CAA Inquiry into BA Engineer @ Glasgow
 

Hi all

Just heard on the radio.

The Civil Aviation Authority has been investigating an allegation that maintenance checks on planes at Glasgow Airport were falsified.

A newspaper claimed that a British Airways engineering official arranged for an unqualified electrician to sign off work while he took a holiday.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm!!!

Could be an interesting one this.... I was about to rubbish this thread as fishing from a journo because its such a rediculous claim but..... its on the BBC website. I seriously hope the paper claiming the indescretions is wrong.

OSOP

From what is being said on local radio the claims are not false. An engineer has resigned and another person has been disciplined. It's


Everything is all right though as BA states that safety was not compromised as all work is double checked !!!

The chap responsible said that 'everyone was doing it' I think that's a reflection of his personal low standards rather than reality within the rest of BA.
According to the article he has been forced to retire and has found re-employment with Logan Air, which is one of BA's partners!
The question that puzzles me is why in view of the seriousness of the allegations (which he appears to have admitted to) his licence has not been suspended. If proved guilty his licence should be revoked.

I believe he shouldn't have his licence revoked, because he did not do anything wrong from his Licence's POV. The other guy did the erroneous deed. From what I read - a company procedures indescretion is what may have happened. It seems to me this BA guy could have been replaced by someone posing as an Electrician when not being qualified. A bit like flying a CAT plane without an ATPL (if you get my drift)
I assume BA knows who it is contracting to these days, so there may be some room for blame in the HR or Quality Depts for not spotting false docs.

Sacked - Maybe.
But Losing his Licence - No! He did not endanger the aircraft his co-accused/accomplice did.

Sorry to er, disillusion you, but you clearly do not know the nature of the beast. This one came to light---that's the only difference. ;)

Rigga,

I don't see your point, you seem to be saying that if I give someone a knife and incite them to stab someone else that will I have no responsibility for the result.
The point is he gave his stamp to some-one else to use in his absence. He put the other person in a position to commit the offence, also he was in a position to apply pressure to the individual to use the stamp. Aircraft were being despatched with no licenced oversight of the work carried out on them and so with invalid C of A's. It really doesn't matter if the other man used the stamp or not - the licenced mans attitude is not one commensurate with someone in control of aircraft safety. He should be out of the industry and not simply employed elsewhere as he has been.

I could be wrong here, but I am sure I heard about an OSE who did the same---and duly went on to higher things !--with the culture that's prevalent----and has been for some time sadly, the glory days went along with the family silver of course---the "image" presented to the world is far from the reality. As I said, this one came to light...........

Krystal,
I agree with you I think we all know of such goings on. If the CAA did their job there would be less of it. I have only seen two surveyors in my long career - hardly enough to worry those who put career progression before safety and legality!

greatwhitehunterAn ousider speaking: If he was prepared to do this (above quote) then I would work on the premise that any work he did must be suspect. If he is prepared for others to cheat in this way then, when he WAS in charge, his own standards must be low and he would sign off on anything without checking.

You can get into a minefield with this point Paxboy. Lets say there is black and white---and forty shades of grey in between both---and then there is say--"expediency"--ok ?. Most of us who are / were in the maintenance world have used a pen in preference to a spanner at some point--those who deny this have probably never left an office in their life btw--however----in the case of a certain organisation as mentioned here, the issue that grates is the pious hypocrisy and the fact they have a fairly well documented track record in recent years which no amount of spin can negate. That said, I am curious as to how and why this one actually ended up in the CAA's in-tray----and I would certainly like to know more about the facts of the matter. Just out of interest shall we say.

The facts of the matter are gentlemen, in days gone by, all the managers stamping ability was removed due to this sort of thing and for this type of reason, i.e. managers certifying aircraft and stamping of work without actually leaving their desks. This is illegal and totally undermines the system and safety of aircraft, i.e if you put your car into a garage for a service you expect it to be done. In recent years particularly at glasgow maintenance base, managers have been quietly given their stamping ability back, you must understand that a manager with a stamp has a conflict of interest, i.e. he must perform or be seen to perform to obtain their targets to get their bonuses, one way to do this is to stamp the task cards without actually doing the work, or ensuring that it has been done in accordance with. their is a problem with with blind stamping at glasgow and this is mainly due to these managers with stamps, the newspaper reports are very accurate although the main culprate has got off lightly, and this is the unqualified prat who actually carried out the happy stamping. the main basis of holding authorisations is that you know exactly what you are allowed to stamp for and what you are not this prat knew exactly what he was doing and knew exactly that he shouldn't have done this, this happy stamping was also carried out over a long period and affected at least nine aircraft that they know off.

what the caa have got to understand is the CULTURE that has been created and this is the dangerous word CULTURE, because then people think it is the norm, the simple example is that someone happy stamps a back up system as being serviceable when it is not and the main system fails in flight, then the real problems begin. most licenced engineers consider themselves as professionals which they are, but until the caa insist on stamps being removed from people who have a conflict of interest within an organisation then this culture will continue.

Bad Airways have had a few highlighted lucky escapes in the last couple of years down to this sort of happy/blind stamping, it just goes to show that they haven't learned anything.

Yes and he is still in Management at LHR.

Unfortunately, EASA Pt 66 will ensure that all degree educated Base Manintenance Managers will soon be entitled to a C Licence with which to release aircraft from Base Maintenance. This will also ensure a large conflict of interest for aircraft being rolled out late.
It's not the best way in the world - but thats what commerce (Oh, and EASA)wants!

This is the latest in a long line of maintenence foul-ups at BA.

You have to wonder why the present Engineering management are still in place. Perhaps some outside 'expertise' is needed to shake things up?

but why?
 

I wonder why (if the story is true) the engineer felt the need to organise for somebody else do his work whilst on holiday? Surely if he has holiday booked then he's free and clear, and its the managers problem to organise cover and so forth?

S

u hit the nail right on the head groundbum, Why indeed !!! possibly the senior managers reputation for bullying his managers has got something to do about it by putting pressure on his underlings to get aircraft out on time. but the real reason is that the unqualified prat didn't have the sense to realise that the manager who had previously given him his stamp to abuse many months previously had gone on leave, as and here is the funny part these two individuals didnt even work on the same shift pattern, so they were bound to be rumbled at some point, the rumour is that several other managers already knew what was going on. i mean the manager in charge of the aircraft checks for example he knew that that he had no avionics cover during these checks but yet all the avionic tasks were being certified, must have been the licence fairies. but of course no doubt they are all acting dumb for the board of inquiry, which wouldn't be hard

p.s. the story is 100 per cent true, in just about every detail

THE SMALL CARPET
 

I agree with krystal & chips every eng out there that has been in the front line for years knows the pen will override the spanner after a good think of all the things that could or could not happen but to give one his lic to use is really not very smart at all, I have heard it goes on in the fore named big brother airline which the CAA has for years told us to look to for standards. There are only room for two feet on the mat in front of the CAA when something goes wrong the guy with the number be it pilot or engineer. I hope that this is a wakeup call to all those who are sailing little to close to the wind and lets just say no to any risk taking.

I've edited the following extract from Sunday Times article on January 1, 2006, published after the AAIB slammed BA mx over "systemic" failings.
It seems that no matter how hard they get "slammed" it keeps happening.
The Sunday Times January 01, 2006
Watchdog slams BA's air safety
By the Insight team
BRITISH AIRWAYS jets have suffered mid-air failures because of “systemic” problems with their maintenance, air accident investigators have revealed.
After inquiries into four mid-air incidents, the investigators say that there are safety problems that may be “widespread within the organisation”. They warn that it appears that shoddy working practices are accepted as the norm by some maintenance staff.
According to aviation analysts, the criticism from the government's Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) is unprecedented for an airline that has won a reputation for being one of the best maintained fleets in the world.
...
The AAIB's concerns about the failures in BA's maintenance regime over the past three years are highlighted in a report on the Boeing 757 which took off in September 2003 without two wing panels.
...
They say the failure to check that the wing panels were installed on the Paris flight “seems not to have been an isolated case, but more symptomatic of the existing culture”.
They add: “Ineffective supervision of maintenance staff had allowed working practices to develop that had compromised the level of airworthiness control and had become accepted as the 'norm'. Maintenance errors were not the result of wilful negligence, or any desire to perform a less than satisfactory job, but the result of a combination of systemic issues that had increased the probability of an error being committed.”
...
BA employs 6,000 engineers, compared with 9,500 in 1995 but its fleet remains at a similar size as 10 years ago.
BA said it took the AAIB's latest report “very seriously”. Captain Rod Young, head of safety at BA, said: “The airline accepts the AAIB's recommendations, which identified factors in the maintenance process which led to this incident (in September 2003). These factors were immediately rectified by February 2004 following the airline's own investigation which was carried out in parallel with the AAIB's investigation.
Nuff said.