Weekend Annuals.

[Broken Slinky]

Based on my experience so far, I have great respect for my AME. He is thorough while remaining practical, communicates well, and bills fairly. I am happy to pay for all of his time, both working on my plane, and briefing me on the work. A true professional, IMO.

Also based on experience to date, there are comments here I respect considerably less.

Like LF, I would not let some touch my plane for free.

Attitude displayed is a direct reflection of level of professionalism to be expected.

It's a small, small community, as well.

+1, when I first bought my plane, it was my AME who suggested owner assisted annuals. He stated it was the best way to get to know my plane and know where things are stuffed. He also bills me quite fairly including time for all of my "what are you doing now?" comments. The plane carries my family and friends so if it ends up costing me a few extra bucks in the end, it is more than worth it.

[Hornblower]

Hornblower,

Thanks for your comments, it it clear you're intelligent, unfortunately as you mention, there are many AMEs that do simply refer to themselves as "engineers" .. pisses me off..

Sorry for the thread drift.

... intelligent would be a stretch, but smart enough to know the difference.

And "many AMEs" — I think that is a stretch also. I have worked with dozens over the years ... all know the difference. So no, there are very few who don't know the difference, and none that I've ever met personnally that think they are a P.Eng. So don't waste your time trying to convert them or repair intellectual deficiencies. Better to just ignore and go on your way. Anyone who uses the term "Enginner" to describe an AME is simply using common phraseology that has resulted from shortening the actual official title ... probably a throwback to something British.

I trust I will not read about you bringing this up again, and try to stop designing aircraft with critical component that have high failure rates installed in places that are almost impossible to get at — please.

[LousyFisherman]

And yes I do bargain at a restaurant if the meal is not up to snuff. And yes my car mechanic has no problem with me coming into the shop and acting as his apprentice. So don't try to tell me how unique the behaviour of aircraft owners is.

Did you happen to notice that both examples you gave to support your argument that the behavior of aircraft owners is not unique, are behaviors being exhibited specifically by an aircraft owner – yourself, in fact?

So, you have so much knowledge about my life you KNOW that I didn't start behaving like this until I owned an airplane?
Whatever, based on the above statement you appear to be just another know-it-all

PLSMFI
LF

[GyvAir]

Well, if you were to read my post a little more carefully, you’ll see that aside from making the assumption that you’re an aircraft owner, I didn’t claim to know anything about you at all.

I’m no know-it-all, but I do know a glaring non-sequitur when I see one.

[twotter]

For a compass swing, you all may be a bit surprised by actually reading the manufacturers instructions.
http://www.airpathcompass.com/J30/index ... structions
As for CID's comments, ignore him, the Winnipeg winters have frozen his brain...

[GyvAir]

From the Airpath Compass link twotter provided above:

Best results can be obtained in actual flight compensation by following the procedure outlined below:

A. Set directional gyro from a sectional line or runway. (Allow for magnetic variation to ensure gyro corresponds to magnetic heading)
B. Follow procedures 1 through 6 above.
C. Re-check directional gyro occasionally for possible precession, and allow for such precession error in recording results on magnetic compass deviation card.

NOTE: If aircraft is equipped, GPS can be used (allow for deviation) to establish reference headings for compass compensation. This technique will eliminate possible errors caused by gyro precession.

For any questions please contact Airpath Instrument Company at the address or phone numbers listed above.

Question for those more knowledgeable:
What would the procedure be for using the GPS in flight to establish the direction the longitudinal axis of the aircraft is aligned with?

[photofly]

Don't do it in flight; do it on the ground. I checked this out rolling down the centreline of a taxiway parallel with the runway (look at the aerial photos in google maps to make yourself happy this is so) and the GPS ground track was dead on the runway heading as listed.

As long as the nose gear is in the right place this will assure the longitudinal axis is parallel with the direction of motion.

[GyvAir]

Agreed. I don't see how one could do something similar in flight.

[wrenchturnin]

Ok so to go back a couple pages in the thread.... Lol. I bought myself a handheld master compass. Its is a normal read version. When Im pointing at the aircraft I cant recall if I can use this type and use the South bearing to align North in the aircraft and so on. I believe this is how I used to do it but can't recall. Ive sent it into the local shop here and wondered if I should tell them to drill holes on the other side and move the prism to make it a "reverse read" model?

[GyvAir]

I've used them set up both ways. After a few minutes of using it, you don't even notice the actual numbers and letters anymore. It's generally the person running the aircraft that sets up the rough direction to start with anyway. Basically, you're either on the cardinals or the thirty degree marks, and lined up with the axis of the aircraft or you're not. Whether you're reading north or south doesn't affect which direction the master compass is actually pointing.

[AirFrame]

Actually you mean "aircraft maintenance engineers"

Please do not refer to yourself as simply an "engineer" If you want to be an Engineer, go to school and be an EIT to become one.... Same thing your are complaining about.

If you're going to be a stickler for details, at least get the details correct. AME's are, indeed, Aviation Maintenance Engineers.

They are not Professional Engineers. That title is reserved in Canada for those who have spent 4 years in a university program and 4 years apprenticing as an Engineer-in-Training, or EIT. The only reason you don't call them Professional Engineers In Training is because they haven't earned the "Professional" adjective through their apprenticeship.

I've known AME's who could pass exams to become P.Eng's if they wanted to. And EIT's who I wouldn't trust with a screwdriver unless they were handing it to me.

[Angusnofangus]

Actually you mean "aircraft maintenance engineers"

Please do not refer to yourself as simply an "engineer" If you want to be an Engineer, go to school and be an EIT to become one.... Same thing your are complaining about.

If you're going to be a stickler for details, at least get the details correct. AME's are, indeed, Aviation Maintenance Engineers.

They are not Professional Engineers. That title is reserved in Canada for those who have spent 4 years in a university program and 4 years apprenticing as an Engineer-in-Training, or EIT. The only reason you don't call them Professional Engineers In Training is because they haven't earned the "Professional" adjective through their apprenticeship.

I've known AME's who could pass exams to become P.Eng's if they wanted to. And EIT's who I wouldn't trust with a screwdriver unless they were handing it to me.

As long as we are being sticklers for details, the licence in my pocket says Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, not Aviation Maintenance Engineer.

[wrenchturnin]

We are called AME's because we ENGINEER the MAINTENANCE. How its done, when its done, what is safe and within limit and what isnt, training apprentices, standard practices of a shop, the way things to should run keeping in mind human factors. All of these things and more account for why we ware called engineers.

[AirFrame]

As long as we are being sticklers for details, the licence in my pocket says Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, not Aviation Maintenance Engineer.

That just makes way too much sense. Not sure what I was smoking when I wrote Aviation. Can't even blame autocorrect as I was on my laptop not my phone!

[Strega]

We are called AME's because we ENGINEER the MAINTENANCE. How its done, when its done, what is safe and within limit and what isnt, training apprentices, standard practices of a shop, the way things to should run keeping in mind human factors. All of these things and more account for why we ware called engineers.

I would disagree... AMES do "not decide how its done" (you work to a standard), "when its done" (again, a standard), "what is safe and within limits" (you are comparing to a standard that you did not create). "training"- not sure what that has to do with anything.

[wrenchturnin]

We are called AME's because we ENGINEER the MAINTENANCE. How its done, when its done, what is safe and within limit and what isnt, training apprentices, standard practices of a shop, the way things to should run keeping in mind human factors. All of these things and more account for why we ware called engineers.

I would disagree... AMES do "not decide how its done" (you work to a standard), "when its done" (again, a standard), "what is safe and within limits" (you are comparing to a standard that you did not create). "training"- not sure what that has to do with anything.

I would disagree also, AME's DO decide how it's done and have a huge influence on how a shop is run. I agree we work to a standard, but keeping to this standard is a whole different story. It sounds easy when you say just follow it to a standard, but theres waaayy more to it then that. You need to anticipate, experience to know what to do with snags, know which schedule's apply in certain circumstances, have procedure's for apprentices and know when to and not to trust them, dealing with angry or cheap owners, dealing with an M2 airplane leaving in hour for the arctic with 120 passengers on a $120,000/day flight and theres a days worth of snags you need to at least get the airworthy ones fixed running aaround like a chicken with your head cut off etc etc.. there's sooo many aspects to list.

And saying something is "safe" goes way past a book standard, yes its a guideline of course when it's obviously bad but do you have the knowledge and experience to know if the snag can make it to next inspection?

Training in a shop is huge, some shops actively train mechanics, some shops don't. Hell recurrent training these days sometimes becomes a "pencil whip" in alot of case's. Or as simple as reading the latest's aviation magazine. Being the "AME" in a shop you need to be a example. If your working beside someone that's had 2 hours of sleep and just had a divorce that doesn't have human factors training and doesn't reconize his state telling you to spool up #1 engine with another mechanic near the prop. Safe shop practices go way past a "CARS Standard" and the quarterback for a safe shop are the licensed guys.
If it was a simple as just following a standard the name AME wouldn't exist. It would be just AM. Aircraft Mechanic.

[PilotDAR]

the knowledge and experience to know if the snag can make it to next inspection?

I think that the MELs will tell you that. In the absence of MELs, it's tricky.

AME's are tasked with keeping aircraft "Airworthy". "Airworthy is defined as "in safe condition, and conforming to there type design". The ICA(s) will define what conforming is, and safe is defined within a number of standards. There should be no "engineering" involved in making those determinations at the maintenance level. If an aircraft is non conforming, and the ICA's or other approved, accepted or specified data cannot be used to make it conform to its type design, you'll be seeking either special manufacturer's data, or a Repair Design Approval. It might be an Engineer who provides that.

A well written ICA will reduce the opportunity for the maintainer to "engineer" things during maintenance. An example of how this would be written [out] of the ICA would be to not write in an ICA "or equivalent" when describing what to install. The designer of the aircraft, or approval holder should define the configuration, not down load that "engineering" decision to the maintainer.

I don't really know if "running" a shop would be considered "engineering", but I hope maintaining the aircraft is not - it is following well defined practices as written, and measuring the outcome against a set standard - meets/does not meet.

[crazyaviator]

I would disagree also, AME's DO decide how it's done and have a huge influence on how a shop is run. I agree we work to a standard, but keeping to this standard is a whole different story. It sounds easy when you say just follow it to a standard, but theres waaayy more to it then that. You need to anticipate, experience to know what to do with snags, know which schedule's apply in certain circumstances, have procedure's for apprentices and know when to and not to trust them, dealing with angry or cheap owners, dealing with an M2 airplane leaving in hour for the arctic with 120 passengers on a $120,000/day flight and theres a days worth of snags you need to at least get the airworthy ones fixed running aaround like a chicken with your head cut off etc etc.. there's sooo many aspects to list.

And saying something is "safe" goes way past a book standard, yes its a guideline of course when it's obviously bad but do you have the knowledge and experience to know if the snag can make it to next inspection?

Training in a shop is huge, some shops actively train mechanics, some shops don't. Hell recurrent training these days sometimes becomes a "pencil whip" in alot of case's. Or as simple as reading the latest's aviation magazine. Being the "AME" in a shop you need to be a example. If your working beside someone that's had 2 hours of sleep and just had a divorce that doesn't have human factors training and doesn't reconize his state telling you to spool up #1 engine with another mechanic near the prop. Safe shop practices go way past a "CARS Standard" and the quarterback for a safe shop are the licensed guys.
If it was a simple as just following a standard the name AME wouldn't exist. It would be just AM. Aircraft Mechanic.

Extremely good reply BRAVO !

[NeverBlue]

Yup...there's a standard on how to fix everything that breaks...cause everything has broken before the exact same way...and everything is predictable in how it breaks...and everything an AME does is written down somewhere...just like in piloting...

[PilotDAR]

and everything an AME does is written down somewhere

Hopefully, though if it's not, it is unlikely that the AME has the opportunity to "engineer" a maintenance outcome which differs from that defined by the aircraft's design.

[AirFrame]

I would disagree... AMES do "not decide how its done" (you work to a standard), "when its done" (again, a standard), "what is safe and within limits" (you are comparing to a standard that you did not create). "training"- not sure what that has to do with anything.

Not really much different from Professional Engineers working to a standard as well. Building codes, ASME, SAE, MIL-SPEC, etc. Yes, P.Eng.'s get to develop those standards in the first place, but they don't derive them every time they need them either.

[NeverBlue]

Hopefully, though if it's not, it is unlikely that the AME has the opportunity to "engineer" a maintenance outcome which differs from that defined by the aircraft's design.

Sounds to me like you're not including REPAIR in your definition of aircraft maintenance.

[PilotDAR]

Sounds to me like you're not including REPAIR in your definition of aircraft maintenance.

I am including repair in my definition of maintenance. Some repair schemes are a part of the aircraft design, in that there may be approved repair techniques in a structural repair manual for the aircraft (which is a part of that aircraft's type design). TC and the FAA also allow reference to AC43.13-1B for some repairs, and the use of "made parts" in some cases.

In using any of that data, the AME is not really "designing" the repair, but rather applying previously designed and approved repair methods to qualifying damage. There are many repair schemes which though clear in the AME's mind, have no approved status for that aircraft. The AME would not be untitled to perform those repairs, without approved data to support them. That could be as simple as a fastener substitution, patch or splice which crosses another structural member, or disposition of a crack in the structure, where there is no supporting data.

Thus, maintenance and repair are one category of work accomplished on an aircraft, engineering, design, and approval of the design change are another, and there is not much crossover between them.

This is not unlike that situation which can exist where a certain component will fit on an aircraft, but is not approved on that type (like putting a different model/pitch/diameter prop on an aircraft when you know it will fit and work - but it's not approved). It is not an AME task to "design" that installation and accomplish it without approved data from an acceptable source.

[crazyaviator]

A simple fix to all this is called an X ( owner maintained category ) My latest plane was converted into that category prior to purchase, I dont really care either way !

[PilotDAR]

Yup, one of mine is O/M too, and I could not be happier about it. The other one is getting closer to being O/M, but I'm not quite ready to stamp X's just yet!