Know Your Aircraft, Know Your Aircraft, Know Your Aircraft
Know Thy Aircraft
The realtors’ axiom “Location! Location! Location!” is the iconic slogan of the number one priority in selecting and purchasing property. How often do those who identify themselves as aviation maintenance professionals follow a like priority in maintaining aircraft at their organizations, such as “Know your aircraft!”? “Knowing” the aircraft means more than just having the maintenance manual reference open for any roaming FAA safety inspectors lurking about.
Getting to the “knowing” should include all aspects of study dedicated to the particular aircraft about to be worked, prior to “diving in.” Such things include make, model and serial number affectivity for airframe, powerplants, propellers and appliances. This also comprises aircraft-specific configurations, major alterations, major repairs and methods of compliance for airworthiness directives (ADs) (including any alternate means of compliance) and applicable service bulletins (SBs), service letters (SLs), special airworthiness information bulletins (SAIBs), airworthiness alerts, FAA Forms 8110-3s and 337s, etc.
Most maintenance personnel recognize a standard airworthiness certificate remains valid as long as the aircraft meets its approved type design, is in a condition for safe operation and maintenance, preventative maintenance, and alterations are performed in accordance with 14 CFR parts 21, 43, and 91.
“Condition for safe operation” refers to:
• The overall condition of an aircraft possess those attributes required for safe operations, to include relative aircraft wear and deterioration, e.g., skin corrosion, window delamination/crazing, fluid leaks, tire wear, etc.
• Aircraft items are evaluated per information regarding aircraft make, model, age, type and completeness of aircraft maintenance records.
Unfortunately, many technicians and inspectors fail to distinguish the importance of a sufficient aircraft records research (e.g., type certificate data sheets (TCs), supplemental type certificates (STCs), technical standard orders (TSOs), instructions for continued airworthiness (ICAs), major repair and alteration documentation, as well as ADs, SBs/SLs, SAIBs and airworthiness alerts). In addition, many of these same technicians and inspectors seem indifferent to the fact that each of these documents may be revised.
Why Revisit Aircraft Records Research and the Like?
More than a few senior inspectors have had serious misconceptions regarding aircraft records (i.e., TCs and the like), such as who approves them and whether or not they change. Experience has shown several technicians and inspectors do not keep abreast of these changes since they fail to read, know and understand them. Perhaps complacency has set in, when the process of researching aeronautical products and system-part applicability is not taken. There are good reasons to review these documents periodically, rather than merely following manufacturer maintenance manuals in complete isolation:
• Firstly, lives clearly depend on airworthiness decisions, with respect to safety of flight concerns. Conducting proper research of all pertinent technical data for the item being inspected or worked demonstrates the level of professionalism, self-pride and respect of the one performing this task (not to mention value added for future occupants). Effort expended in process exhibits the thoroughness of the person’s work quality and integrity. It is not only the correct thing to do, but it is morally the right thing to do!
• TCs and STCs are FAA-approved AND they are sometimes revised. This could become crucial when some important criteria has changed.
• Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) can sometimes make mistakes when writing their manuals. OEM manuals also usually contain some approved data, with most being comprised of accepted data.
• Aircraft records review and research provides better glimpses of a larger perspective, and should increase accuracy and lower the probability of erroneously installing a perfectly good product in a wrong configuration or application. For instance, can a Continental engine be used in place of a Lycoming of same horsepower for a particular airframe? Perhaps, and possibly under the authority of a STC. The TC of the airframe make and model will specify approved powerplants for the said airframe. If the desired configuration is not listed as an option, then continued research for a STC for that configuration must be done. Should an appropriate STC be found, then all instructions provided by the STC must be complied with to include proper documentation of STC accomplishment and FAA Form 337.
Reluctance to Go the “Extra Mile” for the “Bigger Picture”
Aviation is full of changes and aircraft records are a major part of that system. They must be examined on a regular basis, just as a regulations and airworthiness directives require periodic review. Timely reading (and re-reading) of these records should not just be a good habit to get into, but should be exemplified within job descriptions for those assigned to roles of aircraft maintenance and airworthiness, and embedded in documented work processes. In other words, time necessary for adequate study of an aircraft’s documentation and configuration should be built within the scope of work order process.
Why doesn’t everyone working on aircraft or their associated components conduct proper and thorough researches? It could be out of ignorance or laziness, or it could be that these individuals downplay the importance or fail to realize the significance of this research into the items being inspected, maintained/serviced, repaired or altered. From a strictly-production orientation, some have even expressed they do not have the extra time to do this research. First of all, time devoted to this type of research is part and parcel of doing a thorough job, rather than merely icing on the cake. It should be a matter of priority and integrity when performing the job completely and correctly the first time around. Only after taking all this research into account can one make intelligent decisions regarding system configurations, and any implications this may have on the product’s inspection, repair, alteration and troubleshooting.
This may challenge the status quo, so be ready to weigh all potential costs involved when this kind of research is skipped. Think about the time and cost of rework and customer dissatisfaction entailed in not doing the job right on the first try. Think about your organization’s reputation and actions that would cause reluctance of other customers to bring, or continue to bring, their business to your employer’s doorstep, should a major mistake occur to another’s aircraft. Consider possible self-disclosures and associated fines. Envision costs incurred because of litigation and how an incident or accident might affect your organization’s insurance outlay. This is an appeal to reason, to think about the “unthinkable,” should it happen sooner rather than later; ruminate on the fact that disasters almost never happen at convenient times. Also, it is wise to appreciate that not all remedies fully serve their intended purpose, and good components are sometimes installed in wrong applications.
Case in Point
A fellow colleague once described a situation where an AD for a small twin-engined, fixed-wing aircraft was complied with properly, yet the AD accomplishment still failed to make the specific condition any safer. A series of unexplained fatal aircraft crashes instigated an AD note. The FAA also openly requested that owners, operators, mechanics and repair stations contact local offices should the affected make and models of aircraft exhibit signs of engine fires near the wing. The suspected culprit was hot exhaust gases escaping from the exhaust piping through holes or cracks, which led to impending structural failure of the front spar and eventual wing separation near the engine.
He further explained that while performing an annual inspection on one of these aircraft, he noticed a small hole in the aluminum engine cowling near the wing’s leading edge. This raised serious flags, especially since the exhaust piping passed all tests required by the pertinent AD. The aircraft annual inspection was completed properly and the aircraft was repaired and serviced accordingly. The aircraft was not approved for return to service, and a call was made to the local FAA for further investigation surrounding the hole in the engine cowl. Unfortunately for my friend, the aircraft was needed for an important business trip later that afternoon. His boss quickly challenged him to approve the aircraft for return to service so the trip could be made. Despite the pressure being applied to release the aircraft for flight, this senior airworthiness inspector stood his ground.
The FAA’s investigation of this particular aircraft’s condition led to identifying other factors at play in the original problem that were not apparent in earlier cases. The result was a more comprehensive fix as an emergency AD which adequately remedied the problem completely was attained, thus preventing like accidents from occurring again. This was essentially a life-saving event, whether my friend’s boss cared to admit it or not. Still, these actions garnered the honor and respect of peers and others, and maybe even some of those business associates who wished to make that trip.
No Excuses
Remember, when inspecting items as a technician or inspector, you have a role in detecting incorrect installations, improper repairs and inappropriate parts application. The fact that someone else did the work before does not necessarily mean it was done completely and correctly. You, as the current technician or inspector, have the duty to point out such errors which may have been made at an earlier date.
Many of aircraft documents (such as TCs, STCs, ADs, SAIBs, etc.) are readily available free of charge on the FAA’s Web site. OEM information may be downloaded from their Web sites for service bulletins/letters and service alerts. Several vendors sell CD subscriptions containing much of this data. Costs incurred for accessing these subscriptions and OEM data is nominal when compared to tangible expenses because of fines and litigation. There is no excuse for not having the aforementioned data for all aircraft you maintain and, likewise, there is no excuse for not using this information. As an aircraft maintenance technician, your role of diligence and due care in the performance of aircraft maintenance should be paramount.
What to Do
If you fulfill this obligation when working on aircraft and associated aeronautical products, then great — keep up the good work. Know and appreciate the fact that you are doing the right thing. This bestows honor and integrity in the work you perform, whether or not it is noticed by others. Don’t let your guard down and always continue your vigilance in staying current with respect to all the information discussed herein.
If you have faltered in the past, begin anew. Each day offers the chance to do better, but it requires making improvement in the choices made. Make your new mode of operation as being careful and thorough, attentive and detailed, and going the distance. Recognize this point of view may not be held by all within the aviation maintenance industry, especially when much is determined by the “bottom line.” Have faith. Good work eventually pays off in the end.
It is imperative for all those who lead aircraft maintenance personnel to set the proper tone and spirit of completing each and every task to standard. Facilitate appropriate corrective measures to mend any gaps in performance. As managers/supervisors, our roles should be to ensure all work accomplished is complete, thorough and correct.
Thomas Sheckler is president and senior consultant of Expert Aerospace Solutions LLC, a multi-disciplinary consulting agency specializing in aviation problem solving. EAS LLC engineers technical and nontechnical responses to issues like safety, compliance, training and quality interventions. Sheckler’s background includes aspects of flight and ground operations of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, having worked within several operational environments (i.e., Parts 91, 135, and 145, and military). He has undergraduate degrees in aircraft maintenance and aviation management and earned graduate degrees in system safety and human factors. As a former FAA aviation safety counselor (airworthiness), he continues to volunteer as a FAASTeam representative. Contact Sheckler by email at sheck1dd@hotmail.com.