Flight safety and illegal working practices

[Grymreaper]

Hi guys, looking for some advice.

if I feel that I am being asked to do something that either contravenes the MAA or the MAP am I within my rights to refuse to carry out the task that I’ve been given by a superior?

I don’t want to come across that I am refusing to do the work, I just refuse to do it the way it’s been asked of me, that is not anywhere near in accordance with the MAP

cheers

Grym

 

[Barch]

Just ask for a signed and dated waiver, people soon change their attitude to incorrect working practices once they realise it will be their neck on the line if anything goes wrong.

 

[OneTimeSooty]

Are the days gone where everything that is done on A/C laid down in an AP? Just ask for a reference or find the task they want you to do and do it iaw that!

 

[Billy Whizz]

If you put your name to it - you will be held accountable. you CAN only do work that is from an approved ADS unless a concession has been granted.

The MRP (which includes the MAP-01) and the AP100B-01 provide regulatory guidance - there should also be local orders ie AESOs.

Depends what you are being asked to do as to what you feel you are being asked to contravene.

 

[Tin basher]

NEVER do or sign for anything you are not happy with.
If it goes South and it was supposed to be I.A.W. something and it wasn't not done that way and your name is on the paperwork you are are in deep dwang. Trust your conscience and remember you have to sleep nights if its goes badly wrong.

 

[Grymreaper]

Thank you for the replies,

I am being asked (told) to do a task that i am not authorized or competent to do, using a TI that is in DRAFT and not been authorized and to claim for hours that i haven't worked.

as a couple of you have said, at the end of the day it is my name on the document. In a subsequent board of inquiry the blame will fall one me for either not doing the job correctly as laid down by the MAP and RAs or for not raising the issues i had and signed it anyway.

I am still going along the lines of not doing the work, but would writing something like

'This task was carried out using a DRAFT TI by someone who is unauthorized or competent to do the task. NOT FOR FLIGHT'

on the job card cover me? The reader would then be under no illusions of what i did and how it was done.

Grym

 

[OneTimeSooty]

I once did a task that I wasn't auth'd to do officially, but had the OC Det sign the paperwork first auth'ing me to carry out the task. It was a one off and necessary while OOA, if it was in the UK I would have never done it, and was a laid down procedure.

Using unapproved TI's and not auth'd? If it goes south it's your ass in the sling. Just putting a statement on the job card saying you knew you were unauthorised and not competent will only add to the chest poking you'd get. If you want top cover, get someone high up paid a sh!t load more to SIGN their life away. All of a sudden when they realise they're now accountable they might re-consider....

 

[Spearmint]

If this was me I would fire this straight up the chain and wouldn't put any ink on paper or digital characters on a computer.

Whoever is expecting this of you should hand their rank in now.

 

[Dazzy26]

If the risk is accepted at the correct level and signed off by, for example OC ELW or the DDH and the documented authority for you to undertake the task is there then yes you can do it. No you cannot and should not do it just because you are told to. If you are still being pushed then raise a DASOR which you can now do anonymously and the DDH will get sight of it straight away. From what you have said your management will pretty much know who's raised it anyway but you also have a duty to raise it if this practise is deemed to be acceptable!

 

[chumpzilla]

Thank you for the replies,

I am being asked (told) to do a task that i am not authorized or competent to do, using a TI that is in DRAFT and not been authorized and to claim for hours that i haven't worked.

as a couple of you have said, at the end of the day it is my name on the document. In a subsequent board of inquiry the blame will fall one me for either not doing the job correctly as laid down by the MAP and RAs or for not raising the issues i had and signed it anyway.

I am still going along the lines of not doing the work, but would writing something like

'This task was carried out using a DRAFT TI by someone who is unauthorized or competent to do the task. NOT FOR FLIGHT'

on the job card cover me? The reader would then be under no illusions of what i did and how it was done.

Grym

I'd ask for that in writing, specifying that they are ordering you to do it.

 

[Rigga]

I know, Im not in the RAF anymore! But I have worked in MAOS before and I have been in this situation a few times - there are a variety of responses to either make it stop or make it right.

In one situation an officer was directly instructing (standing behind) a bad practice to an experienced Cpl. The Cpl turned and said "I am carrying out your orders, sir, but, according to RAF Law, I cannot sign the task off without a reference and, if pressured to sign I will sign stating "Under duress from...". Finding that no SNCOs would support him, the officer backed off.

In another situation I was part of a development team in RAFG installing new parts to Jags without approved drawings or known system tests. The paperwork there was correctly raised as "Development installation only, not for flight" (as previously described here) and entries made throughout the cards that reversion to the previous standards were required before flight.

FYI - Unapproved drawings and installations of untested parts are only allowed in MAOS Part 21 approved areas.

 

[rocket scientist]

Not auth'd?

If you don't want to be seen as a trouble maker, is it worth engaging with your training cell or if you don't have one - the auth co-ord cell in Eng Records? It may well raise the problem at a higher level.

A certain Sqn at Coningsby were not auth'd to do half the jobs being carried out in around 2012 and soon found itself with a new SengO, JengO & WO.

 

[naked cyclist]

If its a TI then the lead on this should be the EDIT who should have arranged through Eng Ops and Eng records as to which aircraft it is to be carried out on. They should also hold the responsibility for completing the trial before the Sqn/depth unit carry out the proof installation prior to full release of the MOD. Have often seen the EDIT team at a rotary base in South Oxfordshire use depth support to carry out the TI but they have been the supervisor. Should also be raised in the 700 as TI to be embodied.

 

[muttywhitedog]

Thank you for the replies,

I am being asked (told) to do a task that i am not authorized or competent to do, using a TI that is in DRAFT and not been authorized and to claim for hours that i haven't worked.

as a couple of you have said, at the end of the day it is my name on the document. In a subsequent board of inquiry the blame will fall one me for either not doing the job correctly as laid down by the MAP and RAs or for not raising the issues i had and signed it anyway.

I am still going along the lines of not doing the work, but would writing something like

'This task was carried out using a DRAFT TI by someone who is unauthorized or competent to do the task. NOT FOR FLIGHT'

on the job card cover me? The reader would then be under no illusions of what i did and how it was done.

Grym

Dont keep us in suspense - what happened?