I've worked with civvies several times in my time in the RAF and without exception I can say that their tool control and engineering standards are nothing short of shocking and far below the standards I would expect of an LAC straight from Cosford.
I'm pretty sure the guys (or gals) you've worked with might say the same about the way the RAF works too.
From reading your statement of working several times with civvies (above) I have worked with a great deal more of both sides than you have and I can possibly see the differences with a bit more clarity than you can.
Firstly, you don’t say if the civvies you worked with were hired as local labour or as licensed engineers, or even if they were in UK or not – national standards may differ.
If they were hired as labour, that is probably what you got – unqualified labour possibly fit for tool carrying.
Whilst you may have ten years or more in the RAF - a civvy contractor is not likely to be familiar with the trade and rank defined restrictions, or terminology, of working within a military environment - in fact your working environment and the way you manage your work is almost totally alien to a UK Civil LAE. In the same way as you would be lost in the civil aviation world.
Qualified LAE “Connies” do work to different standards from the MOD’s, as dictated by their national and indeed international standards. (e.g. The classification of locking devices (lock-wire, stiff-nuts, anchor nuts) and system locking standards are different) As a matter of law, civil aviation engineers are not allowed to sign for military aircraft work using their civil qualifications. This is why the MOD now has "MAOS" - to allow civvies to work alongside - but not in - military environments. Also, UK military regulations do not hold up to civil law courts as they are ambiguous in almost all occasions.
For info, I do not believe that EASA is the panacea of aviation regulations – in fact most of the UK believes it is a poor collection of the lowest valued common denominators acceptable to the poorest states of the EU that could by mustered together by European lawyers. EASA defines the very lowest standards of maintenance we could hope to meet. However, even in this low-value status of EASA - they still require that engineers conduct their work to the letter of the Maintenance Procedure and report any difficulties to the OEM.
Within EASA there is provision for operating aircraft outside a “Controlled Environment” where the rules are not applied as required (the operational situations you describe) but on return to the “Controlled Environment” the aircraft systems disturbed must be re-checked and certified compliant with the type's airworthiness standards, and the AMM/CMM, before continuing operations in controlled conditions once more.
You all describe doing what you perceived needed to be done at the time to get an aircraft/mission completed - and I respect you for that devotion to your job in a particular situation. But that success doesn't mean that what you did was legal. Even after a successful mission you could still be brought to court for conducting maintenance "not IAW the AMM".
The start of this thread was about the trade malpractices that are being treated/used as "NORMS". I believe this is the result of unapproved and uncontrolled trade practices used "on the front Line" being repeated in normal conditions and taught (by example) to personnel that don't yet know the difference. Strong managers are need to enforce the difference/correction of standards before the rot really sets in.
DT_Xtremez_26:
