Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Allowed References When Signing A Tech Log  
User currently offlineApprentice From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 113 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2996 times:

Till now, I was sure I may use any Manufacturer's or Regulatory Agency's approved documents to close and item in a/c Technical Log Book, provided you use correct effectivity.
In my new company, they use only Aircraft Maintenance Manual, others are unofficially vetoed. FI, a part of a mayor assembly found damaged and it's replaced whith a spare part which p/n is retrieved from Manufacturer's Part Catalog, they still stride to find any AMM reference for that repalcement, frequently using a "Standard Practices" item.
So my questions: Who define which are the alllowed approved documents to be use by Mx: a) Regulatory Agency; b) Manufacturer; c) Operator. And where I can find this regulation.

Many thanks


A "NO" is a positive answer. My Tutor
30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9159 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2990 times:

Quoting Apprentice (Thread starter):
Who define which are the alllowed approved documents to be use by Mx: a) Regulatory Agency; b) Manufacturer; c) Operator. And where I can find this regulation.

It goes back to the ongoing airworthiness of the aircraft, i.e. keeping the certificate of airworthiness (CofA) valid. It then comes under the rules of the regulator that issued the certificate of airworthiness.

In an airline environment dealing with large aircraft they will have procedures that are approved by the regulator that issued the CofA that deal with approved methods, written procedures, and parts.

If you are in such an environment, I would suggest that the quality assurance people would be the ones to ask for the specifics relating to your organization.

I have written this post somewhat vague, as a lot of aircraft are operated in different countries from where they were manufactured, each country has the right to establish their own rules.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineApprentice From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2871 times:

Thanks for prompt answer. I still will have to work a little bit harder. I will have to probe that B777 AIPC is approved and accepted by FAA.!!!


A "NO" is a positive answer. My Tutor
User currently offlinedalmd88 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2574 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 2829 times:

I've always heard it this way. The IPC is the configuration source. Which part number widget is approved for this s/n aircraft. It is not a approved manual for how to install the widget. That would be the AMM or CMM or SRM possibly.

User currently offlineApprentice From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2755 times:

Quoting dalmd88 (Reply 3):

We are talking about a Cam-Latch, which is part of a whole ASSY. How to replace this particular cam You will not find in AMM or CMM, and nothing to do with SRM



A "NO" is a positive answer. My Tutor
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9159 posts, RR: 76
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2719 times:

Quoting Apprentice (Reply 4):
How to replace this particular cam You will not find in AMM or CMM, and nothing to do with SRM

In the US refer to AC No: 20-62E

"a. Replacement of Parts and Materials. The performance rules for replacement of parts and materials used in the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration of aircraft that have (or have had) a U.S. airworthiness certificate, and components thereof, are specified in § 43.13 and part 145, § 145.201. These rules require that the installer of a part use methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the FAA. Additionally, the installer of a part must accomplish the work in such a manner and use materials of such quality that the product or appliance worked on will be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition with respect to the qualities affecting airworthiness.

b. Replacement of Articles. The continued airworthiness of an aircraft, which includes the replacement of articles, is the responsibility of the owner/operator, as specified in parts 91, 119, 121, 125, and 135; and §§ 91.403, 121.363, 125.243 and 135.413. These rules require that the installer determine that an article is eligible for installation on a product or component prior to returning that product or component to service with the part installed. Those rules also require that the installation of a part must be accomplished in accordance with data approved by the FAA, if the installation constitutes a major repair or alteration.

c. Conforming to Regulations. As part of determining whether installation of an article conforms with all applicable regulations, the installer should establish that the article was manufactured under a production approval pursuant to part 21, that an originally acceptable part has been maintained in accordance with part 43, or that the part is otherwise eligible for installation (i.e., has been found to conform to data approved by."

In short, the process should be your stores area will receive the part from the manufacturer or supplier with paperwork indicating that it is suitable for installation on an aircraft.

When replacing the part, you need to "use methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the FAA". These would be your procedures manuals, which will cover specific type related manuals like the AMM, and usually also covers documents like "AC 43.13-1, Acceptable Methods, Techniques and Practices—Aircraft Inspection and Repair.". Many "common sense" tasks are not found in the AMM, and "Standard practices" like "AC 43.13-1" are used.

Unscrewing a cam latch, checking the new part is airworthy and the same as the one being replaced, and reattaching it with the same fasteners would fall into that sort or category IMHO.

This will depend as I indicated above where the aircraft has its CofA issued from.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently onlineMD11Engineer From Azerbaijan, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 14079 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2677 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 5):
Unscrewing a cam latch, checking the new part is airworthy and the same as the one being replaced, and reattaching it with the same fasteners would fall into that sort or category IMHO.

You also could use AMM chapter 20 "Standard Practices" for such a job.

Jan


User currently offlineApprentice From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2661 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 5):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 6):

Talking in this case about part 25 airplane. An AC is deemed more appropiate for smallers planes.
And yes, AMM ATA 20 will be acceptable, but in other job I was prompted to use AIPC as the only acceptable manual that would indicate both that a proper part is been used and that the job may be performed: any part illustrated in bold may be replaced.
My problem is that I can't find the statement from FAA in this case, saying that B AIPC is approved an accepted doc.



A "NO" is a positive answer. My Tutor
User currently online737tdi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 903 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2486 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have never seen the IPC used or be an acceptable document for the physical act of changing a part. I do use it as an aid but never as a "how to", or document it as a reference in the log book or non-routine card. Chapter 20 is the catch all if the part is attached with screws/bolts/nuts, the SRM would cover rivets, hi-locks, cherry max, etc.. Chapter 20 includes almost all day to day "routine maintenance".

The only place the IPC would be used in the logbook would be in the parts info. entry area where even there you don't use the chapter or subchapter. Most operators this is strictly part no., on/off and serial no. on/off and position installed.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9159 posts, RR: 76
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2474 times:

Quoting Apprentice (Reply 7):
An AC is deemed more appropiate for smallers planes.

Not sure where you got that impression, even ETOPS is covered by the AC.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineApprentice From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2444 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 9):

I didn't find proper way to say, I apologize, just wanted to remark that with commercial planes is not usual to refer to AC43 when answering ATL. What we commonly use are AMM, SRM, WDM, FIM....



A "NO" is a positive answer. My Tutor
User currently online737tdi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 903 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2358 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 9):

Even though it is covered it is not an acceptable reference for a sign off at least here in the US. All references must be from the manufacturers MM or the MPM.


User currently offlineHumanitarian From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 2333 times:

Some items are covered in the airlines FAA approved GMM.

User currently offlinem1m2 From Canada, joined Dec 2011, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2298 times:

Regarding using the IPC as a reference, I was always taught to use the AMM, not the IPC.

I have seen diagrams in the IPC with assemblies shown differently than the AMM. In this case the AMM takes precedence. Anyone else ever run across this?

Also, most larger operations do have some of their own procedures which are derived from the manufactures maintenance manuals. In this case I will use this as my reference as it is all linked back to the AMM.


User currently offlineb78710 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2259 times:

I usually just make one up haha

User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5499 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2248 times:

Your organization's General Maintenance Manual or General Policies and Procedures Manual (or whatever you call the document that tells a maintenance organization how to work) will spell out which manuals can be used as reference material.

I have yet to find an operator that allows an IPC to be used as an installation reference source. For a cam-loc fastener, I would delve into chapter 20. If the cam-loc is not specifically called out, I would use the vaguest fastener reference I could find.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9159 posts, RR: 76
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2218 times:

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 11):
All references must be from the manufacturers MM or the MPM.

Nope, it is what is acceptable to the FAA, which is normally in the approved company manuals. To put a curve ball in the discussion, there are aircraft flying and being maintained in the US that do not have a manufacturer.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineHumanitarian From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2188 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 16):
Nope, it is what is acceptable to the FAA, which is normally in the approved company manuals.

Correct, I recall being told the FAA approved GMM takes precedence over the AMM. We were supposed to check the GMM first. The IPC is to be used for ordering replacement parts and when doing so, proper effectivity is of critical importance. The FAA has busted many techs and carriers on improper effectivity.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2154 times:

Quoting Apprentice (Reply 2):

Thanks for prompt answer. I still will have to work a little bit harder. I will have to probe that B777 AIPC is approved and accepted by FAA.!!!

The AIPC is technically not an FAA approved document and neither is the maintenance manual in its entirety. The instructions for continued airworthiness are required to be complied with to maintain the airworthiness certificate of the airplane but technically the FAA does not review each document. The FAA mandates that the type certificate holder issues ICA

The Maintenance Review Board report is the FAA approved document that requires maintenance and is used to generate the task cards ( along with a section of the maintenance planning document that include airworthiness limitations and certification maintenance requirements) for required maintenance.

The holder of the operating certificate is required to follow the ICA or have approval to deviate from them as a part of their approved maintenance program.

Here is some useful information: http://aviationglossary.com/instruct...s-for-continued-airworthiness-ica/

[Edited 2013-02-20 20:28:15]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineApprentice From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2134 times:

Quoting Humanitarian (Reply 17):


So I went to our GMM and:

1. PREFACE

1.1. COMPANY MANUALS
1.1.1. The Company Maintenance Manual System, which consists of those manuals listed in this publication, is designed to provide information covering organization, scope of maintenance, responsibility and general policies and procedures for the methods and techniques employed in the maintenance of the aircraft and associated equipment. The manuals will provide all Maintenance personnel with necessary information and instructions to perform their duties and responsibilities with a high degree of safety.


1.6.2. The Company has adopted technical manuals published by the appropriate airframe and power plant manufacturers for use in maintenance, inspection, overhaul, repair, and servicing as follows:
1.6.2.1. Applicable Aircraft Manufacturers:
1. Aircraft Maintenance Manual
2. Wiring Diagram Manual
3. Schematic System Manual
4. Fault Isolation Manual
5. Aircraft Illustrated Parts Catalog
6. Nondestructive Test Manual
Z Structural Repair Manual
8. Illustrated Tool/Equipment Manual
9. Standard Practices Manual
10. Powerplant Buildup Manual
11. Component Maintenance Manual — Manufacturer
12. Component Maintenance Manual — Vendors
13. Corrosion Prevention Manual
14. Standard Practices Wiring Manual
15. Automated Task Cards and Index
16. Service Bulletins
17. All Operator’s Letters

Accordingly, AIPC is part of the Manual System , and ...provides .. information and instructions.. to perform Mx duties.



A "NO" is a positive answer. My Tutor
User currently offlineApprentice From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2131 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 18):

Roseflyer: Many thanks for your explanation. I was searching for it during the whole week, writting everyone unssuccesfully. The problem is that now that I have the answer, I ashamed: it's a classic question from the A/P Tests: ALS is FAA approved, whole AMM is not!! Time for a recurrent?



A "NO" is a positive answer. My Tutor
User currently offlineboeingfixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2072 times:

Quoting Apprentice (Reply 19):
Accordingly, AIPC is part of the Manual System , and ...provides .. information and instructions.. to perform Mx duties.

Is this a direct quote from your GMM or are you assuming, since it's listed in your GMM, that it is an approved reference for performing and releasing a Mtx task?

In our operation the approved manuals for our use is much the same but the IPC is only used for parts and effectivity and is also our only source for configuration management. All of our Mtx tasks have to reference back to our approved material but we cannot use the IPC to sign out a maintenance entry.

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlineApprentice From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 6 days ago) and read 2061 times:

Quoting boeingfixer (Reply 21):

Yes is a direct quotte of the only parts from our GMM where I found any references related.

The initial question arised because in previous job, we were encouraged to use all manufactures' info. For example, for a wiring pb a WDM or even SSM would be used and in a case like the one I had, when replacing a simple plate, part of a whole assy, without any direct reference in AMM, we used AIPC which provides a clears indication of how it it's assemblied and of course effectivity. We also were allowed to use MT, SIL, and company issued Technical Notes.



A "NO" is a positive answer. My Tutor
User currently offlineboeingfixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2030 times:

Quoting Apprentice (Reply 22):
...........in a case like the one I had, when replacing a simple plate, part of a whole assy, without any direct reference in AMM, we used AIPC which provides a clears indication of how it it's assemblied and of course effectivity.

For our operation we would use simple language to describe what we did if it was not covered by any of our approved material. In a case such as yours our entry would be something like: Screws A,B,C removed and plate D removed. New plate D installed with original hardware, screws A,B,C, as per original installation.

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlineHumanitarian From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2029 times:

The IPC can be used 'for reference only' purposes but I have never seen it used as a legal reference for work accomplished in returning an aircraft to service. Unlike the AMM, the IPC does not provide step by step instructions for replacing that part or component you found in the IPC. For example, when changing a main wheel assy the IPC does not show the torques required nor the tire pressure and you certainly should not be guessing what those are.

Another favorite thing the FAA looks for when stopping by is that the reference material you are using must be current and/or say "for reference only" on the document. When you print the AMM reference from the computer to change that wheel, it shows the date it was printed and it had better be for that day only. Manual references can change overnight in the online world and they don't want you using expired references stashed in your tool box.


User currently online737tdi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 903 posts, RR: 1
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2038 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Apprentice (Reply 22):
For example, for a wiring pb a WDM or even SSM would be used and in a case like the one I had, when replacing a simple plate




With any commercial aircraft that I have been involved with, performed maint. on, only half of your above quote would be acceptable. The use of the WDM is 100% acceptable, the use of the SSM is not. When you research within the WDM you have to use the effective diagram to that particular "tail no., serial no., line no., and variable no.. This data is updated on a regular basis to new, different equipt. coming into your operation. The SSM is a very good all around manual but is not updated nor does it show aircraft effectivity. I.E.: You are working on an FMC discrepancy and need to replace a connector, you would use the WDM with the proper effectivity because an earlier or later effectivity could be wired differently. The SSM would not show this, only the general connection.

I don't know if you know this but every aircraft comes with its own set of diagrams and repair drawings, differences data. When we receive a 737 from Boeing these books come with the aircraft and are given to aircraft records and engineering so this new info. can be incorporated into the MM, IPC, WDM, SRM etc..

Hope that is not to confusing.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2014 times:

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 25):
I don't know if you know this but every aircraft comes with its own set of diagrams and repair drawings, differences data. When we receive a 737 from Boeing these books come with the aircraft and are given to aircraft records and engineering so this new info. can be incorporated into the MM, IPC, WDM, SRM etc..

On a 737, Boeing customizes the manuals for every plane it delivers and they are updated every 120 days for the original purchase carrier.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineApprentice From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2012 times:

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 25):
The use of the WDM is 100% acceptable, the use of the SSM is not

And yes, we were authorized to use SSM when, for instance, a LRU would not work because a relay signal was missing. SSM is very handy when no specific FIM is written. SSM are airplane specific and as every manual, updated.

Quoting boeingfixer (Reply 23):
Screws A,B,C removed and plate D removed. New plate D installed with original hardware, screws A,B,C, as per original installation

And that is almost a quote of a AIPC: IAW AIPC: xx-xx-xx, fig xx, items xxx, xxx, xxx



A "NO" is a positive answer. My Tutor
User currently offlineboeingfixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1950 times:

Quoting Apprentice (Reply 27):
Quoting boeingfixer (Reply 23):
Screws A,B,C removed and plate D removed. New plate D installed with original hardware, screws A,B,C, as per original installation
Quoting Apprentice (Reply 27):
And that is almost a quote of a AIPC: IAW AIPC: xx-xx-xx, fig xx, items xxx, xxx, xxx

Almost but no cigar. The IPC doesn't give you any specific directions. You still need to describe the sequence of the work you performed if it isn't covered in your approved material.

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 25):
The use of the WDM is 100% acceptable, the use of the SSM is not.

BTW, the SSM for our fleet is aircraft specific which is updated on a regular interval and is approved material for the use in troubleshooting and rectifying a snag. It may be that our SSM goes into very good detail as far a connector, pin, relay numbering, etc.. is concerned. If we need more in depth information like splice, wire, terminal block numbering etc.. we will go to the WDM.

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently online737tdi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 903 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1856 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Apprentice (Reply 27):




You originally asked a question and it was answered in many different yet intelligent ways.

Take this as you want or need. I have worked in this industry as a mech. for over 30 years. I have worked Boeing, Douglas, McD, and Airbus. I have worked heavy overhaul, line maintenance, shop maintenance and check maintenance. The only survivable references are the MM, SRM, WDM, CMM. Any others are suspect and subject. I am not disregarding singular written EA's, IA,s, etc.. If you stick to these four manuals you will never be wrong, except in the use of EA's, IA's..

Again, Do not use a SSM, as a maintenance sign off. EVER. Everything covered in the SSM is covered in the WDM with much more detail. I looked today and verified that with Boeing the SSM does not differentiate between specific line nos. It is very unspecific. It is general at best. Do not use the SSM if you are working commercial aircraft in the US. At most all of it will be correct and it is a great info. place. It is not a reference. PERIOD. There is no flexibility here. It is not a sign off reference because it is not accurate per aircraft.

I don't know how else to explain it? The SSM is a learn how to? Familiarize with? Not a maintenance manual. It even tells you that at the beginning and the end. Agree or disagree but there is no argument, talk to you FAA rep.. He is there to help you???


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5499 posts, RR: 14
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1826 times:

Quoting boeingfixer (Reply 28):
BTW, the SSM for our fleet is aircraft specific which is updated on a regular interval and is approved material for the use in troubleshooting and rectifying a snag

While an SSM is revised and updated and does provide effectivity ranges, it just provides a "10,000 foot" overview of the applicable system or sub-system. The SSM should never be used as a documented reference when clearing an item. From the "Front Matter" of a B767 SSM:

B. Purpose of System Schematic Manual

The System Schematic Manual (SSM) was prepared to serve as a source of information to assist in understanding system function and to facilitate fault isolation to the Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) level. It is not intended for use as a substitute for other maintenance documentation (i.e., Fault Isolation Manual, Maintenance Manual, Wiring Diagram Manual). The SSM does not include information for testing. The procedures in the Fault Isolation Manual should be used for any fault isolation requiring testing. The procedures in the Maintenance Manual should be used to support removal and installation of components. The Wiring Diagram Manual (WDM) should be used as a reference to isolate faults in wiring and in-line disconnects.
The data contained in this manual are customized for each airline. Except for those features added by service bulletin or specifically requested by the airline, these data include coverage for only those features that are part of the airplane as delivered by Boeing.


Note: that the SSM does not list the IPC amongst the manuals.

I reviewed our GMM and found that there is no specific prohibition against using the IPC as a reference for installation. But, one of the surest ways to get a logpage kicked back from QA/QC is to use the IPC in lieu of a document that provides instruction.

If the component being installed does not have a specific AMM, et. al. reference, then, it is generally acceptable to use a generic chapter 20 reference. If the AMT (or organization) is uncomfortable using that sort of reference, than a manufacturer's drawing may provide the information required. I've found torque values, installation materials (sealants, adhesives, etc), orientation, etc. on drawings that are acceptable as a reference. The IPC rarely goes into such detail.

[Edited 2013-02-24 07:34:35]

[Edited 2013-02-24 07:36:39]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Allowed References When Signing A Tech Log
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
When Smoking WAS Allowed. posted Fri Mar 7 2008 08:51:27 by Readytotaxi
When Do Airlines Cancel A Flight Due To Weather posted Fri Jan 25 2013 13:41:46 by asctty
Tech/Ops Discussion Of The 787 Grounding posted Tue Jan 22 2013 09:59:21 by CM
When Destination Airport Closes posted Sat Jan 19 2013 10:25:34 by naruto38700
Tech Question About "rigging" A Broken Plane posted Thu Jan 17 2013 18:18:47 by United727
Window Heat - Switched Of - When posted Mon Dec 17 2012 11:28:19 by HAWK21M
CVR CB Pullout....When. posted Mon Dec 17 2012 11:24:54 by HAWK21M
Experts On A Tech Forum. posted Mon Dec 3 2012 02:38:29 by HAWK21M
AF A380 Schedule Anomoly - Going Tech In Advance? posted Sat Oct 13 2012 05:27:54 by cedarjet
When Did LH 707-300Bs Lose The Ventral Fin? posted Wed Aug 8 2012 21:20:30 by LH707330

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format