Pilot Fails Maintenance Exam

[Rigga]

I was recently on an Engine Type Rating Course in an EU country. The Course was conducted in english and consisted of a few days of tuition followed on the last day by a MCQ exam over an allowed time of two hours.

Course members were from various EU countries, companies, ages and varying levels of experience and english language - but none spoke the mother tongue of the host nation except two of the manufacturers employees, a design engineer and a pilot. The pilot had a reported 30 years flying experience.

The subject engine was neither a large or a very complicated machine.

Being a Rigga by my original trade spec I am not a great fan(?) of these oil-heating power machines, but I do think I have grown to know them in my struggle to make a career out of the growing amount of faulty flying machines.

At the end of the week's exam, only the pilot failed to make the 75% grade for his 'pass' certification and was awarded an attendance certificate.

I dont know if his failure was due to language difficulties (doing an english course in his own (non-english speaking) country), classroom fatigue (which we all suffered from) or.... what?

The point of this drivel?

Does this pilot's failure to make the grade on an engineers course point to our feathered bretheren not being quite as gifted as we thought? Or that "they" can't equate their "technical" knowledge of aircraft systems to an engineers hands-on knowledge of how things actually work?

Discussion please...

[Vortechs Jenerator]

What was he doing on a technicians course in the first place?

We are engineers and they are pilots I don't see it as being closely related at all.

I'd definitely fail a sim' check:) Does that make me a bad engineer?

Pilots need to know how to safely operate an engine as a user, we need to know how to troubleshoot, maintain, replace and rectify them (and operate them on EGR's and Taxi).

That's my understanding:\

[stevef]

Do aircrew actually need to know the in-depth technical aspects of an engine? I'd have thought that the basics were sufficient; what's the point of a pilot needing to understand the construction/operation of an engine-driven hydraulic pump, for example, when a cockpit doll's-eye indication is the only thing that he/she needs to know about a u/s system. There's nothing they can do about it in flight except for using alternate procedures. Same with materials and design technology. Airlines and manufacturers have decided that the flight engineer is redundant!
Anyway, how many of us take kindly to being told by a pilot exactly where a problem lies instead of being given the symptoms and letting us diagnose the fault. :)

The language difference probably accounts for shortcomings: it's the same where I work.

[richatom]

Well I think you are making some very broad extrapolations from one tiny data-point. There are indeed pilots out there who are not technically minded at all but nevertheless make really good pilots. On the other hand there are plenty of technically very qualified pilots too. For example, if I can be excused the immodesty, I have a double-first from Cambridge University in Aeronautical engineering, and a Masters degree from M.I.T in aviation technology. Does that make me a better pilot? No, not at all - it just made the theory exams easier, and (hopefully) might make me more attractive to a potential employer.

[Vortechs Jenerator]

richatom

and (hopefully) might make me more attractive to a potential employer.

So you are not satisfied just being a pilot and a gifted academic but a good looking bugger too:)

[powerstall]

...and all i thought what we only had to know and do..is to put on the power and let the airplane fly....retard the power, descend, then use the auto-land... :E

[mainwheel]

Chances are he was probably put there for a variety of reasons. Primarily to "pick something up" about a particular subject.
Not there in the least to fully understand.
Hopefully becomes a bit more aware.

Should be more of it.

Like going for a drive after you've passed SIM early.:ok:

I'll land it in one piece eventually.:ugh:

[Krystal n chips]

Just a few points here.

Simply because the pilot in question failed to make the 75% mark doesn't for one moment reflect badly on him....what margin, for example, did he fall short by?....then there is the question as to why he was on the course in the first place ?......did he have any detailed technical involvement / knowledge in a particular role prior to the course that justified his attendance... or was this a "one off" event for him ?....was language as factor at all ?....did he actually want to be there ?.....as these are all variables and thus unknown to most of us, it's not really fair to have a dig at the guy simply because he's a pilot ( fair game in many other aspects I agree:E but not in this instance )....and has been mentioned, how does failing to meet the 75% mark reflect his ability as a pilot ?......there's no relevance is there towards his airmanship and flying skills to name but a couple of issues.

He was doing a type course after all......had it been the tech.aspect of his licence, then I would get concerned.

[MLL]

Nothing to discuss really, your post is pointless, the guys a pilot not a engineer, why do you expect him to have the same in depth technical knowledge as a licensed engineer has, anyway i wouldnt be too smug its not unknown for engineers to fail type courses now and again

[SeldomFixit]

As Tech crew, you can never know your aircraft well enough. It has been my experience that many Pilots had a far deeper knowledge and understanding of some types than those who certified for the maintenance, both at Base and Outports. That is not to say that should a Ground Engineer be given sufficient exposure and training, he or she would not become competent polers.
My hat goes off to the gent in question for taking the time and effort he did. :D

[pjvr99]

I always found that the pilots having a good working knowledge of the engines/airframe, really helped when faced with troubleshooting unusual snags. As long as they don't tell me how to fix 'em, I won't tell them how to fly .....

[Arfur Dent]

Richatom - I don't think you're immodest, I think you made an excellent point. I also feel completely inadequate (well done on your amazing quals!). Still think I'm an OK 744 Skipper though!:ok:

[Spanner Turner]

I always found that the pilots having a good working knowledge of the engines/airframe, really helped when faced with troubleshooting unusual snags. As long as they don't tell me how to fix 'em, I won't tell them how to fly .....


I'd just like to add that i've always had that little bit extra admiration for the drivers who took the extra time/effort to be involved in the tech/mech/elec side of the aircraft and/or troubleshooting. Yes, I know they don't have to and some will quite happily admit that the only part of the aircraft they see is that between door 1 left and the cockpit.

Once on an overseas operation with limited manpower/resources, we had one Capt who came out to the ramp on one of his days off with us mech's just to 'see' and help out with what we do to keep the operation going. It was most appreciated - after all he could've been sitting in the bar or in the pool at the hotel but chose to come out with us. Not only was it a great 'social' gesture on his part, he learnt quite a lot of what it takes to keep those babies serviceable. :ok::ok:

For any pilots reading, if you ever get the chance, or 'make' the chance, don't be so quick to walk off and get straight on the crew bus, come down and have a look around with us mech's. I'm sure you'll find it a learning experience and very interesting. Come on, you must have wondered what is lurking under those engine cowls/ panels at some stage!

I know every time that i've been asked to visit the cockpit/simulator/crew briefing etc with you guys, i've jumped at the chance. I've learnt a whole lot about what your side of the job entails and this has helped me to see things from your point of view.


As for the original post about a pilot not passing a type engineers course - so what, although I can operate the aircraft and get it off the ground and (most times in my sim experience) get it back to mother earth, there's no way that I could pass one of their simulator/recency checks. Hell, i'd have a hard enough time passing the type 1 medical check!

[TheGorrilla]

Blimey. I thought that was good. I'd probably only manage 2%.

[EGT Redline]

Good post Spanner Turner. It reminds me of an old boss (Aircrew Wg Cdr) from one of the Sqn's during my Air Force days. He would regularly put on a pair of overalls and muck in just to see how the other half lived and the type of problems we used to encounter. I had the utmost respect for that man but unfortunately folk like him were few and far between.

I have spent many an hour in the flight deck as flying spanner on long boring flights. Numerous times I have been grilled by the drivers on my level of knowledge of the aircraft and its systems with a view to them increasing their own understanding. Some of them are pleasantly surprised to find out that Engineers hold multiple type ratings with many different engine variants. Unlike them, it is not simply a case of knowing one type of aeroplane.

One thing this thread has highlighted is the respect we as Engineers have for the Pilots. Not one single post on here has stated that the person in question is at fault, in fact we have all defended him to some degree or another. Unfortunately it is a shame that this respect is often not reciprocated. An "Engineer Fails Pilot Exam" thread in the flight deck forum might not get quite the same response.

[TheGorrilla]

I'm not sure. If an engineer fails a pilot exam would he get any less respect than a pilot failing a pilot exam??! :}

I don't think respect can be earnt purely by passing an exam. For me it's more about congratulating all who pass and commiserating or being sympathetic to those who fail. Passing an exam does not give anyone the right to gloat at those who fail.

[Rigga]

Thanks to all for your responses.

I didn't mean to be disparaging towards the subject pilot - he's still a guy I'd drink with!

As I said I don't know why he failed - and I also don't know why he was there, or the effects of him not making the grade.

My comments and questions were aimed at whether pilot training was of a "systems" level rather than the nuts-and-bolts level, and whether pilots could readily assimilate to the engineering level of the same subject. In my experience pilots are taught how to work the cockpit controls - not to adjust an engine's Max N1.

I know some pilots who can't drive cars and some who don't care about engineering in any way, but that doesn't mean I won't go flying.

I think EGT's last Paragraph say it all.


....and its nice to see some pilots look into the Eng & Mech's forums ...and for MLL to be so stirred as to register for the right to respond!!

[Hairy Fool]

There is always value in understanding a little better what you use, if nothing else the pilot could probably better explain a problem after his course.

I left aviation and went into computer hardware. We had some software guys on a hardware coursefor that very reason. It took them 35 minutes to find the fuse missing on the fault finding section but it did not mean they could not write programs and at least they had a better understanding of what they were doing.

One of my pilots rebuilt his MG Magnette and apart from the respray did it all himself and probably to a better standard than most.

[Bus429]

I'd have thought that the basics were sufficient; what's the point of a pilot needing to understand the construction/operation of an engine-driven hydraulic pump, for example, when a cockpit doll's-eye indication is the only thing that he/she needs to know about a u/s system.
Doll's eye? Doll's eye?! I last saw them on Bristol Britannias and BAe 748s!:ok:

[stevef]

I haven't been working on 'real' aeroplanes for a while, Bus. :)

[Flying Torquewrench]

Thanks guy's for the respect you give the drivers. To be honest I expected this to become a pilot bashing thread. How wrong was I??

Unfortunately I have to agree with EGT Redline on his point regarding mutaul respect. For that has been a point of severe headache for me. It seems that we still have drivers up front who think their sh*t doesn't stink. It might be a relief to you guy's but they are exactly the same towards their fellow drivers. They think they are gods gift to aviation and want everybody to know it.

As a pilot who has a B1 license for every commercial aircraft I have flown I think I am allowed to reply.

Personally I have a great interest in aircraft engineering and as such hold a part time position to keep my knowledge up to scratch next to my full time flying job.

Holding my B1 license doesn't make me a better pilot. However the advantage of having a little in depth knowledge is that its much easier to explain a defect to an engineer. And another advantage is that in generally know what to look for (with regards to indications) when an defect comes up.

One thing to keep in mind is to never tell the engineer how to fix the aircraft. Thats a definite no no.

Several times in the last years I have helped out our engineers while trouble shooting downroute. Even helped one of our guys with a brake change. It makes it easier for the engineer and does help the bonding between drivers and engineers.

Thanks guy's for looking after our great flying machines, your work is definitely appreciated.:ok:

FT

[richatom]

Richatom - I don't think you're immodest, I think you made an excellent point. I also feel completely inadequate (well done on your amazing quals!). Still think I'm an OK 744 Skipper though!:ok:


Well Jagman I am the same age as you and I sure wish I could fly a 744! Spending years studying didn't help at all lol!

[Truck2005]

During my time on the Vickers Funbus as a GE the systems knowledge of the crew was almost a must. You can't be an expert on everything and, since they use the systems all the time, their knowledge was invaluable in getting the old girl up and running again.

I spent a fair bit of time with my crews getting to know their perspective and they, mine. Many an engineer, (bless their cotton socks), has given me a hand with downroute snags. You can never know too much.

Oh! And I can land a 10 in the sim:D

[MAUMAU]

I believe as Aircraft become more complex, so do the problems of repairing them correctly. With this in mind, I always try to put as much information as possible in the Log Book in order to give Maintenance a better picture of the particular problem.

I feel quite fortunte to have Outstanding Mechanics at my Airline and am always indebted to their professional ability to keep over 700 jet aircraft running at any one time.

[aseanaero]

I think pilot's should take the time out and get to know their aircraft better

It's one thing to study and 'know' a systems diagram but i think it's very valuable to speak with engineers about common / known faults or weak points with a particular aircraft , could come in handy one day when you've got a problem in the air

How many aircraft have crashed due to preoccupation with faulty systems instrumentation readings when the aircraft was ok ?

The 2007 Adam Air crash in Indonesia has been put down to the pilots trying to work out what was wrong with conflicting Inertial Nav systems and they stopped flying the aircraft , the Tacoma crash in the USA where the EPR was iced up etc etc

A pilot taking the time to buy the maintenance guys a beer and asking what if questions could be a life saver.