FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1950
1950 - 1036.PDF
66o FLIGHT, i June 1950 MAINTENANCE and EFFICIENCY Organization of Civil Aircraft Inspection : Another Viewpoint on a Subject Recently Discussed By S/L H. R. BUNN, M.B.E., A.R.Ae.S. IN Flight of March 30th an article appeared on"Maintenance and Safety," by one who modestlycloaked his identity under the pseudonym of "A Service Engineer." While the article was admirable in many ways, one feels that there are certain points which require a little deeper examination and some clarification. Minor considerations on specific matters of fact include the query as to whether the approving authority for the inspectorate staff does, indeed, have to satisfy itself as to the adequacy of the numbers of inspectors employed. Surely this is a matter which can only be decided by the chief inspector on the spot in relation to the volume of maintenance, repair, and inspection work in hand. If this is not so, the tendency will always be to over-establish, thus rendering the system uneconomical on another score while certainly not improving its efficiency. The most significant reference in the article was to the fact that the separate inspection system was the most efficient, particularly if as many as possible of the engineer- ing staff are fully licensed for the types being operated. This is, of course, true, but the system was introduced originally as an interim measure solely because shortage of fully licensed engineers was felt to such an extent that the system of maintenance by fully licensed engineers could not be maintained and operated. If, for full efficiency, the inspection system requires the fully licensed engineer, and he becomes available in sufficient numbers, there is then no further need for the system. In itself, the separate inspection-system does not encourage operators to foster the taking of licences and by its function does not provide within itself the candidates for those licences. The implied employment of semi-skilled or unqualified labour, controlled by qualified engineers appears, on paper, to make for economy, because such employee^ are on a lower scale of pay than the qualified men. In practice, however, this apparent economy is often a false one. More unqualified personnel are required; for a given volume of work, because they are un- qualified and comparatively inexperienced; they work less quickly; and frequently their work has to be com- pleted or assisted by the qualified engineers. A similar position ruled in the R.A.F. during the period of manpower shortage immediately before the war, when the partially trained flight rigger and flight fitter was responsible for servicing, inspection, maintenance, and, to some extent, repair, usually under a Group 1 N.C.O. in each trade. The present author has good reason to remember that, however willing these partially trained airmen were, the unfortu- nate N.C.O. had to be constantly on call to assist, to clear snags, or to do a complete job. The civil inspectorate system was originally based upon the R.A.F. A.I.S. scheme, developed during the war, but it is doubtful if it can be operated with the flexibility which characterized the Service system. Production was made much smoother by local easements, for which the A.I.S. officer on the spot was responsible; and the majority of the active inspectors were co-opted from production staff after a short period of instruction on inspection. In any case, with the increasing availability of fully licensed engineers, it would be both more economical and more efficient to modify the system by integrating inspection with production. The chief inspector would still be directly responsible to the directors and responsible for all advice on, and the broad direction of, inspection. The inspection staff itself, however, is drawn from amongst the fully licensed engineers on the production staff, whose licence qualifications themselves are more than enough qualifica- tion For inspection duties. It might be necessary for these inspectors to undergo a short course on methods of inspec- tion, specification requirements, etc., with special reference to the type of work carried out by the production unit which they represent; but in many cases even this is not necessary. Control of inspection policy and compilation of regulations remains in the hands of the approving authority, which is also the responsible party for the approval of chief inspectors. With this scheme, inspection can be completely co- ordinated and integrated with the production organization, thus making for harmony and smooth continuity of pro- gress throughout the processes of repair, maintenance, and periodic inspection. Production executives can arrange the staging of this work with the production work, and ensure that the inspector is available at the right time to do it; they are not dependent upon the availability of an independent inspector whose programme may not be per- fectly adjusted to dovetail with production requirements. Another advantage of this system is connected with the requirement that personnel should not be employed per- manently on inspection. This is one of the main arguments against the external inspectorate system, for the reason that permanent inspectors tend to get out of touch with practical work generally and with technical developments in particular; they may, in the extreme, support inspection for its own sake as an end in itself rather than in the light of its proper place in the scheme of output. Inspec- tion then tends to become academic rather than practical, and this has a deterrent effect upon smooth continuity of output and upon the easy relations between staffs engaged on inspection and production. Integrated inspection makes the replacement of inspectors after a period of, say two years, relatively easy, and erstwhile inspectors can be readily re-absorbed into the production cycle. Assisting Output A correctly integrated inspection system assists produc- tive output, and is, indeed, as it should be, part of the productive system. This was recognized by the R.A.F., which introduced the A.I.S. system on flying units to in- crease efficiency, shorten turn-round time, and reduce man- power requirements—in other words, to promote both economy and efficiency of operation by assisting the produc- tive flow: the scheme was not intended as a check upon production work as such. It should be noted, however, that it was not evolved to permit the employment of partially trained or semi-skilled airmen; the essence of its successful operation was that the production staffs should be fully qualified to carry out the work required, as indicated by Inspection on the task charts and snag sheets. This pre- supposes that, for successful civilian operation, production staffs should be fully licensed engineers, and that every encouragement should be given to staff members to become fully licensed. It must be agreed by most people that the greatest effi- ciency in maintenance and repair can be ensured only by the employment of engineers fully qualified on the types upon which they are working, and the only way to ensure this is to guarantee a flow of suitable engineers and also to guarantee employment at a satisfactory wage or salary standard for the fully qualified engineer. This resolves itself into a cycle, the functioning of which can best be ensured by the integrated inspection system run efficiently. A system operated upon these lines would certainly not be less efficient than the external inspection system, and would, in the long run, prove more economical, mainly by improving turn-round time and thus increasing flying hours per maintenance man-hour, which is the true measure et
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
