ArtyNewbie said:
About 4 years ago there was an article in safety digest where a tech in Trenton, I think it was Trenton anyway, nevertheless, he discovered that an hour or so after doing maint on an aircraft noticed his watch missing, he telephoned ops upon noticing, grounding the flight before it had the chance to become an issue. His watch was found inside the aircraft, not in a place where it could have caused any damage. But his dedication in a different situation could have saved lives,
This is a good example of how and why the system works so well.
If we nailed people like that, he would quite likely have waited until the aircraft returned - praying throughout the flight that it would in fact do so - and then gone looking for his watch, hoping that nobody would notice. Chances are that no harm would befall the machine, but given enough similar incidents, harm would eventually come to some aircraft and crew somewhere, sometime, through something similar. By stepping forward, knowing that he would embarrass himself but nothing more (and embarrassment is enough of a negative motivator for techs, other support crew, and aircrew alike), he not only insured that his watch would not cause a problem, but that the incident would be a reminder to everyone involved in flying operations to be more vigilant.
Statistically, the more such minor incidents are reported, the fewer major incidents and accidents occur, which is why honest and open reporting is encouraged. To that end, he was more likely praised for his actions, rather than berated. This approach may seem bizarre to many of you, but it works extremely well in our environment.
ArtyNewbie said:
Only one word for it, complacency
Not necessarily. although that is a possible cause factor. "Distraction" is another, and seems more plausible to me (not knowing the full story, obviously). He could have been called away by his supervisor in the middle of his work and the rest of it finished up by colleagues. Similar situations have occurred, and will continue to occur so long as we have too few people with too little experience (as compared to "The Good Old Days"*) trying to do as much work on as many aging aircraft as they can. As part of the educational and prevention process, should something like I described have happened, it would also be a reminder to supervisors to avoid distracting their guys when they've got a broken aircraft stripped down, with parts and tools in play, and it's supposed to go flying thirty minutes ago.
This is why determining the correct cause factors for every incident and accident and using them to educate others is the sole purpose of the investigation. Now, supposing that, at some point, somebody had cause to suspect negligence or something worthy of disciplinary action, a separate collateral investigation would be initiated. NONE of the evidence gathered by the Flight Safety team can be used in that investigation whatsoever, in order to preserve the integrity of the Flight Safety system. None of the Flight Safety evidence can be used in any civil proceeding, either (such as law suits). The courts recognize the reason for this, too.
ArtyNewbie said:
the maintainers on the seakings (the only maint guys I've sailed with) are some of the hardest working folks in the fleet.
Our techs put in a fair amount of overtime, too, on a regular basis and more often than not they pick up hazards that really should have gone unnoticed as the signs are so subtle that no ordinary person should be able to spot them. That is a good indication of the calibre of our techs and part of the reason that I am willing to trust them with my life (although I do a pretty thorough walkaround nonetheless).
* Five years from now, THESE will be The Good Old Days.
