Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Maintenance Standards

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Maintenance Standards

Old 7th Nov 2002, 05:25
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Saudi Vegas
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Maintenance Standards

Although a maintenance issue, I have reproduced this article from this months C.H.I.R.P. (chirp.co.uk) as I believe it should be brought to the attention all involved in the aviation industry.

Standards

My account of events are not only one occurrence, it is about the continual eroding of standards to the extent that I believe may be becoming potentially hazardous. The continual pressure from our middle management has increased sharply this year and it is this pressure which is being forced by verbal abuse, cajolery and belittlement - I know these are strong words but to a varying extent all our engineers believe this to be true.

I have concerns about flight safety implications with my company over undue pressure being placed on engineers to effectively dumb down their standards of servicing. I work for a carrier who over the last year has substantially increased its flying hours and at the same time reduced its manpower. Aircraft are now landing 1, 2 or even 3 in the morning usually with substantial defects leaving very little time to rectify. For example: I had an aircraft land at 0230 hrs in the morning; by the time the passengers had disembarked and the daily servicing had been carried out it was 0400. At this time I found a major defect which, upon informing the senior duty engineer, all hell broke lose with him showing extreme agitation that the aircraft would not be ready by 0600hrs. Although he did not tell me to ignore the fault, his attitude was obvious that he wanted me to ignore the fault.

Of late, the number of running defects has increased notably where engineers, to use a phrase, are penning off regularly defects; although not dangerous, they are well outside the MEL/MM limits. The number of re-occurring defects have increased but are not being rectified correctly simply because the company does not want the aircraft to be grounded for correct diagnosis and rectification. The aircraft deferred defects register is going through the roof with far too many defects being carried with no down time to rectify. Many defects are being carried by the aircrew with no traceability, being verbally communicated to the next crew. As you may guess the morale of the engineers and mechanics is rock bottom, the lowest I have ever seen. Being under pressure every day for the full 12 hours does wear people down especially when you don't have experienced engineers or spares and when you do not have support from your management. I have great concerns that a major accident/mistake will occur in the future.

To conclude: I cannot believe that the CAA have their heads in the sand, they must be aware of what's going on, but by not saying anything they can deny any responsibility. As for my company it is perceived that the management do not care about the well-being of their employees and they certainly do not care about the safety of their customers. In fact the attitude from the management is profit at all costs. To me it is the management who with their continual aggressive policy will influence a lesser engineer than me to make a serious error, but of course it will be the engineer who will take the rap when something does go wrong.
near enuf is good enuf is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2002, 05:55
  #2 (permalink)  

Pilots' Pal
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 62
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One of many concerns expressed over the last few years. Of particular concern is the attitude of a duty engineer, worried not about the aircraft's safety but the effect on his reputation or the attitude of management towards him. The same management would be as liable as the certifying engineer in the event of an accident. Many senior managers seem oblivious of their responsibilities.
Engineers content to pen off defects are winging it in every sense. Although loss of licence is relatively rare, with it goes your career and your reputation.

Safety is no accident.
Bus429 is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2002, 09:12
  #3 (permalink)  
Mighty Thor
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Excuse my ignorance, but is CHIRP not intended to be a vehicle of measured confidentiality?

As with all fundemental issues requiring redress the solutions are normally painful, unpopular and need time to take effect as it usually becomes a culture change.

There are only two parties who are ultimately responsible for deciding whether or not ANY aircraft is safe to depart, namely the Captain and respective certifying engineer. in this regard, all the other peripheral blusterers, fast track bean counters and stalk climbers, are irrelevant.

Until our industry fully adopts the culture of Flight crews and Engineering standing shoulder to shoulder on all related issue, but particuarly safety integrity, the wedge will always be driven in!

Can anyone name any other individuals within an operation, other than crews and engineers, that require the same depth of training and respective licence cover???

This system of communication works and works well, it does require effort I know but it is worthwhile. Tough call admittedly, the worst that can happen is that a job can be lost. The potential alternatives are deadly. It takes character and commitment to say NO. We all know that most of us posses these qualities, a prerequisite for crews and engineers, so lets use them to effect.

No job is worth compromising safety for. I fear that if we don't address the growth of the symptons described previously above the only tool that engineering will need in the future to perform defect diagnosis will be a Ouija board!!
 
Old 7th Nov 2002, 10:12
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: whereeverimat.
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is a bit of an old 'chesnut' & i think everyone understands what is at stake.
Unfortunately not everyone has been in the position of having an 'almost' intolerable level of pressure applied. Currently there are more pilots & engineers than there are jobs .
It is the case with most of us that we have responsabilities that exert themselves more when the pressure is on,such as the family & the mortgage. I know at present if i lost my job it would very difficult to get another with similair pay & conditions.
All of these serve to make it easier for management to up the ante.
Unfortunately as a regulatory body the CAA seems loathe to employ its 'might' in just such circumstances as are discribed, the thought of the management being told to put its own house in order seems to display a 'touching' level of innocence.
I am unsure if the CAA lack the inclination or the teeth to properly regulate the industry. Having seen how the CAA 's 'concerns'have been addressed by my current & former employers
the cutters of corners, bullys & rule benders have little to fear.
Aerodyne. is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2002, 16:28
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: inmysuitcase
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Angry

I totally agree with enuf!

Although i am only flying turbo-props, sometimes i think just to ground the ship and cancel the flight.
Of course, if they can, they (the engineers) "HIL" it (pref. for a long time), but how far can we and they go??

My company is using an extern JAR-145 company for our maintenance. Right now this is in spain and sometimes you get scaired how thoose people are trying to pull your leg.

I do a lot of training and, as of lately, esp. upgrades. You can imagine how they can get pushed by their company and/or a foolish engineer (who does not know where he is talking about, or simply is to lazy...)
I feel it my responsibility to warn my future capt. coll. And i do, but:

It should not be this way!

But, as always (with management) it needs a incident (or accident) to trigger something:

welcome in aviation!
minimumclean is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2002, 08:16
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Red face

Hello all,

I wonder if the real point of this thread is pointing to the toothlessness of the CAA?

When it comes to Engineers they are purveyors of half measures and half truths.

Look at AWN 47 for example. If the CAA can regulate and control the duty day and rest periods of Pilots then why cant they do the same for us? Instead of producing a document that lays down limitations they produce one full of double speak and inconsistencies.

I also think that we are often our own worst enemies. A colleague has just told me that a couple of months ago he worked an AOG for 36 hours straight. By the time the problem was solved he could hardly stand up. I've done it myself, eleven days on working from the nightstop departure in the morning to the nightstop arrival in the evening (06:00- 23:00). We probably all have similar stories.

Its almost impossible for us to regulate ourselves because of the type of people we are (the Aeroplane must go/stick with it to the end).

We need the CAA to regulate us PROPERLY otherwise there will be an accident. And who will be left dangling at the end of he noose? Your manager? Your chief executive? I dont think so!

PLM


Edited for poor spelling..... D'oh!
PondLifeMan is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2002, 10:56
  #7 (permalink)  
Cunning Artificer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Exclamation

Bus429 points towards Human Factors as does PondLifeMan. The CAA have made all the right noises about HF but haven't so far employed their teeth.

HF concerns the ability of human beings to operate within their limitations. Push an individual to their limit and mistakes are inevitable. Pilots have seen their work place vastly improved, through intensive use of the ergonomics branch of HF, and their procedures and processes tightened up through the use of another branch - CRM. Finally, their hours of work are strictly regulated to keep fatigue to a minimum. These HF improvements are commendable; pushing a pilot to his personal limit may have obvious and immediate effects - often disastrous.

Engineers working conditions are not controlled, they may work outside in all hours and all weathers or in dingy hangars with defective lighting, poor heating and often with broken equipment. Their working hours are not only unregulated, the transport industry is exempt from the EC working hours limitations and in the UK, the government has never even accepted the directive on working hours for anyone. Cap this with the extreme pressure applied by most companies to avoid "Tech Delays" and the subtle psychological pressure that "...if you won't do it, theres plenty more out there who will..." and you have a Human Factors farce.

The CAA have included HF into the AME Licence exams, produced all the CAPs and made the appropriate noises, but there is no sign at all of them applying pressure and accountability where it is needed - at Board level. Once again, all efforts are brought to bear on the good old LAE, increasing the psychological pressures under which they work and further eroding HF standards. Surely the opposite effect to what was intended?...

...and what use precisely is CHIRP? Has CHIRP ever produced a satifactory change? Or is it yet another mere 'nod in the right direction'? If it is working, when will we see the evidence?

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Blacksheep is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2002, 11:10
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi all,
I am flight crew, mainly long haul, and I am having serious concerns in this same area!
I have recently seen a major increase in the number of both maintenance errors due to a shortage of manpower, directly, and a steep increase in the number of MEL type entries.

We are lucky enough to have a Flight Engineer aboard with us, who thankfully goes thru all these entries each departure, and both explains any/all those that need to be, as well as discussing with the maint. engineer what we can/cannot tolerate!

He seems to have been doing a lot of 'discussing' lately, together with the occasional slightly raised voice, followed by more engineering work, and fending off accusations that WE are delaying the departure, with my blessing, nearly all the time!!

I understand the problem re 'time on the ground', but there must be a limit to what the crew can tolerate, and it's great to have someone very skilled in the operation of the aircraft, AND is coming with us on the flight, it makes a difference!!

Cheers
Flight Detent is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2002, 12:05
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: whereeverimat.
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FD i don't think what we are discussing here is what the crew"can" tolerate but what the ground engineer 'must' tolerate.
The legislation covering crew duty, rest & rostering is (in one form or another) a constant topic for debate on Pprune.
While we are all subject to commercial pressure the level to which aircrews & ground crews are afforded protection differs greatly. AWN 47 which has been alluded to & which provides a framework for engineers to govern their duty periods is nebulous & open to differing interpretations.
Try reading it ,it would be mildly amusing if it were not for the fact that it directly affects flight safety!. What we need are statuatory working limits for engineers ,perhaps with a provision that as with flight crews the duty period might be extended at the 'discretion' of the individual engineer.
While it is the case that unscrupulous individuals will seek to apply pressure 'no matter what the regulatory framework may be' we can at least put in place a system that affords engineers '& at one remove aircrews' a greater degree of protection.

Last edited by Aerodyne.; 8th Nov 2002 at 12:25.
Aerodyne. is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2002, 07:44
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: sussex
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The CAA have always fallen short on there ability to police the
industry.Not once in 25 years have i ever seen a Caa inspector
anywhere near an aircraft.Engineers have been leaving the industry in droves for better pay,working hours and recogition.
The pay for a licenced engineer in my company is significantly less than most cabin crew.Cabin crew do a great job but lets put things in prospective,4 year apprenticeship plus endless exams Vs 4 weeks in a training centre.Chirp is a great publication but until those in the Belgrano get out and hit the real world i can't see things in the industry getting any better.Engineers are a great asset to any airline.When was the last time you saw a happy one?
stormin norman is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2002, 07:55
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Angry

Bonsoir,

Its a sad reflection on us (PPRuNers) that this topic has come up again with the same few people adding their views.

Its a hot topic for about a weekend then it slowly slips away. There has been almost a thousand hits on this subject but it still only gets a small handful of postings.

I am sure that if we were talking about Flight Crew working for 36 hours or told to ignore the rules there would be uproar and things mentioned in the press..

But no, its just us engineers having a moan. We are the biggest joke in aviation. Well, our managers must laugh all the way to their performance related bonus, at least.

The media choose to ignore us. Why? Because we wear overalls? Because they think we have no relation to Aircraft safety? Because we dont serve tea and coffee? Or is it simply because we ceaselessly do a thankless job in all conditions and very rarely make errors that they can scandalise? Who knows?

The CAA chose to ignore us too. I understand that they must be under an immense amount of pressure from their main source of funds (the airlines) to keep our duty limitations away from any kind of regulation. But, surely they must be able to see that it will not be too long before there is a major incident. You just have to look at the rail authorities in the UK and how badly they came unstuck.

By all rights this topic should run and run. But all you pilots, media types and managers who read this will just bury your heads in the sand and by this time next week we'll be out of your hair till the next time.

LP
Le Pen is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2002, 08:35
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: sandpit
Age: 67
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
IF THE C.A.A. ENDORSED WORKING HOUR RESTRICTIONS ON
ENGINEERS, AVIATION WOULD GRIND TO A HALT BECAUSE THERE,S NOT ENOUGH TO GO ROUND.
FURTHERMORE BY KEEPING ENGINEERS BASIC WAGES LOW
COMPANIES CAN UTILISE THIS BY ENCOURAGING THEM TO
WORK EXTRA HOURS TO MAKE A LIVING,GIVING THEM MORE FLEXIBILITY WITHOUT THE EXTRA COSTS OF HIRING ADDITIONAL
STAFF.IT,S CATCH 22.
warp factor is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2002, 08:43
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs up

Spot on Warp. If not said a little loudly though!
Le Pen is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2002, 09:08
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London FIR
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The media choose to ignore us. Why? Because we wear overalls? Because they think we have no relation to Aircraft safety?

Not at all. The media isn't choosing to ignore you. It's more the other way around.

It's no good having a gripe on an anonymous forum about a confidential gripe in CHIRP. The media (and I'm not talking tabloid hacks here, who wouldn't know JAR145 from Jar-Jar Binks) becomes interested when they can pin down the airline name, and see genuine evidence of a safety problem.

If you want this to be taken seriously by the media, then provide the evidence and identify the guilty party. You don't have to give your name. Even in the age of email a brown envelope is normally well-received. The addresses of suitable publications are easily located (if you're in the UK you'll probably go for Flight International -- Quadrant House, Sutton, Surrey according to the inside cover).

If there's really a serious story there (and not just union-type bluster) I'm pretty sure it'll be followed up.

Otherwise, there's very little the media can do. "Unidentified airline breaking safety rules, says anonymous worker" is not a useful story. And even if the airline/operator is known, it's hardly going to tell some journo that it's overworking its engineers or overlooking safety issues, without being confronted by some pretty hard evidence.
Scudhunter is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2002, 09:37
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am now lucky enough to fly for a company that has very high maintenance standards and a very low ADD rate , this has not allways been the case and I,v seen a lot of the stuff posted above in my time in the industry.

The one thing that bothers me about the CAA,s inspection standards is that SOME of the surveyors tend to over burdon the reputable companys with nif-naf and trivia because it is easy to look like they are doing the job and to look the other way at the less reputable companys because they know that if they raise issues with them they will be into a fight and a lot of paperwork.
A and C is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2002, 12:42
  #16 (permalink)  

Pilots' Pal
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 62
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Don't forget the complacency inherent with modern aircraft.
Bus429 is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2002, 11:36
  #17 (permalink)  
Mighty Thor
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Most of the previous postings on this subject are thought provoking and erudite in their comprehension. Sadly though I feel the same tired old theme shines through, its not our fault. The tried and tested targets of blame are rolled out yet again, CAA are ineffective, Managers are incompetent and overbearing, Flight crew are arrogant and disdainful towards us, the media show no interest etc etc etc.

As a group of people who pride ourselves on being consumate porfessionals do we seriously want to create the impression to the world at large that we require the CAA to provide us with a Nanny State style of regulation. To provide procedures that remove the ability for us to address with interpretive flexibility almost any situation, just so we can turn round and say to some high flying, dice shaking buffoon who has long forgotten how to read and write, " Sorry mate, can't do that CAA says so!"

The CAA by its own admission is not perfect but try working under some other regulatory authorities auspices, I have, now there is grounds for complaint!!

Contrary to popular dispatches may I suggest that the CAA considers a licenced engineer to be a mature and responsible individual who is more than capable of interpreting the existing regs to the benefit of all, AWN's 3, 10 & 47 to name a few. It may not appear so to some but they do extend a level of respect and freedom to us that, in some instances is not deserved.

Another thought worth consideration, how many engineers have sat in a flight deck on a high volume, multisector day plagued with foul weather with an aircraft carrying multiple ADD's. Its only then that you can appreciate some of the problems a crew deal with. Yes I know there are examples of arrogance that are not warranted but these people by taking an aircraft into the air are basically performing an unnatural act, landing even more so. This has to load the cart after a while. We would not be professional if we did not consider these influences when a four ringer is launching into an animated tirade.

Managers or bullies, deal with it the same way, not worth any more time.

Expose our industry to the vagrancies of the great British press, if it ever comes to that its over.

Perhaps the workings of the legal and to some degree the medical profession should be observed, fix this problem from within. The way forward is for the crews and engineers, the two significant professional bodies to find the common ground and stand together. First however each faction must unite in its own right.

For the umpteenth time in my career I am staring into the abyss, brought about by financial disorganisation, inexperienced fast track management and commercial greed. It is because of such a unification mentioned above that all involved will survive.
 
Old 10th Nov 2002, 16:25
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: whereeverimat.
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Four ringers ! ,crews performing unatural acts !, what kind of thread is this !
Aerodyne. is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2002, 23:24
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm surprised this thread has lasted this long in this forum. Usually a thread like this will be quickly hidden in the basement with all the other grubby maintenance issues. Nobody likes to lose confidence in the airworthiness of their equipement or to hear that maintenance is just a Potemkin village. Keep ignoring it and maybe it will go away.
redtail is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2002, 05:50
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

Contrary to popular dispatches may I suggest that the CAA considers a licenced engineer to be a mature and responsible individual...
I am sorry to disagree with you Thor. But If you have read any of the recent CAA publications or even the replies to letters in the ALAE rag. You will know that the head of Engineer Licencing views us with nothing more than contempt. Refusing to even acknowledge that we are even Engineers. Now after a four year apprenticeship, an HND, two CAA licences and five aircraft types I am a "technician". Not even worthy of professional status in his eyes.

As for the Pilots, I have no complaints there. To a man, they are supportive and often generous with their praise. However, irrespective of the weather conditions and ALLOWABLE defects the aircraft is carrying, they have chosen to do the job. If it was all clear blue skies and aircraft that never break we would all be happier. But that isn't going to happen.

If anything the AWN's quoted give us less freedom. Now we cannot even release something under our own discretion. And all AWN 47 does, is give the management the threat of "Well if you can't cope there are plenty who can".

As for the media. I do agree with you there. It would kill the aviation industry. I have recently spent days trying (and succeeding) to persuade a colleague not to write to the Times. His anger was incandescent. But it would have destroyed his career and probably the company we work for. As you say, we will work from within to get it right. Even if it takes a lifetime.

LP
Le Pen is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.