All A/c Techies Read This

[Talk Wrench]

Hi all,

I had an e-mail from the ALAE the other day about the criminalisation of aircraft accidents.

Click on the link and it will take you to the ALAE news page. Click on the link there and it will direct you to a PDF letter from a well known aviation solicitor.

Basically, there is an increase in criminilisation of people involved in the chain that leads to aircraft accidents an crashes.

With the advent of Mil part 145 on the doorstep, the letter is very relevant to all aircraft techies in the military.

It's something for all the low pay band AMMs in particular to think about.

http://www.alae.org/index.php?p=54&pp=0&i=103&title=Criminalisation_of_Accidents




TW

 

[welshjpc]

And begin the "this is why we're worth more than shineys" thing again.....

 

[Sospan]

And begin the "this is why we're worth more than shineys" thing again.....

Only if you start it !

I think TW started this thread for reasons that everybody should be aware. First and second signatories are legally binding and should be treated as such. If you are not sure seek advice, and whatever you do ensure you do not get bullied into signing anything you are unhappy with. Times are changing and we at the coalface must make sure our maintenance practices are watertight, or if the worse happens you will be on the wrong end of a civil court of law proceeding.

 

[squipper]

Squippers have always been subject to criminal proceedings if we are proven negligent in our work. Not only for "on aircraft" work but also "airborne forces"!!!

 

[Sospan]

As it goes, there is a program on Sky channel 526 about a crash on 2005 which was subject to a criminal investigation and 9 people were charged with neglect.

Don't be fooled into thinking "it will never happen to me"!

This is what the JAP says about every signitnor you make on a maintenance document....

In the interest of safety and airworthiness there is a chain of individual responsibilities for maintenance work and a system for recording any work carried out. Once signed, maintenance documents constitute legally binding certificates; therefore, the importance of correct recording and certification cannot be over-emphasized. All personnel are reminded that it is an offence to sign a certificate without first ensuring its accuracy. This chapter details the responsibilities accepted by individuals when they sign maintenance documentation. These responsibilities are equally applicable to the electronic certification of aircraft maintenance when signing electronically in accordance with Chapter 7.3.1.

 

[Ghandi's Flip-Flop]

One of the reasons I joined the ALAE a while ago. Well the fact i'm doing my licences and wouldn't mind working mil-145 either. DT_Xtremez_42:

 

[Talk Wrench]

And begin the "this is why we're worth more than shineys" thing again.....

It's YOU who seems intent on starting it.

Keep out of this thread if you have nothing constuctive to say about what is a very serious matter for all aircraft engineers, be they military or civilian, regarding prosecution.



TW

 

[Throatarea]

Mil 145

Mil 145

Excuse my ignorance but what is the difference between Mil-145 and EASA, Part 145 and if you work in the former do you need A, B1, B2 and C licenced engineers.DT_Xtremez_30:
What units have Mil-145 approval?

 

[3wheeledtechie]

And from the membership section of the website:

Affiliate membership (non-voting) is open to:
Serving members of H.M. Forces in Aircraft Engineering Trades of or above
Junior Technician Rank (RAF);
Leading Aircraft Engineering Mechanic (Fleet Air Arm);
Lance Corporal (REME)

I wonder if the Murphy's report scheme, Human Factors forms etc are covered by the Chicago convention, and if an affiliate member in HM Forces were to be court marshalled over a tech charge relating to an aircraft incident, what assistance the ALAE could give.

 

[Talk Wrench]

Excuse my ignorance but what is the difference between Mil-145 and EASA, Part 145 and if you work in the former do you need A, B1, B2 and C licenced engineers.DT_Xtremez_30:
What units have Mil-145 approval?

Mil part145 is effectively a "mirror" version of part 145 applied to a military environment

Basically, it will parallel civil practices into the military forces across Europe. (read into that what you want, but I suspect Mil part 145 is the pre cursor for an EU Air Force, but that is another subject for debate)

As far as I know, A, B and C licenses will not be needed for the majority of the fleet. Only COMR aircraft need licensed engineers and the emerging new fleets of converted civil aircraft, e.g Global Express. (Can somebody perhaps clarify this?)

Back on topic, with the advent of Mil part 145, if an aircraft you have worked on crashes in another EU country, I am led to believe that you can be criminally charged and tried by the laws and statutes of that country.

TW

 

[Dirty Harry]

And from the membership section of the website:


I wonder if the Murphy's report scheme, Human Factors forms etc are covered by the Chicago convention, and if an affiliate member in HM Forces were to be court marshalled over a tech charge relating to an aircraft incident, what assistance the ALAE could give.

3WT, if you are a paid up member you are entitled to the legal assistance that the association offers. The grade of membership only affects voting rights, as an affiliate member you are still entitled to the other benefits. If you haven't done so already, I would strongly advise anybody who is involved in aircraft maintenance to join, particularly those who are hoping to break into the civil sector. Membership of any professional body is tax deductable so you can offset the £85 joining fee against your annual tax allowance. Just write to your local tax office and tell them that you are a member of the ALAE and they will adjust your tax code accordingly. So in effect, it is free to sign up.

As far as I know, A, B and C licenses will not be needed for the majority of the fleet. Only COMR aircraft need licensed engineers and the emerging new fleets of converted civil aircraft, e.g Global Express. (Can somebody perhaps clarify this?)

Off Topic I had an interesting phone call last month Talk Wrench from an agency who had seen my CV on one of the job sites. They were putting the feelers out for A330 type rated LAE's for an upcoming contract commencing early 2010. The guy didn't give much away but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out it is for FSTA. He asked what kind of money guys would want, I just said they better have a big chequebook DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[welshjpc]

It's YOU who seems intent on starting it.

Keep out of this thread if you have nothing constuctive to say about what is a very serious matter for all aircraft engineers, be they military or civilian, regarding prosecution.



TW

Many aplolgies, never meant to annoy. As an experienced Sqn plumber I am more than aware of the legalities of the paperwork that I fill in for seat fits / servs. Some people do indeed need to realise the seriousness of the 700 series that they are signing even if it is for a 3a.m. turn round and its chucking it down......

 

[Rigga]

From a quick look through it -

In Mil 145, some Jokers have swapped an F731 for an EASA Form 1! - so they don't know/realise the quite large difference!

Also, there is no definition of Line and Base Maintenance - So I suppose they think thats all the same thing too?

I suppose some rodney's have been let loose with transforming it! Obviously written by some meddling ignoramus trying to make his mark!

Bloody officers! I've had better sh!ts.

 

[Weebl]

From a quick look through it -

In Mil 145, some Jokers have swapped an F731 for an EASA Form 1! - so they don't know/realise the quite large difference!

Also, there is no definition of Line and Base Maintenance - So I suppose they think thats all the same thing too?

I suppose some rodney's have been let loose with transforming it! Obviously written by some meddling ignoramus trying to make his mark!

Bloody officers! I've had better sh!ts.

Remember the last conversation we had when I mentioned half assed?

The RAF will do what it always does, it will cherry pick the bits it wants and ignore or bastardise the bits it does not. This will lead to a confusing and unworkable system which they will fully expect us to circumvent to get jets airborne (they may well be in for a surprise with that one)

If it costs money or sorties, they are not interested.

 

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

From a quick look through it -

In Mil 145, some Jokers have swapped an F731 for an EASA Form 1! - so they don't know/realise the quite large difference!

Also, there is no definition of Line and Base Maintenance - So I suppose they think thats all the same thing too?

I suppose some rodney's have been let loose with transforming it! Obviously written by some meddling ignoramus trying to make his mark!

Bloody officers! I've had better sh!ts.

As has already been stated, MIL 145 is a *******isation of Regulation 2042/2003 Annex II. It is designed for contracted companies (such as Waste-o-space military division and SERCO), who won't be PART 21 or 145 approved, the basic set up to how the military wishes its aircraft to be base maintained. As most Officers haven't got a clue on such matters, it was easy to copy EASA's regs. It is to be remembered however that military aircraft are not flown for hire or reward, in most cases have no type certification and are classed as "State" aircraft, apart from the leased aircraft coming on line.

As for legal ramifications on certifying, more than one person has gone to jail for inaccurately signing F700 entries. The Valley Hawk was one and I knew of a SNEC busted to the ranks for false entries (and covering up a bodge!) Supervisors have always been liable. The ALAE document highlights Greece and Cyprus over the Hellios 737 accident. It must be remembered that these countries have weird ideas on cupablity (take the two brothers charged with manslaughter, who weren't even driving the vehicle involved!)

 

[Ex-Splitter and Proud]

As has already been stated, MIL 145 is a *******isation of Regulation 2042/2003 Annex II. It is designed for contracted companies (such as Waste-o-space military division and SERCO), who won't be PART 21 or 145 approved, the basic set up to how the military wishes its aircraft to be base maintained. As most Officers haven't got a clue on such matters, it was easy to copy EASA's regs. It is to be remembered however that military aircraft are not flown for hire or reward, in most cases have no type certification and are classed as "State" aircraft, apart from the leased aircraft coming on line.

ILLKC -

I agree with your first comment, but BAE Systems are already a MIL Part 145 Approved organisation for the Tornado ATTAC programme.

Link to their certificate:
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1CD12F66-B005-4BE4-9D92-2A21CFCD7814/0/BAESCert.pdf


I also think you'll find that RAF aircraft are type certificated.

As an example, I would point to Typhoon; Type Accepted by Block/Batch following the formal Qualification/Certification processes of Eurofighter, NETMA and NETMA Nations.
Following on from the Type Acceptance process, the National Airworthiness Authority - delegated by SofS to IPTL/Project Engineer (through DG Combat Air) acts as Type Airworthiness Authority, whilst the Aircraft Operating Authority is responsible for preserving airworthiness (Continued Airworthiness).

 

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

ILLKC -

I agree with your first comment

I also think you'll find that RAF aircraft are type certificated.

To EASA they are not. True the certification will be a similar process to a civil type but they are Military aircraft and the terminology used by the MoD, I believe is "Release to Service". I know BAE military air solutions hold MIL PART 145 approval for the ATTAC programme, but I meant EASA PART 21 and 145 organisations.

This MOD webpage explains exactly what Mil 145 is.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/A...viation/MAOS/MaosFrequentlyAskedQuestions.htm

And in laymans terms.

http://www.flightglobal.com/article...ivil-maintenance-lessons-for-uk-military.html

I have worked under both MAOS and PART 145. PART 145 organisations have much tighter control over stores than those in the swampland, conversely tool control is tighter under MAOS (as it is dicatated by the JAP). The work packs on an MRO are useable, I won't comment on DMS.

 

[Rigga]

They are not State aircraft - they're Military.

They do not fly or operate under any guise other than 'military' - as opposed to police aircraft which have dispensations from normal civil aircraft rules to do what they do, and COMR aircraft who operate under generally military rules whilst under civilianised maintenance constraints and certifications.

It is likely that all military aircraft have passed some form of certification to achieve their release into 'squadron' service. I'm sure even Valiants and Swifts passed some form of achievement - but in those days stresses were less of a science and more of a required experience!


For info - BAE certainly has Part 21 Approvals and has had at least one Part 145 and should have had Part M for its Corporate airline's maintenance for quite some time - but obviously hasn't used that experience towards the Mil Operations?

 

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

They are not State aircraft - they're Military.

They do not fly or operate under any guise other than 'military' - as opposed to police aircraft which have dispensations from normal civil aircraft rules to do what they do, and COMR aircraft who operate under generally military rules whilst under civilianised maintenance constraints and certifications.

It is likely that all military aircraft have passed some form of certification to achieve their release into 'squadron' service. I'm sure even Valiants and Swifts passed some form of achievement - but in those days stresses were less of a science and more of a required experience!


For info - BAE certainly has Part 21 Approvals and has had at least one Part 145 and should have had Part M for its Corporate airline's maintenance for quite some time - but obviously hasn't used that experience towards the Mil Operations?

I'll take the hit on the "State" Mate and I've edited my post on the certification. I meant type certification in the civilian sense. For example a civilian aircraft would not be allow to operate continiously with special trial fits like some military aircraft have been known to.

BAE certainly have Part 21 Approvals, Prestwick hold it for the beastly 146 that I'm getting used to working on! Military Air Solutions (The BAE arm that is contracted for ATTAC and whatever the Harrier contract is called now) is based out of Warton.

 

[Ex-Splitter and Proud]

I have worked under both MAOS and PART 145. PART 145 organisations have much tighter control over stores than those in the swampland, conversely tool control is tighter under MAOS (as it is dicatated by the JAP). The work packs on an MRO are useable, I won't comment on DMS.

I certainly wouldn't disagree with either of your points in this post, ILLKC... Tool control to Waste of Space usually means keeping the windowlickers back in the office......

and please don't get me started on DMS.......

DT_Xtremez_14: