A521.5.8.CM_LarsonKurt, Value Narrative

The value communicated is adherence to the minimal standard for the use of calibrated tools and equipment, while performing maintenance, alteration or preventive maintenance.

More specifically from: 14 Code of Federal Regulations or, C.F.R. § 43.13, Performance rules (general).

(a) Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in §43.16. He shall use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted industry practices. If special equipment or test apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, he must use that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent acceptable to the Administrator.

(b) Each person maintaining or altering, or performing preventive maintenance, shall do that work in such a manner and use materials of such a quality, that the condition of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance worked on will be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition (with regard to aerodynamic function, structural strength, resistance to vibration and deterioration, and other qualities affecting airworthiness).

The issue is important from the standpoint that an organization does not automatically get a pass on adherence to the basic rules because they are hard to adhere to, economically unfeasible, or, past practice.

Another value that has been in conflict is economics, and the added cost of having to get tools and equipment identified and on a consistent calibration program to follow the requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 43.13.

A conflict between the two values came to light during identification of non-compliance and an attempt to architect organizational policy. The articles author was the protagonist or individual who was responsible for the identification, recommendations and course of action that should be taken, to alleviate the non-compliance.

Conflict was also manifested between the author and established decenters, because of an established culture (before my time,) that was not receptive toward positive change, including past practice and the way it had always been accomplished in the past.