Penning up tool checks.....

[insty66]

Tool control is part of the whole Safety Process and no less important than any other step. Therefore it should be treated with the same seriousness as penning up any other stage.
5 on the trot seems too many to be the same mistake. Therefore I would expect the person involved to be subject to a disciplinary/administrative process where they get a chance to explain how they made the same mistake 5 times over.
In the meantime I don't think I could trust that person again for a very long time

 

[Forestfan]

What else do you think they're just penning up....are you considering that?

You may have cultural issues. I'd consider an immediate education piece to baseline the standard, provide a clean sheet, and give the team a chance to tell if something doesn't work. You should have an order or instruction which they're supposed to follow (and have signed for reading and understanding). If so, consider giving a verbal or written warning (not MAA) for poor standards.

If you do baseline the standard and start again, and there's another instance, I'd look at disciplinary action - from your description I would suggest attention needs to be grabbed here and quickly, before you end up with something far more serious. From experience though you'll get F All support from P1 without a documented trail which you may need to start now.

Good luck.

 

[Talk Wrench]

From the MAMP-

2.5 Tool Checks

Tool checks are to be carried out iaw Chapter 4.13.1. The relevant individual holding authority level K is to determine the requirement for any additional tool checks. If deemed necessary the authority level K is to detail the scope, frequency and recording of such checks. The Issue Centre custodian is to maintain a record of these additional tool checks.

7.2.1 Authority Level K

The relevant individual holding authority level K is responsible for: 1 The overall engineering management of tool resources on their Stn/Ship/Unit. 2 Issuing local orders that amplify the provisions of this chapter and/or provide for local requirements. 3 Determining the requirement

5.

Tool Checks A 100% tool check is to be carried out at the start of a shift, at shift handover and at the end of the working day. The 100% tool check ensures that all in-use hand tools, tool kits, TKTs or ITTs, as appropriate, are complete and accounted for, and that any Unserviceable hand tools have been identified to the Issue Centre staff. If any hand tools have been identified as Unserviceable, a member of the Issue Centre staff is to carry out the non-routine removal procedure, iaw Paragraph 3.6. Additionally, checks of all hand tools in use on an Air Systems or item of Air System equipment is to be carried out as follows:

1 On completion of any task, when the hand tools are not being returned to the Issue Centre. 2 Before fitting any component that, once fitted, will restrict access. 3 Prior to subjecting the Air System to system checks, where the loss of a hand tool may present a hazard to the Air System or personnel. 4 At the discretion of the supervisor at convenient stages during protracted Maintenance activities. When a 100% tool check identifies that a hand tool is missing, the procedures detailed in Chapter 4.14 - Loose Articles - Precautions and Recovery Procedures are to be followed.


It's my opinion (and only and opinion) is that a systemic failure has occurred by not recognising the potential for lax practices at operator level. Para 7.2.1 Clearly states that additional checks can be built into the local regulations by the holder of Authority Level K and again, only an opinion, is that the Authority Level K holder should now be involved with reviewing local tool control practices.

 

[Forestfan]

From the MAMP-

2.5 Tool Checks

Tool checks are to be carried out iaw Chapter 4.13.1. The relevant individual holding authority level K is to determine the requirement for any additional tool checks. If deemed necessary the authority level K is to detail the scope, frequency and recording of such checks. The Issue Centre custodian is to maintain a record of these additional tool checks.

7.2.1 Authority Level K




It's my opinion (and only and opinion) is that a systemic failure has occurred by not recognising the potential for lax practices at operator level. Para 7.2.1 Clearly states that additional checks can be built into the local regulations by the holder of Authority Level K and again, only an opinion, is that the Authority Level K holder should now be involved with reviewing local tool control practices.

I would certainly be encouraging my SEngO to fess up to Level K that there's an issue - quickly followed up by what we were going to do about it. Far better than getting caught covering up.

 

[Talk Wrench]

I would certainly be encouraging my SEngO to fess up to Level K that there's an issue - quickly followed up by what we were going to do about it. Far better than getting caught covering up.

Where does the position or rank of Level K lay? From a regulatory point of view, there are serious failings here so the buck needs to stop quickly and with admissions of failure across the board.

 

[Rugby-Jock-Lad]

Where does the position or rank of Level K lay? From a regulatory point of view, there are serious failings here so the buck needs to stop quickly and with admissions of failure across the board.

Normally WinCo but could be delegated down to Sqn Ldr in smaller Eng CE environs. Aircraft environ??? Don't know.

 

[Downsizer]

Level K is OC Eng, Level J SEnGO.

 

[dctyke]

Don’t know how things work now but as the Eng Wg WO I was delegated responsibility for the auths from my level 6. I put long lists of names on one sheet compiled from the individual auths (sent to me from the training cells) under his nose weekly for him to sign just the once which I put on file. If he had to do it it would take up half his working day. This was how it worked on all units I ever knew.

 

[Rugby-Jock-Lad]

Don’t know how things work now but as the Eng Wg WO I was delegated responsibility for the auths from my level 6. I put long lists of names on one sheet compiled from the individual auths (sent to me from the training cells) under his nose weekly for him to sign just the once which I put on file. If he had to do it it would take up half his working day. This was how it worked on all units I ever knew.

Hi dc. Idea was good as there used to be Special Auths that could be awarded i.e smaller sections with a Sqn Ldr and/or WO as experienced deputy in lieu of inexperienced JOs. That was the case for old Tg3 AP. But ever since Haddon Cave and Human factors there was a tightening up of a lot of things with more accountability for Seniors with regards to Auths. How tight I now cannot say as I am out although in the Air Environment (as the new TG 4 was migrating a major portion of that stuff to the Aircraft Bible from their own AP) the Aircraft Techies (and associated ancillaries such as Gen Eng) have always been much tighter with regards to Auths for obvious reasons.

Maybe Downsizer or another can enlighten us to the situation now?!

 

[Downsizer]

Done electronically - electronically awarded by a training cell, electronically auth'd by the appropriate level, then electronically accepted by the tradesman.

 

[Rugby-Jock-Lad]

Done electronically - electronically awarded by a training cell, electronically auth'd by the appropriate level, then electronically accepted by the tradesman.

Cheers for the info!!!

 

[ady eflog]

once is a mistake, twice is an error. get an inform raised. you either have severe issues or the indicated tool wasn't clear enough in the tool store. people have lost more than pride doing shit like that.

 

[Rigga]

once is a mistake, twice is an error.

In my (similar) world - once is a mistake, twice is a coincidence…but three times is a trend….

 

[Rigga]

What else do you think they're just penning up....are you considering that?

You may have cultural issues. I'd consider an immediate education piece to baseline the standard, provide a clean sheet, and give the team a chance to tell if something doesn't work. You should have an order or instruction which they're supposed to follow (and have signed for reading and understanding). If so, consider giving a verbal or written warning (not MAA) for poor standards.

If you do baseline the standard and start again, and there's another instance, I'd look at disciplinary action - from your description I would suggest attention needs to be grabbed here and quickly, before you end up with something far more serious. From experience though you'll get F All support from P1 without a documented trail which you may need to start now.

Good luck.

Hmmmm….Cultural issues…

As a BAES Manager at a small base in Norfolk some years ago (but not many years ago) I was certainly well aware of some severe cultural maintenance issues that were endemic across the fleet and not even “station” bound. Two of the biggest instances were:
1. A pissed-off Wg Cdr who declared himself as a god-like character who decided he could create a ‘quick‘ minor servicing without any actual knowledge of what he was doing.
2. A maintenance crew who signed off a scheduled check (averaging 4 days and 60 Jobcards) overnight with no defects….
These are the most grandiose examples of typical day-to-day calamities that I saw over 4 years watching over that fleet. Not withdrawn quick enough in my view.

 

[Cat Techie]

Just done a 100% tool check. Signed off the relevent company form. Did two AF/BFs, did a Rigger ADD clear, was a dog botherer to clear another MEL ADD clear and was raising a level J ADD. The joys of being a Licenced Aircraft Engineer in the civvy world. Don't worry, some of the managers are almost as bad as BEngOs. Saw that "Make it So" today.

 

[Rigga]

Just done a 100% tool check. Signed off the relevent company form. Did two AF/BFs, did a Rigger ADD clear, was a dog botherer to clear another MEL ADD clear and was raising a level J ADD. The joys of being a Licenced Aircraft Engineer in the civvy world. Don't worry, some of the managers are almost as bad as BEngOs. Saw that "Make it So" today.

A standard hour or two then.
Nothing to see here! Move along please...