Editorial

There is a large airline that operates DC-10s. This airline has a big problem. The fundamental problem is that if a mechanic screws up and damages an airplane at this airline, there is a formal punishment process that is invoked. And if the mechanic screws up three times, he or she is fired.

An example of how this works was recently brought to my attention. When the maintenance department needed a new DC-10 tail stand, it ordered one built. The company that made the tail stand apparently didn't do much research or didn't understand much about maintenance. When positioned properly, the structure of the stand restricts the travel of the DC-10's elevator.

So whenever this tail stand is used, mechanics have to run a process. This process, carefully thought out and documented, requires placarding the cockpit and various controls and switches to insure that no one does anything that causes the elevator to move when the tail stand is in place. I understand that it makes sense to placard cockpit controls whenever one is working around flight controls, but bear with me.

Now because this airline has in place a carefully crafted punitive process for when a mechanic causes damage, any mechanic working on the airline's DC-10 when the tail stand is in place has the opportunity to get a demerit in their file.

The big problem here is that mechanics at this airline are motivated not to tell anyone that they have damaged an airplane. One mechanic who works for this airline told me that if he ever damages an airplane, he is not going to say anything. What is the incentive? If you cause damage, strike one in your employee file. Cause damage again, that's strike two. And a third time, gather up your tools and say "good-bye!"

I know that this airline is not the only one with a punishment process for causing damage. But combine that process with the boneheaded design of the DC-10 tail stand, and you have a recipe for disaster.

There are DC-10 tail stands out there that are designed so that the possibility of elevator damage is minimized. It took me about three seconds to find a used McDonnell Douglas DC-10 tail stand for sale on the web. Why didn't this airline insist on a better design, or simply scrap the bad tail stand and buy a decent unit? Was the low cost of the tail stand worth the endless man-hours that it took to develop the DC-10 tail stand damage-prevention process and all the man-hours it takes to implement this process, instead of simply replacing the tail stand?

And what about the punishment process? This violates some fundamental principles of psychology and common sense.

Many mechanics remember their first day on the job. And at many shops, including places I have worked, the first words out of the manager's mouth were, "If you break something, tell someone right away. If you tell someone, you won't be punished. But if you break something and don't tell someone-and we will find out-you will be fired."

I can just imagine a mechanic's first day at the DC-10 airline: "Welcome aboard. By the way, here is our comprehensive punishment procedure. Please note that you have three chances, and after the third damage-causing incident, you will be terminated."

Am I the only person who would run screaming from an outfit like that?

The bottom line here is that negative consequences are a terrible motivator. This is not something new. A positively motivated workforce will do more for safety, reliability, and profitability than will any amount of threatened punishment. The type of negative motivation that this airline promotes should be scrutinized whenever any of its airplanes is involved in an accident or incident, whether maintenance- or flying-related. In fact, the National Transportation Safety Board ought to consider making a recommendation that proscribes this type of treatment of mechanics.

Better yet, scrutinize the system now and make a change for the better with more positive motivation and reinforcement for mechanics with the integrity to own up to the occasional, inevitable mistake.

Shouldn't an airline encourage its workforce to own up to any kind of a problem, no matter who causes it? I think so, but obviously at least one airline still thinks we're in the dark ages as far as its workers are concerned.