Helicopter engineer cleared of manslaughter after crash
Fleet Manager
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 7,442
Likes: 307
From: various places .....
Nick,
If I have misread your post, then may I apologise in advance.
I get the impression that you perceive PEs to be a cut above the technician (mechanic in the US).
Might I advance the thought that such a view is the height of parochial and blinkered vision ? ... not to mention just a little bit arrogant ...
Might I suggest that the two disciplines are complementary rather than a master and servant relationship. As a PE of many years standing (and an absolute menace with a spanner), I have seen numerous examples where an experienced technician has saved a PE - including me, in ignorance or self-serving worship, from making a prize idiot of himself ... likewise the PE can help the technician in areas outside of the latter's expertise.
In the design arena, of which I have a lifelong experience, the PE who doesn't seek the relevant input of appropriate technicians can end up with a design which has unfortunate aspects ..... maintainability, access, ease and cost of manufacture and repair come to mind .....
Often, the practicalities dictate that the two disciplines function apart .. but I have yet to be convinced that this is the best solution ...
I have always held in high regard the old UK practice of PEs coming up via an apprenticeship ... far superior, I think, to the sort of out of school, into university, into the workforce system through which I was processed ...
Just a parochial thought from a parochial PE pilot who, nonetheless, appreciates the value and contribution of technicians..
If I have misread your post, then may I apologise in advance.
I get the impression that you perceive PEs to be a cut above the technician (mechanic in the US).
Might I advance the thought that such a view is the height of parochial and blinkered vision ? ... not to mention just a little bit arrogant ...
Might I suggest that the two disciplines are complementary rather than a master and servant relationship. As a PE of many years standing (and an absolute menace with a spanner), I have seen numerous examples where an experienced technician has saved a PE - including me, in ignorance or self-serving worship, from making a prize idiot of himself ... likewise the PE can help the technician in areas outside of the latter's expertise.
In the design arena, of which I have a lifelong experience, the PE who doesn't seek the relevant input of appropriate technicians can end up with a design which has unfortunate aspects ..... maintainability, access, ease and cost of manufacture and repair come to mind .....
Often, the practicalities dictate that the two disciplines function apart .. but I have yet to be convinced that this is the best solution ...
I have always held in high regard the old UK practice of PEs coming up via an apprenticeship ... far superior, I think, to the sort of out of school, into university, into the workforce system through which I was processed ...
Just a parochial thought from a parochial PE pilot who, nonetheless, appreciates the value and contribution of technicians..
Guest
Posts: n/a
john_tullamarine,
I did not infer (I hope) an above or below into the relationship between a mechanic and an engineer, because I am not sure it is germain to the discussion, but there is a hierachy nontheless, not of better worse, but of planner and executer.
The skills necessary to maintain a machine are those of craft, and require training, mechanical prowess and experience. They are little academic, and those who are expert as mechanics are very often not particularly scholarly. This is not a put-down.
It is not arrogance to suppose that a mechanic can not know the mathematics and material science needed to design that fitting in question, it is fact. It is also quite the law that a mechanic must pass his designs to an engineer for approval, should a mechanic try to design a part of a flying machine.
This is simple fact.
That being said, I know many mechanics who would have, given a different set of circumstances in their youth, made great engineers. I know engineers who are great mechanics. The best engineers I know are great mechanics (Paul Martin, the program manager on the F-117 and F-22, rebuilds cars in his oversized garage as a hobby).
I know poor engineers who could cross-thread a mayonaise jar!
In this thread, the spin is on what mistakes people make, and how they should pay for them. I think the real errors here are in the design, and that the mechanic was only the last guy in the chain who was easiest to grab.
I have contended that an engineer/designer is responsible when he sets up circumstances that are likely to lead to a mistake. That about 8 such fittings have failed in flight is testament to that class of mistake.
Some examples of the relationship between mechanic and engineer:
nurse - doctor; machinist - engineer; carpentor - architect; boatswain - naval officer; cinimatographer - director
There is not above/below here, I don't think.
I did not infer (I hope) an above or below into the relationship between a mechanic and an engineer, because I am not sure it is germain to the discussion, but there is a hierachy nontheless, not of better worse, but of planner and executer.
The skills necessary to maintain a machine are those of craft, and require training, mechanical prowess and experience. They are little academic, and those who are expert as mechanics are very often not particularly scholarly. This is not a put-down.
It is not arrogance to suppose that a mechanic can not know the mathematics and material science needed to design that fitting in question, it is fact. It is also quite the law that a mechanic must pass his designs to an engineer for approval, should a mechanic try to design a part of a flying machine.
This is simple fact.
That being said, I know many mechanics who would have, given a different set of circumstances in their youth, made great engineers. I know engineers who are great mechanics. The best engineers I know are great mechanics (Paul Martin, the program manager on the F-117 and F-22, rebuilds cars in his oversized garage as a hobby).
I know poor engineers who could cross-thread a mayonaise jar!
In this thread, the spin is on what mistakes people make, and how they should pay for them. I think the real errors here are in the design, and that the mechanic was only the last guy in the chain who was easiest to grab.
I have contended that an engineer/designer is responsible when he sets up circumstances that are likely to lead to a mistake. That about 8 such fittings have failed in flight is testament to that class of mistake.
Some examples of the relationship between mechanic and engineer:
nurse - doctor; machinist - engineer; carpentor - architect; boatswain - naval officer; cinimatographer - director
There is not above/below here, I don't think.
Guest
Posts: n/a
smiles,
Now there is arrogance! Smiles, you are too much.
If you tell me that your mechanics take calculus and differential equations, and know how to program a NASTRAN model to determine the strain distribution, and that they go to University for four years to learn how to change your oil, then I would agree with you. They are better.
I have flown lots in the UK, and in many other cultures, and it is all roughly the same. Mechanics are trained in how to do procedures, engineers are trained in how to design stuff and how to write the procedures that mechanics perform. If your mechanics are all able to design things, you are wasting good talent by making them change oil!
BTW, any time you would care to stack up "How things are done" on this side of the Atlantic against how much "better" they are done on your side, let me know.
Now there is arrogance! Smiles, you are too much.
If you tell me that your mechanics take calculus and differential equations, and know how to program a NASTRAN model to determine the strain distribution, and that they go to University for four years to learn how to change your oil, then I would agree with you. They are better.
I have flown lots in the UK, and in many other cultures, and it is all roughly the same. Mechanics are trained in how to do procedures, engineers are trained in how to design stuff and how to write the procedures that mechanics perform. If your mechanics are all able to design things, you are wasting good talent by making them change oil!
BTW, any time you would care to stack up "How things are done" on this side of the Atlantic against how much "better" they are done on your side, let me know.
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
Nick, you are digging a hole for yourself here.
I've been an active participant in the Engineer .v. Technician debate many times (for the record, in the class of aircraft I work on mostly I'm a design signatory, self certifying technician and a test pilot so am probably as qualified as anybody to do so). I routinely verbally abuse companies who send what they call an "Engineer" to repair my dishwasher and much prefer the term technician for somebody who builds and fixes rather than designs and analyses.
But, what we're talking about here is professionalism and what to do when it breaks down. If I authorise a mod which doesn't take proper account of stresses and material properties, or approve a repair that goes against the requirements in the servicing manual, or decide not to worry about an aircraft with a divergent oscillatory mode because *I* can fly it okay - I am being unprofessional in each case and to a similar degree. In each case, I probably need careful supervision, possibly second check on my work for some time, and a black mark on my professional records.
None of this is at-all dependent upon what job title I'm using at the time. The debate anyway is a daft one, because we can only change the job titles in our own organisation and nothing's likely to change the title "Licenced Engineer" (even the Engineering Council use the title "technician engineer" - probably a good compromise!).
G
N.B. 5 years to do an Engineering apprenticeship, 4 years to do an Engineering degree, considerable years after either to be trusted out on your own!
I've been an active participant in the Engineer .v. Technician debate many times (for the record, in the class of aircraft I work on mostly I'm a design signatory, self certifying technician and a test pilot so am probably as qualified as anybody to do so). I routinely verbally abuse companies who send what they call an "Engineer" to repair my dishwasher and much prefer the term technician for somebody who builds and fixes rather than designs and analyses.
But, what we're talking about here is professionalism and what to do when it breaks down. If I authorise a mod which doesn't take proper account of stresses and material properties, or approve a repair that goes against the requirements in the servicing manual, or decide not to worry about an aircraft with a divergent oscillatory mode because *I* can fly it okay - I am being unprofessional in each case and to a similar degree. In each case, I probably need careful supervision, possibly second check on my work for some time, and a black mark on my professional records.
None of this is at-all dependent upon what job title I'm using at the time. The debate anyway is a daft one, because we can only change the job titles in our own organisation and nothing's likely to change the title "Licenced Engineer" (even the Engineering Council use the title "technician engineer" - probably a good compromise!).
G
N.B. 5 years to do an Engineering apprenticeship, 4 years to do an Engineering degree, considerable years after either to be trusted out on your own!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Genghis,
No hole here, I think we agree. The issue is who made the biggest mistake - the mechanic who got caught in the wheels of the system or the engineer who made the real error to begin with througfh his poor design. I opt that the biggest mistake was the engineer's one.
No hole here, I think we agree. The issue is who made the biggest mistake - the mechanic who got caught in the wheels of the system or the engineer who made the real error to begin with througfh his poor design. I opt that the biggest mistake was the engineer's one.
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
Frankly old chap, these are real people with a family and things discussed in public will get back to them. I don't think I want to go there in a public discussion. Talk about how not to let it happen again, but blame is not helpful.
G
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
It is not blame but understanding that we all seek. This is a public forum, and I try to be sensitive to the personal nature of the topics that we discuss. As with only a few professions, our mistakes are layed out for all to see, mechanics, engineers and pilots alike. It is healthy to discuss them, and I make my comments in the light of one who does not believe in punishment for honest mistakes. See my first post in this thread. Here is what a famous engineer said about it:
"The great liability of the engineer compared to men of other professions is that his works are out in the open where all can see them. His acts, step by step, are in hard substance. He cannot bury his mistakes in the grave like the doctors. He cannot argue them into thin air or blame the judge like the lawyers. He cannot, like the architects, cover his failures with trees and vines. He cannot, like the politicians, screen his shortcomings by blaming his opponents and hope that the people will forget. The engineer simply cannot deny that he did it. If his works do not work, he is damned." Herbert Hoover
"The great liability of the engineer compared to men of other professions is that his works are out in the open where all can see them. His acts, step by step, are in hard substance. He cannot bury his mistakes in the grave like the doctors. He cannot argue them into thin air or blame the judge like the lawyers. He cannot, like the architects, cover his failures with trees and vines. He cannot, like the politicians, screen his shortcomings by blaming his opponents and hope that the people will forget. The engineer simply cannot deny that he did it. If his works do not work, he is damned." Herbert Hoover
Joined: Aug 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,411
Likes: 83
From: Gold Coast, Australia
Nick,
Interesting discussion. Long time since I operated in UK, but your comments regarding an "engineers" ability is well covered down here, where a modification of this nature would be cleared under CAR 35. Reg 35 approvals are delegated to approved engineers, who are allowed to sign out a modification after taking into account any stress calculations, electrical load analysis, etc., depending on the nature of the modification. Nonetheless, many of the initial design calculations for modifications on my aircraft are often done by our chief engineer, who then has them checked by a Reg 35 signatory.
Usually adds about $3-600 to the job, even when the modification is paperwork only, but it has streamlined the system and taken the onus away from the regulatory authority (CASA) and allowed more "hands on" approach to local modifications and fixes.
Interesting discussion. Long time since I operated in UK, but your comments regarding an "engineers" ability is well covered down here, where a modification of this nature would be cleared under CAR 35. Reg 35 approvals are delegated to approved engineers, who are allowed to sign out a modification after taking into account any stress calculations, electrical load analysis, etc., depending on the nature of the modification. Nonetheless, many of the initial design calculations for modifications on my aircraft are often done by our chief engineer, who then has them checked by a Reg 35 signatory.
Usually adds about $3-600 to the job, even when the modification is paperwork only, but it has streamlined the system and taken the onus away from the regulatory authority (CASA) and allowed more "hands on" approach to local modifications and fixes.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
From: US
Nick:
Hold on there. All I did was to explain in more detail the walkway collapse that I thought (incorrectly) that Genghis was referring to. If you reread my post, you'll see that I did not try to say that the walkway incident should be used as a model or analogy for the helicopter incident. Genghis brought up the walkway incident (er, a different one) as an analogy, not I.
I was once a Civil Engineer, so I'm semi-qualified to comment on the walkway collapse. I'm not a helicopter pilot or mechanic, nor do I play one on TV. I'm just a wannabe who should be working...
I don't know enough about helicopters and their maintenance to have an opinion about the helicopter incident in question.
OFBSLF
Hold on there. All I did was to explain in more detail the walkway collapse that I thought (incorrectly) that Genghis was referring to. If you reread my post, you'll see that I did not try to say that the walkway incident should be used as a model or analogy for the helicopter incident. Genghis brought up the walkway incident (er, a different one) as an analogy, not I.
I was once a Civil Engineer, so I'm semi-qualified to comment on the walkway collapse. I'm not a helicopter pilot or mechanic, nor do I play one on TV. I'm just a wannabe who should be working...
I don't know enough about helicopters and their maintenance to have an opinion about the helicopter incident in question.
OFBSLF
