter
to the EC. Article 17 EU Reg 628/2013. (Appendix 5).
Page 4 of 4
It is a matter of great concern in respect of an audit carried out in 2015, that there is an open finding
on this issue which can only mean that LBA have not corrected their procedures. EASA has not
reported this issue to the EC within 12 months of the audit and is therefore in breach of Article 22
Reg 628/2013."
