MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Maintenance Technician 30
Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Workload
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Company Policy; Human Factors
I am concerned that I may not be able to comply with our Air Carrier's policies and procedures for the simple reason that management will not provide me the opportunity to do so. The event which occurred in April 2015 concerning Flight XXX arriving ZZZ2 from ZZZ1; is the event in which I wish to illustrate my point. Aircraft X; an [MD-80 series] aircraft; pulled up to gate with minor damage in the aft section of the aft cargo. This was allegedly reported shortly after its arrival by Fleet Service around XA:00pm. About two hours later; Aircraft Maintenance was finally notified of the discrepancy which I received the around XB:10pm. I arrived at the aircraft only to be informed that the discrepancy had been called in two hours earlier and that I was disrupting the operation by showing up at departure time. Further inspection of the aft section of the aft cargo revealed more damage than what was initially reported. After returning from the office where I had retrieved an almost depleted Cargo Repair Kit as well as having related the details of the situation to the supervisor and the Lead Mechanic; I was able to repair the damage without incident. However; when I informed the gentleman watching me that I needed access to the logbook; I was told the jet bridge had been pulled and all gate agents were unavailable. He then dropped the aft air stairs. As it was becoming quite clear that my presence was unwanted at this point; I took the logbook back to the office and reported that there was a problem. While away from the aircraft; an attempt was made to push the aircraft even though I had not completed my work. Only the lack of a logbook prevented the aircraft from starting its flight. Upon hearing this; it was evident to me that competing priorities were managing this situation and that they didn't care about what I had to say or do. So; how can I comply with company rules and regulations with our Air Carrier management's willingness to circumvent their own maintenance requirements all the while subjecting myself to a hostile work environment in which those I'm required to interact with; who view my actions as an impediment to achieving their goals? Furthermore; information being relayed to the flight and ground crews was clearly inaccurate. The plane was not ready to go and yet someone unknown stated that it was. It couldn't have been the pilots for they needed the logbook. The gate agents were long gone and fleet service had a representative watching my every move. Although essentially a non-incident; all involved expressed dissatisfaction with the dysfunction of the situation. As for me; it became obvious to see that competing interests on the ramp make it difficult; if not impossible; to comply with our Air Carrier's policies and procedures. I don't have a clue as to why the events unfolded as they did. Unfortunately; I'm also looking for suggestions to avoid being in such a situation.
The reporter stated he had not received any response from Management regarding his concerns and doubts he ever will; especially since many of the management personnel he interacts with are also facing competing priorities. He has approximately 30 years Aircraft Maintenance experience.
A Line Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) describes why he believes competing interests on the ramp make it difficult; if not impossible; to comply with his air carrier's policies and procedures. He uses an incident involving an aft cargo compartment damage on an MD-80 series aircraft to illustrate the dysfunction of the situation.