Third Party Monkey Business

[E-TRONS]

Now what have we here ????

Those who continue to praise 3rd party mtc might want to check this out. Copy and paste to your browser if it does not open and see for yourself.

It seems that an un-certificated admin rep was signing things off that were technical in nature. It was discovered by a UAL individual and brought to light.

Now you have proof of some of the stuff that goes on when some vendors work your aircraft. But think of all the money being saved <_< !!

USA320PILOT: Talk your way out of this revelation :huh: .




http://images.ibsys.com/sand-structure/pdf...Secretaries.pdf

 

[E-TRONS]

All these hits and yet no replies?????? C'mon people....what ye say to this???

Oh Captain........where for art thou.....your beloved vendors await your defense

 

[bikingjw]

My, My, My, why am I not suprised!!!!
You generally get what you pay for, no magic here...
Ya know , when you pay for "crap" thats usually whats in the bag when you get home. labor and quality are no different.

 

[AP Tech]

I have believed this all along with third party maintenence. We have been told time after time by certain individuals on the board that MAE can turn the airbus in 14 days vs in house which we have never done so you cannot put a time on it. I do find it funny that all the aircraft are coming out of the check on time or early. Funny how they never find any extra things like lav floor corrosion and such???? They only accomplish what is on the paperwork and no more.....a little paint on the corrosion...it will be ok! Many times in house while accomplishing a job card we have found other serious problems and repaired them extending the ETR. I just find it kind of funny that nothing is every found by MAE during the checks?

 

[local 12 proud]

ap tech you can bet things are being found, but they also magically vanish.......its just a matter of time!

 

[mweiss]

Couple of questions.

1) This was four years ago. Has the problem been corrected?
2) What exists to prevent the same thing from happening by US mtx?

I'd like to know more before I answer.

 

[E-TRONS]

#1) The time frame is irrelevant. The fact remains that it could happen and in this case did happen. And this is at a company that prides itself on it's maintenance reputation. The only difference here is that they were caught . So one might ask how many times did they not get caught :huh: ???

Was it corrected? I doubt it. If someone pencil whips something once the chances of repeat offenses are more than likely. Why? Because they feel that they can get away with it. Makes you feel good eh??

#2) At UAIR, I know of a former (key word) supervisor who pencil whipped a stall warning system on an aircraft that was on a delay. The mechanics involved with that flight discovered this fact and immediately reported it to the FAA FSDO. Case closed.

I know of another instance where a supervisor wanted the mechanic involved to deviate from the repair procedures on a composite component due to the lengthy repair time. A quick phone call to the FAA is a certain "shot across the bow" to any management member having the urge to do something stupid like cutting corners. After this option is carefully considered....suddenly their brain begins to once again function normally. How about that .

The mechanics are the absolute last line of defense in assuring the safety of the aircraft. Do we care if a plane goes on time? Of course we do. When a plane is delayed for maintenance the passengers are inconvenienced and we do apologize for that. However, We will NOT submit to intimidation to overlook something that we have the opportunity to repair CORRECTLY for the sake of being on time. It may take 5 minutes or 5 hours. It doesn't matter. It has to be safe or we are not signing if off for flight.

Management hates the fact that we command such authority where the airworthiness of an aircraft is concerned because it messes up their schedule of unrealistic return to service deadlines......that in itself provides fodder for falsification of aircraft MTC records by management. Surprised ??

It is our OBLIGATION as certificated airmen to raise the red flag when necessary. And if we don't then who will??
Mechanics can freely challenge management in regards to safety without fear of direct reprisals from the company because we have union representation and the FAA on our side when someone fails to listen to reason. That is how we prevent that sort of violation from occurring at UAIR.

3rd party vendors for the most part are non-union, deadline driven sweatshops where the employees are not afforded such whistle blower protection. If you don't do as you are instructed then there is the door......because somebody is waiting to take your place. And if the aircraft is released back to service later than promised???? MONETARY PENALTIES are assessed and become due to the customer :blink: !!! It's hard to make a profit if that happens often. So it's HURRY-HURRY-HURRY.......have to stay on schedule or else....$$$

That is the entire beef with the outsourcing of maintenance to the lowest bidder who will promise the world to secure the work. It is an alarming trend that will promote disaster if it continues without being addressed. This reality is serious as a heart attack!!!

Do the math!! Quality cannot possibly be the sum of such an equation :angry:!!

BTW, Safety is directly proportional to quality .

For USA320PILOT:
Oversight you say??? ONE company rep for hundreds of tasks simultaneously worked by hundreds of un-certificated mechanics??? Get real......We are not speaking of WN who obviously has their ducks (vendors) in a row.....a rare exception indeed. Were talking about MAE. So don't even go there.

 

[mweiss]

The timeframe is quite relevant. Just because a DC-10 lost its #1 engine 25 years ago due to a bad maintenance procedure (one performed in-house, incidentally) doesn't make DC-10s unsafe to fly today. The problem was discovered, and (hopefully) corrected so that it will never recur.

E-trons, I agree that there is that tension on a regular basis between maintenance and management. You may recall that just such tension resulted in an MD-80 going down near Pt. Mugu, California, a few years ago. That maintenance was not contracted out; it was in-house.

The issue remains, as always, not in-house vs. outsource. It is strictly the quality of the product. That quality may be negatively affected by outsourcing, but it also may be positively affected. In other words, the outsourcing factor is rather orthogonal to the quality factor.

 

[High Iron]

The timeframe is quite relevant. Just because a DC-10 lost its #1 engine 25 years ago due to a bad maintenance procedure (one performed in-house, incidentally) doesn't make DC-10s unsafe to fly today. The problem was discovered, and (hopefully) corrected so that it will never recur.

E-trons, I agree that there is that tension on a regular basis between maintenance and management. You may recall that just such tension resulted in an MD-80 going down near Pt. Mugu, California, a few years ago. That maintenance was not contracted out; it was in-house.

The issue remains, as always, not in-house vs. outsource. It is strictly the quality of the product. That quality may be negatively affected by outsourcing, but it also may be positively affected. In other words, the outsourcing factor is rather orthogonal to the quality factor.

E-trons, I agree that there is that tension on a regular basis between maintenance and management. You may recall that just such tension resulted in an MD-80 going down near Pt. Mugu, California, a few years ago. That maintenance was not contracted out; it was in-house

Not enough tension more likely...at least to the degree the situation resulted in it. E-Trons gave a thorough answer to your #2 question ( did you read it all? ), and your reply comes accross as a grossly oversimplified tap-dance. It's not tension, or not tension. It is, ironically, the ability to "rock the boat" if necessary, even if it creates tension. Backing down just to move aluminum would be more tension free.

The issue remains, as always, not in-house vs. outsource. It is strictly the quality of the product. That quality may be negatively affected by outsourcing, but it also may be positively affected. In other words, the outsourcing factor is rather orthogonal to the quality factor

Again, an oversimplification/rationalization. The key word is your emphasis on may and going for the middle ground by presenting the argument in the extreme broadest sense. Choosing a side just because it seems to represent the middle ground is itself a fallacy. "may" may only have to represent one example to be just as legitimate as 100...on paper. Of course it is the quality of the work that is the detirmining factor; E-trons' statement of how schedules and corporate culture can affect quality is not false just because there MAY be an exception...his thesis statement is correct.

 

[mweiss]

My point is that focusing the discussion on outsourcing is a red herring unless his primary goal is to save his own job.

The focus needs to be on the quality of the job performed, not who does the job. Capice?

 

[High Iron]

My point is that focusing the discussion on outsourcing is a red herring unless his primary goal is to save his own job.

The focus needs to be on the quality of the job performed, not who does the job. Capice?

If the quality of the job performed is affected by corporate culture/pressure, it absolutely matters who does the job. An outfit may appear to be ostensibly more competitive due to this pressure/culture. There's the rub. That there are exceptions doesn't invalidate that with the wave of a magic wand.

 

[Kev3188]

E-trons--

I thought this document was actually from UAL (in house), and signed off by UAL sectretaries? Not saying that makes it okay, just all the more disturbing.

 

[mweiss]

If the quality of the job performed is affected by corporate culture/pressure, it absolutely matters who does the job.

But you're agreeing with me, whether you intended to or not. AS had a corporate culture/pressure to get the planes out the door, and the result was a number of incidents, culminating in the loss of an airplane and many lives. It's not outsourcing. It's not who does the job vis a vis insource/outsource. It's how the job is done.

 

[High Iron]

But you're agreeing with me, whether you intended to or not. AS had a corporate culture/pressure to get the planes out the door, and the result was a number of incidents, culminating in the loss of an airplane and many lives. It's not outsourcing. It's not who does the job vis a vis insource/outsource. It's how the job is done.

No, not really. It's begging the question. If a hack-shop can be "competitive" due to relatively rigid criteria of time/money, then there is a built-in lack of quality. If an FBO/MRO is on the up-and-up ( or more so ) then the quality will increase, but with a built-in competitive disadvantage ( compared to a hack-shop ). That this same pressure can be present in in-house programs ( both overhaul and line ) doesn't invalidate the basic point illustrated...though the same hurry-hurry pressure is still wrong regardless. In this manner, a good FBO/MRO can be theoretically better than a bad inhouse program. That you believe that this may highlight a tacit agreement with your position is not really the case though. Due to the fluidity and variability of the maint situation ( one never knows what one will find once inspection is perfomed ), it is difficult to have an authoritative benchmark for costs and schedule: Theoretically speaking then, an in-house "move the metal" culture may obviate the need to outsource...but at what cost? A better MRO may not appear "competitive" enough. A company wishing to cut upfront costs may find a "competitive" ( ahem ) MRO very attractive...more so than their own in-house program or better ( less "competitive" ) MRO...but at what cost?

Not so simple.

 

[mweiss]

Believe it or not, we're still in agreement. I never meant to suggest that the metrics are simple. I only mean to suggest exactly what you state, that looking at dollars alone doesn't factor in the hidden cost of risk. In neither case (in/out) does the safer provider look cost-effective without the risk assessment.

Thus, the issue remains not who does the work, but rather the metrics against which those people doing the work are held.