Considering this Picture, do you guys wear full harness?

MCRS · Post by **MCRS** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:06 am

To Twotter and Cid,
I think the original intendt of the post was directed more to the question of Do you wear a Belt when you do run ups not what the post has now degraded to.
To that original post I am responding. No I don't wear a Safety belt when I do runs. Mind you the biggest thing I run and proformance check are Metro's and King Airs on down. I think I would probably carry that over to the Big Iron (If I every decided to go that way which I am inclined not to.)
Now If I needed to taxi it around then yes, I would wear the belt. You never know when I good gust of wind will catch the Tail of a texas taildragger and send you on an unwanted trip ass over tea kettle so to speak.
And to tell you the truth CID and Twotter. Who really gives a rats patut which way A320 .... adnauseum should be run according to you. Usually you follow company procedure and if they follow the manual verbateum fine Do it that way. The the question was never what is proper procedure they seems the post has been hijacked be that now. (How sad!)

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:36 am

CID wrote:
BTW, why listen to what the manufacturer says? CID knows much better that Boeing and Airbus, just ask him..
Don't just read the posts, try to understand them twotter. I agree with the manufacturer. The guys running the airplane apparently didn't and they wrote it off.

They were the manufacturer..

For MCRS, it was not an attempted hijacking on my part, I'm merely sick of this person spewing untruths to the newer people. Why should I allow a person to advise people with wrong information? Why should I allow him to try to convince you that he is right when he is so wrong? He has a pattern of going about his business of trying to discredit all who have any amount of experience in this business. He has managed to piss off just about anyone who has tried to debate with him. I will not stoop to his level and will not allow him free reign on this site. I will call bullshit when it is called for and it certainly was here. I have the endorsements to verify my experience and would like to know why an avionics tech would be running an airplane.

CID · Post by **CID** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:30 am

They were the manufacturer..

Oh really? I'm not sure where to start. First of all, the guys on board were a mixture of consultants hired by the airline and Airbus employees.

Whatever the case, there is no guarantee that persons who work for the manufacturer are going to follow the manufacturer's recommendations and practices. Hence the statment from Airbus. Try to follow along twotter.

As far as the rest of your post goes, just more bullshit from an obvious moron. Again, take your own advice and ignore me. Or at least try to learn how to debate like an adult.

You're emabarassing yourself again.

ame abc · Post by **ame abc** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:50 am

i have a relevant question, if as you say these a/c should be tied down, how many airports actually have provisions for this or do you just tie them to the nearest tree?

CID · Post by **CID** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:35 am

That's a good question ame abc. I've only seen tie down provisions on one run up pad at a manufacturer's flight test facility. A buddy that is ex-military also tells me it was normal procedure when running up airplanes like an F-104.

Of course you don't need them because generally speaking if you want to run just one engine at a time, you can safely use the prescribed area with some chocks.

If you feel the need to do more than that, like run all engines up most airports will allow you do do it on the end of a runway or a taxiway.

Remember that I said if you insist on doing these types of intermediate or high power runs in an ENCLOSED area, you should tie the airplane down, OR you should just run it on a runway or taxiway.

My original post was:

I think it makes a good case for how dumb it is to spool an airplane’s engines to full power in a confined area between blast fences unless you chain that mother down.

If I was these guys I definitely wouldn’t “firewall” the power levers with any obstacles in front of me. They should have conducted this test on a runway or a long taxiway.

A simple concept really and unless you're twotter, it's easy to understand.

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:20 am

Obviously no experience at all with running large aircraft. Go ahead and slag all you want. Why would anyone believe you when you have no experience. You can hide behind all your excuses behind this forum but the bottom line is that you give bad advice and have no experience. Period.

CID · Post by **CID** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:06 am

Obviously no experience at all with running large aircraft. Go ahead and slag all you want. Why would anyone believe you when you have no experience. You can hide behind all your excuses behind this forum but the bottom line is that you give bad advice and have no experience. Period.

Repeating bullshit over and over doesn't make it any truer.

MCRS · Post by **MCRS** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:57 pm

Twotter, Please give the rest of AME's some credit. We can read BS when we see it. And it appears the CID sure knows how to get your motor running and get you spun up. You did state in an earlier post not to keep responding to His lack of knowledge on the subject but yet you keep responding to his taunts. Seems you have a hard time following your own advice.
As to CID I don't know any Airports at least ones that operate outside of a bush strip that allow you to do Power runs, Brake test...... whatever else you want to call it any place other then a designated runup bay or pad. To say they would let you on to the runway to do a power check is absurd. And make all those pilots wet their pants because now they have to use reserve fuel just cause maintenance want to do an engine run on the run way. As to securing the Aircraft....... I have never seen a tie down on a big Aircraft so can I ask where you plan to tie down the aircraft?
I can understand Chocks on the wheels and using park brakes but do you
really believe that a little tie down hook will keep 55,000 lbs of thrust from stoping a planes forward motion? If so maybe you need to review the laws of physics again. Namely for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
By the way I'd hate to be anywhere near that plane if one of those tie downs you want so bad let go!

Just what I am seeing from the disscussion anyway take it as you like!

CID · Post by **CID** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:22 pm

To say they would let you on to the runway to do a power check is absurd.

Well then I guess there are alot of absurd controllers at airports out there. I've personally been, there and done that. ATC has no issue with you occupying an inactive runway for this sort of thing if they can accomodate you.

Remember, that I didn't state just use a runway. How about a suitable taxiway or a runway hold bay? Either would do.

I can understand Chocks on the wheels and using park brakes but do you really believe that a little tie down hook will keep 55,000 lbs of thrust from stoping a planes forward motion? If so maybe you need to review the laws of physics again. Namely for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

A "little" tie down hook? I made no such claim. If you need to restrain an airplane for this sort of thing, (all engines at high power) you'd see some pretty big chains or large steel cables. Again, the more realistic and practical option is to do high power multi engine run-ups on the end of a runway or a taxiway or other suitable areas with no obstacles immediately in front of the airplane.

And make all those pilots wet their pants because now they have to use reserve fuel just cause maintenance want to do an engine run on the run way.

Why would you ever have to run all engines at high power at the same time during normal maintenance?

I'm amazed at how this simple logical statement is so difficult to comprehend.

MCRS · Post by **MCRS** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 4:01 pm

CID wrote:That's a good question ame abc.
I've only seen tie down provisions on one run up pad at a manufacturer's flight test facility. A buddy that is ex-military also tells me it was normal procedure when running up airplanes like an F-104.

Of course you don't need them because generally speaking if you want to run just one engine at a time, you can safely use the prescribed area with some chocks.

If you feel the need to do more than that, like run all engines up most airports will allow you do do it on the end of a runway or a taxiway.

Remember that I said if you insist on doing these types of intermediate or high power runs in an ENCLOSED area, you should tie the airplane down, OR you should just run it on a runway or taxiway.
My original post was:

I think it makes a good case for how dumb it is to spool an airplane’s engines to full power in a confined area between blast fences unless you chain that mother down.

If I was these guys I definitely wouldn’t “firewall” the power levers with any obstacles in front of me. They should have conducted this test on a runway or a long taxiway.
A simple concept really and unless you're twotter, it's easy to understand.

Alright CID I can buy the inactive Runway Arguement to do the power checks but you did fail to mention that you were refering to inactive my mistake. So accept my appolegy on that one!
I must say though I have never had to worry about brakes not holding while doing a performance check and yes, we do run engines at the recommended values to full power when you complete any major engine work. I will say the only time I had to worry about moving was pulling power on iced over run up area's. Whent that was an issue we just looked for a bare patch of pavement to do the run on. I have another question for you though. Are the brakes not suppose to hold to allow the Aircraft to execute short field take off's You know long enough for the Aircraft to hit peak power before they release brakes to start the roll down the runway?
As to confined spaces, I have been to more airports then not that have a very limited space for run ups often time the run up bays have a fence or drainage ditch in close proximity, so you deal with what you have at hand, idiotic to do so or not, the plane is expected to be serviceable when the client shows up for it, if all you have is a fenced off area well I guess you do what you can to make it work safely. (As to the manufactures recommendations of course.) If he says tie it down there you go.

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:23 am

MCRS,

You are confusing my statements with this person getting me wound up..

I am so far from being wound up, because for me to care about what he says, I would have to respect his opinion. Which I obviously don't. I just worry about the people who would be stupid enough to accept his drivel as fact. Believe me, there are many people who don't know any better, they just look for someone who can talk good and go with that.. You know the used car salesman routine.

Rather than get upset at CID's posts, I actually feel sorry for the poor guy who goes through life in a haze..

log sheet · Post by **log sheet** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:15 am

I have the endorsements to verify my experience and would like to know why an avionics tech would be running an airplane.[/quote]

Twotter,
what's wrong with an Avionics tech running an airplane?

CID · Post by **CID** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:59 am

You are confusing my statements with this person getting me wound up..

I am so far from being wound up, because for me to care about what he says, I would have to respect his opinion. Which I obviously don't. I just worry about the people who would be stupid enough to accept his drivel as fact. Believe me, there are many people who don't know any better, they just look for someone who can talk good and go with that.. You know the used car salesman routine.

Rather than get upset at CID's posts, I actually feel sorry for the poor guy who goes through life in a haze..

I'm going to show this post to my psychologist friend. To a layperson like me, it really exposes your insecurity and low self esteem quite well twotter. It will be interesting to see what she says about it.

Please, seek help.

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:10 am

log sheet wrote:I have the endorsements to verify my experience and would like to know why an avionics tech would be running an airplane.

Twotter,
what's wrong with an Avionics tech running an airplane?[/quote]

The problem is that I've yet to work for an airline that will endorse an avionics tech to run an airplane. They always have to have an actual engineer or pilot run it for them.

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:14 am

CID wrote:
You are confusing my statements with this person getting me wound up..

I am so far from being wound up, because for me to care about what he says, I would have to respect his opinion. Which I obviously don't. I just worry about the people who would be stupid enough to accept his drivel as fact. Believe me, there are many people who don't know any better, they just look for someone who can talk good and go with that.. You know the used car salesman routine.

Rather than get upset at CID's posts, I actually feel sorry for the poor guy who goes through life in a haze..
I'm going to show this post to my psychologist friend. To a layperson like me, it really exposes your insecurity and low self esteem quite well twotter. It will be interesting to see what she says about it.

Please, seek help.

You do that buddy.. I'm sure your "friend" that you don't see regularly will have some interesting things to say to you, especially if you include your own posts. Please get your "friend" to email me and I will be more than happy to supply lots of information on you. If I don't hear from your "friend" I will assume that you are totally full of crap!!

Cheers and looking forward to hearing from your "friend"..

By the way, it has now come time to shit or get off the pot. Either you come through with this or I will quote it till the cows come home and embarrass you until you go away.. I will also want emailed transcripts from any psychologist to prove who he/she is.. Without that it's just all crap and you will be proven to be full of shit..

don't know much · Post by **don't know much** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:53 am

I would like to know what provisions these large aircraft have to attach these large chains or cables CID speaks of. Do they use a large clevis that must be hoisted into place with a crane while King Kong threads the pin in? I would assume these attach points would be on the main gear legs. In all my years in aviation I have yet to see this.

CID · Post by **CID** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:31 am

I would like to know what provisions these large aircraft have to attach these large chains or cables CID speaks of. Do they use a large clevis that must be hoisted into place with a crane while King Kong threads the pin in? I would assume these attach points would be on the main gear legs. In all my years in aviation I have yet to see this.

You're kind of missing the point. My original post stated that these guys were nuts to do high power runs in an enclosed space without restraining the airplane. I think used the term "chain that mother down". As I stated, the better solution was to do the runs in an area with obstacles in front of the airplane.

You're right, its highly unlikely you'll see the airplane chained or tethered in place during runs because;

1. There is no reason during normal maintenance to run all engines at high power.

2. Even if you did need to, it's insane to do it in an enclosed area.

I'm even a little skittish with some run-up constraints like on the A310. If you need to run an engine over 80% N1, you need to set the other to 65%. That's a bit of a ticking time bomb too, but the AMM (and common sense) requires the airplane to be chocked and brakes set. Apparently the A340 in question wasn't chocked.

By the way, it has now come time to shit or get off the pot. Either you come through with this or I will quote it till the cows come home and embarrass you until you go away.. I will also want emailed transcripts from any psychologist to prove who he/she is.. Without that it's just all crap and you will be proven to be full of shit..

Unfortunately we'll have to wait until after Christmas. My buddy is spending the holidays in the middle east.

Until then, I don't need her to verify that you're insane twotter. Emailed transcripts? You're right. This is just an anonymous forum. Whatever I state here is all just my opinion. I'm under no obligation to offer official proof. Just like you twotter.

As far as embarassing me, you certainly have plenty of experience embarassing yourself but me, not so much.

Cheers

log sheet · Post by **log sheet** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:35 am

The problem is that I've yet to work for an airline that will endorse an avionics tech to run an airplane. They always have to have an actual engineer or pilot run it for them.[/quote]

Maby it works different with da big ones. I've only worked on turboprop A/C. With 3 different companies neither of them had a problem checking out a trained and qualified avionic teck(apprentice). I was a teck(apprentice) for 2 years and was checked out on running the company A/C after about 18 months. So I've been running A/C for 11yrs, 2 as an apprentice and 9 yrs as an "actual Aircraft Maintenance Engineer- Categeory E."
You guys call it being endorsed, big fancy word meaning you were checked out and given company approval to run that particular A/C.
I am also assuming that being endorsed on on da big ones also means you went and got a type course on that A/C and with the combination of the course and relative experience on that machine you were given an ACA by the company you work for? Thats how it works for the little guys.
Now, like I said I haven't worked on the big one so if I'm wrong on this I appologize in advance. I am writing the transport exams now for an M1,there are no different exams for an M2, so I can't see much of a difference for getting an ACA on them.
So if your Avionic tecks are trained, have type courses and company approval there should be no reason why they can't run airplanes.
Cheers!

PS: Could somebody please tell me how to quote on this thing! I can run an A/C but I can barely use a computer!

CID · Post by **CID** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:41 am

Don't worry about it logsheet. Twotter is only demonstrating his strange phobia towards avionics techs. His vivid imagination paired with his fear of avionics techs leads him to relate any negative thought that enters his so-called mind to “avionics”.

I’m not sure where it began. Maybe he was dropped on his head by an avionics tech when he was born. Maybe he was weaned too early or toilet trained too late.

Either way, he’s convinced I’m evil and that I’m and avionics tech so don’t take any of his blathering personally. It was directed towards me.

PS: Could somebody please tell me how to quote on this thing! I can run an A/C but I can barely use a computer!

Just highlight the text you want, and click on the "Quote" button.

Cheers

By the way, avoid mentioning aircraft wiring. It drives him right out of his mind and he starts sputtering all sorts of nonsense.

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:46 am

Actually, with larger aircraft and larger airlines you will be issued a runup authority which may be restricted to idle or, in the case of someone who has actually gone and done the full simulator training, full power authority. For a jackass like CID to mouth off as he does so well, it proves that he has absolutely no experience working with the big ones or he would have known this. It's not just a case of jumping in and running it, you have to go to the Sim and learn how to do it properly, which does not include tying it down.

If you want to continue to embarrass yourself with your foolish drivel CID, fill your boots. Like I said earlier, I will not stand by while you lie to the newbies who do not know any better. I have shown that you are full of crap, yet you continue to ramble on like a politician, trying to spin it one way or the other. You are hillarious, if it wasn't so entertaining having a battle of the wits with the unarmed I would have given up long ago.

Akira · Post by **Akira** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:03 pm

twotter wrote:The problem is that I've yet to work for an airline that will endorse an avionics tech to run an airplane. They always have to have an actual engineer or pilot run it for them.

So an AME "E" isnt an engineer?

CID · Post by **CID** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:14 pm

For a jackass like CID to mouth off as he does so well, it proves that he has absolutely no experience working with the big ones or he would have known this.

I made no comment regarding the issue of run-up authority twotter. You did. Please try to follow along and move the focus to the subject matter. Your rage is blinding you.

And please stop slagging avionics techs. You are targetting them quite unfairly in this discussion.

MCRS · Post by **MCRS** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:38 pm

LogSheet, I also have worked in smaller outfits for my entire career, Must say I have never seen an Avionics tech do a run up on the aircraft. I am not saying it can't be done and I agree if you have had the check out go ahead. incidentally, can someone explain to me why an avionics tech would need to run up an aircraft?
Also All the shops I worked for that did have an Avionics tech. never had him run the Aircraft at all, He was always to busy having fun playing with his knobs!

don't know much · Post by **don't know much** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:18 pm

[quote]You're kind of missing the point. My original post stated that these guys were nuts to do high power runs in an enclosed space without restraining the airplane. I think used the term "chain that mother down". As I stated, the better solution was to do the runs in an area with obstacles in front of the airplane.

Although I do agree in principle it is not the smartest thing in the world to run 4 engines @ 220,000+ lbs of thrust in an enclosed area, it is done all the time. I don't think it would matter if it was 50,000 lbs of thrust. The parking brake should hold the a/c, unless it was on ice. I don't think the chocks would have made much of a difference, except for the fact they may have felt a bump whilst too busy looking @ gauges. A set of eyes looking out the window @ a reference point for movement is a good idea. The same guy should also have enough sense to grab the throttles if things start moving.
Most of my experience is with prop-driven M1 stuff, with a couple years of heavy jet experience. Funny, my biggest concern was with what was behind me. Must side with Twotter.

ourkid2000 · Post by **ourkid2000** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:35 pm

I've seen avionics guys run up aircraft plenty of times........a couple of my buddies at Canjet would run em up all the time.