Avt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5 Posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1905 times:
In the site related forum, Thirty Echo was concerned about the accuracy of the answers posted here. I'll throw in my two cents worth. Anyne who is a pilot/student/apprentice should have the intelligence to realize that word of mouth "training" really isn't worth much. People here do try to help, but if you take the posts as gospel, you're in deep trouble. I worked at an airline that that had a culture of "verbal" training where the apprentices asked the AMEs how to do a task, or how something worked. Sounds ok so far, right? But what happened was one guy was doing something wrong, and he taught 2 apprentices, who became engineers, and taught 2 more apprentices....
One day an apprentice actually read the manual in great detail and said, hey, we've been doing this wrong all along. My point is READ THE MANUALS, follow the SOPs , and not the advice of the well meaning...... Any thoughts?
Saintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1869 times:
You are right in what you said, but not all members are engineers or pilots and they won't have access to the manuals. There is nothing wrong with asking questions but it is up to the individual to decide how accurate that information is. If someone posts incorrect info here they soon get pulled up anyway.
Avt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1866 times:
No doubt, Saintsman, mistakes are everywhere, and I`ve found a couple in deHav manuals. The post was just a reminder to use your head, and go to the books. Don`t be fooled by someones age, seniority, experience, `cause we all make mistakes!
Airplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1784 times:
I find that the vast majority if the information on this forum is at least somewhat incorrect. This is because many of the answers come from "enthusiasts" who's enthusiasm to be involved in the industry overrides the desire to be accurate. Other answers admittedly come from distant memory which can be a bit dulled over time.
After about 4 or 5 posts to threads, there is usually enough information to weed through to come up with a reasonable answer.
I feel alot as to do with credentials. I have asked people what their credentials were on occasion to get a sense of how authoritative their answers are. When they decline its a clear signal to me that they are not experienced professionals.
This forum still has it's value though. It stimulates conversation in aviation in general which is great, and keeps those of us in the industry on our toes!
FlightSimFreak From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1768 times:
Responses to technical questions should be just the page number or article number for the document that has the answer... For example, if someone asked "Who is responsible for, and the final authority as to the safe operation of his aircraft"... The correct answer would be "FAR 91.3..." and nothing more.
Jetdoctor From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1761 times:
To people that think that this forum is advice to help one do his/her aviation job, you are wrong.
Me thinks the forum is merely a guide to help aviation enthusiasts gain knowledge on occurrences that happen on a day to day basis for the regular mechanic/pilot/ramp rat etc,,,,
It is merely to satisfy curious minds, and allows us aviation nuts to communicate with people that share a same interest.
Break ground, and head into the wind. Don't break wind and head into the ground.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29792 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1747 times:
You know the manual is important but a lot of times it is written by a guy in a office building somewhere who doesn't have a chance to see how the item is actually being used or just seeing summaries of problems that are being encountered.
All airplanes will have traits that just aren't covered but the manufacturers paperwork.
For example, I have never seen any admitting by Daussault in any of there papers that their Falcon aircraft will spit fuel back at you when you disconnect the single point but having help fuel more then a couple I know that it is true.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Airplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1691 times:
What you say reveals one of the major problems in aircraft maintenance. The "guy in the office" that writes the manual is intimately aware of just how things are maintained and the reasons behind the procedures. He writes procedures that he expects people to follow but of course there is always room for improvement. (Bear with me...this is relevant to the topic)
In the field, the service guys often make it up as they go along instead of reading the procedure. The majority of techs I've encountered try to fix things on their own using their "common sense" before referring to the manual and when they come across an area that may require improvement, they simply do their own thing and don't bother informing the people responsible for updating the manual. And then you wonder why the "guy in the office" may not be aware of some obscure in-service anomaly??
One real life example I can offer has to do with de-ice boots. For those of you that don’t know, every airframe component (even the rubber ones) must be electrically bonded to one another. This means that they must all conduct electricity and be electrically interconnected. Many airplanes that use rubber de-ice boots achieve this by using “conductive” rubber that has been manufactured with an additive that conducts electricity. When the de-ice boots are installed, a thin strip of black conductive cement is painted at the edge of the boot, overlapping the boot and a bare metal strip just behind it. Many older de-ice boots that are found on aircraft like the HS-748 are made with non-conductive rubber. They must be painted entirely with conductive cement on installation.
I have seen many many instances of de-ice boots being installed that are not bonded to the airframe. Some AMTs decide to use non-conducting edge sealer like PRC (a common catch-all name for a series of sealants often used in aerospace applications) Others don’t bother painting the surface of non-conducting boots. The results are premature wear of the boots due to electrical arcing and surface deterioration and excessive radio noise when flying through precipitation.
These procedures are bred from the “common sense” that most AMTs think they are born with. Even when they read the procedures in the AMM they discount them as silly or incorrect without investigating the reasons behind them.
AMTs (or whatever you call them in your part of the world) are responsible for conformity. That means they make the airplane match the type design. No more, no less. If you stray from the maintenance manual procedures, your airplane no longer conforms and your signature is useless. If the procedures have errors, it is the AMT’s duty to have them addressed and corrected either by contacting the manufacturer or the responsible airworthiness authorities. Does this happen in the real world. Not often.
Here-in lies the relevance to this thread (finally!) A lot of the misinformation comes from this “common sense" approach. I’m guilty of this on occasion as well, but I try to temper this type of information by using terms such as “I think” or “I’m not completely familiar with the system” etc. If you’re not sure of something , state it and try not to pass on information that is contrary to the AMM (or other references) unless you are prepared to back it up.
FredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1681 times:
I'd like to second something Airplay said which I think is very important to anyone giving answers in any forum:
If there is any doubt regarding the information you're giving out, show it! "I think", "if I remember correctly", "as far as I know". These phrases should probably see more use. I try to use them whenever applicable although I'm sure I still sin quite a lot in this respect.
Good one, Airplay. Thanks for bringing that up.
I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
NKP S2 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1714 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1681 times:
Jetdoctor: You hit the nail on the head. -- I too view the "reason d'etre" of this forum as a way of satisfying general curiosity of the "gee, I always wondered how..." variety, and of course insiders comparing general notes and what have you. Never once occured to me it would be some technical library or research "think tank". I'm surprised this is even an issue.