p3.470 tl spring 2016 layout 1 - prospect •...
TRANSCRIPT
Spring 2016 Issue 332
INSIDESAFETY AUDITS DIFFERENTLY
FLIGHT OF ‘ALL AMERICAN’
SNAG IN A BLIZZARD
TECH
For more information or to book a place contact:
[email protected]+44 (0) 161 498 7539 / +44 (0)7584 606873
TCAE/CONDOR TRAININGUPCOMING COURSES SPRING/SUMMER 2016• A330 – General Familiarisation – Manchester20th-28th June
• A320 (CFM56 & V2500) B1/B2 – Theory – Morsons,Salford, Manchester 4th July-12th August
• A320 (CFM56 & V2500) B1/B2 – Practical – TCXManchester 18th-29th July
• B757 (RB211) B1/B2 Theory – Condor Frankfurt8th August-23rd September
• B757 (RB211) B1/B2 Theory – TCX Manchester26th September-7th October
• B757 (RB211) to B767 (GE-CF6) Differences –Theory – Condor Frankfurt 10th-21st October
• B767 (GE-CF6) to B767 (PW4000) Differences –Theory – Condor Frankfurt 24th-26th October
• B767 (GE-CF6 & PW4000) Differences – Practical –Condor Frankfurt 27th Oct- 4th November
3TECHLOG SPRING 2016
5 Editorial
6 News bites
7 Honouring a pioneer
8 Safety audits differently
12 ‘All American’ flight
16 Snag in a blizzard
20 Competence Management
22 Short reports
24 Humour
26 Association notices
Objects of the AssociationTo promote the Professional Status of Association Members.
To represent Members in their workplaces.
To represent Members of the Association within the Industry.
To strive to improve the standards of safety in all aspects ofaircraft maintenance and operation.
The ALAE welcomes contributions to ‘The Tech Log’, butreserves the right to amend them where necessary. Allcontributions, whether they bear the names, initials orpseudonyms, are accepted on the understanding that the authoris responsible for the opinions expressed and that they do notnecessarily reflect or comply with those of the publisher oreditor. Although every care is taken, the publisher and editorcannot be held responsible for loss or damage to materialsubmitted. Whilst every care is taken to ensure contents areaccurate, the publisher and editor assume no responsibility forany effects arising from errors or omissions. Acceptance ofmaterial is not a guarantee of publication in any particular issue,since space is at a premium.
For more information on the following, please contact the Office Administrator: ALAE/Prospect, Flaxman House, Gogmore Lane, Chertsey, Surrey KT16 9JSTelephone: 01932 577007 Fax: 01932 565239Email: [email protected] Website: www.alae.org
When ALAE members call the telephone number above theywill be passed forward to the dedicated officer for their particulararea as per the breakdown previously advised to EC members.
Please inform the registered office above of any change ofdetails, address, telephone number, etc as soon as possible toensure you continue to receive your copy of ‘Tech Log’.e-mail: [email protected]
‘Tech Log’ is published by MYPEC0113 257 9646 www.mypec.co.uk
Photography by Barry Swannwww.barryswannphotography.comand Garfield Moreton Photographygarfieldmoretonphotography.zenfolio.com
CONTENTS
Breaking NewsSTOP PRESSCATTS is pleased toannounce:
• CATTS conducts a B777 forSabena Aerospace
• Andrew Plummer joins us asTechnical Director. Andy waspreviously Director of overseasaircraft maintenance for AmericanAirlines and prior overseasmaintenance manager for ThomasCook, so brings a huge wealth ofexperience to our operation.Please join us in welcoming himto the team
• We now run HF, SFAR and EWISrefreshers monthly at our trainingcentre in Northwich.
• We also run many licence removalof lims courses (such as Lims1+9) So again please contact usfor more information, even if it’sjust for a friendly bit of advice!
UPCOMING COURSES:
Civil Aviation Technical Training Solutions LtdUnits 7-8, Brickfields Business Centre, 60 Manchester Road, Northwich, Cheshire CW9 7LS
Contact us onTel: +44 (0) 1565 653745 [email protected]
for more information and availability.
B757 (PW) Engine only diffs, Theory and Practical, B1/B2, Leipzig –call for updated dates in June
B757 Gen Fam, 5 days, Farnborough – 16th May
A330 Gen Fam, 5 days, LHR – 4th April and 23rd May
B777 (RR to GE) – Engine only diffs, Theory, B1/B2, Brussels– 9th June
A330 Gen Fam, 5 days, LHR – 23rd May and 20th June
A330 Gen Fam, 5 days, Brize Norton – 4th July
B737 NG Theory and Practical, B1/B2 – Bahrain – 17th July
B777 (RR+GE) – Theory and Practical, B1/B2 – Abu Dhabi – 6th June
A320 Practical – 10 Days – Manchester – 5th September
A320 Practical – 10 Days – Manchester – 19th September
B767 (GE+PW) – Theory and Practical – Malaysia B1/B2 –Ring For details
5
In a nut shell the way it works is; the airline or MRO
identify all risks. These risks are documented and
mitigated (where possible).
This detail is then packaged and sent to the responsible
National Airworthiness Authority (NAA). The NAA
will scrutinise this information and depending on how
high the assessed operational and engineering dangers
that the organisation has ‘self-assessed’, the NAA will
make a decision on the level of oversight it feels is
required of the organisation, to ensure the safety of the
flying public and those situated below.
Can you spot the deficiency in this plan? It is obvious
that each organisation will have a different idea on what
they have to disclose, (and what they can hide), in
addition does the organisation actually know and
understand all its risks.
The regulators have already assessed this potential flaw
in the plan and have been promoting amongst other
things ‘occurrence reporting’ and the introduction of
Safety Management Systems (SMS). The concept is very
simple, all significant reported occurrences are discussed
and assessed at a dedicated safety action meeting
attended by the responsible managers and if any safety
related reports that cause concern are identified, they are
placed on the agenda of an additional meeting where
these items are presented to the Accountable Manager
(AM) for him/her to ensure correct management focus to
deliver a resolution reduce any risk to an acceptable level.
Now it all makes a little more sense.... However, some
observers of this new concept have made suggestions that
the introduction of this risk based oversight is being
implemented back to front. The SMS system has been
established and is working quite well but the value of the
output is misleading. The industry has not yet been
trained to report everything, (how do you measure risks
made by individuals when for example ‘self-reporting’
does not exist in some organisations).
If the professional observers are right this new
approach could have disastrous consequences.
It has been likened to a similar transport standard-
isation problem, that is, we, in the UK drive on the right
side of the road (the left). Our European counterparts
drive on the wrong side of the road (the right).
If the policy above is adopted when we in the UK, (Poll
result pending), will be requested by the EU to
standardise with Europe and change the side we drive, a
two-step approach may also be proposed.
Step 1. Day 1; trucks and busses will change to the new
system and if successful,
Step 2. Day 2; all other traffic will now be required to
change and drive on the wrong side of the road. See the
problem, it does not appear to have been thought
through.
To close, although this risk based oversight would never
have been a preferred process of ALAE, it is the selected
one, (and it is too far down the track to stop). ALAE are
committed and are making our best efforts help to make
it work.
Correctly processed occurrence reporting without
management interference and attenuation (Step 1) is the
key to allow for the successful governance of the detail
delivered to the safety action meeting and Accountable
Manager review meeting (Step 2).
Jon Harris, Editor – [email protected]
EDITORIAL
Due to shared financial pressures our industry overseershave been devising a new ‘more efficient’ process forregulatory oversight.
TECHLOG SPRING 2016
NEWS BITES
TECHLOG SPRING 20166
Boeing 787-8s and 787-9s Dreamliners with General Electric GEnx-1B engines must
undergo immediate repair or replacement of at least one engine within a time period
of 150 days, (22 April 2016) according to an airworthiness directive issued by the FAA
this week. The AD was issued without a comment period to speed up compliance
The directive is the result of an investigation for an engine failure incident due to ice
accumulation and shedding that caused fan blade rubbing.
UNIDENTIFIEDFLYING OBJECT
‘Non-standard procedure’ caused crash of US Airforce C130J
The transport minister, Robert Goodwill has
stated that the mystery object that reportedly
crashed into a British Airways plane during its
descent to Heathrow airport in London may have
caused a false alarm: “There was no actual damage
to the plane, and there’s indeed some speculation
that it may have even been a plastic bag or
something.”
In Afghanistan in October, intentionally jammed controls led to the crash of a
C-130J and the deaths of 14 people. It is reported that in order to get the elevators
up and out of the way to allow the crew to load some tall pieces of cargo, a pilot put
a hard-shell case for a set of night vision goggles in front of the yoke. The crew
forgot to remove the case and the aircraft pitched up sharply on take-off, stalled and
crashed into a guard hut.
The crash killed six aircraft crew members, five civilian contractors aboard the
plane and three Afghan guards on the ground.
The crash was originally blamed on enemy fire from Afghan insurgents.
CAA ISSUES FINALREPORT ON AIR DISPLAY PROCEDURESThe report follows on from the
additional measures already announced
by the CAA in January. The measures
now include enhanced risk assessments
for displays and strengthening
requirements for areas such as training
and checks for those overseeing displays
and the experience, skill and health of
display pilots.
The measures include• Strengthening post-display reporting
requirements to reflect the importance
of feedback and safety reporting from
air displays
• Increasing the distance between the
display line and crowd line for any
situations where distances were
previously less than those in place for
military displays.
• Increasing the minimum altitude at
which ex-military jet aircraft can
undertake aerobatic manoeuvres; and
• Strengthening the competency
requirements for pilots performing
aerobatic manoeuvres in civil registered,
ex-military jet aircraft.
• The minimum altitude for ex-military
aircraft performing aerobatic
manoeuvres at air shows has been
increased to 500ft
The current grounding of UK civilian
Hawker Hunter jets is still effective.
The full report can be found on
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplicati
on.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=7318
ENGINE FAILURE DUE TO ICINGPROMPTS AD FOR BOEING 787S
7TECHLOG SPRING 2016
But, there was a third man you may not know about
who was just as important in the development of
powered aircraft: Charles E. ‘Charlie’ Taylor.
Charlie Taylor is considered the father of aviation
maintenance. He helped the Wright brothers design
and build their own engine, paving the way for aircraft
maintenance technicians (AMTs) like me to keep your
aircraft safe and airworthy.
I learned about Charlie Taylor from a colleague who
was working to pass a resolution in California to
honour AMTs. Frankly, I was a little embarrassed I
didn’t know anything about the man who pioneered the
work I do. I became dedicated to educating my
profession about Charlie, and I created the Aircraft
Maintenance Technicians Association (AMTA).
Through the AMTA, I worked to persuade Congress to
recognise the important resolutions states were passing
in honour of AMTs. In 2008, with the sponsorship of
Congressman Bob Filner of California, the US
Congressional AMT Day Resolution was passed.
AMT Day is now celebrated each year on 24 May –
Charlie’s birthday – in honour of all the men and
women who use their knowledge and skill to provide
safe and reliable aircraft. We put a little bit of ourselves
in each plane we work on. And much like Charlie, we
don’t work for the limelight.
I’ve been an AMT with American Airlines for 30
years. I chose to become an AMT because I like the
challenge of fixing something. A great responsibility
comes with maintaining our fleet, and I don’t take it
lightly. American has some of the best AMTs in our
profession, so rest assured you have skilled and
knowledgeable professionals keeping you and your
loved ones safe.
On behalf of the 14,000 maintenance employees at
American, thank you for flying with us today.
Ken MacTiernan, Aircraft Maintenance Technician
San Diego, California
HONOURING AMAINTENANCE PIONEERIf I were to ask you about the Wright brothers, you wouldprobably know they are the founders of modern-day flight.
People I’ve spoken with have raised concerns that:
• audits may not get a ‘true picture’ of what is going on
• some projects suffer from audit overload
• audits may damage cultures of trust
• audits may drive a commitment to creating acceptable
images of work, rather than improving the primary
process that the audits are supposed to assess
• well audited projects still have a seemingly unaudited
performance (incidents and injuries occur despite audits
showing well compliant systems).
The way I see it, is that some of these problems stem
from the belief that productive, efficient and safe work
comes from the precise application of standards, best
practices, and approved systems of work that have been
systematically analysed and tested elsewhere. The
assumption seems to be that if we fail to follow a limited
set of rules, we will have substandard, inefficient and
disorganised performance. Or, what can go wrong when
every part has been checked for its compliance with
agreed standards?
From this point of view, it makes sense to have regular
safety audits and observations – formal, independent, and
rational follow-ups of whether a project’s internal
workings align with standards and expectations.
Put differently, safety audits focus primarily on the
programmatic elements of organisational practice – the
plans/the work as imagined/the normative/what should
8 TECHLOG SPRING 2016
Safety audits have become central to safety management andgovernance. However, many organisations have noted that safetyaudits may have limited usefulness and some problematicconsequences.
SAFETY AUDITSDIFFERENTLY 9 February, 2016
happen. It is this programmatic level which is connected
to regulatory demands, international standards, best
practices and other requirements. The technological
elements (the operational reality/what actually
happens/work as done/work as found) tend to be assessed
only to the degree that they can support conclusions
about the programmatic elements (Power, 1999).
The focus on the programmatic level makes it possible
for audits to be disconnected from the very process that
gave rise to its need in the first place. This is to say that
in its most extreme form, a safety audit does not need to
be concerned with safety performance, the meaning of
safety to the project, if the processes actually assist work,
or otherwise generate information about what actually
goes on.
Another aspect driving the focus on the programmatic
level is that audits require a certain type of information or
proof. To enable comparison of findings across sites,
projects, and organisations a standardised scale is needed.
However, the messy details of work at the sharp end are
local, contextual, and unique. As such, the audit will
require abstraction of the answers, or a disregard for the
local specifics. Furthermore, while such a scale or
measurement should preferably be external and
independent to what is being audited, the introduction of
an external measure brings about a risk that audits
become a dominant reference point for organisations and
projects. Audits burden the audited to focus on what is an
accepted way of showing and fixing compliance, rather
than on improving performance of what actually gets
done. This way, audits may impact the contexts in which
they are deployed, without creating new knowledge about
what happens. Things get confused into clarity (Law,
2004).
Standardisation may be a powerful tool to set limits and
govern from afar. But, what if the selective gaze from afar
can’t capture and detect what trouble grows locally,
outside, and in between standards and procedures? What
if many or most of the problems that people face are
diffuse, ephemeral, unspecific, fuzzy, emotional, elusive,
indistinct, or not yet fully understood? What good is then
a blunt view from afar with a yes/no answer? What if
workplace risks and capacities to handle these cannot be
captured or even adequately mapped out using
standardised templates for what should happen?
And even worse, what if enforcing and auditing a ‘one
best way’ may prevent us from creating new
understanding of what could be going on and simply
rehash solutions of what has previously been found
acceptable? Audits are based on and wedded with ideas
and practices developed for yesterday’s needs, and
essentially ask organisations to embrace the future by
organising according to the ideas of the past. Can it be
that one-sidedly enforcing standardised requirements,
simultaneously makes it more difficult to have a culture of
innovation?
Furthermore, one may ask what would happen if
organisations did not have safety audits. Would systems
degenerate? Would performance decrease? Would people
lose sight of what should get done? If the people doing
the daily work cannot be trusted to achieve reliable, safe
and effective performance, but need policing, then what
does it say about expectations and respect for the people
involved? Audits may further emphasise that trust is
supposedly with the experts that perform the audits,
and/or with the document standards and evidence used to
show compliance. Again, this may undermine, and
distrust, the local custodians of a system. As such, audits
may work to drive accountability, but not necessarily
responsibility.
In summary, safety audits may:
• fail to pick up what is actually going on,
• hold back innovation
• undermine local trust.
In effect, the current audit format may not be helpful in
conveying an idea of how well a system actually functions
over time, how it supports (or constrains) the
performance of people, nor contribute to fostering local
ownership.
Steps toward a different kind of safety audit
Most people would probably prefer if
audits facilitated organisational learning and
improvements, rather than being little more than a
compliance check. This is not to say that we should do
away with safety audits. This may, however, suggest that
we need to open up for new ways of knowing about what
goes on in organisations.
There is opportunity to design mechanisms that give a
richer and more meaningful image and information
dissemination of what goes on across projects and sites.
To achieve this we may also need to change how we
think about accountability. To stand a better chance to
have a constructive audit process, we may ultimately need
to change how we understand audits, how audits are
communicated, and how audits are carried out.
What if:
• an audit was something that auditors and auditees
looked forward to?
9TECHLOG SPRING 2016
• finding sources for effectiveness and success in an
audit was just as likely as finding nonconformances?
• the audit process contributed to build trust and respect
between the auditor and the audited?
• the audit process itself started a cycle of continuous
improvement (not deficit fixing)?
I don’t have the answers for how to accomplish all this.
But in relation to the first potential, I’d like to suggest a
more experiential approach – an audit through reflection
on doing. Instead of asking ‘do you have a procedure in
place for X’ ask the audited to talk about one time/event
when something worked really well in and around using
a particular procedure. Or one time when work was
really difficult or challenging. People enjoy talking about
what they do, their achievements and success, the daily
dramas of how things come together (and not), and
about what works and what could work. When sharing
experiences of what actually has happened, people
involve themselves in the process. It is their experiences
that brought about the desired outcomes, and not
someone else’s solution or best practice. The audit
becomes an opportunity to get an outsiders perspective
of what goes on. Sharing the joys and difficulties of
managing complex systems are more likely to drive an
engaging conversation, and a more insightful one.
Second, in a more experiential audit, the task for the
auditor is to listen and seek to understand what helped
performance and what made it difficult, ie examine the
factors surrounding a procedure, rather than the mere
existence of the procedure itself and evidence that it has
been used. This is a more inviting way to bring out
information that highlights where local system
custodians may have the need, not to ‘non-conform’, but
to find a way that can better reconcile complex
situations. It may of course be categorised as a non-
conformance, if that is helpful. However, as the auditor
and audited build a richer understanding of the tools,
resources, information and strategies that are available to
deal with the demands and constraints, calling
something a non-conformance is unnecessarily
reductionistic.
Three, as organisations tap into the accumulated
wisdom, experience and creativity of employees who are
closest to the issues, organisations are more likely to get
a better understanding of their workplace. People are
more likely to feel listened to and respected, resulting in
a more engaged and purposeful conversation, cutting
through layers of bureaucracy and possibly having an
effect that lingers long after the auditors have left. But,
appreciating of the experiences of local stewards, are also
more likely to have an impact on the auditor. The
realisation of how non-conformances can make sense, is
more likely to produce a mutual respect of how difficult
and messy operational life can be, and produce a
compassionate and more holistic response – helping the
auditor to learn something about the system as well.
Four, people are more interested to work towards
positive outcomes, as opposed to avoiding negative
outcomes. Or so it seems anyway. Applying a more
appreciative approach in questioning, allows audits to
turn into an opportunity to reconnect with the purpose
of a project or site, rather than producing yet another
distracting deficit focus. So by focusing on what works
and what could be done to achieve success, audits have a
better chance to leave people with ideas and inspiration
for actions that can deliver on the goals, rather than
producing fear or threat that only fuel actions for as
long there is a problem (van de Wetering, 2010).
What is at stake here is simply not just about safety
audits. It is also about what kind of safety governance an
organisation would like to exercise, and what kind of
workplaces they would like to contribute toward.
Daniel Hummerdal
10 TECHLOG SPRING 2016
Sources of inspiration:Auret, D., & Barrientos, S. (2004). Participatory
social auditing. Institute of development studies:
Brighton, UK.
Healy, S. (2003). Epistemological pluralism and the
‘politics of choice’. Futures, 35, 689-701.
Humphrey, C., & Owen, D. (2000). Debating the
‘power’ of audit. International Journal of Auditing,
4, 29-50.
Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science
research. Routledge, Oxon, UK.
Power, M. (1999). The audit society: Rituals of
verifications. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
van de Wetering, A. (2010). Appreciative Auditing.
AI practitioner, 12, 3.
Wynne, B. (1988). Unruly technology: Practical rules,
impractical discourses and public understanding.
Social Studies of Science, 18, 147-167.
An enemy fighter attacking a 97th Bomb Group
formation went out of control, probably with a wounded
pilot, then continued its crashing descent into the rear
of the fuselage of a Flying Fortress named ‘All
American’, piloted by Lt. Kendrick R. Bragg, of the
414th Bomb Squadron.
When it struck, the fighter broke apart, but left some
pieces in the B-17. The left horizontal stabilizer of the
Fortress and left elevator were completely torn away.
The two right engines were out and one on the left had
a serious oil pump leak. The vertical fin and the rudder
had been damaged, the fuselage had been cut almost
completely through connected only at two small parts of
the frame, and the radios, electrical and oxygen systems
were damaged.
There was also a hole in the top that was over 16-feet
long and 4 feet wide at its widest; the split in the fuselage
went all the way to the top gunner's turret.
Although the tail actually bounced and swayed in the
wind and twisted when the plane turned and all the
control cables were severed, except one single elevator
cable still worked, and the aircraft miraculously still flew!
The tail gunner was trapped because there was no floor
connecting the tail to the rest of the plane.
The waist and tail gunners used parts of the German
fighter and their own parachute harnesses in an attempt
to keep the tail from ripping off and the two sides of the
fuselage from splitting apart.
While the crew was trying to keep the bomber from
coming apart, the pilot continued on his bomb run and
released his bombs over the target.
When the bomb bay doors were opened, the wind
turbulence was so great that it blew one of the waist
gunners into the broken tail section. It took several
minutes and four crew members to pass him ropes from
parachutes and haul him back into the forward part of
the plane. When they tried to do the same for the tail
gunner, the tail began flapping so hard that it began to
break off. The weight of the gunner was adding some
stability to the tail section, so he went back to his
position. The turn back toward England had to be very
slow to keep the tail from twisting off. They actually
covered almost 70 miles to make the turn home.
The bomber was so badly damaged that it was losing
altitude and speed and was soon alone in the sky.
For a brief time, two more Me-109 German fighters
attacked the All American. Despite the extensive damage,
all of the machine gunners were able to respond to these
12 TECHLOG SPRING 2016
THE MIRACULOUS FLIGHT OF ‘ALL AMERICAN’ In 1943 a mid-air collision on 1 February 1943, between a B-17 and aGerman fighter over the Tunis dock area, became the subject of one ofthe most famous photographs of WWII.
B-17 ‘All American’ (414th Squadron, 97BG) Crew Pilot – Ken Bragg Jr.
Co-pilot – G. Boyd Jr.
Navigator – Harry C. Nuessle
Bombardier – Ralph Burbridge
Engineer – Joe C. James
Radio Operator – Paul A. Galloway
Ball Turret Gunner – Elton Conda
Waist Gunner – Michael Zuk
Tail Gunner – Sam T. Sarpolus
Ground Crew Chief – Hank Hyland
attacks and soon drove off the fighters.
The two waist gunners stood up with their heads
sticking out through the hole in the top of the fuselage to
aim and fire their machine guns. The tail gunner had to
shoot in short bursts because the recoil was actually
causing the plane to turn.
Allied P-51 fighters intercepted the All American as it
crossed over the Channel and took one of the pictures
shown.
They also radioed to the base describing that the
appendage was waving like a fish tail and that the plane
would not make it and to send out boats to rescue the
crew when they bailed out.
The fighters stayed with the Fortress, taking hand
signals from Lt. Bragg and relaying them to the base.
Lt. Bragg signalled that five parachutes and the spare
had been ‘used’ so five of the crew could not bail out.
He made the decision that if they could not bail out
safely, then he would stay with the plane to land it.
Two and a half hours after being hit, the aircraft made
its final turn to line up with the runway while it was still
over 40 miles away. It descended into an emergency
landing and a normal roll-out on its landing gear.
When the ambulance pulled alongside, it was waved off
because not a single member of the crew had been
injured. No one could believe that the aircraft could still
fly in such a condition. The Fortress sat placidly until the
crew all exited through the door in the fuselage and the
tail gunner had climbed down a ladder, at which time the
entire rear section of the aircraft collapsed.
This old bird had done its job and brought the entire
crew home uninjured.
13TECHLOG SPRING 2016
16 TECHLOG SPRING 2016
For those of you not familiar with Norwegian
geography, Vardø is far north and far east, at N 70.34
and not far from Russian waters.
It’s the only place on mainland Norway that is in the
arctic climate zone, which means that none of the
months in a year has an average temperature above 10
degrees Celsius. The weather this day was gale force
with gusts of strong gale, and a temperature of minus 2
degrees Celsius with heavy showers of snow. A perfect
day to work outside.
I was thinking of our union brothers working for
Norwegian Air Shuttle in the Caribbean islands,
sweating in that awfully hot climate. To get at least
some shelter from the weather, we borrowed a wheel
SNAG IN ABLIZZARDIn January, a colleague and Ihad to travel to Vardø for anAOG with a nose wheelsteering system problem.
The aircraft and the wheel loader with the snow plow used as shelter.
17TECHLOG SPRING 2016
loader with a foldable snow plow from Avinor, the
airport operator, and placed it with its wings around the
nose of the aircraft as a windbreak.
When we were ready to depart we had shuffle away a
snow-dune to get the aircraft moving, after being parked
a few hours.
Jan-Kristian Hansen, NFOBlowing snow, the aircraft seen from the terminal.
“The weather this day was galeforce with gusts of strong gale,
and a temperature of minus 2degrees Celsius with heavy
showers of snow. A perfect day towork outside.”
18 TECHLOG SPRING 2016
Me working in the nose wheel well
Before departure we had to shuffle the snow immediately in front of the landinggear by hand, because the wheel loader could not get to it due to the propeller.
Some shelter from the weather.
19TECHLOG SPRING 2016
SNAG IN A BLIZZARD
“To get at least some shelter from theweather, we borrowed a wheel loader with a
foldable snow plow from Avinor.”
Our tool box, after arrival at our home base.
All photos by Svein-Erik Vading
Despite the shelter, there was enough blowing snow.
20 TECHLOG SPRING 2016
What is a competency?A competency is simply a behaviour, skill, value,
performance dimension or performance standard.
Competencies can be defined and combined to build a
picture or matrix of traits and requirements that are
necessary for an individual or an organisation to
perform at their optimum.
Why is this important to maintenance andengineering personnel?There are a myriad of reasons why maintenance and
engineering personnel should take an active interest in
understanding how, and why competence is managed
within the aviation industry.
Aircraft engineers, mechanics, engineering planners,
and analysts, are among a privileged few; an elite group
of experts, responsible for keeping a global industry on
the move.
Most importantly they play a pivotal role in ensuring
the safety of colleagues, flight crews, precious cargo and
WHAT IS COMPETENCEMANAGEMENT, AND HOW DOES IT AFFECTMAINTENANCE ANDENGINEERING PERSONNEL?
In essence, competence management is a means ofcultivating and managing competencies.By employing an effective competence managementsystem an organisation can foster high performance onboth an employee and organisational level. In the fieldof aviation, this high performance can translate intoimproved safety, efficiency, and quality.
21TECHLOG SPRING 2016
the millions of passengers that travel on the aircraft they
maintain.
Aerospace technology has moved on greatly over the
last 50 years. Despite this the IATA Safety Report, 2015
found that in 81% of accidents, aircraft malfunction was
a contributing factor, with 40% involving a
maintenance-related event1. This data, is indicative of
findings over the last decade that highlights
maintenance activity, and deviation from maintenance
standard operating procedures as a substantial threat.
The reaction to this trend in intelligence, has been the
creation of legislation to empower authorities such as
EASA to enhance their regulatory requirements, placing
greater emphasis on organisations to ensure the
competence of their work force.
The requirements for competence are defined in
regulations such as EASA Part 145 AMC 1
145.A.30(e). This portion of the regulation outlines the
acceptable means of compliance for personnel
competence in an approved maintenance organisation.
It states that personnel including, amongst others,
planners, mechanics, specialised services staff,
supervisors, certifying staff and support staff, whether
employed or contracted, are assessed for competence.
It also states that;
“Competence should be assessed by evaluation of:
• on-the-job performance and/or testing of knowledge
by appropriately qualified personnel, and
• records for basic, organisational and/or product type
and differences training, and
• experience records.”
All of these criteria should be subject to validation and
recording.
The responsibility to ensure competence doesn’t rest
solely with the MRO or airline. Everyone in this arena,
in order to ensure that a culture of safety and quality
proliferates through the industry, should be actively
taking steps to understand the requirements. They
should ensure that they record the information that is
needed to prove competence, by logging their training
and experience records.
This is an exercise that will be increasingly important
for all employees and contract staff, who will need to
demonstrate their validated experience records when
they join a new organisation or pick up a contract.
At present the habit of keeping a task logbook is
typically only sustained by licensed engineers, who have
a requirement to prove recency. Without a measurable,
validated record of experience, held in conjunction with
training and on-the-job performance assessments, it will
be increasingly difficult to demonstrate competence in-
line with the new regulation, especially when
approaching potential employers.
Recognising the challenges presented by the
regulations, and the opportunity to enhance safety
through competence management, ELMS Aviation and
their team of specialists, in consultation with industry
experts and the regulator, have developed an application
to provide a solution.
The ELMS application allows engineers and non-
engineers to upload and manage all of their training
records (including copies of certificates), employment
history, licence details, type ratings, job roles, and
authorisations to a central account. They can also
compile a digital logbook of their experience records,
and upload copies of job cards for reference.
An easy to use reporting tool allows users to evaluate
their competence in accordance with industry approved
metrics. In addition to demonstrating expertise in
particular areas or activities, these reports can be used to
identify training opportunities, and aid career
development.
Because ELMS is a secure cloud-based application, all
users’ personal data is kept private until they choose to
share their profile with an organisation or another user.
By connecting with an airline, OEM or MRO a user is
able to present their profile and experience, thus
enabling the organisation to run reports and assess
everything they need to prove competence, and recency
in-line with the evolving regulations.
For more information about ELMS Aviation and their
competence management solution, visit
www.elmsaviation.co.uk.
BecauseELMS is asecurecloud-basedapplication,all users’personaldata is keptprivate untilthey chooseto sharetheir profilewith anorganisationor anotheruser.
SHORT REPORTS
22 TECHLOG SPRING 2016
L-1011: LUXURYAMONG THE CLOUDS
In April 1972, after six gruelling years of
design and some unforeseen setbacks, the then-
Lockheed California Company (now
Lockheed Martin) delivered the most
technologically advanced commercial jet of its
era, the L-1011 TriStar, to its first client,
Eastern Airlines.
In a similar fashion to other iconic passenger
airliners before it, the L-1011 faced daunting
challenges on the way to its inaugural flight.
Divergent needs from competing airlines led to
design challenges. Financial difficulties ravaged
its engine’s manufacturer. And a recession,
fuelled by the world’s first oil crisis, lessened
the demand for commercial airliners.
But the L-1011, like its parent company,
endured the storm, including a government
loan guarantee, but in the end, more than
4,500 jobs were saved. And on 30 April 1972,
Conceived during the mid-1960s to transport 250 passengers on
popular transcontinental routes, the L-1011 boasted unheard-of
luxuries, including glare-resistant windows, full-sized hideaway
closets for coats, and a below-deck galley, which lifted filet mignon
and lamb chop dinners up to the main cabin via two elevators.
Passengers loved riding in it, thanks to a unique engine
configuration that reduced sound in the cabin.
Flight crews appreciated its extra-wide aisles and overhead bins.
But it was TriStar’s pilots who had access to its most thrilling feature;
an advanced fly-by-wire automatic flight control system (AFCS).
Tristar pilots simply had to dial altitude and course changes into
the flight control system and monitor their instruments, and the
L-1011 would fly and land on its own, descending smoothly onto
the runway by locking in to an airport’s radio beacons.
On 25 May 1972, veteran test pilots Anthony LeVier and Charles
Hall transported 115 crew members, employees, and reporters on
a 4-hour, 13-minute flight from Palmdale, California, to Dulles
Airport outside Washington, D.C., with the TriStar’s AFCS feature
engaged from take-off roll to landing. It was a groundbreaking
moment: the first cross-country flight without the need for human
hands on the controls.
Fly-by-wire technology was here to stay.
The UltimateAutopilot
Eastern Airlines began scheduled service of the
L-1011, with a smooth flight from Miami to
New York.
On the runway, the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar
was an undeniable beauty. With its large,
curved nose, lowest wings, and graceful swept
tail, it looked as sleek as a dolphin. But in
flight, the L-1011 was nothing short of a
miracle, the first commercial airliner capable of
flying itself from take off to landing.
SHORT REPORTS
23TECHLOG SPRING 2016
THE LEGACY OF THE WHISPER LINERThanks to its impressive autopilot feature, the TriStar was given
special clearance by the FAA to land during severe weather
conditions. Whereas other wide-bodied jets had to be diverted to
alternate airports, L-1011passengers could rest assured that they
would touch down precisely where they were scheduled to land.
Dubbed the Whisperliner by Eastern Airlines due to its quiet take-
offs and a noticeable lack of noise in its passenger cabin, the
production of L-1011 continued until 1983. The L-1011 fleet had a
remarkable in service rate that reached 98.1 percent reliability.
But the financial troubles proved too much to overcome. A total of
250 TriStar jets were produced by Lockheed, and the L-1011 marked
the company’s final commercial passenger airliners. But the company
exited on a high note, having created, in one pilot’s words, ‘the most
intelligent airliner ever to fly.’
HUMOUR
24 TECHLOG SPRING 2016
Some reported events that may amuse....
A KingAir had just rotated (lifted-off therunway) at take-off when there was anenormous bang and the starboard engineburst into flames. After stamping on therudder to sort out the asymmetric thrust,trying to feather the propeller and goingthrough the engine fire drills withconsiderable calmness and self confidence,the stress it would appear, took its toll on theCaptain.... He transmitted to the tower in a
level and friendly voice: “Ladies andgentleman. There is no problem at all butwe’re just going to land for a nice cup of tea.”He then switched to cabin intercom andscreamed at the passengers: “Mayday.Mayday. Mayday. Engine fire. Prop won’tfeather. If I can’t hold this asymmetric we’regoing in. Emergency landing. Get the crashcrew out.” The aircraft landed safely with thepassengers’ hair standing on end.
We were about fourth in a longqueue waiting to take off in ourlarger Boeing aircraft. The JFK ATCallowed a B737 on a local flight totake a short-cut and start his take-off run by joining the mainrunway from a taxiway causing us towait for him to take off and clear.“How do you like them apples?” hesaid on local VHF as he started histake-off run. Boeing aircraft had awarning horn for major problemsthat you can test. Half-way along theB737’s take-off run, ‘someone’ held theircockpit mike to the horn and pressed it asthey tested it. The B737 abruptly stoppedtake-off with full reverse and full brakingand shuddered to a halt, tires (tyres)smoking. A few seconds later we heard avoice on our VHF: “How do you like themapples?”
TECHLOG SPRING 2016 25
HUMOUR
The late Captain Mickey Munn – an all-roundfine fellow, highly experienced pilot and, at thetime, Sergeant in the Red Devils (UK ParachuteRegiment display team) - was piloting a BrittenNorman Islander to jumping altitude with a fullload of seasoned paras crammed into the rearof the aircraft. With no warning at all, a bangand a flash of flame, the port engine blew itselfto pieces. Mickey’s hands flashed around thecockpit as he brought the aircraft undercontrol. As soon as the aircraft was straightand level he turned to his passengers and said:“Phew. I think you chaps should….” But hiswords tailed away as he gaped at the emptypassenger cabin. At the first sign of trouble,the paras had leaped from the aircraft andwere at that moment floating serenely towardsthe earth. Mickey landed safely to tell the tale.
A British Airways 737touched down at Frankfurt-
am-Main. The towercontroller, obviously in
frivolous mood,transmitted: “Speedbird
123. Nice landing Captain,But a little left of the
centre-line, I think.” Quickas a flash, the BA Captainreplied in a cool Englishaccent: “Roger FrankfurtTower. Perfectly correct. I am a little to the left ofthe centre-line. And my co-pilot is a little to the
right of it.”
PERSONAL DETAILSPlease note that the Members’ migration ‘log in’ process
has now ceased. In order to gain access to the ALAE
website, Members’ only section and forum, please
update your details by logging onto the Prospect website
and selecting ‘first time log-in’ from the Members-only
menu at the top right-hand side of the page. The
process takes just a couple of minutes and will
automatically grant access to both the Prospect and
ALAE Members’ only area and, of course, the ALAE
forum. You will be required to enter your surname, post
code and Prospect membership number as printed on
the address label of your latest ‘Profile’ magazine. If you
should encounter any problems registering then please
contact our Chertsey office. It is well worthwhile
spending a few minutes in the Prospect Members’ only
area as you will be able to find out more information
on the additional services now available as a result of
the merger.
FREE WILL WRITING Prospect offers a free willing writing service to its
members in partnership with Slater & Gordon
solicitors. To make use of this service please log onto the
Prospect Members’ only area and you will find out more
under the legal services menu (www.prospect.org.uk).
LEGAL COVER Prospect’s LegalLine telephone number is
0800 328 7987 for all issues other than employment.
Employment issues are dealt with through your
Prospect full-time officer, John Ferrett
PERSONAL DATAPlease help us to help you by ensuring your personal
information which we hold on our database is kept up
to date. With e-mail communication offering quick and
efficient access to information, a valid e-mail address
would help us tremendously whilst also keeping you
informed. It is also important that we know your
current home address and in particular, where you are
currently employed, as we need to know how many
Members we have in any specific company should we
make an application for recognition in that location.
Please take a couple of minutes to confirm that our
records are indeed current.
ASSOCIATION NOTICES
PROSPECT — THE VOICE OFTHOUSANDSProspect is a trade union with over 115,000 members
employed as specialists in defence, science and
technology, heritage, energy, agriculture, environment,
aviation and transport sectors. Prospect is run and
funded by members and exists to benefit their interests
in a variety of ways. Prospect negotiates terms and
conditions of employment, lobbies ministers from a
politically-neutral position, campaigns through the
media, represents members individually (right up to The
European Court of Justice) and provides relevant
commercial services to members.
Membership can be confidential if you wish, and you
can continue your membership beyond ALAE
employment. Of course, you may not expect to need our
support or representation; but neither did any of the
numerous members the union advises and represents in
difficulty each year!
Prospect are running a ‘Member recruit Member’
incentive and for every new member recruited there is a
reward for the recruiting member. If you have a
colleague who is not a member they can join easily on
line at the following link:
http://www.prospect.org.uk/becoming_a_member_or_re
p/member_get_member?_ts=50209
MEMBER’S INFORMATION PAGE
26 TECHLOG SPRING 2016
arspanrtdanystnehoaltottahW ?od we od
ntoC,nteanmrePtuircereW
ynce .
voprd anfaft syarrpomeTd anrotacrnt
eeyoplmEdeiv
27TECHLOG SPRING 2016