Avionics we dont do that here

[reboot]

Soon bringing an A/C into LGW with an avionic problem may be a waste of time. The top knobs at Big Airways seem to think they dont need any avionic CRS on the ramp for the longhaul operation. You know the one with these modern planes with lots of avionic bits on them.
No why have them when we have RMA men with less technical knowledge. We just give the A&C CRS holders an avionic extension and they can sort it all out (I am sure thay are happy about that!!)
Do I hear you say that under JAR the A&C will have electrics, what! are we removing instrument, autopilot and radio systems from our A/C. Plus they dont have the experiance just like we dont for thier job.

What happens when a plane has a departure problem needing an avionic man well just call one over from the hangar, I thought they didnt want delays?

The problem is we all know our own job and know a lot of things that get the A/C and us and other people out of trouble but the bosses dont take this into account because sitting behind a desk you dont see the man who gets your plane away because he knows how to fix it quickly, correctly and SAFELY in the 15 minutes he has before the despatcher starts to whine about engineers holding up the plane.
We try to tell him but he wont listen, he never has and he never will.

[Sharky Boy]

Welcome to Aircraft Maintenance and my guess it's the same all over the world.

[spannersatcx]

Reboot, we operate with A n C Engineers with avionics ext, I personally have had it for 6 years. It would depend on the type of training and the scope of the ext E, our training on the 744 for example is 4 weeks, not the 1 day lectures some seem to have! No that doesn't make me an expert! But I do have a good knowledge of the way things work. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, if it's done properly it can work. JAA 66, there are 2 types of licence mechanical and avionic. Mechanical type people, A n C, will have to get the X licence so as as to convert to a JAA licence all you have to do is Module 5 digital fundamentals.
There seems to be much disension for whatever this RMA thing is, and it seems to be at Big Airways and it seems they they, the co, have deskilled the role of the LAME. I would hazard a guess that when the delays seem to be every other flt and the ASR's and MOR's start to increase then just maybe they will have to have a rethink, but by then it'll be probably too late and the experienced LAME's will be elsewhere.

[cotos]

Reboot, get that chip off your shoulder. A/C no longer require dedicated radio/e&I a/pilot engineers. As per other threads on this MB, any good engineer with a savvy for avionic fundimentals can cover all line work where test equipment is required. Sorry pal but the days of getting the E&I man to undo the cannon plug have passed.

[reboot]

True now you just call us when you bend all the pins in the plug.
One of the issues is that the A&C men actualy have enough work of there own without taking on more but I suppose that is really about staffing levels not allocation of tasks.
If we dont carry a chip on our shoulder we would get very hungry at work, we dont always have time for a mealbreak. Still not my problem anymore the A&C will have to deal with that now. Again a staffing level issue.
The management have now said we wont be completely removed just our numbers reduced and our role redirected into the more involved problem, There is some sense there use avionics for the complecated stuff and A&C for the easy stuff (just joking)

[ragspanner]

The rationale the CAA use '& to some extent the employers is that "state of the art" aircraft do not require the same level of avionic support.Unfortunately i work on aircraft that are "state of the ARK" ,this is very labour intensive on both the A&C and Avionic fronts. In many cases its all in the application. As for A&C's bending pins or our job being any easier,in my view the GIMP quotient among the tefals is about on a par with us knuckle draggers,it's just that they err a little less because they can't get as close to the work face without wrinkling their ball gowns !-only joking !!!!!!.

[Diablo]

The problem with A & C doing the avionic work is experience NOT ability. As you all say, on newer aircraft there is not a lot goes wrong with them avionically, well not on a regular basis. Therefore, it may be months between A & C with extension getting a few meaty avionic jobs. With there being less avionics per shift at most places, they tend to get all the jobs and learn the quick fixes. Quick being the operative word in a ramp environment. Fix it, get it out, no delay.

We all know the FIM can be usefull or it can send you down the garden path.

Its the beancounters choice. How big a delay do they want ?????????????????????

[Blacksheep]

Did someone mention Beancounters?

It is obvious to those of us who work in the backrooms of the engineering departments of the world's airlines that the 'unjustified removal rate' is rising. On average, an avionics black box costs our airline US$2,700 per removal for the input bench test alone. Another US$300 for shipping costs brings the bill to US$3,000. Our NFF rate is over 45% and we calculate that the NFF removals cost us US$420,000 a week. Now US$420,000 buys an awful lot of trained avionic LAEs, Technicians or Mechanics, whatever you want to call them.

The beancounters are counting the wrong beans! The obvious cost (to them) is the wage bill and they direct all their efforts to reducing personnel costs. The Manager Training and Development over in the (Anti)personnel department said just the other day that he is not in the business of providing training, his job is to make sure that no-one receives any training that they don't need. It seems that we line managers put too many people forward for training courses and if they were sent on the courses personnel costs would rise too much.

So, we're on a downward spiral. Our working conditions will continue to decline, the quality of our work will inexorably drop. As will our wages. Costs will go on falling until we reach the final objective -- Universal Air Transport -- at minimum cost. Lager Louts in paradise. Mass migration of cheap labour.

Doom and Gloom from Blacksheep? Maybe. Have you been to Bali lately? Or shared a flight from Bangkok with a party of Thai labourers bound for a jungle-clearing camp in Borneo on a wage of US$50 a month? The objective is to get rid of all us expensive skilled people and create a cheap semi-skilled work force. Even the pilots are under threat, as they are just beginning to understand. Did any of you read the recent Wannabes thread about new entrants having to pay their own training costs? Avionic systems will inevitably send the co-pilot off to join the radio operators, navigators and flight engineers within 25 or 30 years, as single pilot flight decks become reality.

Welcome to the 21st century.

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[ragspanner]

Blacksheep, if you work in Brunei can i assume your working on 'shiney' jets ?.Sure'ly a large proportion of the blame for such a high rate of NFF's should lie with software/equipment/system designers ?.Since the day of the BITE dawned the rate of NFF's has not fallen.Until the engineers expectations can be met( in terms of the reliability of the self test system itself) we can in some cases be testing with 'cracked hammers'.We will always require the services of 'specialists' in the avionic disciplines,when the FIM/CMC tells me (the A&C man) for the 10th time that a unit should be replaced should i do it ? OR ask a specialist !!!.Unfortunately its as you say ,the beancounters need a change to their specs prescription,as they don't appear to be able to see any further than (what they perceive)to be the bottom line.
I suppose the point is what form will the specialist take ?.
[This message has been edited by ragspanner (edited 17 March 2001).]

[This message has been edited by ragspanner (edited 17 March 2001).]

[time-ex]

The FIM for any defect usually starts with - check pin 12 for 28v trying to escape or suchlike - but what happens - all these checks are dismissed when the next step is - replace the servo valve, we've got a valve but we haven't got an AVO (or someboby who knows how to turn it on), so the servo valve gets changed. Surprise, surprise it didn't fix it, ADD time, next guy comes along and assumes check pin 12 for 28v trying to escape was done that's why they changed the servo valve. He goes to next step and changes servo valve contoller, thats 2 bits back to the workshops when all along those 28v were never going to escape, well not at pin 12 anyway. Broken wire, bent pin whatever?
We are all to blame, if I had a £5 note for every avionic guy who swore blind the servo valve or controller was faulty rather than go and do the basic wiring checks in the first place I'd have about £500 by now. I'd have more if I hadn't learn't how to use the AVO myself and check for 28v at pin 12.
The good avionic engineer can save a fortune, unfortunately so many have chosen to live in the comfort zone that there effectivity is called into question.
The 777 MAT is great at giving a choice of expensive black boxes to change, when they've all been changed they call in the half decent avionic guy over from the hangar and he finds out the 28v isn't there at pin 12. That's progress for you!
If you are a bean counter I don't suppose you read this stuff any more than you listen to professional engineers.
There is an up side though, bean counters get charged lots of cash for servicing their BMW's, components changed for no good reason other than making a quick profit. What goes around comes around!


[This message has been edited by time-ex (edited 17 March 2001).]

[Blacksheep]

B757s and B767s, but not so shiny any more I'm afraid, ragspanner.

Yes, NFFs are a design problem and no doubt BITE will improve with time. I've said elsewhere that I'm no Luddite and I see no objection to a single trade of Aircraft Maintenance Technician looking after the whole aircraft - Airframe, Engines, Electrics and Avionics. Aircraft maintenance isn't exactly nuclear physics is it? My point is that if we are to go in that direction then proper training must be provided. The UKCAA and operators seem satisfied to leave the poor old LAE to teach himself at his own expense. There are people on this forum talking about trading exam questions. What kind of training is that, and what kind of LAE will result? The NFF rate is as much a result of blind box changing as it is a design problem. The highest NFF rate in our operation is the APU Control Unit, yet it doesn't feature in the FIM until box number 33. It IS an easy bit to change and sign off for dispatch though, especially if you're unsure of how the APU really works. Or you think you know but are actually unaware that you don't have the full picture. If it isn't the result of stupidity or laziness on the part of the LAEs who change the box, why do they do it?

"If you think training is expensive, try substituting ignorance..."

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema