Considering this Picture, do you guys wear full harness?

log sheet · Post by **log sheet** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:10 pm

MCRS, maby it depends where you work and the people you are working with? Maby you have always worked where there are a lot of people around? If I change a starter/Gen or a compass swing needs to be done or whatever why not run it myself. Why tie up another guy who may be busy doing something else.

Maby some avionic guys don't wish to run A/C. That's fine.
I like doing M work as well as E work so maby thats why I asked to get checked out years ago. How you could ask a question like why would an E guy need to run an A/C makes me wonder? You must be joking right?
Then again when some guy's I have worked with in the past found out that I was writing for an M1 they said to me," Oh, your finally going for an AME licence, right on."
Actually I'm going to get an additional rating, I already have an AME licence. He looked at me shocked, he really didn't know that an E guy was an AME. Maby you're one of those smart fellers?

Twotter, thanks for the useful info. about restrictions that may be there.
It's always good to learn something new.

To the original question in this thread it could be a good idea to strap in.
[/quote]

CID · Post by **CID** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:34 pm

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.

Although I don't have A340 maintenance manuals, I do have them for the A310 and A330. Both require chocks for ground engine runs. I'm not saying that they are used every time, just that the AMM requires them.

log sheet · Post by **log sheet** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:49 pm

The incident which you are refering to happened at the Canadian hangar at YVR. Nothing to do with being unrestrained, had a lot to do with avionics having brain farts.

So it was AV engineers running this A/C? Must have been if they got blamed for it?

Akira · Post by **Akira** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:56 pm

MCRS wrote:why an avionics tech would need to run up an aircraft?

Why would it be any different than a M doing run ups?
what if you have a bleed snag and a controller/card was changed and the company asked for an engine run to confirm, is the avionics guy less competent, no. The avionics guys have the same endoursement some have a longer endoursement then the M counterpart, wouldnt that make them more so educated on the AC and better qualified?
If the avionics guy understands the systems and has run up training he is just as capable as any M.

Bullet Remington · Post by **Bullet Remington** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:18 pm

Just to poke in my 2 cents worth...

I've always tied myself in when doing ground runs! Probably a carry over from my military daze!

As for power runs, the CF18, CF104 and CF5 we always chained down whenever we had to do a Mil Power run or kick it the After burners. On top of the chains, we used heavy duty rubber chocks. During winter/cold weather runs we used run-up mats, chains AND the chocks. Rgardless of the type of run, we were strapped in and had heavy duty rubber run up chocks in, every run!

As for tieing down the commercial machines, that's quite easy to do. Have a look at the MLG legs on the Boeing (I'm not sure about the French machines) and you'll see a big U shaped shackle on them. They're usually cranked down to the flat position. They can easily be loosened and used to attach a chain or cable. Assuming you can find a place to attach the other end. The only time I've ever used these shackles on civiy street was to attach snatch cables to haul a machine out of the infield after it departed the runway. These shackles will handle a whole wack of strain and will easily hold back a machine during full power runs, assuming of course that the chocks are installed as a back up.

ame abc · Post by **ame abc** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:48 pm

i had a sparkie run up a twotter for me when i was a green apprentice, must say it was one of the scariest things ive seen, checkin autofeather and he just about ran it into the hanger, guess we should have tied that mother down! lol.

MCRS · Post by **MCRS** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:05 am

To all the Avoinics People posting, I looked back at my posts and can't find anywhere that I said Avionics Guys can't runup the Aircraft, I did say that in all the shops I worked they didn't. I also stated I had never worked on heavies so I don't know what is involved with Systems and runs there.
My whole experience has been with out fits that run things from Say a Beech 1900 down. In this regard I haven't seen a AVionics tech do anything but work on radio's and Antenna's and such like. My uninformed knowledge of what Avionics tech's do outside of that left me to wonder and ask Why you as an Avionics tech would run up a A/C when all you do was work on radio's and stuff. (My Heart felt appology to those I have offended for my oblivious knowledge of what Avionics tech do.)
Log sheet, No offense man, All the Avionics people I dealt with in the Charter or GA world didn't do as much as you, hence my statement that they were to busy working on Radio's etc. to have time to Do anything on the Aircraft. Seems your an all round guy!
So I stand corrected to the Avionics crowd. I won't make a blanket statement about all of you ever again! Except to say " stay Safe and well grounded!)
Cheers,
mcrs

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:33 am

i had a sparkie run up a twotter for me when i was a green apprentice, must say it was one of the scariest things ive seen, checkin autofeather and he just about ran it into the hanger, guess we should have tied that mother down! lol.

Sounds like a training issue to me. Any operator that allows ANYONE to run engines or even sit in the cockpit without the proper training is just asking for trouble.

The suggestion here that certain people aren't capable of being trained to run aircraft engines because of their specialty is misguided and just plain ignorant.

There are plenty of examples of fully qualified (on paper) pilots and engineers damaging airplanes during enging operation.

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 3:00 am

So, why would we listen to a person who has never run a large airplane? You have never answered that question? Come on CID, let us know why you have this expertise. Without any proof, your comments are baseless.

That means that you have no credibility.. Surprise surprise..

CID · Post by **CID** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:33 am

You don't have to do anything you don't want to do twotter. But I do recommend you see a professional about your obsession.

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:09 am

CID wrote:You don't have to do anything you don't want to do twotter. But I do recommend you see a professional about your obsession.

You are oh so right about the fact that I don't have to do anything I don't want to.

One of the things I do like to do is show you as the fraud that you really are. I have asked you to prove your experience in the area in question and you have failed to do so. Therefore you are just another mouthpiece beaking off about things you know nothing about. People need to know this and I'm happy to provide them with the proof.

It is a simple fact that I have run large widebody jets at full power and you have not. Therefore, your opinion is purely speculation. You have no actual knowledge of the subject and therefore should not be coming off as some expert.

You continue to try to spin it as some obsession of mine, however, my only intent is to let the rest of the readers know that you are full of crap.. Can you prove me wrong? I didn't think so. You continually come on here with your high and mighty attitude which could only come from a wannabe. Until you are willing to prove you have any experience why don't you just go away and leave the real explaining of things to those of us who have both been there and done that.

By the way, your excuse of this being an anonomous forum is getting way too old. Most people on here know who I am and I'm not shy about it. On the other hand there are only a few of us who know who you are, maybe for credibility sake you should let everyone know who you are!! That would put a lot more weight behind your comments.

From Akira,

So an AME "E" isnt an engineer?

Yes an AME E is an engineer but not in the context of being able to run an airplane necessarily. Most E types have never even started one let alone done any kind of power runs. I have yet to find an airline that runs large aircraft that will issue a run authority to an E type. You are not seeing the context in which this was said. You also have to understand who I was really saying it to as CID thinks he is a GOD of aviation. A legend in his own mind..

CID · Post by **CID** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:33 am

twotter,

I don't know you and you don't know me. You don't know what I do or have done in my carreer. I want to make that perfectly clear. I also have no desire to meet you.

Why do you continue to try to escalate this discussion (and every other discussion) into an argument? What is driving your obsession? I doubt it's some boyscout desire to warn people about me. I think most AvCanada posters are smart enough to decide if they agree with me or not.

I think this thread has run it's course and its now drifted way off topic. Mods, why don't you shut this down now and let twotter open a new topic in the misc. forum where he can continue his "personal" attacks.

Cheers

The Other Kind · Post by **The Other Kind** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:59 am

Holy fack, I thought you two had finally let this die, I guess not...

Let it go man, I'm embarrassed for both of you.

Akira · Post by **Akira** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:16 am

twotter wrote:From Akira,
So an AME "E" isnt an engineer?
Yes an AME E is an engineer but not in the context of being able to run an airplane necessarily. Most E types have never even started one let alone done any kind of power runs. I have yet to find an airline that runs large aircraft that will issue a run authority to an E type. You are not seeing the context in which this was said. You also have to understand who I was really saying it to as CID thinks he is a GOD of aviation. A legend in his own mind..

So you believe that an E shouldnt be able to do engine runs?

log sheet · Post by **log sheet** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:26 pm

Most E Types? What do you mean by E Types??

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:20 pm

Akira wrote:
twotter wrote:From Akira,
So an AME "E" isnt an engineer?
Yes an AME E is an engineer but not in the context of being able to run an airplane necessarily. Most E types have never even started one let alone done any kind of power runs. I have yet to find an airline that runs large aircraft that will issue a run authority to an E type. You are not seeing the context in which this was said. You also have to understand who I was really saying it to as CID thinks he is a GOD of aviation. A legend in his own mind..
So you believe that an E shouldnt be able to do engine runs?

Most E types that I know of (and for logsheet that is an AME "E" as in an avionics type) have never been trained to do it. It is not normally a qualification for the E type as its not a very common thing that an E type would have to run an airplane. If the person is qualified and wants to learn how to run the airplane and the company approves it, I would have no problem training that person to run it. I've just never run into it.

twotter · Post by **twotter** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:23 pm

CID wrote:twotter,

I don't know you and you don't know me. You don't know what I do or have done in my carreer. I want to make that perfectly clear. I also have no desire to meet you.

Why do you continue to try to escalate this discussion (and every other discussion) into an argument? What is driving your obsession? I doubt it's some boyscout desire to warn people about me. I think most AvCanada posters are smart enough to decide if they agree with me or not.

I think this thread has run it's course and its now drifted way off topic. Mods, why don't you shut this down now and let twotter open a new topic in the misc. forum where he can continue his "personal" attacks.

Cheers

There are no personal attacks on here or the Mod's would have done something long ago. I know you message them about me on a regular basis.

What I'm stating here is fact not fiction, this is my point. You cannot continue to give incorrect or unwise advice without someone correcting you. This is simply what I am doing is correcting your bad advice. And you don't like it.

BTW, a simple way for you to get me to stop posting to this is for you go quit first. If you don't post crap, I won't respond.

dashx · Post by **dashx** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:36 pm

Engineer???????????????????????????????????

All of you are mechanics... plane and simple.......

Unless (of course) you went to university and graduated with an engineering degree... and then got your P Eng.

Mechanics. Got it?

You fix planes. I don't give a rat's ass how highly qualifed you think you are. any of you (unless of course you have that P Eng hanging in your washroom).

Mechanics.

As far as run ups go the AMO you are working for (M2 category anyways) will grant you the privelege of doing run ups.

The endorsement course you take for the A/C includes run up procedures. At least for the Dash/Bombardier products it does.

The AMO then checks you out with a qualified AME (sorry MECHANIC) and then clears you for run ups.

Oh but please correct me if I am wrong.

And BTW I personally only know of one mechanic (AME) who went to university and got his (you got it) engineering degree. then went to Bombardier.

Mechanics.

Oh and to get back to the topic.

Yes I do buckle up for ground runs. I even ask the obs in the jump seat to buckle up.

And when we go for power runs we use the runway (not in use). I did it at YTZ and now do it at YYZ.

Does anyone remember the Chinese Dash 8-400 that ran into the terminal bldg a few years ago? They totalled the plane. The story goes like this. the mechanics were not trained for runs only pilots were. So whatever they were doing caused the plane to jump the chocks and crash into the bldg. And the mechanics disappeared.....

Oh but I digress.

Buckle up.

MCRS · Post by **MCRS** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:14 am

Dash X better dawn the Flak helmet after saying we are all not Engineers but mechanics, Any people on here are ardent supporters of the fact we are Engineers.
If we aren't why do all the training Schools and Transport Canada refer to us as Engineers?
Personally I don't really care what you call us, Engineer or Mechanic.

I will however keep refering to myself with the proper Title Transport Canada has given me till they change it on my License.......... And what is that you say Why AME of course and what does it stand for Aircraft Maintenance Engineer.

When I am asked what I do I just say I make sure the Aircraft meets design standards, By inspecting the systems. (To which they almost always reply "Oh so your a Mechanic then?" )

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:51 am

When I am asked what I do I just say I make sure the Aircraft meets design standards, By inspecting the systems.

I think AMEs make sure the aircraft conforms to the type design. Subtle but important difference.

log sheet · Post by **log sheet** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:42 pm

Twotter, only yankin' yer chain, I know exactly what you are saying.

Dashx, are you talking about a mechanical engineering degree?

To my knowledge the only people who can sign a maintenance release for work completed on an A/C are AME's.

It is AME's who think like you that are the reason why our industry and AME's don't get the respect and compensation we as professionals deserve!

ourkid2000 · Post by **ourkid2000** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:15 pm

The AMO then checks you out with a qualified AME (sorry MECHANIC) and then clears you for run ups.

So we're not AME's then huh? Dickhead....

This is an unimportant discussion and I really don't care what they call us but I think it shows just how much some pilots disregard & disrespect our profession

dashx · Post by **dashx** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:38 pm

[/quote]If we aren't why do all the training Schools and Transport Canada refer to us as Engineers?[quote]

Now what was that famous quote oh yes....Ther's a sucker born every minute.

What exactly does a guy who fixes (oh i am sorry maintain)planes "engineer"?

Anyway here's a little something from an online dictionary:

The history of the concept of "engineering" stems from the earliest times when humans began to make clever inventions, such as the pulley, lever, or wheel, etc. The exact etymology of the word engineer, however, is a person occupationally connected with the study, design, and implementation of engines. The word "engine", derives from the Latin ingenium (c. 1250), meaning "innate quality, especially mental power, hence a clever invention."[6] Hence, an engineer, essentially, is someone who makes useful or practical inventions.

And here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering

Respect and compensation?

Does anybody out there remember Robert Conrad's commercial with the battery on his shoulder? I think ourkid2000 was maybe just maybe soiling his diaper then. Dickhead? Very creative .....

Respect has to be earned.

Domore notless..

log sheet · Post by **log sheet** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:54 pm

Engineers apply the principles of science and mathematics to develop economical solutions to technical problems.

Dashx, we all can search the internet to find definitions. The plain and simple fact is that the federal government has issued AME's an Engineer licence and it takes an AME to inspect and Certify work completed on an A/C before the A/C or system on that A/C can be returned to service.
If this dosen't meet with your approval take it up with the Government.

Are you a pilot by the way?

BoostedNihilist · Post by **BoostedNihilist** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:35 pm