Jetliners taxi by technicians
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: sunny country
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetliners taxi by technicians
Hello everyone,
This procedure - commercial airplane taxi by non flight crew - is not approved in my country. So, can someone tell me how it works, concerning regulation, theory and practical instruction, limitation, etc.?
Thanks in advance.
This procedure - commercial airplane taxi by non flight crew - is not approved in my country. So, can someone tell me how it works, concerning regulation, theory and practical instruction, limitation, etc.?
Thanks in advance.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Qld, Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bokomoko
In Oz the regulator must issue an approval for other than a rated pilot to taxi a commercial aircraft. The person must have recieved instruction and assessment from a Check and Training Captain and must hold a Radio Operator Certificate. As the only person other than a pilot who can start and run the engines must be a LAME with an engine category rating, it follows that only an engine rated LAME will be granted a taxi approval.
In Oz the regulator must issue an approval for other than a rated pilot to taxi a commercial aircraft. The person must have recieved instruction and assessment from a Check and Training Captain and must hold a Radio Operator Certificate. As the only person other than a pilot who can start and run the engines must be a LAME with an engine category rating, it follows that only an engine rated LAME will be granted a taxi approval.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alloway
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With Saudia after a short course on Run ups and taxi company
procedures check rides were carried out by a Aut person not aircrew. I think you were checked every 6 months. I held 747
L1011 and A300 lots of fun!
procedures check rides were carried out by a Aut person not aircrew. I think you were checked every 6 months. I held 747
L1011 and A300 lots of fun!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Beautiful South
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much the same at BA.....(although not at the fortress Heathrow.....no taxying by Engineers there)
Medical , Radio proceedures training and must have CRS on type.Then a check out either on a sim or live aircraft by a training captain. Revalidation every 2 years.
Two taxi approved persons on Flt deck.......usually one to taxi and one to monitor and do the radios.
All that responsibility and what re-numeration I hear you ask ? ???
Put it this way........A TV licence costs more (UK)
Medical , Radio proceedures training and must have CRS on type.Then a check out either on a sim or live aircraft by a training captain. Revalidation every 2 years.
Two taxi approved persons on Flt deck.......usually one to taxi and one to monitor and do the radios.
All that responsibility and what re-numeration I hear you ask ? ???
Put it this way........A TV licence costs more (UK)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I regularly picked up planes at the gate in Calgary, and taxi'd them to the hangar or to a holding bay to do power runs. I held approvals on F28, and Dash 8s. When you were done, you taxi'd it back to the gate. At another company I held ratings for 737s. I work with a few guys that had run up authority on helicopters. I don't think a pilot would Know how to do a runup and rigging checks on most of the planes they fly. But I don't think I could land a jet coming out of the clouds, at night, in the snow, with ice fog, and 100 plus people in the back. Taxiing is the easy part. The only things about taxiing I didn't like was when I had to go to a different airport to fix a plane, and try to find the map of the airport, and the radio settings.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not uncommon for Engineers/Approved Mechanics to taxi aircrafts in North America. Infact most of the time, it was the only convenient way to get an airplane at the other side of the airport especially when airport is busy. Provided proper training and approval is held. I had to undergo run-up and taxi courses from the manufacturer which included sim time and was checked out by the chief pilot.
Some companies give out extra license premiums for taxi authorisation, not much I hear. I can tell you this, driving the A330's was a sure delight
Macdu
Some companies give out extra license premiums for taxi authorisation, not much I hear. I can tell you this, driving the A330's was a sure delight
Macdu
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here in Norway a holder of ICAO Type II licence or as it is now a JAR certificate covering airframe and engine and holding a radio licence may taxi any aircraft he is licenced for. This also applies to helicopters which I work with. No taxiing on skids for obvious reasons but groundrun of engines. Helicopters with wheels is of course possible to taxi.
Training is not involving flight crew for fixed wing aircraft and you have to pass a test for the Norwegian CAA.
But in my company we always ground run the helicopters together with a pilot. Not nice if you get ground resonance. Then you have to pick the helicopter up in the air or else you roll over.
And cirrus01, no extra pay for the taxi rating
Training is not involving flight crew for fixed wing aircraft and you have to pass a test for the Norwegian CAA.
But in my company we always ground run the helicopters together with a pilot. Not nice if you get ground resonance. Then you have to pick the helicopter up in the air or else you roll over.
And cirrus01, no extra pay for the taxi rating
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: French Riviera
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They don't want to ...!!!
Our flying crews are ruling here in my company so they don't want "greasy hands" to do their job!!! They might be scared that this situation would betray them....they're even against stripes on engineers uniform...if we grab a little of their symbol...It depends on each company policy.
As I get nothing payed to run-up I wouldn't accept to taxi either !!!
It's tea time even in France ...see you later !
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: sunny country
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for your repplies folks, but more questions:
1- In case of an airplane that needs an F/E, is it required a third man/woman to operate the F/E panel?
2- What does LAME mean? And tell me, what do an engineer, technician, mechanic do...or let me say what is the difference among those professionals regarding their activities?
Sorry, 'back to basics' questions...
1- In case of an airplane that needs an F/E, is it required a third man/woman to operate the F/E panel?
2- What does LAME mean? And tell me, what do an engineer, technician, mechanic do...or let me say what is the difference among those professionals regarding their activities?
Sorry, 'back to basics' questions...
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alloway
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With Saudia all three or two seats must be filled by same company approvals. It was a pain in the butt sometimes to get
the people together to do run ups and taxi checks.
Question two I will let someone else have a go as its getting
all out of hand and grey areas all over the place!!!
the people together to do run ups and taxi checks.
Question two I will let someone else have a go as its getting
all out of hand and grey areas all over the place!!!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. It helps in a herc, for some of the overhead switches are a bit out of reach for a person in the pilot or copliot seat, but is doable. As for 727 only need pilot and copilot seats occupied, but I think it mainly comes down to company proceedures.
2. LAME is a Lisenced aircraft maintenace engineer. He/she is the only person authorized to clear a tech log snag, and release a/c for service.
2. LAME is a Lisenced aircraft maintenace engineer. He/she is the only person authorized to clear a tech log snag, and release a/c for service.
Engineer, mechanic, technician?
A fair question, which without doubt Eng123 would like me to dig myself a hole with. Lets describe four sorts of technical specialist and see how I go.
Type 1
Somebody with between 3 and 8 years university level technical education plus at least 2 years (usually 4+) of further training who designs, analyses or approves design work, investigates - often with the aid of lots of maths, problems whether real or perceived, all with the intent of ensuring the end product does what it's supposed to. In the US such a person might be titled a "Professional Engineer", in the UK a "Chartered Engineer", in the Czech Republic a "Technician". Many such people should not under any circumstances be trusted in charge of a spanner.
Type 2
Somebody who has completed a great deal of deep technical training (probably 3 years plus) and to a lesser extent theoretical education (probably 1 year plus), allowing them largely unsupervised to build or maintain machinery (such as an aeroplane). In the US such a person would be called a "technician", in the UK a "skilled craftsman" on the building side, or a "licensed engineer" on the maintenance side (also known as LAME - Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer). They might in some circumstances in the UK also be called an "Incorporated Engineer" or an "Engineering Technician". The RAF would probably also call this person a "technician".
Type 3
Somebody with relatively limited training and education who carries out mechanical construction or maintenance tasks under supervision of somebody in Type 2. In the US such a person might be called a "mechanic", in the UK probably a "semi-skilled worker" on the building side, or an "unlicensed technician" on the maintenance side.
Type 4
Usually known as a "Flight Engineer", probably has very little technical training as would be understood by type 1 or type 2, but is qualified to sit behind the pilot in a multi-crew aeroplane, operate the various mechanical and electrical systems whilst ensuring the pilots don't break anything, and know what speeds / procedures / settings they need next. Also generally much better at communicating with type 2 than a pilot.
There are of-course people who can do more than one of the above, and movement from type 3 to type 2, from type 2 to types 1 or 4, or from type 1 to types 2 or 3 is not all that unusual.
And if that doesn't confuse you, nothing will. But it does mean that if anybody tells you that they are either an Engineer or a Technician it's best to ask some searching questions before you let them near either an aeroplane or a drawing board.
In the meantime of-course, there is a fifth category, the person who has done a 2 week course with (insert white goods manufacturer of your choice) and turns up to repair your washing machine whilst calling him or herself an Engineer - in practice just being in possession of a white van, parts list and maintenance manual. All members of types 1 to 4 above will sneer at this on principle.
How did I do?
G
Type 1
Somebody with between 3 and 8 years university level technical education plus at least 2 years (usually 4+) of further training who designs, analyses or approves design work, investigates - often with the aid of lots of maths, problems whether real or perceived, all with the intent of ensuring the end product does what it's supposed to. In the US such a person might be titled a "Professional Engineer", in the UK a "Chartered Engineer", in the Czech Republic a "Technician". Many such people should not under any circumstances be trusted in charge of a spanner.
Type 2
Somebody who has completed a great deal of deep technical training (probably 3 years plus) and to a lesser extent theoretical education (probably 1 year plus), allowing them largely unsupervised to build or maintain machinery (such as an aeroplane). In the US such a person would be called a "technician", in the UK a "skilled craftsman" on the building side, or a "licensed engineer" on the maintenance side (also known as LAME - Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer). They might in some circumstances in the UK also be called an "Incorporated Engineer" or an "Engineering Technician". The RAF would probably also call this person a "technician".
Type 3
Somebody with relatively limited training and education who carries out mechanical construction or maintenance tasks under supervision of somebody in Type 2. In the US such a person might be called a "mechanic", in the UK probably a "semi-skilled worker" on the building side, or an "unlicensed technician" on the maintenance side.
Type 4
Usually known as a "Flight Engineer", probably has very little technical training as would be understood by type 1 or type 2, but is qualified to sit behind the pilot in a multi-crew aeroplane, operate the various mechanical and electrical systems whilst ensuring the pilots don't break anything, and know what speeds / procedures / settings they need next. Also generally much better at communicating with type 2 than a pilot.
There are of-course people who can do more than one of the above, and movement from type 3 to type 2, from type 2 to types 1 or 4, or from type 1 to types 2 or 3 is not all that unusual.
And if that doesn't confuse you, nothing will. But it does mean that if anybody tells you that they are either an Engineer or a Technician it's best to ask some searching questions before you let them near either an aeroplane or a drawing board.
In the meantime of-course, there is a fifth category, the person who has done a 2 week course with (insert white goods manufacturer of your choice) and turns up to repair your washing machine whilst calling him or herself an Engineer - in practice just being in possession of a white van, parts list and maintenance manual. All members of types 1 to 4 above will sneer at this on principle.
How did I do?
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 15th Mar 2003 at 11:43.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well you did'nt upset me, so thats a start.
I'm a Licenced aircraft engineer but dont have a problem with being called a technician or a mechanic. As long as I get paid at the end of the month the powers that be can call me anything they please. (except Shirly) )
I'm a Licenced aircraft engineer but dont have a problem with being called a technician or a mechanic. As long as I get paid at the end of the month the powers that be can call me anything they please. (except Shirly) )
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alloway
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well at least its clear now what we are Carry the Can guys.
but LAE is my idea of what the line guys should be. Mech is the American word for LAE. Lets hear from the rest of you. Better than
talking about pumps, valves, tires (now you know) etc.
but LAE is my idea of what the line guys should be. Mech is the American word for LAE. Lets hear from the rest of you. Better than
talking about pumps, valves, tires (now you know) etc.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: uk
Age: 60
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis,
There are very few people in this industry that can pi** me off but you can manage it quite easily. It just that you whole MIGHTYER THAN THOU can really grate on peoples Tits you know!
Not content with basically having a veiwpoint that anybody without letters after there name is a non-entity in this business(as far as you can see)you now like to type cast engineers into neat brackets.
Does this make the avaition industry easier for you to understand?
I never thought that it was all that difficult but then I work in it everyday.
Where would you place engineers who start off with :-
4 to 5 years apprenticeship both at college and practical training(thats hands on to you) just to be allowed to work supervised an live aircraft.
1 to 2 years self study following the apprentice stage whilst still working and learning every day to gain the fisrt licence.This is purely theoretical and gained by a series of (in my day) multi chioce questions ( I think 5 modules were about 250 or so questions in an hour and a half), essay type questions with a strict time limit of 22 1/2 mins each ( I think that was the time,not long anyway) x4 off. The pass mark being 75% on each module and 75% on each written question based on technical content and spelling/grammar and 1 question was a diagramatic explanation.You drew the diagram as well.
If passed (Good Enough) another hour or two oral examination by invite with your local CAA surveyor who can ask you what he likes on the day and doesn't tell you whether you have passed or failed so you have to wait another two weeks or so for the letter of the thud of a dropping licence through the letterbox.
Once completed for the first time you can do it all again,DITTO ABOVE.(for avionics its only 5 times)
By this time you are still working every day but you have a licence but are still a mechanic as such.
Suddenly the company takes notice when you have the required amount of basic licences 2/3 or 5 that is and they want you to go on type courses.
6/7 weeks sat in a classroom with phase exams every week that must be passed by over 80% and at the end a phase and a final exam which again must be passed and the course cert duly issued.Now pass that to the CAA for there inclusion to your basic licence as a type(at a cost)
Type licence returned,you then have to do a company procedures course ,another 2 weeks or so and gain 6 months experiance of working on the particular type of aircraft your course was on and account for it on your QA board application.
You can now go to the QA department for you approval board and this is another oral examination for another undetermined amount of time on company procedures and the aircraft systems that you hope to certify.( A QA engineer at BA GLA used to have people in for the morning and send them out to lunch to return after for round 2,But he wasn't licenced though although he did have letters after his name)
At long last (about 8/9 years after you first joined the industry) you are now able to supervise and certify not only yours but other peoples work but bear in mind you still learn everyday something NEW.
Engineers like myself are multi licenced and have a number of different types as are many of my collegues, on top of all this you have to keep your licences/types up to date ,continuation training,simulator runs,health and safety procs,changes in regulations such as airworthiness notices etc, OH i forgot you also have to supervise,organise and work to maintain the fleet of aircraft that the company decides to operate both here and abroad as required.
Every now and then the CAA decide to change the licencing system about for a laugh so on top of everything else you have to contend with this as well and EVERYDAY you are learning MORE AND MORE not only about the respective aircraft you are working on (remember many types) but also about yourself and your collegues.
To summerise I would say that from the day I joined the industry as a spotty faced teenager to the present day and the grand age of 40 I HAVE NOT STOPPED LEARNING and have learnt something EVERYDAY.
By the way if you haven't got licences it doesnt mean you don't learn as you learn just as much EVERYDAY you just haven't taken the exams yet but your knowledge and viewpoints are invaluble.
What type of person do I and people like me fit into in your neat little compartmentisation of our beloved business then because I'm sure a lot of people would like to know?
My guess is that the one lesson I have learnt recently is that people like you are know nothing To**ers full of your own self importance and deluded by your own grandure.
What my collegues think is anyones guess.
Have to go as my 9 year old daughter needs me to help her with her homework-STILL LEARNING YOU SEE .
Let Me Know
Back to the original question,
Our company does allow taxiing but you must hold full B1 CRS on the type you are driving including high power engine runs and have passed a course on airfield procedures,RT,a visit to the tower,a visit to ground ops and a set number of taxies with a training captain to prove you competance and keep up yourself current by usage.
Note To Genghis and co STILL LEARNING
There are very few people in this industry that can pi** me off but you can manage it quite easily. It just that you whole MIGHTYER THAN THOU can really grate on peoples Tits you know!
Not content with basically having a veiwpoint that anybody without letters after there name is a non-entity in this business(as far as you can see)you now like to type cast engineers into neat brackets.
Does this make the avaition industry easier for you to understand?
I never thought that it was all that difficult but then I work in it everyday.
Where would you place engineers who start off with :-
4 to 5 years apprenticeship both at college and practical training(thats hands on to you) just to be allowed to work supervised an live aircraft.
1 to 2 years self study following the apprentice stage whilst still working and learning every day to gain the fisrt licence.This is purely theoretical and gained by a series of (in my day) multi chioce questions ( I think 5 modules were about 250 or so questions in an hour and a half), essay type questions with a strict time limit of 22 1/2 mins each ( I think that was the time,not long anyway) x4 off. The pass mark being 75% on each module and 75% on each written question based on technical content and spelling/grammar and 1 question was a diagramatic explanation.You drew the diagram as well.
If passed (Good Enough) another hour or two oral examination by invite with your local CAA surveyor who can ask you what he likes on the day and doesn't tell you whether you have passed or failed so you have to wait another two weeks or so for the letter of the thud of a dropping licence through the letterbox.
Once completed for the first time you can do it all again,DITTO ABOVE.(for avionics its only 5 times)
By this time you are still working every day but you have a licence but are still a mechanic as such.
Suddenly the company takes notice when you have the required amount of basic licences 2/3 or 5 that is and they want you to go on type courses.
6/7 weeks sat in a classroom with phase exams every week that must be passed by over 80% and at the end a phase and a final exam which again must be passed and the course cert duly issued.Now pass that to the CAA for there inclusion to your basic licence as a type(at a cost)
Type licence returned,you then have to do a company procedures course ,another 2 weeks or so and gain 6 months experiance of working on the particular type of aircraft your course was on and account for it on your QA board application.
You can now go to the QA department for you approval board and this is another oral examination for another undetermined amount of time on company procedures and the aircraft systems that you hope to certify.( A QA engineer at BA GLA used to have people in for the morning and send them out to lunch to return after for round 2,But he wasn't licenced though although he did have letters after his name)
At long last (about 8/9 years after you first joined the industry) you are now able to supervise and certify not only yours but other peoples work but bear in mind you still learn everyday something NEW.
Engineers like myself are multi licenced and have a number of different types as are many of my collegues, on top of all this you have to keep your licences/types up to date ,continuation training,simulator runs,health and safety procs,changes in regulations such as airworthiness notices etc, OH i forgot you also have to supervise,organise and work to maintain the fleet of aircraft that the company decides to operate both here and abroad as required.
Every now and then the CAA decide to change the licencing system about for a laugh so on top of everything else you have to contend with this as well and EVERYDAY you are learning MORE AND MORE not only about the respective aircraft you are working on (remember many types) but also about yourself and your collegues.
To summerise I would say that from the day I joined the industry as a spotty faced teenager to the present day and the grand age of 40 I HAVE NOT STOPPED LEARNING and have learnt something EVERYDAY.
By the way if you haven't got licences it doesnt mean you don't learn as you learn just as much EVERYDAY you just haven't taken the exams yet but your knowledge and viewpoints are invaluble.
What type of person do I and people like me fit into in your neat little compartmentisation of our beloved business then because I'm sure a lot of people would like to know?
My guess is that the one lesson I have learnt recently is that people like you are know nothing To**ers full of your own self importance and deluded by your own grandure.
What my collegues think is anyones guess.
Have to go as my 9 year old daughter needs me to help her with her homework-STILL LEARNING YOU SEE .
Let Me Know
Back to the original question,
Our company does allow taxiing but you must hold full B1 CRS on the type you are driving including high power engine runs and have passed a course on airfield procedures,RT,a visit to the tower,a visit to ground ops and a set number of taxies with a training captain to prove you competance and keep up yourself current by usage.
Note To Genghis and co STILL LEARNING
My dear chap, if answering somebody's honest question politely and reasonably (albeit in a somewhat simplified manner, as you have helpfully pointed out) makes me a to**er then I am quite happy about this and certainly prefer my approach to yours.
If you have a problem with the competence of the Chartered or Professional (legally defined terms, not mine) Engineers who designed and approved your aeroplanes or wrote your working procedures take it out on them. So far as I know we haven't met, neither of us has ever worked for or with the other, yet on the basis of my phrasing of a couple of posts you feel you know everything about my competence and attitude. I hope for your airline and it's passengers sake that your approach to engineering is rather more level.
G
If you have a problem with the competence of the Chartered or Professional (legally defined terms, not mine) Engineers who designed and approved your aeroplanes or wrote your working procedures take it out on them. So far as I know we haven't met, neither of us has ever worked for or with the other, yet on the basis of my phrasing of a couple of posts you feel you know everything about my competence and attitude. I hope for your airline and it's passengers sake that your approach to engineering is rather more level.
G
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: East Sussex
Age: 68
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What on earth is going on?
Folks,
I had to check this topic to make sure that I was reading about Engineers taxying aircraft. It appeared that the thread of another topic had spread.
Alas, it does appear to have done so. Reading some of the posts it does appear to me that there is an element of 'baiting' and general 'mud slinging' that only serves to show that although we in the Aircraft Maintenance fraternity do realise the trials and tribulations that we (and our families) have to go through (not to mention the cost!) in order to obtain an Aircraft Maintenance Licence, there are others who either don't or do not want to.
I have just checked the wording on my UK CAA Aircraft Maintenance Licence to make sure what the wording is and that is what the Licence is called, the word 'Engineer' appears to have gone from the JAR 66 Licence. On the other hand, my Oz Licence still says Aircraft Maintenance Engineer Licence.
I find this whole tone of converstaion very sad, both from the viewpoint that some of those who chose to go on to University hold the Aircraft Maintenance Licence in and the confrontational approach that some of the Aircraft Maintenance Licence Holders are exhibiting. My brother went to Univeristy and gained an Aeronautical Engineering Degree, I did and Aircraft Technician Apprenticeship so I do feel qualified to be able to discuss either angle here.
To me, we all perform an important role. The roles are diverse, but the common ground is the aircraft.
I would like to meet the person who designed the Hydraulic Pipe runs in the A300 Wing Root area as I have doubted his or her parentage on many a dark, cold, wet and windy night when trying to fix a Hydraulic Leak. Seriously, I would really like to meet them!
At the sharp end we very rarely get the chance to talk to the folks that designed the aircraft that we are expected to provide a 99% on time departure for. If they asked us more perhaps it would make all our jobs easier. How many times has a Maintenance Engineer when having difficulty accessing a component, been heard to say 'the aircraft has been built around it'?
To an oustider reading these threads we must appear to them a disjointed and divided lot. They must also wonder at the tone of some of the threads and like me, despair that we either design or maintain the aircraft that they fly in.
Can I ask that we stop the 'us' and 'them' approach and attempt to find a common ground as I can see that continuing along these lines will only serve to divide the Aircraft Engineering Fratenity rather than unite it.
Right, now that I've got that off my chest, I will say goodnight.
Regards
Tempsford
I had to check this topic to make sure that I was reading about Engineers taxying aircraft. It appeared that the thread of another topic had spread.
Alas, it does appear to have done so. Reading some of the posts it does appear to me that there is an element of 'baiting' and general 'mud slinging' that only serves to show that although we in the Aircraft Maintenance fraternity do realise the trials and tribulations that we (and our families) have to go through (not to mention the cost!) in order to obtain an Aircraft Maintenance Licence, there are others who either don't or do not want to.
I have just checked the wording on my UK CAA Aircraft Maintenance Licence to make sure what the wording is and that is what the Licence is called, the word 'Engineer' appears to have gone from the JAR 66 Licence. On the other hand, my Oz Licence still says Aircraft Maintenance Engineer Licence.
I find this whole tone of converstaion very sad, both from the viewpoint that some of those who chose to go on to University hold the Aircraft Maintenance Licence in and the confrontational approach that some of the Aircraft Maintenance Licence Holders are exhibiting. My brother went to Univeristy and gained an Aeronautical Engineering Degree, I did and Aircraft Technician Apprenticeship so I do feel qualified to be able to discuss either angle here.
To me, we all perform an important role. The roles are diverse, but the common ground is the aircraft.
I would like to meet the person who designed the Hydraulic Pipe runs in the A300 Wing Root area as I have doubted his or her parentage on many a dark, cold, wet and windy night when trying to fix a Hydraulic Leak. Seriously, I would really like to meet them!
At the sharp end we very rarely get the chance to talk to the folks that designed the aircraft that we are expected to provide a 99% on time departure for. If they asked us more perhaps it would make all our jobs easier. How many times has a Maintenance Engineer when having difficulty accessing a component, been heard to say 'the aircraft has been built around it'?
To an oustider reading these threads we must appear to them a disjointed and divided lot. They must also wonder at the tone of some of the threads and like me, despair that we either design or maintain the aircraft that they fly in.
Can I ask that we stop the 'us' and 'them' approach and attempt to find a common ground as I can see that continuing along these lines will only serve to divide the Aircraft Engineering Fratenity rather than unite it.
Right, now that I've got that off my chest, I will say goodnight.
Regards
Tempsford
Last edited by Tempsford; 16th Mar 2003 at 00:17.
