Aging wiring on aeroplanes - FAA acts at last!

[Blacksheep]

In the latest issue of Boeing Service Facts they reveal that FlightSafety Boeing (FSB) is to offer a training course which is the first that satisfies anticipated regulatory requirements from the US Federal Aviation Administration. Recent aviation reports suggest that wiring training should be the foundation of future wiring systems maintenance on aging aircraft. Really? Well how surprising. I never would have thought of that! FSB will offer a 30 hour course on airplane wiring systems and a 12 hour course on airplane wiring skills.

Do they mean that up to now aircraft wiring maintenance has been done by people who had no idea what they were doing? Now, I may be biased by the fact that I entered aviation as an apprentice aircraft electrician, but that doesn't seem quite right to me. Under JAR 66, trained and experienced people are about to give up their responsibility for electrical system maintenance to airframe and powerplant specialists, whose only training on wiring is mugging up on multi-choice question answers at various web sites - the very people who previously referred to wiring contemptuously as electric string and thought a time domain reflectometer was something out of Dr Who and the Daleks.

A case of the FAA finding out the hard way while the JAA puts on their blinkers?

Oh well, at least the world's biggest regulator is finally heading in the right direction...

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

[ 02 November 2001: Message edited by: Blacksheep ]

[Bosch]

You seem a little worried there Blacksheep.The reason riggers like to call your wiring string is because you avionic types like to "string" jobs out, and in larger organisations manage to always cluster in the flightdeck.I think your underlying problem is that you realise that you don't do that much now, and that you may be pushed out of a job. In my place the avionic guys wont even take off a panel, let a lone take out a damaged screw. The C.A.A. seem happy to empower us via JAR66 to do the job. As far as "high tech" test equipment goes, I don't care how it works inside as long as it tests the system and I can get credible results.

[the funky munky]

Borsch old chap I think you may have missed the point, ageing wiring in aircraft is and WILL be a very big problem.
Saw the film of Kapton carbon arc tracking in looms and it is not a laughing matter, for those who don't know this is where a wire catches light in a loom bundle and burns the loom completely without any other source of ignition, even if you pull the breakers. In fact some airframes will need a rewire just to maintain their airworthiness.
Some greenies may be sitting around drinking their tea but believe me they will be v. busy in the near future. Anyway i'll now disengage soapbox.

[Blacksheep]

Nah! You've both missed the point. The FAA have just realised that wiring needs special care from properly trained technicians. At the same time, the JAA just ditched the existing specialists and handed wiring over to technicians who have not been properly trained in maintaining wiring.

Would you be so complacent if hydraulics, for example, were handed over to Avionics on condition that we simply passed a multi-guess paper on the subject? I mean its just a load of tubes and oil and stuff. Nothing too complicated about that is there?

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

[avmech]

I believe that the FAA's actions are more of a reaction than them being proactive or even insightful. Since the crash of TWA 800 over Long Island, NY, there has been an inordinate amount of attention to wiring as a cause of that accident and others in my humble opinion. I agree with Blacksheep, there should be training (apprenticeship) required before a technician(engineer) is let lose on a complex system for a wiring repair. I think you JAR66 folks will find out soon enough that the decision about who will and who won't make a repair is left to the airline. The way the FAA license is set up, I can work on any and all aspects of an aircraft as long as I have both an Airframe and Powerplant rating. I don't really want to argue the merits or shortfalls of the system, thats just the way it is. The fact of the matter is, in the U.S. the unions for A/C technicians have seperated the jobs into line, base, and avionics. Generally an avionic type does not remove panels, but by the same tolken, the panel puller will most likely never make a wiring repair, or even t/s a system. I guess what I'm trying to say is that with this type of training, people who probably should never touch a pin pusher or a set of crimpers may feel "empowered" and only cause further troubles due to lack of experience.

[reboot]

Bosch

Nice bit of the boring old rubbish the ignorant always spout.

Let me try.
A&C can fix everything so long as their pen is working!
Dont care how it works inside, thats because your trade could never understand how it works inside.
During my apprenitceship any avionics who failed their collage exams had to become A&C.
To do the crapy old routine you employ a nuckle scraping grease monkey to fix the technical bits you get the avionics out.
A&C blokes wont change a bit untill we have done some wiring checks, obviously they have no confidence in their own fault finding and need our trade to work it all out for them.

Not very constructive this is it, shouldnt really let myself stoop to their level but sometimes I just cant help myself. Sorry to all you A&C out there I know you are not all like that.

Please I cant wait to hear your reply to this telling me how great you are and we are not, second thoughts I can wait so I dont think I'll come back here a read it because I am sure being an A&C man you will have missed the point of this post completley