A630.1.4.RB_LarsonK

The conflict was the need to accomplish a modification to an existing satellite communication system already installed on an aircraft, although a Design Engineering Representative had not approved the modification. This in itself was not the crux of the problem since our internal engineers had designed and submitted the modification for approval. The true conflict, was when the modification was not approved by the DER due to another unrelated issue, this rendered the aircraft un-airworthy due to an incomplete modification.

        

My role was that of quality and safety, and the responsibility for oversight of a properlyerly modified and legally configured modification capable of being returned to service in a safe and legal manner

 

The other stakeholders were the science and engineering division who created the modification, flight operations responsible for operating the aircraft, The maintenance department responsible for the total airworthiness of all aircraft and the DER responsible for the approval and subsequent routing of all documentation to the FAA.

The result was many stakeholders wiliness to overlook not only our standard safety practices, but also those of our governing body the FAA. Many stakeholders attempted to override my stand fast decision to keep the aircraft in an un-airworthy condition until the modification was either removed in its entirety and the aircraft returned to the original configuration, or wait until the DER submits the approved data.

The room for improvement would and was realized by the other stakeholders that safety policies and procedures are in-place for not only the safety of those in the aircraft but also those around the aircraft.

The true source of the conflict was that other stakeholders were worried about loosing range time for another scientific package due for operational testing and evaluation and, the willingness to overlook policies, procedures and regulations in order to get the aircraft to the testing range.

It was only after I contacted a counterpart at the local FAA and that individual’s agreement with me in my analysis and course of action did the stakeholders realize the seriousness of the current situation.

At no time was the aircraft in jeopardy of operating in an unsafe manner; it would have been operating in a manner counter to policies, procedures and a legal manner.

The other issue discussed after this incident, was that it should not be necessary to involve outside entities to prove a point, or stop a momentum, which could set precedent for future poor decisions, all in the name of timing or expedience.

It was realized that there is a purpose for in-place checks and balances and that attempting to ignore, discount or re-interpret sound and prudent policies, procedures and regulations is counterproductive in time and the safe operation of aircraft.