Weekend Annuals.

[GyvAir]

Maintained by OMEs?

[NeverBlue]

I am including repair in my definition of maintenance. Some repair schemes are a part of the aircraft design,

What's the "repair scheme" for a broken Autopilot in an C208?...or a yaw dampener in a B200 that only fails in flight?...

...can someone tell me where I can find a manufacturer's troubleshooting flowchart for a circuit breaker in a 737NG that only pops during rotation on every other flight?...and only when the co-pilot has blonde hair...and when the pilot has bad gas...

[Troubleshot]

Professional Engineers vs AME's....really hard to compare the two in my opinion. Both professions are extremely different and I could really care less about titles....but lets explore it a bit.

I think what we are missing in the conversation is proficiency. Being a PEng does not qualify you to be an AME and vice-versa. An AME could not (to mathematical certainty) tell you how much force could be applied to a 757 rudder mount before it fails...a PEng could. Now, tell the PEng to RE/RE that rudder and they would be slower than an apprenti fresh outta school...probably couldn't even get screws out of the panels without stripping 90% of them...would probably even try and use an cordless impact driver eh Strega

I don't mind the Aircraft Maintenance Engineer title though, I think it says something. I think it says I can preform the maintenance and release that maintenance IAW federal regulations....PEng's cannot. Important question: why can't professional Aeronautical Engineer release a simple hydraulic pump replacement? I mean he designed the thing right? The answer is simple...The professional Engineer simply does not have the skills or experience to replace that pump without possibly harming himself or the aircraft. Sure the PEng could print off the AMM sheets and slog through it, but what if say one of the mounting studs turns with the nut!! what does the AMM say about that exactly? Don't ever remember reading that anywhere, would they design a new way to get that nut off...of course not that is just silly.

Do I have a problem with Professional Engineers? hell no, full on respect. The problem is the respect is not returned by a few here. So if an aircraft owner who is also a PEng wants to tell you that you don't deserve the title "Engineer" just tell him to fix and release the aircraft himself...problem is he can't.

[robertw]

Do I have a problem with Professional Engineers? hell no, full on respect. The problem is the respect is not returned by a few here. So if an aircraft owner who is also a PEng wants to tell you that you don't deserve the title "Engineer" just tell him to fix and release the aircraft himself...problem is he can't.

+1 to that. Mutual respect = Professional.

[NeverBlue]

You tell us,, youre the "engineer" after all

I think...but not sure...my point was that there isn't one.
It has to be made-up as you go...and then hopefully you can return the system to an operational standard.

[PilotDAR]

Good post Troubleshot. thank you.

What's the "repair scheme" for a broken Autopilot in an C208?...or a yaw dampener in a B200 that only fails in flight?...

and

It has to be made-up as you go...and then hopefully you can return the system to an operational standard.

....When considered together are worrisome to me. A am as far from an avionics tech as one could be, but I'm sure there are specified methods for troubleshooting, and repair of autopilots and yaw dampers! I'm confident that those units are supported by manufacturer's ICA's - it is a regulatory requirement that they be provided - and used.

Troubleshot correctly stated:

I can preform the maintenance and release that maintenance IAW federal regulations...

made-up as you go

is not likely in accordance with the regulations!

To be honest, I would be very uncomfortable flying an aircraft whose autopilot or yaw damper had been serviced at all by a person who made things up as they went along. I like to read in the log that a repair was accomplished in accordance with the appropriate instructions for continued airworthiness, or other approved data, and believe that it was done properly.

[NeverBlue]

am as far from an avionics tech as one could be, but I'm sure there are specified methods for troubleshooting, and repair of autopilots and yaw dampers! I'm confident that those units are supported by manufacturer's ICA's - it is a regulatory requirement that they be provided - and used.

well...you'd be wrong...and when do you have to use them???????

no one else in Canada can sign a maintenance release on a Canadian aircraft. Period.

is that true?

Could an car Mechanic change brake pads on a C172? you're dam right he could...is he legally allow to do so? Nope.

I tink I can figur wat you writt dere.......not true either

[PilotDAR]

..and when do you have to use them???????

Any time you certify maintenance on a C of A aircraft in accordance with CAR and AWM 571:

571.02 Maintenance and Elementary Work Performance Rules
(amended 2002/09/01; previous version)
.........

Persons who perform maintenance or elementary work are required to follow the manufacturer’s recommendations, or equivalent practices.

The AME privilege is that to perform aircraft maintenance work in accordance with appropriate standards. The privilege does not extend to AME's inventing their own standards.

If an AME invented their own repair standard, what would the maintenance release say? "Aircraft ABC repaired in accordance with Sam's idea of Tuesday"? I wouldn't fly that!

It is entirely reasonable that AME's would like to be afforded the respect of their hard earned title and privilege. If heritage has allowed that it contains the word "Engineer" I'm fine with that. The people whose job it is to actually approve repair methods, prepare and/or formally accept ICA's would like to be afforded similar professional courtesy for what they do too....

[Troubleshot]

....When considered together are worrisome to me. A am as far from an avionics tech as one could be, but I'm sure there are specified methods for troubleshooting, and repair of autopilots and yaw dampers! I'm confident that those units are supported by manufacturer's ICA's - it is a regulatory requirement that they be provided - and used.

I will speak to my experience with large transport category aircraft that there are Troubleshooting documents, Boeing calls it the Fault Isolation Manual (FIM). These manuals are more of a time saver than anything. Any AME worth his weight could troubleshoot an issue with a autopilot, yaw damper, or any other system with the appropriate manuals (AMM, WD, SRM, etc..)

[AirFrame]

As I said in my last post, the trade name Aircraft Maintenance Engineer is a good one. Why? because no one else in Canada can sign a maintenance release on a Canadian aircraft. Period.

Period? No. Amateur-built aircraft can be signed off by the owner, who may be neither an AME *or* a P.Eng.

[crazyaviator]

Period? No. Amateur-built aircraft can be signed off by the owner, who may be neither an AME *or* a P.Eng.

Does the amateur-built A/C require a signed maintenance release ????

[PilotDAR]

Does the amateur-built A/C require a signed maintenance release ????

I signed skis onto a friend's amateur built PA-18 type the other day. I signed it as elementary work, as the pilot (I'm not an AME (nor Engineer)). TC said that my doing so was correct, when I asked.

[Strega]

All right, enough with the personal attacks. You add nothing of value to this discussion with these responses. Bandaid

[NeverBlue]

These manuals are more of a time saver than anything.

...these manuals are more of a waste of time than anything...


If they were such a "time saver" why wouldn't we use them only?

For certain types of systems in which you can only fix through reading codes and looking them up in a manual, understood...but for troubleshooting and repairing snags that are "one of's" that nobody's ever heard of before, well.......

....especially on brand new aircraft that have just been put into service.

[PilotDAR]

...these manuals are more of a waste of time than anything...

Does that apply to pilot's use of flight manuals too? Or just the people who are supposed to keep the plane airworthy?

[groncher]

CAR 571.11 spells out pretty clearly that only the holder of an AME license shall sign a maintenance release. There are a few exceptions: for aircraft that are outside Canada, and Special C of A aircraft, IE owner maintained or amateur built.

The main privilege of an AME is to sign a maintenance release (certify maintenance), for this reason I think the title is a good one, in that with the exceptions of the above, an AME is the only person who can do so. The other privileges are to sign an apprentice log book and supervise performance of elementary work.

My license says AME, and I am proud of that, but I do realize what it means and respect the P- Engineers who design the product and the manuals. I am not hung up on the title and if it was changed it wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit, and I know I am in the majority of AME's with that thought.

I have worked plenty of snags where there were no instructions on how to troubleshoot (as per your examples Neverblue). But troubleshooting is not engineering, it's being a good mechanic and using the resources at your disposal, IE AMM's WDM's ICA's etc, and your knowledge. Good troubleshooting skills come with time and some are better at it than others, it seems a lot of so-called troubleshooting today is just blindly throwing parts at it.

There might be limited guidance on it, but the end result of troubleshooting is always making a repair or replacing a part or whatever. That repair and any maintenance you did in the process of troubleshooting must always be carried out in accordance with a standard of airworthiness. Those standards aren't decided by AME's, we can have some input into it but we don't have have the final say, that is where the real engineering comes in.

My humble 2 cents and opinion.

[bandaid]

I have removed a number of off topic comments. If the two of you want to continue then do so in PM's.

[Angusnofangus]

I have removed a number of off topic comments. If the two of you want to continue then do so in PM's.

I, and many others I'm sure, thank you.

[DonutHole]

Repairs iaw ac43.13 often require clean sheet engineering.

"I made this repair in accordance with the data (essentially standards) found here.

[PilotDAR]

Repairs iaw ac43.13 often require clean sheet engineering.

In such a case, AC43.13 is the engineering, because the repair you do in accordance with AC43.13 conforms to that data, which is pre-accepted by TC for conditional use.

In the case where the repair is not described in AC43.13 (or any other pre approved data) then you're in need of other "clean sheet" data, which will then require approval. That might be an engineering task, but the approval of that clean sheet data will not be within the privileges of an AME license.

I am presently re re-repairing an aircraft I have imported. Prior to it's export from Canada in 1990, it was repaired with a splice. There is no manufacturer's data for this repair. The work report states that that repair was done in accordance with AC43.13, but it only has one third of the rivets specified by AC43.13 for that type of splice. So it does not conform (the paper does not match the plane!). Indeed, the AC43.13 generic repair is probably overkill for this splice (as the aircraft flew trouble free all those interim years). But, it was easier for me to add the required rivets in between the repair rivets than to approve the repair as done. After applying the math to determine the required number of rivets as a thought exercise, the result was within 2% of the AC43.13 value. It looks like a battleship now, but it conforms.

[Strega]

There are 3 types of data with respect to "repair" - none of witch an AME has anything to do with.

Specified Data
Approved Data
Acceptable Data

Pilot DAR knows this very well... AC 43-13 is acceptable data.

[Angusnofangus]

There are 3 types of data with respect to "repair" - none of witch an AME has anything to do with.

Specified Data
Approved Data
Acceptable Data

Pilot DAR knows this very well... AC 43-13 is acceptable data.

Actually, an AME has everything to do with the 3 types of data, as he is the guy who has to find the appropriate repair and then implement it. And while AC43-13 is acceptable data for spam cans, don't try to use it for a Boeing.

[Strega]

Actually, an AME has everything to do with the 3 types of data, as he is the guy who has to find the appropriate repair and then implement it. And while AC43-13 is acceptable data for spam cans, don't try to use it for a Boeing.

So when some dope smokin rampie runs the tug into the side of the Boeing, and there is no standard repair in the SRM... An AME will "find" a repair?

[DonutHole]

I'm sure it's happened with a stearman or two

[Angusnofangus]

Actually, an AME has everything to do with the 3 types of data, as he is the guy who has to find the appropriate repair and then implement it. And while AC43-13 is acceptable data for spam cans, don't try to use it for a Boeing.

So when some dope smokin rampie runs the tug into the side of the Boeing, and there is no standard repair in the SRM... An AME will "find" a repair?

If there is no repair in the SRM, then you have to go to Boeing. No reputable AME is pulling repairs out of his hat, such as you are suggesting. Plus, there are so many repair schemes in the SRM, especially the 737 SRM, you would have a hard time NOT finding one that fit the situation.