Oh and shedhead
 

the Avionics license is a FCC territory it just requires passing that test I know a few A&Ps that have one.

shedhead
 

You are talking to him and there are more of us here than you obviously can immagine. My co has a dedicated AV line shop as do many other domestic US airlines.

Brigid
 

There you go making a bad name for us again.. The FCC liscence is a useless tool that was once a steeping stone for an a/v tech. It is rarely required these days and not worth getting.

grounded27. My point was aimed at the FAA licensing system , which, as far as I am aware has no avionics category only the A+P categories. If I am wrong in this then I apologise. looking at the FAA website about mechanic licensing I can find no category for avionics on there. Obviously I was not saying that the US has no avionics guys. I have met quite a few and I am sure they were not figments of my imagination. Well, fairly sure anyway! :}

FCC liscence is a joke, hardly recognised these days. The FAA has no avionics speciality. Airlines do give avionics/electrical courses. Mostly though it is often the individual who chooses the path then becomes competent as a fesult of OJT and formal training.

" Ya wanna know about tires go to the tire shop, ya wanna know about batteries go to the battery shop, ya wanna know about instruments talk to a repairman "

I hate to be pedantic here Brigid, but once upon a time across the fabled pond, we were taught all kinds of stuff like the above, and some wood and fabric as well c/o HM Gov't.. as a matter of course..this was not that long ago either...and then, when some of us sat down for a wee chat with a CAA Surveyor ( true, the first one I encountered was ex "large LHR airline"...and a complete :mad: ) who also asked questions about wood and fabric..which was nice as I had done a bit as they say with gliders...moving on, American technical manuals...Mr Boeing was a positive delight, in the main, after some cobbled together Air Publications....and then there is the matter of fuel....used to handle a "large US carrier..with limited paint scheme"...who made you do an arcane ritual involving US gallons, US pounds etc plus litres of course...nothing as simple as lit / kg ...as far as I know, I didn't cause one to go splash in the pond or divert due to low fuel.

So you see Brigid, we had the benefit of comprehensive training....a shocking and possibly traumatic realisation for you I know....maybe a therapy visit will be required....the Americans are rather fond of this option after all....:p:E

Tyres (spelling important since we introduced them into America) are covered in depth within the EASA part 66 B1.1 licence exams (part 147). Topics include basic maintenance, construction, fabric weaves and layups & bead construction.

Batteries are covered in depth too - even down to specific electrolytes and how to service the things (once you get to the cells)

Wood and fabric was removed from the syllabus a few years ago since the B1.1 only entitles the holder to work on complex aircraft above 5700kg in weight. (Which is 'quite heavy' in Americanese). It has however, made a small comeback and is mentioned in the 'Materials' module as an introduction to Composite materials. As EASA eases in the light aircraft licence, Wood and fabric will play a bigger role.... unless of course you guys over the pond still operate fabric and wood airliners....

The European and Antipodean licences are specific, but cover a huge range of subjects including avionics and electrics. For the heavy duty black box changing, we still have need of fairies and dog f***ers... :P

For the heavy duty black box changing, we still have need of fairies and dog f***ers...

I don't do heavy duty , I'm too busy f###ing my dawg ;p

what are valve caps btw , where do they go.

In your case - shiny thing on top.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...96968_f260.jpg

WOW
 

This is a history making thread at this time it has had just short of, 4,ooo views, I'm glad that I was able to teach you something, and I fear I must bid you adieu !! Keep up the good work and keep pounding them pooches chappies.:D

Not quite, Grounded27

A.D.D. Acceptable Deferred Defect. Not NEF necessarily but it can be. It can also be an MEL or CDL item.

MEL items are not usually electronic at all, they can be any number of mechanical/electronic/pneumatic etc systems.

Non-safety to flight items can be covered in an MEL at the operators discretion as an aid to assisting timely rectification of, for example, passenger convenience items such as a business class seat leg rest inop.

ADD also known as HIL (Hold Item List) depends on operator/NAA.

The closest I can think I have seen on US reg a/c is the PLA or Placard sticker on a log book, but that is usually a MEL/CDL deferral.

Brigid the only thing you have taught us is how to be very very unpopular, tata. :rolleyes:

Cheers Brigid, say hello to The Hitcher for us next time you look in the mirror:ok:

You Guys
 

Aint got a clue, why don't you go break the sound barrier in a dive.

Can we transfer this thread to AirMech??:E

Moderators, please close this thread, the issue has been fully addressed and the thread taken over, thanks for the contributions.

Cheers, D.L.

I
 

Second that :rolleyes:

Valve Cap Missing
 

Just checked CAAIPS, and was unable to find any info that says the Valve Cap is the "Primary Seal". Checked the Michelin Tyre website.au and It states: "The valve cap is the primary air seal and must always be fitted ", but this was for Truck Tyres. I've always been taught that the valve cap is primary, and must be there. Having said that, the AMM for B737NG for my company mentions removal of the valve cap for servicing of the tyres, but neglects to tell you to replace the valve cap on completion. ( I think that's a failing on Boeings part), however, common sense and engineering practice should ensure it's refitment at the end of servicing.
As there is no mention in the MEL, AMM or DDG/CDL for a valve cap allowed to be missing for flight, a straight forward ADD should not be adequate for despatch. I reckon an NTO from your company's Quality department and/or Aircraft manufacturer should be obtained.
Experience has shown though, that the valve cap WILL NOT prevent a leaking tyre inflation valve from deflating the tyre over a period of a few hours, and only recently had to change a wheel for this on a B777. And yes the valve cap was found to be tight on arrival, so it's ability to be the "Primary Seal" is flawed.
I may be new to posting here, but been in the industry 30 years (Licensed in engineering, not security)

palatialvilla, great information, thank you for posting. :ok:

Valve Cap should be renamed Dust Cap IMHO.

Primary seals are on the valve core and a core has a specific torque loading when it is fitted. If it bothers you line techs that much because you cannot ADD the cappy thing, think about putting an IOR to you quality department. They can go to the regulators and the type OEMs and see if the senario can be put in to MMEL so the operator has the option of adding it to their MEL if they see fit.

Simples.:E

Hey
 

TURIN, dreamland Flightmech,ASFKAP read and eat them words.:D
You do write from one IP address.

It isn't shared with any other user.

Regards
Rob PPRuNE Admin

On 28 Jan 2011, at 02:12, Brigid @ PPRuNe Forums wrote:

I think this has been done to death by now, however id just to like remind everyone to be aware and double check those caps, i will be and will certainly report any missing ones to the engineers, (and i would expect them to take some action:ok:)

Rhubarb Rhubarb Rhubard

The A320 AMM states that the purpose of the valve cap is to perform both of these tasks.
that´s interesting! i haven´t found that explanation anywhere. would you care to give your source in the AMM?ATA etc etc

Subtask 32-41-00-210-070
A. Visual Inspection of the Wheels

(1) On each main gear wheel, examine the drive shroud of the tachometer.

(2) Make sure that there are no cracks on the wheel rims.

(3) Make sure that there are no leaks on the valves.

(4) Make sure that the valve thread is not damaged. Fully tighten the valve cap which seals the valve from dirt and leaks.

Hows that Wirelock??

What are you saying, that we are all the same person or using the same computer to post, if so, you might want to go back to computer 101 or security guard recurrent training.

Found this Here

Of course, this firm have an agenda, sell you a sophisticated valve cap, but it does clearly state......


And also here National-fleet.co.uk/authorisations/TyreTraining.



Ooh! And here...

Michelin.co.uk/tyres/learn-share/care-guide/ten-tyre-care-tips


I'll stick with what I was taught twentymumblemumble years ago. :ok:

Since it's a slow night on the telly, I found myself irresistibly drawn all the way down this thread, and have been amazed.

Not so much by the sniping between those who think they know and those who think they know better, because that's normal for pprune (and most forums (fora?))....

….but the thread has gone an amazing distance without anyone pointing out the actual frame of reference for what may be deferred and what not (whether it's about valve caps or anything else).
I hasten to point out that this reference is only applicable to those aircraft subject to EC2042/2003 (i.e. aircraft under EASA regulations). Other types of operation may well have similar or different requirements, but the following is good for EC registered aircraft...

M.A.403 Aircraft defects
(a) Any aircraft defect that hazards seriously the flight safety shall be rectified before further flight.
(b) Only the authorised certifying staff, according to points M.A.801(b)1, M.A.801(b)2, M.A.801(c), M.A.801(d) or Annex II (Part-145) can
decide, using M.A.401 maintenance data, whether an aircraft defect hazards seriously the flight safety and therefore decide when and which
rectification action shall be taken before further flight and which defect rectification can be deferred. However, this does not apply when:

1. the approved minimum equipment list as mandated by the competent authority is used by the pilot; or,
2. aircraft defects are defined as being acceptable by the competent authority.
(c) Any aircraft defect that would not hazard seriously the flight safety shall be rectified as soon as practicable, after the date the aircraft defect was first identified and within any limits specified in the maintenance data.
(d) Any defect not rectified before flight shall be recorded in the M.A.305 aircraft maintenance record system or M.A.306 operator's technical log system as applicable.

Once you get your head around this it's very straightforward –
If you have an MEL and it's listed, you can defer it.
If you have an MEL and it's not listed, go to the approved data and check if it should be there.... if so, install it or stay on the ground.
If you don't have an MEL and the Manual says it should be installed – install it or stay on the ground.

Palatialvilla has said the best words on this so far, inasmuch as you may be able to get an NTO from QA to deviate from procedures, after all, your MEL was written by your Company. (Note: MEL, not MMEL).

All this stuff about whether it's a seal or a dust cap isn't worth squit in EASAland, neither is how much judgement is good for the soul – wake up guys & gals, you ain't allowed to use judgement these days, 'cos EASA says so.....

Now, whether you go with what you're actually allowed to do or whether you use that hard-earned judgement is up to you, but at the court of enquiry they won't care whether the rules are sensible or practical, just whether or not you followed them.... :=

...and it's taken me over 40 years to get my head around that bit...... funny old world :ok:

Turin,

It should be interesting to see how many postcards you get??

The valve core is the primary, as has been said, and then there is an indication within the valve cap that will tell you that the primary core is leaking before very much air/nitrogen escapes.

Send Turin your postcards!!

Speedbird 48.

Coriolis, excellent post.

As you say, it takes many many years to get your head around it.
I haven't yet, but I'm trying. :ok:

Speedbird48

I have had too much cider tonight so I haven't a clue what you are on about.

[QUOTE]The valve core is the primary....[QUOTE]

So YOU say (and admitedly one ore two others). However, what is this indication within the valve cap that will tell you that the primary core is leaking? I am confused, maybe it's the Scotch that followed the Cider.

What we need is a reference point, preferably one easier and more practical to use than the one offered by Coriolis. I have found several as shown in my previous post but none with the clout of an AMM or an Airworthiness Notice for example.

I'll accept anything as fact once proof is given. So far all we have is a group of anonymous posts arguing that black is white.






I think it's black by the way. :\

no it's grey!:eek:

Valve caps are Yellow..:}

Put two back on the 752 nosewheels I fitted and inflated, this evening.. Oh, I put two back on the wheels I deflated to remove!!:E

Simples..

" The valve core is the primary, as has been said, and [B]then there is an indication within the valve cap that will tell you that the primary core is leaking before very much air/nitrogen escapes."[/B


Which usually comes in the form of a "psst" sound when you remove the valve cap....strangely enough.

However, you may wish to drop HM Gov't a line and politely inform them that, for many years, the training syllabus has been incorrect and that myself, and many others, have been labouring under a misconception as to what is defined as the primary seal....

I have those leak indicating valve caps installed on my car. They are great as they also reinflate the tyres automatically when they sense (and indicate) a leak, as well as sending a message, via the ARINC 429 bus I installed at the same time as the caps, to the CMC mounted in my dashboard to not only notify me of the leak, but also of any impending leaks in the next 48 hour period.

Would they be the same caps you are talking about Speedy...

If the cap was the primary seal the gas would all escape when you removed it. As you say, and correctly found from the OEM, it is a secondary seal whose main purpose is actually to keep dirt out not gas in.

Re MEL I was always taught if it's an airworthiness item and it's not in the MEL you don't fly if it's not there and working. Many interior items fall into the 'non airworthiness' classification hence HIL items, and I would interpret valve caps the same way.

I've never known an engineer who didn't have a bag full of them anyway, or at least a full set on his car ;)

Well, it would if the secondary seal, known as a valve, wasn't fitted or had failed.

I don't know any who have them on their car. Getting the wheel rebalanced just isn't worth the effort.

Collected my fair share over the years from the runway taxiways and aprons, always been taught that a valve cap = Dust cap if valve is exposed brake dust grime can build up, upon inflation this may contaminate the valve core and stop it seating properly causing it to leak.

The other valve caps I know of are the ones held on to a valve spring by collets which secure the valves in cylinder heads if they let go you are in a spot of bother :uhoh:

I also have found many over the years and recently found one in a tyre prior to commencing my pushback while doing my last minute safety check.


Problem is the engineers do not tighten them up correctly,:ugh: often just using their fingers , i always remind them if i see wheels being worked on of the dangers of FOD caused by lost caps.

Oh dear. Deja vu all over again. :hmm:

Is it just me or does anyone else think that "the hitcher" has found a new identity?