Pilot Fails Maintenance Exam
Thread Starter
Pilot Fails Maintenance Exam
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...
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...
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Age: 57
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Some sunny place with good wine and good sailing
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Age: 57
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
richatom
So you are not satisfied just being a pilot and a gifted academic but a good looking bugger too
and (hopefully) might make me more attractive to a potential employer.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The party.
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I'll land it in one piece eventually.
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.
I'll land it in one piece eventually.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,378
Received 127 Likes
on
92 Posts
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
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.
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
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: at work
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
My hat goes off to the gent in question for taking the time and effort he did.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 .....
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!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Standing at P37
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 .....
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.
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!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: in the mist
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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!!
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!!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Colchester
Age: 67
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cross Training
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.
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.
Pilots' Pal
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.