Goinv From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 263 posts, RR: 2 Posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3187 times:
I was always under the impression that a mechanic who worked on (lets say) the starboard engine was not allowed to carry out similar work at the same time on the port engine.
This was to reduce the risk associated with a possible mistake being made on both engines with obvious disastrous results.
Today I have been talking with an ex RAF engineer who says this is wrong and the rigourous checks would highight potential errors.
Was my understanding an urban myth or are mechanics not allowed to do the things I have highlighted ?
Be who you are, The world was made to measure for your smile. So Smile.
TristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3855 posts, RR: 34 Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3176 times:
In our airline we have a twin engine policy that basically says one mechanic per engine. This came from Etops rules which also have this. But this does not stop one mechanic from servicing the oils on both engines.
In the old days there was always an inspector to check your work, but nowadays licensed mechanics work on their own and certify their own work, so except for controls which need duplicate inspections ( or RII in the USA) most work is not checked. Hence the twin engine policy.
2enginesonly From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 91 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3114 times:
Over here in the Netherlands we have, besides the ETOPS requirements, also the 'critical tasks'.
This basically is the same as for the engines except that it's also valid on other systems.
For instance, one person is not allowed to replace both wheels on the same axle....that has to be performed by 2 persons. Seperate axles is no problem, just as long as they're not on the same axle.
This is for all a/c....not limited to ETOPS a/c only.
I've got a list somewhere of the systems concerned but it's covers several systems.
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9348 posts, RR: 12 Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3109 times:
Quoting Goinv (Thread starter): I was always under the impression that a mechanic who worked on (lets say) the starboard engine was not allowed to carry out similar work at the same time on the port engine.
It must be a UK thing because I've never seen that in any US airlines GPM.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
Buzz From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 697 posts, RR: 23 Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3077 times:
Hi Goinv, Buzz here. Over here in the Colonies (grin) we call that "Dual Maintenance" and where I work it's allowed... except on ETOPS aircraft. As a more practical matter on our crew we try to avoid having the same guy do the same task on both engines.
I recall hearing a tale about an Eastern Airlines L-1011 that left Miami in the 1980's after an overnight check where the oil screens were all changed by the same guy. Problem was that this time the "new" oil screens didn't come from the shop with O-rings. So the guy (working tired in the middle of the night I imagine) plugs in the new oil screens, and considered it good.
After takeoff, the Flight Engineer noticed that one of the engines was losing a lot of oil. So shut down the engine, and turn back to Miami.
After they have the engine secured and aircraft turned around the F/E saw that both of the other engines are really, really low on oil. So they re-start the shut down engine, and shut down the other 2 engines... landing successfully at Miami with people in life vests in case of a water landing.
I forget the logic that deploys the RAT on an L-1011, it was deployed on landing. Somebody had never seen it before and asked "what's that for?". Somebody replied that's the "trolling motor" for after you ditch. (you can slowly go fishing) (grin)
TristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3855 posts, RR: 34 Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3061 times:
Quoting Buzz (Reply 8): Eastern Airlines L-1011 that left Miami in the 1980's after an overnight check where the oil screens were all changed by the same guy.
They were Tedeco plugs (chip detectors.) After that incident Rolls changed the design so you could not fit them without o-rings.
The problem was that when you drew the box of plugs from stores they always came (and still do) with o rings fitted, this box didn't because it came a different route and th rings were never fitted before issue.
Now on a RB211 if you try to fit a chip detector without an oring a pin drops into the oring groove and stops you fitting it.
Fr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4717 posts, RR: 12 Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2983 times:
Quoting Buzz (Reply 12): And Hawk21M... I don't know why they didn't find the leak at idle after oil system work
Because not all maintenance programs require an engine run after pulling a QD magnetic chip detector. Don't know about the L-1011, but as I recall, the PW2037 does not require a run after checking the detector. I'd need to double check that.