To Troubleshoot Or Load The Shotgun!!

There are times when working Line Maintenance that problems with airplanes are real apparent. These tomes do not require much troubleshooting. Actually a great deal of what we do as Line Mechanics is troubleshoot. We at SWA run things differently than most places in that we utilize most of our airplanes and have very few spares. In fact not too long ago we had no spare aircraft which required us as mechanics to fix grounded planes quickly. Unlike the picture above the majority of issues that airplanes have need to be rooted out via troubleshooting. As such a good troubleshooter is usually a good mechanic and vise-versa.

Now all that said there are also times when you "Load the shells into the shotgun". When we say this we mean that we take all the parts that could be causing a problem with us out to the plane and start changing them until the problem is fixed. A good example of this for us are Engine Bleed Air issues. We at SWA have a test box that is supposed too tell us which valve or regulator is at fault. The problem is that our test box is not very reliable and often leads us astray. I know that the "Shotgun Method" is a more costly method but for issues like Bleed Air it is the method I prefer. When the boss and OPS are breathing down your throat for a time that the plane will be fixed you simply do not have time to fiddle around with a busted test box.

Last night I worked another problem that called for just changing the part and seeing what happened. This time it was for a totally different reason. My plane had a Fuel Boost Pump inop and on MEL. This particular boost pump was a center pump and on the 737-700 series aircraft to correctly change and ops check the center boost pump you have to put at least 10 thousand pounds of fuel into the center tank. In a situation like this I figured I could fill up the tank, troubleshoot, and try to fix, or I could change the pump and low pressure switch and then fill the tank and do the ops check. Since the pump and switch are really the only things in the system excepting a wire problem its safe to change them as they are most likely to break. Saves time, saves me energy. By the way it fixed the problem.

As most Line Mechanics I see the value of good troubleshooting. We spend a lot of energy with BITE books and in the Maintenance Manual to fine tune and hone these skills but there are times when you have to go old school and pull out the shells for the shotgun.

"That Guy"

This post is mainly for those of you who are thinking of getting into this profession. I'm going to call them "That Guy" posts. This particular post is going to be about that guy you should try to avoid being.

At every stop in my maintenance career there has been "That Guy". That guy who feels the need to stand over you while you work and tell you how what you are doing is wrong. That guy who always has a better or quicker way to do the job and can't figure out why you won't do it his way.

The thing about "That Guy" is that he usually only comes around after you have begun or after you have finished the job at hand. "That Guy" usually is spouting his knowledge when a roomful of people can hear it to attest to his greatness. "That Guy" is often the last to help and the first to have problems doing even the simplest tasks. In fact "That Guy" is a legend in his own mind.

"That Guy" is in reality a guy who when you think about all his stories you figure out that you have never seen him do any of this stuff. "That Guy" a needs constant spotlight shone on him when in fact he does nothing noteworthy.

My own "That Guy" experience happened when I first started at SWA. I got hired in with another guy who had a lot of Line Maintenance experience, worked on several types of planes, at several different companies, doing things that sounded amazing to me. "That Guy" even knew two thirds of the mechanics at Oakland from previous employment. Me, on the other hand, having come out of hangar work and knowing nobody put "That Guy" on somewhat of a pedestal in my estimation. As it turned out "That Guy" is a big wind bag who does more talking and complaining than work. The thing is it took me about three years to realize this and by the time I did we at SWA had hired and in most cases fired a bunch of other "That Guys".

So when you start your career don't be "That Guy" who is boastful, pushy, and a know it all. Believe me things go a lot easier for you if you are open to advice, modest, and ask a lot of questions.

Forlorn Warrior

Picture copyright Radek Oneksiak Courtesy of Airliners.net

The Way Of The Whine

I know that I have already blogged about this before. I hate that our industry has come to this. I feel like an old man when I bring it up. Maybe it has always been like this and I was too green to have noticed it back in the day. I'm talking about whining. In the last five or so years it seems to me that the whining in our maintenance shop has gotten out of control. Some of the guys who work there do not seem to do any thing but whine. I can recall one night when everything seemed to be going well, one of the chief whiners walked by me, on the heels of his co-whiner, no mention of how good the night was, no mention of how clean their aircraft was, no mention of how well they were getting paid. This guy was actually complaining about how the paperwork package was different from the last time he did whatever job it was he did. I have heard the same set of guys complain about everything from shift start time to actually having to work or terminate the plane they are supposed to work on to how the work is assigned to how the roller chairs in the break room suck. I have even heard complaining during down time.

I'm not saying that some of the complaints are not legit. I'm not saying that there are not things that need to be fixed (even at SWA). What happens as far as I am concerned is that because I hear all complaining all the time from some of these guys, when they have a legit complaint, I lump it in with all the rest of the whining and chalk it up as a problem with the mechanic.

Having been around for a while I also understand that there is a far bit of whining that is coming from management on down to the work force. My main beef is the whining about delays. Sure I realize the importance of understanding what happened to cause a delay. To hammer a mechanic for taking a delay is kind of crazy in my book. I am paid to fix planes, to provide an airworthy plane for the flight crew as well as for the flying public. If I take a delay fixing a plane then I am okay with that. When you get back in the office and a delay report comes in they come running up to you with "why did we take a hit on ac XXX", or "how did you get a (whatever) minute delay for fixing a coffee maker?" It goes on and on... When the flight crew calls, and they call often not when they get on the ground but when they remember a problem or even when they are fully boarded, we go. Doing this often creates a delay. Additionally if the plane is already 20 minutes late and I go out to fix a reading light at push time that for whatever reason takes me 5 minutes to change, do the book, etc. I get a 25 minute delay. Crazy!

There are flight crews that whine, Operations Agents that whine, Ramp Crew that whine. All this whining reminds me of the Little Boy Who Cries Wolf. I hear so much of it that I no longer hear any of it.

It seems more and more that the whiners get their way while the workers are ignored. That said I will continue to work as I always have and as I was taught. Happy to have a job in these hard times and happy to start work when I'm told and get paid.

Aircraft Damage

My guest blogger suggested that a post on aircraft damage may be good. Being a line mechanic we see our fair share of damaged aircraft, additionally, being a line mechanic we also cause our fair share of damage to airplanes.

The picture on the left was caused by a provisioning truck (they bring sodas and snacks up to the airplanes) running into the wingtip of one of our planes. It may look like my golf cart hit the wing to some of you but that was just poor photography by me.

As a line mechanic we are usually on the front line and act as first responders for incidents involving damage to aircraft. The picture I put up is more the exception than the rule. Most damage incidents involve dents or small punctures that can be patched up quickly and sent on the way. Antennas seem to be magnets for belt loaders. I have seen 4 or 5 antennas broken off aircraft by careless rampers driving belt loaders. Engine inlet cowls have this same fate especially the number 2 engine cowl being on the side of the plane that the rampers are working on.

Damage inflicted by mechanics seems to run the gambit from breaking an end bay off a row of seats to destroying a thrust reverser half by jacking a plane and lowering it back down with a main tire resting against the TR half. My own personal experience involved a TR half also. I was rushing, not paying attention, when the TR half's were open and I lowered the flaps which put a hole in the TR half. We were able to simply speed tape it and Mx Note it for a repair a few cycles down the road.

Sometimes aircraft design puts certain components in danger. For example on the MD-80 the number 2 engine cowl rests right against the APU exhaust when it is open. I watched an Alaska airline mechanic leave the cowl open on his MD-80 and turn on the APU which burned a hole in the cowl.

Since the winglets have been installed several have been hit by provo trucks or by being pushed back into other planes.

The point is that damage happens. Unfortunately most companies treat aircraft damage like you have committed man slaughter. A few years ago Southwest adapted a zero tolerance for aircraft damage and threatened to fire those responsible. Planes are expensive and the economy being as it is you might understand why they do this. This and policies like this are problems for mechanics because it makes you think that the company does not have your back if a situation occurs involving you. it also is a problem because there is a reluctance by other employees to tell mechanics about how a plane was damaged. For example, if a pilot spills a coke and ruins a radio head it is considered aircraft damage. Prior to the new policy we would get a call for a radio head and the pilot would say "hey look I messed up and spilled my coffee on the thing". No big deal in my book, I R&R the radio head and go about my day. Now we go up to the flight deck and the crew says "I don't know, the radio head just stopped working". At times like this I have to trouble shoot the whole system which wastes my time when I could be done already.

We at SWA have over 500 aircraft. What the bean counters at headquarters do not seem to understand is that with 500 aircraft you are bound to have some damage incidents. It is statistically impossible to have that many airplanes flying hundreds of flights a day and not have any damage incidents. I think it would be better to have a set standard of what to do when a plane is damaged then to say there is a zero tolerance for damage, but, I'm just a wrench turner.

I do know this: the zero tolerance rule does not effect how I work in any way. You can not do this job if you are worrying about damaging an airplane. I'm not a big time Union guy but I figure that's what they are for. If I am doing my job and something goes wrong, an airplane gets damaged, I know that I am secure in the knowledge that I do not intentionally damage planes. If the company wants to go after me for doing my job, so be it.

Guest Blog!! Thanks Franco A.

Oh Captain, My Captain......

I am just a guest blogger here and it's only because I've known Goat since he was just a kid. I'm no authority on aviation, but I thought I'd recount an incident that happened to me not long ago in a far off 737.

Here's the preliminary;

Southwest is good with watching over the usage of parts and how to tweak things to make it more cost effective for the company when it comes to repairs.

Somebody, I don't know who exactly, looks at the time it takes to change certain problematic parts and decides whether it would be more time conscience to change some other part while the mechanic is in that area. Let's take for instance the -700 Flight Attendant Handset.

A mechanic gets a call for an inoperative forward handset. They change out only the handset and it works ok. Two legs later its inop again. If the mechanic looks and sees the handset was just changed, he'll go for changing the cord. More than likely this fixes the problem and everybody is happy happy joy joy.

Well, the powers that be decided that a mechanic should now change out the handset and cord as one unit. It doesn't cost that much more to send the cord in along with the handset for repair. It does take a bit longer to change out the cord along with the handset, but it is still easier than a second gate call down the line.

So, Southwest's policy calls for changing both handset and cord at the same time and this is where the title comes in to play: Oh Captain, My Captain...MYOB!

The Story:

A few weeks ago I got a call for a handset being intermittent. Not the PA, but the handset itself. I go up to the gate and the Captain informs me that the forward handset is inop and he has put it into the book as such. Right away my hands are tied. If the entire handset is inop then I have to change it out.

I had brought one out with me along with the cord and proceeded to inform Operations to hold off on boarding as I would be in the way of the passengers. I informed the Captain it would be about 15 to 20 minutes for me to complete the job.

As this was a "through" flight, there were still passengers on board waiting to continue to their final destination. There were 3 sitting in the first row who could not only see me working, but were within earshot. This is when the Captain came up to me and asked, in front of these passengers, why was I taking apart the Flight Attendant seat, I explained that it was necessary to gain access to the end of the cord for change-out.

He asked why change the cord if the handset was bad? Good question...if I had time! I told him it was company policy to do so. Did he stop there? No. He then asked me, in front of the passengers, "Hey, who's gonna know what part you changed?"

My mouth simply said again that it was company policy. He gave me a funny look and said let me help you and started to try and hold the seat belts for me. I let him know I was just fine and needed no help. My brain wanted me to "escort" him to the empty jetway by the scruff of the neck and tell him how stupid he had just been and add a nuggie in for good measure.

How could he have made such a statement? Especially in front of passengers! Who is going to know what parts I change? Well, I would. So would he. And so would those passengers who heard him. Would he want me to make that statement to a fellow mechanic as we did an engine change? "You know Harv. forget taking those engine mounts off and putting on new ones. Who is gonna know?"

Oh Captain, My Captain, please do your job and let me do mine. I appreciate you wanting to have an on-time departure, so would not it be best if you do your pre-flight, sort your charts, or whatever you guys do up there before flying the machine that you entrust to me to make airworthy?

You do your job, I'll do mine. Thank you very much.

Truly,

Franco A.

Old School Airline