Editor’s Notebook: Working Together

In my last Editor’s Notebook I wrote about a test I had taken in fourth grade and how I learned about following procedures from that lesson. I also introduced you to the terms PiNC and PuNC and how those terms relate to aviation maintenance. I was delighted to hear from other readers that they too, had been subjected to that procedures lesson in various grades, and in different parts of the country. One reader even said, "Thanks for the memories!"

Is that any way for an OEM to do business when their product is speed?

In this issue you will find part two of Ed Mitchell’s article, "Why Good Employees Violate Procedures" (see page 16). In the article, Mitchell introduces a new term, Logical (intentional) Non-Compliance or LiNC. The definition explains that LiNC occurs when employees can see that the original conditions for the procedure no longer exist and they reconcile the current conditions and available resources to satisfy production expectations. As they do this, procedural non-compliance occurs.

Mitchell goes on to explain that LiNC can also occur when employees use ingenuity and determination to develop efficient work-arounds in an effort to meet the high-paced demands of today’s work environment. In other words, employees set out with the best of intentions to reduce downtime, save money, etc., but could end up inadvertently creating a problem.

In many companies, this type of ingenious and efficient behavior is encouraged and rewarded. Factories are always looking for ways to increase throughput and reduce bottlenecks. But in the aviation maintenance industry, this behavior can be problematic when procedures are in question.

If there is a procedure that is inherently flawed and mechanics develop a work around and the outcome is good, the flawed procedure may remain in the system and not be corrected. They will also be non-compliant. On the other hand, if the mechanics comply with the flawed procedure, time, resources, and money can be wasted. This is where communications with the OEM comes in.

One operator confirmed to me that they find it frustrating when an extensive functional test is required to replace a component in a system. There are instances where performing a process that would routinely consume 4-6 hours of labor is required per the published procedure when all that is really needed to ensure functionality is one hour or less.

Contacting the OEM about the situation resulted in a run-around from department to department. One department agreed that the process was excessive and sent them to another department. That department also agreed that the procedures were designed for new production aircraft and not for performing line maintenance. They promised they would work towards simplifying the procedure and revising the maintenance manual.

To that OEM’s credit, they did follow through, but that process took close to 12 months to complete, according to the operator. Meanwhile, time and resources were wasted on a procedure that took more than five times longer to complete than necessary. Is that any way for an OEM to do business when their product is speed?

Having worked at a couple of aircraft manufacturers, I can remember customer’s complaints about similar situations. I’d like to hear from readers about this topic. Have you discovered a situation where a procedure is flawed? Have you attempted to address that issue with the OEM? Were they receptive or did your comments fall on deaf ears? Was progress made and the situation addressed in a timely manner?

Operator advisory boards are one avenue to address these concerns but are the OEMs receptive to their board’s recommendations on this front? I certainly don’t mean to pick on the OEMs. The lion’s share of procedural compliance lies firmly with those performing the maintenance. But if improvements can be made, the OEMs have a responsibility to respond in a timely manner.