Narrative:

Before my shift began (but during the previous shift); 2 mechanics began to replace the left/H fuel tank vent valve. Sometime between the previous qc shift and the start of my shift; the mechanics finished the task; but were unable to have the task 'bought back' by qc due to the inspectors having left at the end of their shift. There was no note made in the written turnover of this task being started or in-work.I was approached by one of the two mechanics about my 'buying back' the installation of the valve; and was not told that there were actually two mechanics involved in the installation. The [form] was stamped by the mechanic who approached me. I asked about the previous shift having seen any of the installation; and they had either not seen any of it; or had failed to sign for the portion they had seen.I inspected the installation of the valve; checked tightness of fittings; bolts; wiring; and general condition of the immediate area; as well as the paperwork approving the part. I reviewed the amm reference and found that the mechanic had signed for the entire task (including follow on tasks not yet performed); and had the mechanic change his entry to reflect only the steps actually accomplished up to that point; which I then bought back.when I arrived at work the following night; I discovered that another [form] had been generated to replace the conduit through which the wiring of the vent valve is routed to outside the wing because it had been damaged by pulling the wires through the conduit with safety wire (which is specifically not allowed in the procedure in the amm.) as I inquired about why I had not been informed the previous night of this damage; I was told that the mechanic had not seen and had not signed for the work (but had damaged the conduit) did not report the damage until after he had punched out for the night; and was walking to the parking lot with the other mechanic. Neither mechanic came back to report the damage. The signing mechanic did report the problem to the acting maintenance supervisor at the beginning of his shift the next day; and it was documented on a [form]; and was corrected.in discussing the situation with the mechanic and maintenance supervisor on duty; I was 'advised' that I should not file a report; and the supervisor was going to follow up with the mechanic who caused the damage; get his statement; and seemed to say that we should handle the problem outside the reporting program. I only agreed to delay my report until statements from all involved could be obtained; and it was determined that a report was necessary. I do not feel now that this was the correct path to take.I received a call from my supervisor that after reviewing my statement; and conferring with the qc manager and director; that he/they had determined that I needed additional training in the 'C-check environment'; and that I would be required to go [for remedial training]. I was not given the option to have a union member present during this phone conference; as required by our agreement with the company.I feel that the mechanics should have alerted the inspectors on the previous shift of the work they were performing; and obtained buy back of any work that was completed during their shift. I feel that a turnover should have been provided on the progress of the job from the last shift. I should have been contacted at the start of my shift about the work being done; and I should have given approval to continue the work; if I felt this was appropriate; or should have been given the chance to observe the work in progress; as appropriate. I should not have 'bought back' the work performed. I do not believe that this 'buy-back' procedure is adequately explained in the gmm. Obviously; the damage to the conduit should have been immediately reported at the time of occurrence. Obviously; the amm reference should have been strictly adhered to (no use of safety wire). I do not feel I should be 'punished'; or be required 'remedial training' not given to others as a result of reporting this incident.the company has completely failed to provide proper training in regards to c-check. The company has refused to recognize the risks they have taken; and are also requiring their employees to undertake; by attempting this new task here without the proper support and training. Many of our newer employees are not in the least bit capable of performing the more complicated tasks without assistance; and working in this new and confusing environment that c-check entails. Management is continuously complaining about 'how long tasks are taking'; but fail to see that the preparation was sorely lacking; and they are not providing assistance where needed. Many company procedures and policies are not being followed. Senior management is not providing necessary support to do this work as it should be done.the above statements are not directly responsible for the event in question; but has provided what I consider a 'poisonous environment' in which to work. I feel that any reasonably independent review of the current activities would uncover what I have seen and more.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Maintenance Technician reported that many company procedures and policies are not being followed.

Narrative: Before my shift began (but during the previous shift); 2 mechanics began to replace the L/H fuel tank vent valve. Sometime between the previous QC shift and the start of my shift; the mechanics finished the task; but were unable to have the task 'bought back' by QC due to the inspectors having left at the end of their shift. There was no note made in the written turnover of this task being started or in-work.I was approached by one of the two mechanics about my 'buying back' the installation of the valve; and was not told that there were actually TWO mechanics involved in the installation. The [form] was stamped by the mechanic who approached me. I asked about the previous shift having seen any of the installation; and they had either not seen any of it; or had failed to sign for the portion they had seen.I inspected the installation of the valve; checked tightness of fittings; bolts; wiring; and general condition of the immediate area; as well as the paperwork approving the part. I reviewed the AMM reference and found that the mechanic had signed for the ENTIRE task (including follow on tasks not yet performed); and had the mechanic change his entry to reflect only the steps actually accomplished up to that point; which I then bought back.When I arrived at work the following night; I discovered that another [form] had been generated to replace the conduit through which the wiring of the vent valve is routed to outside the wing because it had been damaged by pulling the wires through the conduit with safety wire (which is specifically NOT allowed in the procedure in the AMM.) As I inquired about why I had not been informed the previous night of this damage; I was told that the mechanic had not seen and had not signed for the work (but HAD damaged the conduit) did not report the damage until after he had punched out for the night; and was walking to the parking lot with the other mechanic. Neither mechanic came back to report the damage. The signing mechanic did report the problem to the acting maintenance supervisor at the beginning of his shift the next day; and it was documented on a [form]; and was corrected.In discussing the situation with the mechanic and maintenance supervisor on duty; I was 'advised' that I should not file a report; and the supervisor was going to follow up with the mechanic who caused the damage; get his statement; and seemed to say that we should handle the problem outside the reporting program. I only agreed to delay my report until statements from all involved could be obtained; and it was determined that a report was necessary. I do not feel now that this was the correct path to take.I received a call from my supervisor that after reviewing my statement; and conferring with the QC Manager and Director; that he/they had determined that I needed additional training in the 'C-check environment'; and that I would be required to go [for remedial training]. I was not given the option to have a Union member present during this phone conference; as required by our Agreement with the company.I feel that the mechanics should have alerted the inspectors on the previous shift of the work they were performing; and obtained buy back of any work that was completed during their shift. I feel that a turnover should have been provided on the progress of the job from the last shift. I should have been contacted at the start of my shift about the work being done; and I should have given approval to continue the work; if I felt this was appropriate; or should have been given the chance to observe the work in progress; as appropriate. I should not have 'bought back' the work performed. I do not believe that this 'buy-back' procedure is adequately explained in the GMM. Obviously; the damage to the conduit should have been immediately reported at the time of occurrence. Obviously; the AMM reference should have been strictly adhered to (no use of safety wire). I do not feel I should be 'punished'; or be required 'remedial training' not given to others as a result of reporting this incident.The company has completely failed to provide proper training in regards to C-check. The company has refused to recognize the risks they have taken; and are also requiring their employees to undertake; by attempting this new task here without the proper support and training. Many of our newer employees are not in the least bit capable of performing the more complicated tasks without assistance; and working in this new and confusing environment that C-check entails. Management is continuously complaining about 'how long tasks are taking'; but fail to see that the preparation was sorely lacking; and they are not providing assistance where needed. Many company procedures and policies are not being followed. Senior management is not providing necessary support to do this work as it should be done.The above statements are not directly responsible for the event in question; but has provided what I consider a 'poisonous environment' in which to work. I feel that any reasonably independent review of the current activities would uncover what I have seen and more.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.