Narrative:

I called for a mechanic and one showed up to handle the problem. I initially had concerns about his ability until I saw he was wearing an air carrier jacket with a mechanic's patch. That caused me to mentally step back and afford him the credibility the uniform provides. Upon arrival at dfw, I learned that the mechanic was a contract mechanic and the company allows contract personnel to wear air carrier uniforms. This practice, if it exists, directly impacts flight safety for the following reasons: 1) it misrepresents the contract personnel as having been trained in accordance with air carrier procedures and proficient in their required duties. 2) contract personnel do not undergo the same pre-hire screening that air carrier employees go through and, as such, pose a higher risk around our aircraft. With air carrier uniforms they can pass themselves off as a better security risk than they actually are. Had I known that the mechanic was not an air carrier mechanic, I would have played a much more prominent role in the troubleshooting and logbook signoff. I cannot suggest strongly enough that this practice be stopped immediately and all uniforms provided to contract personnel be confiscated as soon as possible. Anything less displays a disregard to provide the safest environment for air carrier employees and their passenger.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTR IS CONCERNED THAT CONTRACT MAINT PERSONNEL WEARING PARENT COMPANY UNIFORMS PRESENT A POTENTIAL SECURITY RISK.

Narrative: I CALLED FOR A MECH AND ONE SHOWED UP TO HANDLE THE PROB. I INITIALLY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT HIS ABILITY UNTIL I SAW HE WAS WEARING AN ACR JACKET WITH A MECH'S PATCH. THAT CAUSED ME TO MENTALLY STEP BACK AND AFFORD HIM THE CREDIBILITY THE UNIFORM PROVIDES. UPON ARR AT DFW, I LEARNED THAT THE MECH WAS A CONTRACT MECH AND THE COMPANY ALLOWS CONTRACT PERSONNEL TO WEAR ACR UNIFORMS. THIS PRACTICE, IF IT EXISTS, DIRECTLY IMPACTS FLT SAFETY FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1) IT MISREPRESENTS THE CONTRACT PERSONNEL AS HAVING BEEN TRAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACR PROCS AND PROFICIENT IN THEIR REQUIRED DUTIES. 2) CONTRACT PERSONNEL DO NOT UNDERGO THE SAME PRE-HIRE SCREENING THAT ACR EMPLOYEES GO THROUGH AND, AS SUCH, POSE A HIGHER RISK AROUND OUR ACFT. WITH ACR UNIFORMS THEY CAN PASS THEMSELVES OFF AS A BETTER SECURITY RISK THAN THEY ACTUALLY ARE. HAD I KNOWN THAT THE MECH WAS NOT AN ACR MECH, I WOULD HAVE PLAYED A MUCH MORE PROMINENT ROLE IN THE TROUBLESHOOTING AND LOGBOOK SIGNOFF. I CANNOT SUGGEST STRONGLY ENOUGH THAT THIS PRACTICE BE STOPPED IMMEDIATELY AND ALL UNIFORMS PROVIDED TO CONTRACT PERSONNEL BE CONFISCATED ASAP. ANYTHING LESS DISPLAYS A DISREGARD TO PROVIDE THE SAFEST ENVIRONMENT FOR ACR EMPLOYEES AND THEIR PAX.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.