p3.470 tl spring 2016 layout 1 - prospect •...

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


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?


• 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


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


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.



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.


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.”


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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

([email protected]).

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


arspanrtdanystnehoaltottahW ?od we od

ntoC,nteanmrePtuircereW

ynce .

voprd anfaft syarrpomeTd anrotacrnt

eeyoplmEdeiv


p3.470 tl spring 2016 layout 1 - prospect •...

Documents