Read the Books !

[Terry McCassey]

I have of late noticed a very worrying trend starting in this forum. There seems to be people reading the Engineer's forum that try and take an easy route to fixing aircraft by asking for fixes and opinions on line. Sure the Internet joins millions worldwide and this can seem an easy option for finding ideas instead of using the correct manuals and publications. The recent post concerning the CF6 reverser lockout was frankly, unbelievable. Think about it, before the Internet, would the bloke have been helped if he had put a postcard in his local corner shop window for help ?, I think not. What is also of great concern is that the guy was seemingly without any approved manuals and publications what so ever in the deserts of SHJ. I can understand his frustrations, I have been there before myself. It is however vital that we steer maintenance engineering back onto the path of using the MM/TSM and whatever manufacturers' manuals are required to legally and safely dispatch aircraft. I think we are all fairly conversant with the huge changes in our terms and conditions over the past 10 years or so and the cold shoulder we have experienced by our licensing authorities. Take note of the pending manslaughter cases in Europe and the apparent distancing of employer and authorities, even more reason to get it right. To people offering advice I would urge you, before you press the send button, ask yourself are you qualified to comment and offer advice that some might take without reservation, most of the time you just don't know who you are talking to . . .


All I suggest is that you be very very careful before you take advice from ANYONE on line. Please keep it safe and help promote the highly professional industry we are in. READ THE APPROVED PUBLICATIONS TO KEEP IT SAFE.

There - rant over . . . .

[spannersatcx]

The problem is reading the approved publication is not always the answer. Nothing wrong with getting the opinions of others, whether you choose to use the advice is upto you. I would always advocate seeking advice if you don't know or are unsure, sometimes it reaffirms what you were going to do anyway, or can give you a different perspective.

I would say I'm quite an experience Engineer, and would never be afraid to ask the advice or opinion of somebody else with less experience than myself.

Have you read an MEL, it's not always black and white and is open to interpretation?

We make the decisions based on knowledge and experience that's why we are paid so well!

[smudgethecat]

Well said that man, there seem to be a lot of people out there who are asking some scary questions on here, however the way licences are given away now its hardly suprising that standards are plummenting, bring back BCAR section L, penalty marking, and oral exams!

[Terry McCassey]

Spanners - I feel you and I likely started fixing planes at about the same time. I personally believe MEL's are unique in the books we have in that I think they are deliberately compiled to confuse. It's probably the one book that is the last minute authority for the pilot and engineer in which to discuss and find that middle ground. Yes you are correct and I too always ask and confer but the end of the matter is always the black and white of the established and published maintenance procedures. I learn something new about aeroplanes a zillion times a day at work. As the sayiong goes, 38 years experience, none of it relevant !

Terry

[WOTME?]

Asking advice from a guy at work is one thing,asking it over the web is something entirely different and unacceptable.
Having said that,I have been certifying on base maintenance for a good few years now on certain aircraft & if you went by the book 100% the things would never leave the hangar!

[Engineer_aus]

The Maintenance Manuals don't tell you everything. Also they never have every single part in the IPC.

[spannersatcx]

We have problems with engineers from certain parts of the world! They get 100% on all the exams, however they don't have the ability to think outside the box or when faced with problems where 'the book/CMC etc' doesn't always give you the answer.

It's probably because they are brought up with all these fully automated machines, unlike the 'good old days' when you only had analogue gauges, no CMC etc and actually had to trouble shoot snags. Had one the other day, Status msg just before departure, CMC had a fault with a code, look it up it says change main battery, seemed strange to me, so I did something the FIM didn't say and it cured it, saved a delay and the cost of a main battery. Was I right to do that, it was outside the book?

Would I troubleshoot on here, absolutely not, would I give my opinion on something, maybe, I didn't comment on the CF6-80 T/R problem although I had an opinion and it probably didn't agree with what folk were saying, doesn't make me right or wrong, I read the manual and the answer is there (possibly).:ok:

[Jetdoc]

No one should be working without the approved maintenance manual applicible to that aircraft available. It is the final authority in how the aircraft is maintained.
Having said that, I really don't see anything wrong with using these forums. I believe that there should be more discussion. We are not exactly working in real time so I think we are fairly safe here. We can all learn from each other.
The internet is a resource and we should use all of our available resources to learn. Any 'advice' accepted should not be used without solid evidence it is correct just the same as if you were standing on the hangar floor or flightline asking someones opinion.
One of the biggest problems in aircraft maintenance is the fact that quite often there are few people willing to pass on knowledge. It's not easy to get a good handle on the basics when you are dealing with the newer technology but there are still enough old timers around to educate others. I believe that when a person wants to learn, he should reach out. This forum can be a very useful tool as long as it is used wisely.

[Terry McCassey]

. . . Some very wise and well balanced replies, thanks

Terry

[h3dxb]

Have you read an MEL, it's not always black and white and is open to interpretation?



Hi spanner,
I appreciate always yr good and wise posts, but here I disagree with U.
We have the power to say no , I did it a couple of times, also due to inadequate documentation. This is called good workmanship, for that we get our money.

In my job in MCC in a so called "*****" airline I see a lot of bulls..t done by qualified engineers. Trying to bring the plane out instead of safe work.

Remember: we keep them flying........SAFE :ok:


seemed strange to me, so I did something the FIM didn't say and it cured it, saved a delay and the cost of a main battery. Was I right to do that, it was outside the book?


Original Boing FIM:
Fault Isolation Task Features
A. General
(1) The FIM is a tool to help you operate the airplane economically. The procedures in the FIM help you to
quickly isolate the cause of each airplane fault.
(2) To isolate the cause of a fault, you can also use your knowledge from:
(a) Your past experience with airplane faults
(b) The conditions under which the fault occurred
(c) The history of faults on your airplane or your fleet.
(3) It is not a requirement to do the steps in the FIM procedure in the order shown. But if you do not plan to
follow the FIM procedure exactly, make sure that you read it before you start to isolate the fault. Some FIM
procedures start with important steps that have an effect on other steps later in the procedure.

Step 2a) So go ahead with yr good workmannship, You are allowed to do it , so long U know what U do.

Good luck everyone.....

[NutLoose]

Actually I cannot see a problem with asking on a website, it is similar to asking someone at work, you take on board what they are saying listen to their suggestions and go through them in your own head to see if they are offering a different avenue to those that you have all considered at work.

It can often bring to the forefront a different approach to a problem that may well be in the Maintenance Manual but had not been considered and you had not seen that it too could effect whatever you are trying to fix.

I agree you do not simply implement what people tell you, but then you would not do that in a face to face conversation, you would listen to what is said, work out if it has any effect on the problem you are dealing with then work it out in your own mind as to the way fwd,

I totally agree with Engineer_aus The Maintenance Manuals don't tell you everything. Also they never have every single part in the IPC.

Just because the Aircraft you are working on has near a complete set of manual, not all do, in fact some are dreadful.... and maybe in the years you have worked on aircraft you haven't come across them but the in years I have, they are frequent, I have done Jets, covering fighters, passenger and executive, helicopters and the smaller stuff, both civil and military.

Cessna's manuals for the lowly 152 have still got the wrong figures for balancing and even pictures of the wrong aileron type in it after 50 odd years....... it took several phone calls to get the right figures faxed to me from them and I would have still been trying to balance them as per the Maintenence Manual if someone else had not noticed the error, amendments issued in service letters for the manuals some 25 years ago have yet still to be added, even though those letters stated " incorporated shortly".

I am not condoning simply doing what people tell you on the web as you neither know their experience nor backgound and I would never condone or do that, but if listening to them and seeing if in your own mind through the process of reasoning that they are possibly showing you a different avenue of approach to a fault you never considered, then being able to put that on the table at work and say what do you think? and working with the manuals to see if that can effect the fault is not a bad thing.........

Though as said, the Manual is only as good as those that write it, if it was perfect it would never be ammended.

Oh and CircuitB I work alone.

[Engineer_aus]

Thanks for the info re the 152, I shall pay more attention next time I work on a bug smasher.

[WOTME?]

'Actually I cannot see a problem with asking on a website, it is similar to asking someone at work, you take on board what they are saying listen to their suggestions and go through them in your own head to see if they are offering a different avenue to those that you have all considered at work.'

Surely the (big)difference is that when I ask someone at work,I know the guy and if I didn't think he had the experience & knowledge to have the answer,I wouldn't ask him.
Taking advice from someone you have never met and don't know is a bit too close to pot luck.

[NutLoose]

WOTME?'Actually I cannot see a problem with asking on a website, it is similar to asking someone at work, you take on board what they are saying listen to their suggestions and go through them in your own head to see if they are offering a different avenue to those that you have all considered at work.'

Surely the (big)difference is that when I ask someone at work,I know the guy and if I didn't think he had the experience & knowledge to have the answer,I wouldn't ask him.
Taking advice from someone you have never met and don't know is a bit too close to pot luck.

I totally agree and that is why I said I work through what they are saying in my mind and make a decision based on its merits and following discussions with fellow engineers and see if the manuals bear fruit in what they are saying, I never said diddly squat about excepting anything carte blance, but sometimes an idea out of your realm of thinking can point you in the right direction and as such should not simply be dismissed..
You say you know the Guy, but the bogus Engineers in Auz disprove that theory in some cases.

Engineer_ausThanks for the info re the 152, I shall pay more attention next time I work on a bug smasher.

Be serious any self respecting bug can out run it.

grd engscarey
im taking cover everytime a 152 flys near now!!http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

Don't knock the light stuff, it varies from Day to Day and covers everything, It is far more interesting than doing Bog mods on a 737 and my licences cover over 200 plus different types of Aircraft and Engine combinations from DC7's through Flying boats to the smallest puddle jumpers, both on Part M or Section L licences covering piston and turbine aircraft including C and Nominated privileges..... But I will deign to Terrys experience as with 38 years he has 5 on me :}

But the 152 manuals lacking being up to date is one of my biggest bugbears with the way the new LAMPS is written, It's all well and good telling you you must adhere to what is in the manual, but when the said manual is so out of date or incorrect, it's like trying to bang your head up against a brick wall :ugh: You use the likes of ATP and go digital at megga bucks only to find some of their digital copies are over a year out of date... No wonder people are leaving the Industry in droves.

[TURIN]

Taking advice from someone you have never met and don't know is a bit too close to pot luck.

Yup, just like Maintrol, MCC, MOC etc!:suspect::ok:

[TURIN]

and my licences cover over 200 plus different types of Aircraft and Engine combinations from DC7's through Flying boats to the smallest puddle jumpers, both on Part M or Section L licences covering piston and turbine aircraft including C and Nominated privileges.....

OK I'm prepared to believe that someone is clever enough to actually study that many types, and pass the exams, but how do you get that much experience on type in 33 years?

I merely ask for information. :suspect:

[glhcarl]

The Maintenance Manuals don't tell you everything. Also they never have every single part in the IPC.

I found that the IPC was used more by mechanics than the MM. The MM normally has only words but the IPC has those nice exploded views with all the parts shown in relation to each other.

Have you read an MEL, it's not always black and white and is open to interpretation?


If you use your interpretation for a MEL item, you had better hope it agrees with the Feds interpretation!

[NutLoose]

Quote:
and my licences cover over 200 plus different types of Aircraft and Engine combinations from DC7's through Flying boats to the smallest puddle jumpers, both on Part M or Section L licences covering piston and turbine aircraft including C and Nominated privileges.....
OK I'm prepared to believe that someone is clever enough to actually study that many types, and pass the exams, but how do you get that much experience on type in 33 years?

I merely ask for information. http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/cwm13.gif

You don't, plain and simple, under the Section L you went for groups, such as 5.5 and 6.3 and you then needed 2 types to get the group ( now it is 3) they covered you under groups for all those aircraft and engines etc in the group such as pressurised metal below 5700 KG and all unpressurised which includes all singles as well (5.5).... when you converted to Part 66 all piston engines are added to your Part 66 licence and any oddities over the weight limit but on your group rating are added as types, so DC7 DC6 DC4 DC3 etc operating in EASA as well as a load of Russian stuff get added to your licence, additionally anything now requiring a special course but previously covered under your ratings also get added............ strange as it seems but under section L I was covered for them as well because that is the way it works, to be honest you do not totally know what you are covered nowadays for as they kept amending the lists, so even though when my licence was issued ( 3rd time around for inital issue with corrections) Aircraft that were put down as not being covered were subsequently added to my licence, but some that were added were removed from the grouping, but I gave up sending it back after the third attempt as it kept changing......... even now the lists make not a lot of sense to me. Other oddities were Diesels as Section L introduced them as a seperate group rating but EASA added them as Piston Engines ( Sensible and I had this conversation at the time to no avail with a CAA surveyor, he said "Modern TECHNOLOGY" I said "hmmmm Zeppelins in WW1 had them" ) Some of the stuff on my licence I looked up on Google as I had never heard of them, but they were on there under Section L as well, you just never realised the scope of your coverage.

Oddly enough when you read link below the DC3 etc has been moved to Annex 2, so they will reissue a section L to those people that have it LOL, does it not beggar belief..... Mine is in for renewal as we speak, perhaps I should of waited and possibly got it on the cheap ;) oops forgot this is the CAA we are talking about :oh:

This is the current type and group ratings.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/177/EASA%20Part-66%20UKCAA%20Type%20Rating%20List%20%20V1%209.pdf

[h3dxb]

Some of the stuff on my licence I looked up on Google as I had never heard of them, but they were on there under Section L as well, you just never realised the scope of your coverage

Wow, hope U will not sign, when U don't know, what covers yr license :)

@turin
Yup, just like Maintrol, MCC, MOC etc!

c'mon buddy, give me some discount.......:}

fun aside.....
fact is, what U don't have black on white, DON'T DO IT !!!
U don't wanna see yr kids growing up alone, because daddy is in jail.

I see my job so that I try to find a safe way through all the regulations to help Line Eng's to bring a plane safe back. I try to find a solution for U in a hard enviroment, according to the rules. I never recommend what I don't believe. For that I was long enough outside.

I know it's hard outside , pressure from everywhere to sign a plane, but on the other side, no one helps U when something goes wrong. So read yr books...

A delay never killed someone, failure for sure...

rgds

[NutLoose]

h3dxbQuote:
Some of the stuff on my licence I looked up on Google as I had never heard of them, but they were on there under Section L as well, you just never realised the scope of your coverage
Wow, hope U will not sign, when U don't know, what covers yr license http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

But that is half the problem with the system as we speak, on my PART M licence I have listed DC7 DC6 DC4 DC3 etc, Now as of last March the listings changed to remove them from the Part M licence and put them back onto the Section L licence, of which I hold both, (and the CAA stated on the list those holding the PART M whom required the certification priviledges for the said aircraft, they would reissue a Section L to to enable them to carry on Certifying)

but supposing I found I no longer required the Section L which I already held, ( so was not party to the reissue) as everything I am signing including the DC7 was covered under 5 yearly Part M or so I thought, so come renewal say in December of this year I did not renew the 2 yearly Section L Licence, as my DC7 was there in black and white on my licence, then you could be in a position of signing out a DC 7 ( which I would never do even if it is on my licence as I do not know it) because now incorrectly it is printed on my licence, though it no longer has that privilege............ Minefield is it not, and a reason to keep checking the list as what your licence has on it these days can be a great work of fiction!

I realise the groups will settle down and become less fluid, but as new stuff comes on or goes off your coverage can be changing all the time, but without knowing of and being aware the listing has changed, which they do not let you know, then you may be certifying stuff listed on your licence that is no longer on that licence!

Take a Cessna 421, they put that down initially as a complex aircraft and set down parameters also on the list to define a complex aircraft were outside the limitations of the 421 :mad: for some oddball reason it was only given to me partially, but later realising the error it was then reintergrated into the group listing, though my licence now has both the group listing (that includes it now) and a separate limitation on it( that partially discounts it), that is no longer correct, nightmare huh!.

Now I realise my licence really needs updating, but when you read the list, they say they will be updated at the 5 year renewal, so as said before it no longer reflects what you have and say I applied for a job on the 421, try telling the Company or Owners that yes you have it, but no although your licence says you have limitations on it, they are now incorrect, luckily enough I have not been put in the position of having to test the system, my view is don't sign if unsure and I stick to that, I would contact licencing first and get it faxed in writing to me.

[leewan]

I don't see anything wrong in asking for advice from ppl i assume are experienced from this forum in defects of an inexplicable nature or insight into certain defects which others might have done. But following that advice is another thing. End of the day, as hsdxb puts it, make sure it's in B&W in authorised publications so you are covered legally. If you r signing 4 the a/c, it's your responsibility that everything is done in an authorised manner. Responsibility of authorised signatory is a/c must be dispatched after repair is done in a safe & authorised manner. Ppl tend to miss out the word in red due to pressure from time & higher ups.
I mean, no sane engineer/tech/mech would write this in the tech log under the actions taken column: Problem fixed. Ops check satis. Refer to: pprune.org/Engineers & Technicians/ Thread:How to fix xxx. If that happens, I have a shortlist of possible culprits.;)