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.

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.

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!!

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.

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!

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!

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

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

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.

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?

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

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.

Spot on Warp. If not said a little loudly though!

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.

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.

Don't forget the complacency inherent with modern aircraft.

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.

Four ringers ! ,crews performing unatural acts !, what kind of thread is this !

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.

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

Monsieur Le Pen is correct when he says that the AWNs and other current regulations give us less freedom to manouver. Recent changes in regulations have been deliberately designed to reduce the individual LAE's authority. Mighty Thor seems to say that we engineering staff are seeking a nanny, but that isn't really the case. We started by discussing the current state of engineering. Why do aircraft depart with so many deferred (officially or otherwise) defects? Why do LAEs sign out such 'heaps' and 'old bangers'? What happened to standards? Why are maintenance errors on the increase, when all other accident causes are on the decline? Occasionally LAEs put their foot down - a certain Acelindic heap of corroded aluminium scrap, masquerading as a B757 comes to mind - but there is genuine cause for concern, and while Scudhunter tries to provoke someone into shopping a specific airline or two, its really an industry wide problem. We discuss it here because there isn't anywhere else. Perhaps if CHIRP really worked and anyone took any notice of what we say, action would already be taken to ensure that sufficient quantities of qualified staff are available to do the job.

That perhaps is the root of the problem. Numbers. Management works in numbers, modern business is after all, just a numbers game. Airline X has so many aeroplanes and only Y number of engineering staff, so we can manage with the same number per aircraft too. Chop! Chop! - out go the redundancy notices, down go the remaining heads, and scribble, scribble go the pens in the Tech Logs. Got to keep paying the mortgage haven't we?

I don't see any solution, but that's no reason for not discussing the problem.

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

STANDARDS POLL.
 

Have standards dropped ?, how about a poll to find out if we believe maintenance standards have fallen. It is fairly black & white ,what about it Danny ?.

Is there any evidence of this, if so I'd like to read it.

Why so many ADD's - mainly due to lack of spares and ground time, why? Commercial pressure? If it's not flying it's not earning money, there is no need to have 000,000's of $ worth of spares lying around stores when they can be got in x days/weeks/months. It's all about commercial pressure and that's the bottom line I'm afraid.

Did you know that if you worked on an Air Jamaica a/c and you had worked more than 15 hrs that day you are liable to be fined and without sufficient rest before that days shift you will be fined.

If only more airlines/companies had more backbone to stand upto share holders/beancounters etc the better we would all be.


I am fortunate enough to work for an airline that HAS restrictions on the amount of hours I can work in a day and how much rest I must have, and will back me up when I say that I can not work iaw AWN 47.

Hello,

Have to say that I agree with Blacksheep, Le Pen, Spanners and even Bus's one liner about complacency.

I've been thinking about Chirp and one of the reasons it will never work for us.

I guess that I have been lucky in some respects, I have only ever once been in a position where I felt the need to Chirp. BUT my anonanimty could have never been guaranteed. As a result I didn't submit it.

There must me many of us either working alone or on a shift where you are the only Licenced guy. Where, if any sort of investigation were carried out, the finger could only be pointed at you.

I guess that they would say that the company would not be able to do anything to you. But, we all know they can.

Finally, in answer to Aerodyne. I do not believe that standards have dropped. How could they? Would any one of us, or, for that matter any Pilot, depart or accept an aircraft where the standard of Maintainance is less than it should be? I'm not talking about ADD's here. (After all, the manufacturer has deemed that these defcts are allowable). But the actual standard of the work carried out.

Sorry, I think I'm starting to ramble on. Its very late.

Hope you can make sense of this.

PLM

Guys,

Having read this thread with interest I feel it is time to add my 2p worth.

In many ways engineers are their own worst enemies. Just read through the threads again and look at how you view yourselves.

If it were not for the fact that I am reading this on a computer I would think I was reading something from a Dickensian era! This is the 21st century! A firm cannot just sack you nowadays, you can take then to court! If they put you in a demeaning job or reduce your terms and conditions to the extent that you want to quit, then that can be consrued as constructive dissmissal, and you can take them to court! If you are with a union or the ALAE then you won't even have to pay the lawyer!

Get a grip and get a life. If you are not happy with it then don't sign it!

If the company can find someone who will then that is not your problem (and if, heaven forbid, something goes wrong, you will still have your licence and your job. unlike the jobsworth who penned it)

We as Aircraft engineers are in a unique position, we are among the few professions which can be prosecuted for not doing our job properly. If the postman does not deliver your letter, that's it. No mail. If a car mechanic forgets to put oil in a car, the engine might blow up but he won't find himself in court for manslaughter. If however we fail to carry out a mandated check IAW the relevant proceedures or forget to correctly lock a componant, or whatever we could end up in front of the beak!

That's what you have to remember when pen is put to paper.

I agree with pond life (FLS boy?) if the defect is outside the MEL then the crew won't take it.

If we all start to have a little pride in what we do the others will recognise it and our standing in the aviation community will only rise.

I for one enjoy what I do. I don't want to be a pilot, it doesn't interest me. I enjoy the challenge of getting a sick a/c out on a tight slot, safe in the knowledge that it is safe and 300ish people are still going to enjoy their holiday. I enjoy travelling the world and getting paid to do it, telling a pessimistic driver that I have fixed it and he can go (so he has to cancel the dinner he had arranged 'cos he thought it wasn't flying - actually happened once:D )

I know that my pay is not the best but it's better than it used to be, and some day I may even be paid what I am worth!

Sorry starting to waffle on a bit, but I think you get my drift.:rolleyes:

Cheers,

edited 'cos I can't spell

Would your faith in the process of law still be in place if your name appeared at the top of a list of people to be included in the next redundancy package, mono? It isn't actual threat we are talking about, it is implied threat, the same psychological effect that magnifies the threat of terrorism and thus makes it so effective.

As to your question about evidence spannersatx, read this human factors presentation by Shell Aviation on the Royal Aeronautical Society's Human Factors Group website - especially the second and third slides. Follow up with your own searches on maintenance related aircraft accidents and hull losses and you will soon answer your own question. The commercial accident rate declined steadily until around 1978/79 when it levelled off. Although CFIT remains at the top, causes other than maintenance errors continue to decline, the overall level being kept constant by increased maintenance errors.

I do admit the possibility that this may be due to improved methods in accident investigation, where some incidents that would previously have been assigned as pilot error, are now identified as being due to maintenance errors. Discuss.

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

Blacksheep,

At the last round of redundancies I applied for voluntary redundancy! (it was rejected) so does that answer your question?

For me at least, in the last 2 months I must have had at least 20 calls asking me if I am available for work, both contract and permy. OK so I am in the lucky position of not having any kids and having an understanding partner, so to move around for work is not a problem for me, whereas may be for some of my fellow engineers.

Still I am fairly happy with my company at the moment so I guess I will be around for a while yet:D

Cheers.

Pen-it
 

Guys,
You're only as good as the last defect you've pencil-whipped.

Remember that when the AAIB have impounded your technical records.

Hiya,

Amazed this thread is still active. :rolleyes:

Just picked this up on the E & T forum..


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...alaska160.html


What can I say?

LP

Very interesting, but it could never happen here......could it?

I remember an incident, not too long ago, where I was asked to clear a deferred defect. The necessary work needed to clear this defect could not be done due to lack of spares. Unfotunately the limitation imposed by the MEL expired the following morning so the aircraft would be u/s.
I refused to sign the log. An argument then ensued between myself and my shift manager. "The part would be available soon, we can re raise the defect tomorrow night and it will carry for another 10 days" was his argument. Again I refused. it then became apparent that the only reason that he wanted the defect clearing was because then he would meet his bonus target, (number of deferred defects cleared), for the month and receive a hefty sum of cash!!
The strong arm tactics continued but I stood firm.

Result, I was overlooked for further training for several years, which became a bit of a problem last year when redundancies were announced and a points system based on the number and type of a/c licences held meant that I was out of a job!

OK it's not a very similar case but the result was the same-unemployment.

Le Pen, if you do a search at that website you may still be able to find articles about the authorities turning a blind eye on irregularities in that operation. Current practice is for the airlines to police themselves.

Did anyone see, or can anyone reproduce here, the article in the Times on June 23rd??

Page 5 I believe.


PLM

Sorry can't provide the link to the Times. However it was based on this months' AAIB bulletin.

Hope this link works:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...1.hcsp#P19_420

Times article here - for another couple of days at least. If you'd like a scanned copy of the paper version, send me a PM.

I work for a regional as an LMC part of our job is to ensure that engineers do not work beyond what is resonable in aog situations in europe .
All engineers should be encouraged to take proper rest as tired engineers are not good engineers

Sadly Maint errors at BA are on the up and more importantly so are those classified as serious, there is an internal investigation on the go at the moment trying to establish causes ( root causes )
For my 10 pence worth its poor moral and managers only interested in performance,i could add things such as being treated like S*** regardless of qualifications and experience but thats well known so not worth mentioning.:{ :{

Interesting that this topic rears its head after a story in the papers - perhaps all maintenance errors should be in the public domain? it might encourage Management to take the issue a bit more seriously.

I see that BA Quality are getting very stressed over the increasing number of incidents and have now started meeting with the Engineers to get their views - ah well, only 15 years late.:hmm:

Until management (I can only speak for BA) recognise that there is a systemic and structural problem of their making I foresee more incidents occuring and very possibly the next time we have a 777 trying to do a 'Concorde' lives may well be lost.

Story appeared in papers a good week or so after AAIB has posted its letter, not naming BA as per (stupid) policy. As a wake-up call to the industry it doesn't really cut it. AAIB didn't publicise it widely or release it to the press probably for fear of pissing off BA.

When tens of millions are slashed from airline costs what makes anybody think mx is going to be at the same standard as it was before?

Lifes little lessons.
 

This same management attitude at Alaska Airlines killed a lot of innocent people.

:E :E

Mgmt can shout and bawl all they like.

A licensed engineer got where he is through alot of hard work, training and (I really hope?) the belief that he has what it takes to say "NO" when he knows it's not right. It goes with the role, yes?

I'd rather tell the wife I've been sacked/suspended for not "penning off" a u/s aircraft, as suggested I do so by my supervisor, than spend the rest of my life behind bars living with the guilt that my actions left a smoking hole somewhere and possibly many lifes lost!!

If I'm not happy, won't sign for it.

Here's something to think about - saw an advert in McDonalds a while ago for trainee managers starting on £18'000, there's plenty really good aircraft technicians earning way less than this out there !!! Or how about qualified gas fitters earning £30'000 or more, well there's Licensed engineers signing aircraft off every day earning the same, or less in some cases!!

Do you think that both these jobs carry the same responsibility as aircraft maintenance? I know my opinion.

I believe standards are dropping and I also believe the regulatory bodies won't do a thing about it until there's an accident to justify it. You only need to look back at accidents and read the reports to realise failures or errors had been there all along but nothing was done til one falls out of the sky.

Don't be pushed into something you are not happy about, so they send you home and some one else pen's it off!!

You won't be the one behind bars, jobless maybe, but concience clear and guilt free.