Undervalued Engineers?
Joined: Jan 2019
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 805
Likes: 645
From: Cumbria
RAF Corporal can certify his own work and that of juniors, but (unless things have changed) cannot sign as coordinator of the F700; perhaps the nearest equivalent to ICAO CRS. Similarly, it requires a type rated SNCO to certify military Indies/Dupes, so perhaps that is closer to the mark.
Like a lot of the crossover between civil/military equivalents, it's a tough one to call. In my experience, LAMEs routinely get our hands as dirty as any military mechanic, but also use their breadth of knowledge and experience to make judgement calls on, say, deferral of defects equivalent to that of a military engineering officer.
Joined: Jul 2022
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 897
Likes: 533
From: Down Sarf
I'd agree with Nutty.
RAF Corporal can certify his own work and that of juniors, but (unless things have changed) cannot sign as coordinator of the F700; perhaps the nearest equivalent to ICAO CRS. Similarly, it requires a type rated SNCO to certify military Indies/Dupes, so perhaps that is closer to the mark.
Like a lot of the crossover between civil/military equivalents, it's a tough one to call. In my experience, LAMEs routinely get our hands as dirty as any military mechanic, but also use their breadth of knowledge and experience to make judgement calls on, say, deferral of defects equivalent to that of a military engineering officer.
RAF Corporal can certify his own work and that of juniors, but (unless things have changed) cannot sign as coordinator of the F700; perhaps the nearest equivalent to ICAO CRS. Similarly, it requires a type rated SNCO to certify military Indies/Dupes, so perhaps that is closer to the mark.
Like a lot of the crossover between civil/military equivalents, it's a tough one to call. In my experience, LAMEs routinely get our hands as dirty as any military mechanic, but also use their breadth of knowledge and experience to make judgement calls on, say, deferral of defects equivalent to that of a military engineering officer.
Joined: Jul 2022
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 897
Likes: 533
From: Down Sarf
LAE under section L is really a technician status. Those that also mention mechanics are wrong as AML licence holders under EASA are technicians as they are able to troubleshoot.
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 21
Likes: 2
From: Wiltshire
I'd agree with Nutty.
RAF Corporal can certify his own work and that of juniors, but (unless things have changed) cannot sign as coordinator of the F700; perhaps the nearest equivalent to ICAO CRS. Similarly, it requires a type rated SNCO to certify military Indies/Dupes, so perhaps that is closer to the mark.
Like a lot of the crossover between civil/military equivalents, it's a tough one to call. In my experience, LAMEs routinely get our hands as dirty as any military mechanic, but also use their breadth of knowledge and experience to make judgement calls on, say, deferral of defects equivalent to that of a military engineering officer.
RAF Corporal can certify his own work and that of juniors, but (unless things have changed) cannot sign as coordinator of the F700; perhaps the nearest equivalent to ICAO CRS. Similarly, it requires a type rated SNCO to certify military Indies/Dupes, so perhaps that is closer to the mark.
Like a lot of the crossover between civil/military equivalents, it's a tough one to call. In my experience, LAMEs routinely get our hands as dirty as any military mechanic, but also use their breadth of knowledge and experience to make judgement calls on, say, deferral of defects equivalent to that of a military engineering officer.
Joined: Jul 2022
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 897
Likes: 533
From: Down Sarf
As an RAF Corporal, I was able to Co-ordinate a F700 and release for flight. What I couldn't do was close open jobcards. So as long as nothing is reported by crew & nothing is found during flight preparation I could release the aircraft. As soon as maintenance is required (other than that needed for flight preparation) I would have to get the jobs signed off as complete by a SNCO or above. But that is no different than for the aircrew, who were also able to do this and they have a degree in sociology not engineering!
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 57
From: Anglia
A B1/B2 licenced aircraft engineer with the right qualifications and authorisations can have the same certification rights from certifying a daily inspection up and including that of an RAF Wing Commander doing reds and greens, plus taxiing to ground running and parking slots and doing those tasks too. Obviously they cannot do it all on their own but, if needed, they might even be authorised to certify their own independent inspections. Authorisations are managed through the 145 organisation. The LAEs work is all done with communications to the aircraft’s CAMO who may at worst disagree with the LAEs fault finding. Qualified and authorised LAEs also train and recommend other staff for authorisations too. May I remind you that a CAT C LAE can only sign off a defined scheduled maintenance visit (i.e. depth maintenance not line maintenance).
OED definitions for ‘engineer’ has so many variations so I find it’s best to use the verb: “To engineer a solution or result”.
OED definitions for ‘engineer’ has so many variations so I find it’s best to use the verb: “To engineer a solution or result”.
Joined: Jul 2022
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 897
Likes: 533
From: Down Sarf
A B1/B2 licenced aircraft engineer with the right qualifications and authorisations can have the same certification rights from certifying a daily inspection up and including that of an RAF Wing Commander doing reds and greens, plus taxiing to ground running and parking slots and doing those tasks too. Obviously they cannot do it all on their own but, if needed, they might even be authorised to certify their own independent inspections. Authorisations are managed through the 145 organisation. The LAEs work is all done with communications to the aircraft’s CAMO who may at worst disagree with the LAEs fault finding. Qualified and authorised LAEs also train and recommend other staff for authorisations too. May I remind you that a CAT C LAE can only sign off a defined scheduled maintenance visit (i.e. depth maintenance not line maintenance).
OED definitions for ‘engineer’ has so many variations so I find it’s best to use the verb: “To engineer a solution or result”.
OED definitions for ‘engineer’ has so many variations so I find it’s best to use the verb: “To engineer a solution or result”.
Joined: Feb 2006
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 36,143
Likes: 5,739
From: Falling off the end of the thread
I do not use it in my current position, but I am a form 4 holder. I was also a Camo, LAME, C Cert’er, form 4 holder, all rolled into one.
Basically I did it all, I even had to write the Company Exposition and the Maintenance schedules lol.
So I wrote the maintainable programme, carried out that programme, certified and cleared that programme, had camo oversight on that work and issued the Arc renewal.
Basically I did it all, I even had to write the Company Exposition and the Maintenance schedules lol.
So I wrote the maintainable programme, carried out that programme, certified and cleared that programme, had camo oversight on that work and issued the Arc renewal.
Joined: Jul 2022
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 897
Likes: 533
From: Down Sarf
I do not use it in my current position, but I am a form 4 holder. I was also a Camo, LAME, C Cert’er, form 4 holder, all rolled into one.
Basically I did it all, I even had to write the Company Exposition and the Maintenance schedules lol.
So I wrote the maintainable programme, carried out that programme, certified and cleared that programme, had camo oversight on that work and issued the Arc renewal.
Basically I did it all, I even had to write the Company Exposition and the Maintenance schedules lol.
So I wrote the maintainable programme, carried out that programme, certified and cleared that programme, had camo oversight on that work and issued the Arc renewal.
Joined: Jul 2022
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 897
Likes: 533
From: Down Sarf
Would I encourage anyone to join the RAF as a aircraft engineer? I should do, but what are they going into? Limited locations that more than half most of us would put in as negative choices to go and to establishments where manning such a problem that people I know just have had enough. Yes the comradeship is way better than civvy street, but a 30 year old LAE is going to be on way more cash than a 30 year old Cpl.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 75
Likes: 39
From: Devon
The idea that you would need to be a Wg Cdr to undertake that function is quite comical and probably why the RAF is in the state it is in!
Joined: Jul 2022
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 897
Likes: 533
From: Down Sarf
Had a discussion with a Sqn Ldr at a secret RAF training establishment about reds and greens being used by the RAF LAEs and the reasons it was not given to them (where it is part and parcel of my day). The answer was to give EngOs a reason to exist outside a man manager.
Joined: Jan 2019
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 805
Likes: 645
From: Cumbria
Bit of drift, but Rigga mentioned authorisation for engine runs and taxying. Never understood why the average UK technician could be authorised to act as tug driver, brakeman, lookout and overall supervisor of a towing operation and ground running engines throughout the ground-range but, with a few exceptions (eg some training establishments) technicians are categorically forbidden to be considered for taxi approval. In my own experience;
Base Maintenance input; military scenario. Aircraft lands from operational sortie at 12.00. Debrief in the line-office. Request a tug at 12.30 to take aircraft to the ground running area for pre-check engine tests. 13.00, arrive ground running area. 1315, ground running team arrives at the aircraft by landrover, as the military tug only accomodates driver and one passenger. 14.00, ground runs complete (took 40 minutes including airframe systems tests) request tug. 14.30, aircraft delivered to Base Hangar.
Base Maintenance input; civil scenario. Aircraft lands from operational sector at 12.00 Debrief at the aircraft whilst passengers disembark. 12.15, engineers start and pushback, taxi to ground running area. 12.50, ground runs complete (took 20 minutes because airframe systems test completed during taxi). 13.00, aircraft delivered to Base Hangar.
I think it's one of the areas where military legacy attitudes have inhibited the general leap forward in efficiency of maintenance operation.
Base Maintenance input; military scenario. Aircraft lands from operational sortie at 12.00. Debrief in the line-office. Request a tug at 12.30 to take aircraft to the ground running area for pre-check engine tests. 13.00, arrive ground running area. 1315, ground running team arrives at the aircraft by landrover, as the military tug only accomodates driver and one passenger. 14.00, ground runs complete (took 40 minutes including airframe systems tests) request tug. 14.30, aircraft delivered to Base Hangar.
Base Maintenance input; civil scenario. Aircraft lands from operational sector at 12.00 Debrief at the aircraft whilst passengers disembark. 12.15, engineers start and pushback, taxi to ground running area. 12.50, ground runs complete (took 20 minutes because airframe systems test completed during taxi). 13.00, aircraft delivered to Base Hangar.
I think it's one of the areas where military legacy attitudes have inhibited the general leap forward in efficiency of maintenance operation.
Joined: Mar 2024
Posts: 7
Likes: 1
From: Fife
I can only speak for the Typhoon fleet, but that scenario just doesn't happen. Purely my guess, but around 95% of EGRs can be carried out where the aircraft was parked. Anything above mid-power is rarely required. You're not going to A/F, refuel, download the brick and decide on a recovery plan in anywhere near 30 minutes. Fault diagnosis? Spares? Manpower? And a Land Rover?!
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 276
From: GMT
Todays Telegraph
Aircraft manufacturers should be riding high thanks to a travel boom that has created unprecedented levels of demand.
Bookings have surged as millions head to the beach and the predicted demise of face-to-face business meetings fails to materialise. Airports including London Heathrow have recently announced record passenger numbers.
Yet Airbus and Boeing are struggling to build planes fast enough to keep up with demand. Both manufacturers are falling short of delivery targets as their supply chains buckle under the strain.
British Airways, Ryanair, Virgin Atlantic and Wizz have all been forced to rein in their planned schedules and watch profits ebb away. The manufacturers themselves have been deprived of vital revenue and reduced to firefighting one production issue after another.
Across much of the aviation industry, what should have been a boom is turning out to be little more than a whimper. Waiting times for the most popular jets are now into the next decade.
The situation can be traced back to multiple causes, including a near-disaster involving a 737 jet that led regulators to cap output at Boeing and engine issues at companies including Rolls-Royce.
But Airbus last week highlighted a more basic factor at the heart of the crunch: the industry is suffering from what amounts to a severe case of long Covid, following the exodus of tens of thousands of experienced personnel during the pandemic.
Three years after the last Covid-related curbs were lifted, manufacturers are still woefully short of veteran engineers and technicians, says Christian Scherer, head of commercial aircraft at Airbus.
“What the supply chain has suffered the most from is a loss of expertise,” he says.
“A lot of people, with years and years of accumulated expertise, that have taken early retirement or have redirected their professional activities elsewhere. That takes a lot of time to rebuild. That’s really the fundamental, deep problem.”
The supply chain crisis last year forced Airbus to revise an 800-plane delivery target to 770 after barely four months. In the event it handed over 766 aircraft, still almost 100 short of the number shipped in 2019.
Scherer insists Airbus will reach those pre-pandemic production volumes “in the foreseeable future,” while adding: “I’m not going to tell you when.”
Boeing, meanwhile, revealed last week that it had delivered just 348 jets in 2024, down 180 on the previous year’s tally and less than half its pre-pandemic peak.
The US giant was plunged into crisis after a door plug blew out of an Alaska Airlines 737 Max at 16,000 feet last January. Subsequent checks revealed safety and quality-control issues across the supply chain, leading regulators to cap Max output at 38 planes a month.
A Boeing insider later said that the depletion of the workforce during the pandemic meant it had to “turn baristas into engineers” – a reference to the location of the company’s main assembly lines in Seattle, home to Starbucks and a world centre for coffee roasting.
Potential recruits with a technical bent have meanwhile gravitated towards companies such as Amazon and Microsoft, which are also based in the area.
Nick Cunningham, an aviation analyst at Agency Partners, said manufacturers should have seen the staffing problem coming and done more to replace the “big hump of middle-aged workers” who were set to retire around the same time with or without the pandemic.
“It was a collective error on the part of the industry on both sides of the Atlantic. It had become very dependent on a group of grizzled veterans.They all looked like members of ZZ Top and called themselves ‘shop rats’ but they actually did all the work.
“The new generation of recruits is just not as productive. They’re a green workforce and with many of the trainers also retiring it’s going to take years to get them up to speed.
“It becomes much more expensive because you are making fewer things, so volumes drop even though you’re employing the same number of people.”
At Airbus, bottlenecks are affecting the supply of components ranging from aircraft engines, cabin equipment, galleys and seats to toilet doors and even the bolts and washers that hold together sections of fuselage.
Shortages of interior items have been exacerbated by airlines seeking to refurbish cabins in ageing planes that are being kept in service precisely because of the lack of new jets.
Guillaume Faury, the chief executive of Airbus, said last week that shortages of even a simple part at a single supplier could be enough to derail a whole aircraft.
He said: “Because we are going at the pace of the slowest of our suppliers, when you think you are there, you are blind-sided by something you were not expecting.
“The number and depth of the crises that we managed last year was very significant. I don’t expect a lot of change in the nature of the problems.”
Attracting new workers is not the only problem manufacturers face. Cunningham says keeping them is also a challenge, even with the lure of relatively attractive pay deals.
He says: “They want a nice desk job where they can be on the internet all day. They don’t want to work in what can be a cold, noisy and occasionally dangerous environment doing something that is repetitive and really not that pleasant.”
Mounting concern about the production crunch was evident in Dublin last week, where aircraft leasing companies that collectively own and manage around half the world’s fleet warned that plane shortages would persist for years.
An over-dependency on ‘grizzled veterans’, or ‘shop rats’, has been blamed for plane-makers’ staffing struggles Steven Udvar-Házy, the executive chairman of Air Lease, told the Airline Economics conference that neither Airbus nor Boeing were meeting “any of their production targets” and had made “big judgment errors” in seeking to increase deliveries before stabilising their operations.
Denis Hogan, a founder of SMBC Aviation Capital, said it would take “until the end of the decade” to fully resolve the supply-chain issues.
Bosses were similarly pessimistic about a parallel crisis surrounding the poor resilience of engines supplied by Pratt & Whitney (P&W) and Rolls-Royce. Issues with engines have forced jets to be recalled for emergency maintenance, further depriving airlines of essential capacity.
József Váradi, the Wizz Air boss, said he had expected groundings of the airline’s A320s for the replacement of worn engines to span no more than two years, but it now appears to be “a four to five-year issue”.
Airbus insists that it is making progress addressing these issues. Dozens of staff are working to alleviate bottlenecks at suppliers such as Spirit, which makes wings for its A220 jet and supplied the faulty door panel to Boeing.
The European company has also formed a task force to address fastener shortages and a team dedicated to helping airlines procure cabin interiors. In some cases, Airbus is providing financing to companies that would otherwise be unable to provide parts at the required pace.
Despite the continued issues, plane-makers plan to boost build rates to reduce order backlogs. Faury said Airbus had no intention of backing away from plans to lift A320 production to 75 planes a month in 2027. That’s 50pc higher than average monthly deliveries last year.
The company is already able to produce aircraft on eight global assembly lines, with two more to be added by next year. Crucially, however, it needs the supply chain to keep in step.
The chief executive said: “It’s not nice to have customers complaining that you’re delivering late. But if we are too shy we waste opportunities to deliver planes. We need to find the sweet spot.”
Bookings have surged as millions head to the beach and the predicted demise of face-to-face business meetings fails to materialise. Airports including London Heathrow have recently announced record passenger numbers.
Yet Airbus and Boeing are struggling to build planes fast enough to keep up with demand. Both manufacturers are falling short of delivery targets as their supply chains buckle under the strain.
British Airways, Ryanair, Virgin Atlantic and Wizz have all been forced to rein in their planned schedules and watch profits ebb away. The manufacturers themselves have been deprived of vital revenue and reduced to firefighting one production issue after another.
Across much of the aviation industry, what should have been a boom is turning out to be little more than a whimper. Waiting times for the most popular jets are now into the next decade.
The situation can be traced back to multiple causes, including a near-disaster involving a 737 jet that led regulators to cap output at Boeing and engine issues at companies including Rolls-Royce.
But Airbus last week highlighted a more basic factor at the heart of the crunch: the industry is suffering from what amounts to a severe case of long Covid, following the exodus of tens of thousands of experienced personnel during the pandemic.
Three years after the last Covid-related curbs were lifted, manufacturers are still woefully short of veteran engineers and technicians, says Christian Scherer, head of commercial aircraft at Airbus.
“What the supply chain has suffered the most from is a loss of expertise,” he says.
“A lot of people, with years and years of accumulated expertise, that have taken early retirement or have redirected their professional activities elsewhere. That takes a lot of time to rebuild. That’s really the fundamental, deep problem.”
The supply chain crisis last year forced Airbus to revise an 800-plane delivery target to 770 after barely four months. In the event it handed over 766 aircraft, still almost 100 short of the number shipped in 2019.
Scherer insists Airbus will reach those pre-pandemic production volumes “in the foreseeable future,” while adding: “I’m not going to tell you when.”
Boeing, meanwhile, revealed last week that it had delivered just 348 jets in 2024, down 180 on the previous year’s tally and less than half its pre-pandemic peak.
The US giant was plunged into crisis after a door plug blew out of an Alaska Airlines 737 Max at 16,000 feet last January. Subsequent checks revealed safety and quality-control issues across the supply chain, leading regulators to cap Max output at 38 planes a month.
A Boeing insider later said that the depletion of the workforce during the pandemic meant it had to “turn baristas into engineers” – a reference to the location of the company’s main assembly lines in Seattle, home to Starbucks and a world centre for coffee roasting.
Potential recruits with a technical bent have meanwhile gravitated towards companies such as Amazon and Microsoft, which are also based in the area.
Nick Cunningham, an aviation analyst at Agency Partners, said manufacturers should have seen the staffing problem coming and done more to replace the “big hump of middle-aged workers” who were set to retire around the same time with or without the pandemic.
“It was a collective error on the part of the industry on both sides of the Atlantic. It had become very dependent on a group of grizzled veterans.They all looked like members of ZZ Top and called themselves ‘shop rats’ but they actually did all the work.
“The new generation of recruits is just not as productive. They’re a green workforce and with many of the trainers also retiring it’s going to take years to get them up to speed.
“It becomes much more expensive because you are making fewer things, so volumes drop even though you’re employing the same number of people.”
At Airbus, bottlenecks are affecting the supply of components ranging from aircraft engines, cabin equipment, galleys and seats to toilet doors and even the bolts and washers that hold together sections of fuselage.
Shortages of interior items have been exacerbated by airlines seeking to refurbish cabins in ageing planes that are being kept in service precisely because of the lack of new jets.
Guillaume Faury, the chief executive of Airbus, said last week that shortages of even a simple part at a single supplier could be enough to derail a whole aircraft.
He said: “Because we are going at the pace of the slowest of our suppliers, when you think you are there, you are blind-sided by something you were not expecting.
“The number and depth of the crises that we managed last year was very significant. I don’t expect a lot of change in the nature of the problems.”
Attracting new workers is not the only problem manufacturers face. Cunningham says keeping them is also a challenge, even with the lure of relatively attractive pay deals.
He says: “They want a nice desk job where they can be on the internet all day. They don’t want to work in what can be a cold, noisy and occasionally dangerous environment doing something that is repetitive and really not that pleasant.”
Mounting concern about the production crunch was evident in Dublin last week, where aircraft leasing companies that collectively own and manage around half the world’s fleet warned that plane shortages would persist for years.
An over-dependency on ‘grizzled veterans’, or ‘shop rats’, has been blamed for plane-makers’ staffing struggles Steven Udvar-Házy, the executive chairman of Air Lease, told the Airline Economics conference that neither Airbus nor Boeing were meeting “any of their production targets” and had made “big judgment errors” in seeking to increase deliveries before stabilising their operations.
Denis Hogan, a founder of SMBC Aviation Capital, said it would take “until the end of the decade” to fully resolve the supply-chain issues.
Bosses were similarly pessimistic about a parallel crisis surrounding the poor resilience of engines supplied by Pratt & Whitney (P&W) and Rolls-Royce. Issues with engines have forced jets to be recalled for emergency maintenance, further depriving airlines of essential capacity.
József Váradi, the Wizz Air boss, said he had expected groundings of the airline’s A320s for the replacement of worn engines to span no more than two years, but it now appears to be “a four to five-year issue”.
Airbus insists that it is making progress addressing these issues. Dozens of staff are working to alleviate bottlenecks at suppliers such as Spirit, which makes wings for its A220 jet and supplied the faulty door panel to Boeing.
The European company has also formed a task force to address fastener shortages and a team dedicated to helping airlines procure cabin interiors. In some cases, Airbus is providing financing to companies that would otherwise be unable to provide parts at the required pace.
Despite the continued issues, plane-makers plan to boost build rates to reduce order backlogs. Faury said Airbus had no intention of backing away from plans to lift A320 production to 75 planes a month in 2027. That’s 50pc higher than average monthly deliveries last year.
The company is already able to produce aircraft on eight global assembly lines, with two more to be added by next year. Crucially, however, it needs the supply chain to keep in step.
The chief executive said: “It’s not nice to have customers complaining that you’re delivering late. But if we are too shy we waste opportunities to deliver planes. We need to find the sweet spot.”
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 57
From: Anglia
MGD said:
" the industry is suffering from what amounts to a severe case of long Covid, following the exodus of tens of thousands of experienced personnel during the pandemic."
This sounds like lots of people just upped-sticks and moved way whereas 90% of 'the exodus' was due to the instant dismissals of the larger airlines' staff with dividends in mind and no thought for their recovery after Covid. As has been said on Pprune many times - experience (pilots, engineers, cabin staff, etc.) isn't kept on a shelf for immediate use. The airlines' dismissals brought on thousands of personal situation reviews and reactions.
Almost all over 55's retired (ca. 30% of all staff). A great many pilots and engineers retrained for new less pivotal jobs...plumbing, electricians, etc - I know of one ex-BA pilot who now delivers for Sainsbury's and is quite happy with the lack of stress. Several engineers I know went into Contracting. I went back to helicopters (who increased in workload throughout the pandemic). Cabin staff were also a dire shortage at one point and possibly still are.
There wasn't an exodus from airlines - there was a lot of lay-offs, a complete lack of support / loyalty and huge expectations by airlines as how they would recover with their ex-staff running back to them.
" the industry is suffering from what amounts to a severe case of long Covid, following the exodus of tens of thousands of experienced personnel during the pandemic."
This sounds like lots of people just upped-sticks and moved way whereas 90% of 'the exodus' was due to the instant dismissals of the larger airlines' staff with dividends in mind and no thought for their recovery after Covid. As has been said on Pprune many times - experience (pilots, engineers, cabin staff, etc.) isn't kept on a shelf for immediate use. The airlines' dismissals brought on thousands of personal situation reviews and reactions.
Almost all over 55's retired (ca. 30% of all staff). A great many pilots and engineers retrained for new less pivotal jobs...plumbing, electricians, etc - I know of one ex-BA pilot who now delivers for Sainsbury's and is quite happy with the lack of stress. Several engineers I know went into Contracting. I went back to helicopters (who increased in workload throughout the pandemic). Cabin staff were also a dire shortage at one point and possibly still are.
There wasn't an exodus from airlines - there was a lot of lay-offs, a complete lack of support / loyalty and huge expectations by airlines as how they would recover with their ex-staff running back to them.
Joined: Jan 2019
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 805
Likes: 645
From: Cumbria
Thanks for picking up the gauntlet sbart.
My scenario was around an aircraft arriving for Scheduled Maintenance, which generally requires a purely diagnostic gound-run to establish pre-inspection parameters and latent defects, rather than to recify a specific snag and return the aircraft to service, but I think the principle applies to many situations. In general, the most quickest and most efficient way of moving an aeoplane is under it's own power, and if the "driver" is also a technician, then the possibility of fault diagnosis becomes viable.
You mention manpower; taxying requires an operator and 5 minutes of a despatch crew's time. Towing; a minimum of driver, brakeman and supervisor. Add to which, it is a fact of aviation law that an aircraft under tow has priority over an aircraft moving under it's own power, so that's an advantage? Wrong; we all know that Ground Movements Control will move heaven and earth to get taxying aircraft on and off the taxiways before they permit a slow towing operation to begin it's journey.
Land Rover? Showing my heritage, admitedly late 90's. What's the standard sqn grouncrew runaround now; some kind of hybrid SUV I guess ......
My scenario was around an aircraft arriving for Scheduled Maintenance, which generally requires a purely diagnostic gound-run to establish pre-inspection parameters and latent defects, rather than to recify a specific snag and return the aircraft to service, but I think the principle applies to many situations. In general, the most quickest and most efficient way of moving an aeoplane is under it's own power, and if the "driver" is also a technician, then the possibility of fault diagnosis becomes viable.
You mention manpower; taxying requires an operator and 5 minutes of a despatch crew's time. Towing; a minimum of driver, brakeman and supervisor. Add to which, it is a fact of aviation law that an aircraft under tow has priority over an aircraft moving under it's own power, so that's an advantage? Wrong; we all know that Ground Movements Control will move heaven and earth to get taxying aircraft on and off the taxiways before they permit a slow towing operation to begin it's journey.
Land Rover? Showing my heritage, admitedly late 90's. What's the standard sqn grouncrew runaround now; some kind of hybrid SUV I guess ......
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 262
From: Blighty
MGD said:
" the industry is suffering from what amounts to a severe case of long Covid, following the exodus of tens of thousands of experienced personnel during the pandemic."
This sounds like lots of people just upped-sticks and moved way whereas 90% of 'the exodus' was due to the instant dismissals of the larger airlines' staff with dividends in mind and no thought for their recovery after Covid. As has been said on Pprune many times - experience (pilots, engineers, cabin staff, etc.) isn't kept on a shelf for immediate use. The airlines' dismissals brought on thousands of personal situation reviews and reactions.
Almost all over 55's retired (ca. 30% of all staff). A great many pilots and engineers retrained for new less pivotal jobs...plumbing, electricians, etc - I know of one ex-BA pilot who now delivers for Sainsbury's and is quite happy with the lack of stress. Several engineers I know went into Contracting. I went back to helicopters (who increased in workload throughout the pandemic). Cabin staff were also a dire shortage at one point and possibly still are.
There wasn't an exodus from airlines - there was a lot of lay-offs, a complete lack of support / loyalty and huge expectations by airlines as how they would recover with their ex-staff running back to them.
" the industry is suffering from what amounts to a severe case of long Covid, following the exodus of tens of thousands of experienced personnel during the pandemic."
This sounds like lots of people just upped-sticks and moved way whereas 90% of 'the exodus' was due to the instant dismissals of the larger airlines' staff with dividends in mind and no thought for their recovery after Covid. As has been said on Pprune many times - experience (pilots, engineers, cabin staff, etc.) isn't kept on a shelf for immediate use. The airlines' dismissals brought on thousands of personal situation reviews and reactions.
Almost all over 55's retired (ca. 30% of all staff). A great many pilots and engineers retrained for new less pivotal jobs...plumbing, electricians, etc - I know of one ex-BA pilot who now delivers for Sainsbury's and is quite happy with the lack of stress. Several engineers I know went into Contracting. I went back to helicopters (who increased in workload throughout the pandemic). Cabin staff were also a dire shortage at one point and possibly still are.
There wasn't an exodus from airlines - there was a lot of lay-offs, a complete lack of support / loyalty and huge expectations by airlines as how they would recover with their ex-staff running back to them.
Re taxiing aircraft, engineers at BCal used to taxi DC-10s around LGW. I think BA put a stop to that after the 'merger'.