Trade Malpractices

[TrickyTree]

I understand what your saying TT. but when I was away, both myself and the Charlie Papa Lima I was working with were unwilling to make a Chinook Captain switch off his engines and sign the aircraft back in in the middle of the op just so we could do a gun change (as per the AP).

Sometimes, you just have to assess what's going on around you and go with it.

However, inexperienced personnel should never be put in that situation.

Intersting point. I'd want an EngO to put his name to a line on the jobcard to permit me to do that. No top cover for me then sorry ol' buddy, shut down and get out and don't blame me, blame the clown that wrote the book.

I say again, without the top cover, if it goes wrong, will the chain of command support you? I think we all know the answer to that.

 

[MontyPlumbs]

Intersting point. I'd want an EngO to put his name to a line on the jobcard to permit me to do that. No top cover for me then sorry ol' buddy, shut down and get out and don't blame me, blame the clown that wrote the book.

I say again, without the top cover, if it goes wrong, will the chain of command support you? I think we all know the answer to that.

We didn't have an EngO at the FOB. Our highest rank on nights for half the detachment was a Corporal.

Everything has an element of risk. Back in the UK I was as by the book as you could get (removed from a time critical aircraft several times because I wanted to do a full flight servicing and LP1 inspection). On ops, however, I just accepted that peoples lives were on the line, and if I had to bend the rules or invoke workarounds, so be it.

There is absolutely no way I would make the aircraft shut down in the middle of the op because the book said they had to (unless it was unavoidable eg a flare refill is a bit dodgy rotors turning!!)

Incidentally, both myself, my supervisor and the two tradesmen on the opposing shift had a discussion and were all in agreement before we decided to do this.

 

[TrickyTree]

And the role of the Aircraft matters to me because if I decide I am not going to try my level, safe and legal best to launch a jet which, if it does not go may mean somebody dies, then I am taking money under false pretences and should PVR.

Yeah, sure, I appreciate that, but if trying our "level, safe and legal best" means that in fact the kite has to be grounded, it really isn't our problem. As for the rest of your post, I wasn't really concerned about the specifics of you using an extension bar instead of a drift. I was just using your post to make a point about the wider issue.

And Weebl, please, calm down DT_Xtremez_07:

 

[wgaf]

Yeah, sure, I appreciate that, but if trying our "level, safe and legal best" means that in fact the kite has to be grounded, it really isn't our problem. As for the rest of your post, I wasn't really concerned about the specifics of you using an extension bar instead of a drift. I was just using your post to make a point about the wider issue.

And Weebl, please, calm down DT_Xtremez_07:

Have you ever been in a situation where you have to get a frame up to do a casevac? Because if you had you'd look at what you've just said and think "What a load of horsesh1t!"

 

[TrickyTree]

We didn't have an EngO at the FOB. Our highest rank on nights for half the detachment was a Corporal.

Everything has an element of risk. Back in the UK I was as by the book as you could get (removed from a time critical aircraft several times because I wanted to do a full flight servicing and LP1 inspection). On ops, however, I just accepted that peoples lives were on the line, and if I had to bend the rules or invoke workarounds, so be it.

There is absolutely no way I would make the aircraft shut down in the middle of the op because the book said they had to (unless it was unavoidable eg a flare refill is a bit dodgy rotors turning!!)

Incidentally, both myself, my supervisor and the two tradesmen on the opposing shift had a discussion and were all in agreement before we decided to do this.

Well, luckily I've never been in such a position (which doesn't mean I've never been on ops), and if the senior bod present makes the call, well so be it. And nothing went wrong for you, so happy days. But I'm just concerned that if something had gone wrong, would you have been supported? You ought to have been, sure, but I'm afraid that I am very, very cynical about that. One thing is certain if you had shut the cab down, you would have been absolutely fireproof, if that is what the AP mandates.

 

[MontyPlumbs]

Have you ever been in a situation where you have to get a frame up to do a casevac? Because if you had you'd look at what you've just said and think "What a load of horsesh1t!"

I agree entirely mate. When your aircraft comes back covered in blood with bodies in the back, it really puts into perspective the 'problems' that you have to deal with professionally.

 

[Weebl]

Yeah, sure, I appreciate that, but if trying our "level, safe and legal best" means that in fact the kite has to be grounded, it really isn't our problem. As for the rest of your post, I wasn't really concerned about the specifics of you using an extension bar instead of a drift. I was just using your post to make a point about the wider issue.

And Weebl, please, calm down DT_Xtremez_07:

Agreed, I will try any legal recourse but If I have to stray over the line, then I will make an assessment, work out a course of action and get the SengO to auth the deviation, or the jet stays.

However you were not concerned about the specifics of what I had written, and yet used what I had written to question my Technical Integrity.

People on this thread seem keen to confuse the issue of using a tool in a manner it was not specifically designed for, and deliberately deviating from an MP, 2 different things.

Incidentally for the people unable to see further than the book, you ARE allowed to deviate from what is written, there are procedures in place to allow it as those of us in the real world realise books cannot cover every conceivable situation.

 

[TrickyTree]

Have you ever been in a situation where you have to get a frame up to do a casevac? Because if you had you'd look at what you've just said and think "What a load of horsesh1t!"

Why is it horse****? Supposing you bend the rules, as you appear to advocate, and during the casevac the aircraft piles in because you didn't do your job properly? Are you happy to have that on your conscience? I'm not.

 

[TrickyTree]

Agreed, I will try any legal recourse but If I have to stray over the line, then I will make an assessment, work out a course of action and get the SengO to auth the deviation, or the jet stays.

This is the nub. I want EngO authority to break the rules, or else I won't do it. It's as simple as that.

However you were not concerned about the specifics of what I had written, and yet used what I had written to question my Technical Integrity.

Buddy, I am most emphatically not questioning your technical integrity.

People on this thread seem keen to confuse the issue of using a tool in a manner it was not specifically designed for As I said, I'm not concerned about that, and deliberately deviating from an MP, 2 different things. This, however, I am.

Incidentally for the people unable to see further than the book, you ARE allowed to deviate from what is written, there are procedures in place to allow it as those of us in the real world realise books cannot cover every conceivable situation.

Hope that clarifies a few things.

 

[Weebl]

Why is it horse****? Supposing you bend the rules, as you appear to advocate, and during the casevac the aircraft piles in because you didn't do your job properly? Are you happy to have that on your conscience? I'm not.

There is bending rules, and then there is 'bending rules'

You know, or at least should do if you were an Aircraft Engineer where the line sits. Carrying out an assessment and in consultation with the whole team deciding to do a gun change while rotors running, taking all sensible precautions is breaking the rules. Deciding not to do the servicing because you cannot be bothered is also breaking the rules.

In one situation you were on a 'Wanton Spree' (I believe that is the rather strange wording used?) in the other you were not.

 

[wgaf]

TT, I'd venture to suggest that you haven't ever been in a situation that has been described. Therefore probably not inthe best position to comment.

 

[Weebl]

Hope that clarifies a few things.

Yes.

In future do not use my argument regarding one thing to make your point about another.

 

[wgaf]

There is bending rules, and then there is 'bending rules'

You know, or at least should do if you were an Aircraft Engineer where the line sits. Carrying out an assessment and in consultation with the whole team deciding to do a gun change while rotors running, taking all sensible precautions is breaking the rules. Deciding not to do the servicing because you cannot be bothered is also breaking the rules.

In one situation you were on a 'Wanton Spree' (I believe that is the rather strange wording used?) in the other you were not.

I believe the expression is a 'wilful frolic'

 

[TrickyTree]

You know, or at least should do if you were an Aircraft Engineer where the line sits.

I am, indeed, an aircraft engineer.

In one situation you were on a 'Wanton Spree' (I believe that is the rather strange wording used?) in the other you were not.

"Wilful frolic", apparently :S

 

[wgaf]

I have always been led to believe that rules were for the guidance of the wise and obedience of fools!

 

[Weebl]

I believe the expression is a 'wilful frolic'

I knew it was something weird like that, still, I suppose they are not allowed to write 'Acting the tw@t' DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[propersplitbrainme]

Crikey, some strong feelings on this subject and some compelling points made on opposite sides, albeit one or two using slightly contrived scenarios!
I think this is a case of Sorites Paradox in action. For those unfamiliar, Sorites Paradox goes like this; if I have a box of rice and tip it into a mound on the table, I could say I have a 'heap' of rice. But, if I take one grain of rice and put it on the table, that hardly constitutes a heap, nor does two or three or four. So how many grains of rice does it take to make a 'heap'?
So, one or cases of engineering workarounds, each of which we could justify to ourselves and/or others, probably doesn't constitute a problem. But a whole squadron routinely misusing tools and employing engineering short-cuts would probably be a cause for grave concern. So where does the cross-over point come, and do we ever reach the latter scenario without realising it?

I have always been led to believe that rules were for the guidance of the wise and obedience of fools!

Been led to believe by whom wgaf? I'm pretty sure those who write the JAP, 2R1 etc don't believe they are merely writing guidlines. I think aircraft engineering is one example of where this oft cited mantra doesn't really hold any water. Besides, the quote is often attributed to Douglas Bader who lost both his legs by, erm, disobeying rules.

 

[dkh51250]

As people have mentioned, if the system is wrong you have a DUTY to amend it.

For those who live with things that are wrong, you will be found out , eventually, and there is not a BOI on the face of this earth that will take your side.

It is a long winded affair to get something amended, especially in the world of JSPs where amendments now have to go in front of triservice boards prior to any agreement being reached.

Those who are much wiser than you consider yourselves to be will deliberate over your suggestion/commendation and come up with a solution that they will be held responsible for.

Do not let that deter you. If you know it to be wrong set the wheels in motion to rectify it.

 

[Rigga]

"There is bending rules, and then there is 'bending rules'"


"I have always been led to believe that rules were for the guidance of the wise and obedience of fools!"


Popular remarks by those whom (civil & military) pilots annotate as "Anti-Authority Types" Typified by an (ex) flamboyant captain of a famous B-52 crash.

In Maintenance Human Factors terms these are also classified as "Norms" set by people who are either not aware, or dont see the point, of changes. So they carry on, carrying on.


In the RAF, the need to deviate from maintenance procedures in times of war and operational necessity can be accommodated by the operating Squadron's OC (or sengo) declaration of "Contingency Maintenance" in ANY PART of his/her domain.

Any maintenance deviation before this declaration is technically ILLEGAL and the perpetrator who willingly deviates from procedures is liable to prosecution in the case of an accident or incident - you should already be aware of, and if not take good note, that "The Crown" and its servants no longer has immunity from this type of litigation. See Chinook, Hercules and Nimrod cases.

A "Just Culture" (if present) MAY save your skin!

I have attended a war with the Chinook and Puma Forces and have never required (or worked) in Contingency Maintenance scenarios. I have also been a Crew Chief on Hueys for 5 years and never needed to deviate from the laid down processes.

I have at times resorted to carrying personal torches because that was part of the job - but never resorted to using folding tools (except a crew-knife and Huey "Duz-it-all" tool)

I am not saying I'm better than you - but, hopefully, I'm making the point that it is easy to let standards slip in trying circumstances if you dont watch out.

As for "...the reason for the mission being taken into account..." you should also note that failures in your maintenance practices may also result in the loss of lives - and maybe even more than you originally worried about.

I have always said that the difference between a car mechanic and an aircraft mechanic is that the aircraft mechanic knows the consequences of his actions or inactions.

After all that - I think we're back at the question of "Maintenance Standards at Operating Units."

Rant Over
Rigga

 

[gemarriott]

Getting back to working around things as Weebl was talking about I have a pretty good example

The Fletcher tanks on Phantoms were crutched to the wing using an eight foot bar with a one inch square drive welded on the end supplied my McDonald Douglas as a special tool. One APC detatchment one Squadron forgot to take a crutching bar to Cyprus with them and rather thanwait 4 days for Brize to fly one out they improvised. A two foot long ratchet and an 8 foot length of scaffolding pole slipped over the end meant the tanks could be taken off and almost a full weeks flying programme saved. This totally unauthorised solution worked so well that it was adopted universally throughout the Phantom fleet but the ratchet crutching bar was never written into the schedule.

The adage of rules,wisemen, blind obedience, fools and guidance worked perfectly well in this case.


Interesting little extra to this tale some Spam toomb guys forgot to take a crutching bar to Deci and asked to borrow ours, we had a bit of a debate with them about using it till we showed them how much easier it was and I believe they actually got the ratchet authorised there and then by McDonnel Douglas for use on their aircraft.