|An aircraft arrived at a small line station with a nose gear defect. The on duty B1 Certifying Staff determined that the nose gear strut required troubleshooting which involved jacking of the aircraft and dismantling the nose gear strut.
The small line station did not have the required equipment, tools or manpower. A suggestion was made that the on duty CFS issue a release to service for one flight only back to a main base. There followed email traffic where the CFS requested CAMO written approval to release the aircraft for one flight only. CAMO approved the request and the CFS issued the CRS. When spoken to the CFS considered the email approval by CAMO was sufficient to absolve him of any blame if something went wrong. Is this correct?
|My company has informed me that because I am authorised by them to certify on their behalf, I am no longer liable or accountable for any mistakes as the authorisation in effect hands the accountability over to the company. This statement has been used to convince licence holders to certify for work outside of the AMM set limits. Is this correct?|
|During a progressive maintenance check (tasks taken from a c-check and performed on the line) I discovered corrosion on an aircraft which was outside of manufacturer’s specified limits. In order to avoid an AOG situation my engineering department issued an internal work order for the corrosion to be dealt with at a more convenient time. I closed the open tech log entry by cross referring to the internal work order. Is this acceptable?|