Real World Rules

[Rigga]

I posted some advice on another thread and it got me thinking about how you guys, still in the RAF, leave yourselves open to litigation when you sign your lives away every day.

On reading the thread "No Airpower without Manpower" in the Chat Club, I wrote:

Gents - and any ladies reading this,

I have been doing part 145 for 11 years and Part M for 3 years - before it was officially introduced.

I have read MIL parts 145 and M they are both similar to the civvy stuff but not quite.

1. There is no mention of Line maintenance in MIL 145 - so dont the Lines need to bother?
2, You are supposed to use 731's instead of Form 1???? The Forms do very two different things!​

As for your comments about paperwork...

Since the mid 90's the armed services have not had Section 10 to absolve them from litigation for neglect.

The Nimrod accident investigations have yet to be ratified by senior RAF types who may still be waiting some further grief to their "careers" as the persons "in charge" of their aircraft fleets.

Some MOD Minister said that milirtary aircraft were going to be as safe as civvy ones.

If you don't complete the paperwork trail - one or more of you WILL find yourselves in a civil or military Nick for wilful negligence.

YOU MUST start doing things "In Accordance With..." or be prepared to go to jail.

In the next few weeks the trial starts of an american Aircraft engineer who did not follow the rules - and the chief of maintenance for that airline is up there with him. Their crime? making a strip of metal to fix a flap as a quick-fix to get it home to USA from Paris CDG airport, a few flights in front of a Concorde!

A british engineer will soon go on trial for the Helios 737 for alledgedly leaving a Pressurisation switch in the wrong position the night before the plane took off.

Two SpanAir guys are waiting to see if they will be tried for a Crash in Madrid a few months ago.

The Latest "thing" in law courts is to blame the engineers - not the pilots!

Look after yourselves - the pilots won't and the aircraft can't - even the manuals are against you. Your sengos will step back as fast as they can and pass the Buck. YOU and the AOC for your fleet will go to court!

Dont be the first victim - Go figure about your paperwork now!

You say "They" say thats what "They" want! So give it to them

Rigga

Now, If your sengo/jengo/wingco/groupie says he wants more paperwork - you must give it to them!
I am not trying to make you work to rule - but trying to prevent you from being the victim of your own Good Will and willingness to provide a Cab as fast as possible.
It is for this very reason that other "less capable" airforces cannot do things as fast as you do - but like as not, they will have ALL the documentation right!

I suspect that, if I looked through your paperwork (as I do in my current job) I would find lots of holes, errors and/or omissions.

It is this very reason that will allow you guys to be hung, drawn and quartered by Barristers and Lawyers.


Someone mentioned that there will be a Book "for all ADF's" to allow a screw to be replaced in three days - Sounds Like a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) to me, and if it is this MEL it will mean you won't need a Sengo to make ADF type decisions as all safety critical systems will be in this Book for all to read (unless the RAF mess that one up too)

All this will mean more paperwork - but it can save you going to court!

I'm hoping this will spark a good debate on aircraft safety and not the slating that short term career guys do.

Rigga

 

[Sospan]

Some sound advice there Rigga, its not just at the coalface where this must be enforced. The whole management chain needs to be on the ball, everybody from the second signatory up can be subject to 'Vicarious liability'. This is becoming more and more common with all serious accidents coming under the scrutiny of civil law.

As difficult as it can be, life on the flight line needs to be a major a arse covering session, as when the **** hits the fan no stone will be left unturned.

 

[techie_tubby]

Sometimes i'm glad i'm only an SAC and even more greatful that i'm a comms techie.

 

[Weebl]

Someone mentioned that there will be a Book "for all ADF's" to allow a screw to be replaced in three days - Sounds Like a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) to me, and if it is this MEL it will mean you won't need a Sengo to make ADF type decisions as all safety critical systems will be in this Book for all to read (unless the RAF mess that one up too)

I think you have misunderstood me, I am not talking about a DDM (Despatch Deviation Manual) or a MEL. I am talking about writing everything up in either an ADF or ADH, including stuff which is within limits, or just simply niff-naff. Incidentally, even stuff contained in DDM's has to be ADF'd by somebody who holds the relevant auths. The RAF is not really set up to run DDM's and MEL's and I don't think many Squadrons use them (One to my knowledge, and that uses ex civil widebodies (bit of a clue))

I do however agree with your main sentiment. The Air Force has traditionally brought in these new systems, while at the same time expecting us to ignore them to get the jets airborne, they just want to be seen to have done the right thing, and they have covered their arses satis. Things are now different. The Air Force is about to drown under it's own paperwork. (which we then be filed and ignored, which to me makes it pointless?)

 

[Rigga]

Hi Sospan,
Thanks for the quick reply.

Line work is always very dodgy as that's where there is little time to ponder over what needs to be done and there's always some pressure to complete a Job.

However, it has to be agreed that, in the current legistion driven world, even RAF training times can't dictate how safe the aircraft is for a Sortie. Missing a slot on the Bombing Range is not an excuse for making the engineer miss something vital.

It's about time that aircraft engineers were treated as a vital part of Flight Safety and not just something to help get the jockys going.

Please note that I'm not saying that REAL Ops should be jeopardized - the military will always need to do, whatever it needs to do, on REAL Ops. But training and excercises should concentrate more on safety and getting it right FIRST TIME.

"More speed and less haste"

The better we are at getting our jobs right, first time and slowly, will improve safety levels when we need to go fast - and things will work better in the end.

This goes for paperwork too - If you don't complete it accurately and correctly it gives someone else a pain to try and guess what you meant to say!

At my work we estimate that it takes 30 minutes for Tech Records to complete something that should have taken 5 minutes on the Line or in the Hangars.

Work in the morning - I do 5 days on, 2 off!

Rigga

 

[Rigga]

(which we then be filed and ignored, which to me makes it pointless?)

Wrong - If Part 145 and Part M go to the RAF (as seems planned) - this will be the basis of "Airworthiness Revews" - Staff looking at records going back to the birth of the aircraft and its components. That's what is required to issue an Airworthiness Review Certificate (effectively done annually!)

 

[Bitburger]

You would think that with all this responsibility and legal ramifications that the aircraft techies would get paid more than a Cook, Rock or a HR specialist

 

[Rigga]

I'm off to get some Bitburgers in a few days, for a birthday party.
Goch - land of Dortmunder and Baren Bier (and Bitburger!).

"Pay and differentials" are on another thread Bitburger! Or you could start another one?

 

[Weebl]

Wrong - If Part 145 and Part M go to the RAF (as seems planned) - this will be the basis of "Airworthiness Revews" - Staff looking at records going back to the birth of the aircraft and its components. That's what is required to issue an Airworthiness Review Certificate (effectively done annually!)

If. That is a big if mate.

For the RAF to go to 145 and Part M it's Engineers (at least some of them) will have to hold licences. Who in their right mind is going to hold a licence and as mentioned, get paid the same as the bloke who makes his breakfast when he can go to industry and earn more.

For the RAF to do things properly it will cost big money, both to initially implement it for every aircraft in the inventory, and to pay to have the fleets maintained IAW.

Therefore the RAF will do it on the cheap and it will come out half assed.

 

[Talk Wrench]

Weebl.


Wake up to Mil145.

It's coming your way. Rapidly.



TW

 

[Bitburger]

I'm off to get some Bitburgers in a few days, for a birthday party.
Goch - land of Dortmunder and Baren Bier (and Bitburger!).

"Pay and differentials" are on another thread Bitburger! Or you could start another one?

No, I think it is a valid point, you pointed out the extra responsibilities, surely this should be rewarded.

 

[John Lloyd]

It isn't just aircraft work boys. My post RAF hobby, fire alarm systems are subject to similar post event inspection, scrutinising the installation and documentation.

Criminal law penalties of 2 years inside and £5k fine for knowingly or negligently signing documentation.

Not counting the possibility of civil action.

The pen and the signature earn the money. No dodgy signature (And there are commercial pressures) is worth the jail time.

 

[Rigga]

Weebl,
Your right - and so is TW - Its a "Mil" 145 and a "MIL" M so I assume there will be a Mil 66 (and MIL 147 I suppose)

So you won't have "Licences" but some other form of authorisation to give a level of cover to A B or C categories?


But I have to concede that...

"Therefore the RAF will do it on the cheap and it will come out half assed. "

Concise, but very accurate!

 

[Weebl]

Weebl.


Wake up to Mil145.

It's coming your way. Rapidly.



TW

Yes, RAF rapidly.

Which means I will be out long before the person who has decided it will be good gets his promotion out of the idea and moves on.

The only way I will see it, will be half assed and half baked implementations that have been rushed in to tick boxes and contribute nothing to aircraft safety.

The RAF cannot resource the way it runs the fleets now, never mind change to another system and resource that.

It also has to get all of it's civilian contractors on board as well.

 

[Rigga]

But what if the Nimrod Courts decide the RAF MUST change? What if "they" don't get the choice? A Minister (Cant remember his name!) has already said he wants more safety!

145 can work - it has in civvy st.
Its not perfect, but then is the RAFs system any better? Indeed, could the RAF improve on it?


What ever system is used you must still make sure you sign-up properly and accurately!

 

[Weebl]

But what if the Nimrod Courts decide the RAF MUST change? What if "they" don't get the choice? A Minister (Cant remember his name!) has already said he wants more safety!

No problem, tell him how much it will cost to change the way the RAF does business and tell him how many sorties, including operational ones will be lost while we transition. If they accept the pain, we get to do it.

145 can work - it has in civvy st.
Its not perfect, but then is the RAFs system any better? Indeed, could the RAF improve on it?

I don't really feel qualified to answer this, I have never worked 145 so I would bow to your experience. I would however like to assume that done properly it is both efficient and safe, or why would civvy companies use it?

What ever system is used you must still make sure you sign-up properly and accurately!

This is an absolute given. For all it's faults the Air Forces way of doing things should be very safe if it is done properly.

 

[Talk Wrench]

What ever system is used you must still make sure you sign-up properly and accurately!

Rigga,

I want to know what Dirty Harry's take is on this.

My own take is that the RAF should be very worried. If 145 is fully implemented and certification is approved by 147 trained and 145 approved personnell, the RAF should be paying milions out just to keep the engineering staff.

 

[Talk Wrench]

I don't really feel qualified to answer this, I have never worked 145 so I would bow to your experience. I would however like to assume that done properly it is both efficient and safe, or why would civvy companies use it?

.

Weebl,

145 is law and that's that.

Civvy companies are a little more ahead of the RAF when it comes to legislation..

TW

 

[Weebl]

Weebl,

145 is law and that's that.

Civvy companies are a little more ahead of the RAF when it comes to legislation..

TW

Obviously, what I mean is, if it was a rubbish system, the industry would have got it changed by now. They might have to comply with legislation, but they also have lobbyists and influence.

If it was a sh1t system forced on them, they would have had it changed. There is far too much money involved for it to be otherwise.

 

[Rigga]

Truth is, EASA's system is a joint effort of the lowest common denominator standards of the original 19 countries that joined the JAA. It is not "the best" system in any way, shape or form.

It was merely the easiest way to get some agreement across the board, and has stopped manufacturers (aka Boeing & Airbus) from paying large sums of money to (now 27) different National Authorities to get Type Approvals and allow flight in their countries.

EASA itself is a badly thought out idea, as it has no powers to enforce the laws it makes - it is only an Agency - not an Authority!

All this seems to have been thought up by typical blind and bought EU beaurocrats who know nothing of what they were asked to make rules on.

As for changes - forget it! I was at a CAA Seminar in January where it was discussed that a change in EASA Rules could take up to 12 years before being put into action at the workplace - Beaurocracy at the height of inefficiency!

TW,
I find it interesting that you cry for a comment from DH? Why? I don't know where he works or his history - Ex-RAF?

I have no doubt that the RAF has already thought of how to restrict "boat jumpers" once qualified to Mil 66 "Approvals" (rather than licences) - I'd bet it would be something like doing additional time INSIDE (Bonding) before getting outside and using qualifications for "Licences".