Cdfmxtech From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1338 posts, RR: 29 Posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1922 times:
Anyone in hear come across alot of discrepancies in Boeing schematics??
I have found a couple in the past.
From what I understand from alot of guys that work Douglas, Douglas made horrible AMMs (which I can definetly attest to based on the MD80 AMM), but the Douglas schematics (LAMM) and troubleshooting TAFIs are excellent.
Boeing makes very good AMMs, but they seem to make more errors in the schematics.
Avioniker, if you're out there I've got a good one for you.
Dc10guy From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 7 Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1901 times:
I've worked with the DC10 MD11 AMM's for a long time now and I like them better than the Boeing manuals. I used to work with the DC8 AMM's too. I thought that they where pretty good.
Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
Lstc From Canada, joined Jun 2003, 320 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1802 times:
There are mistakes in ALL AMMs and wiring diagram manuals, no matter what the manufacturer. There is a reader service card at the front of manuals for reporting errors.
The surprising thing is that several have been there for years. Either the maintainers don't bother reporting the mistakes or they don't read the manuals...I'm not sure which.
Avioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11 Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 2 days ago) and read 1737 times:
Funny you should mention me.
I just got back from Seattle.
This is just a personal opinion but for the last fifteen years or so the people putting the books together seem more interested in making a name for themselves than making usable data.
The only good thing I can see going on is that Boeing has adopted the McD philosophy on schematic books and now produces an SSM.
As far as mistakes go the people in Seattle are busily pointing fingers at the operators engineering departments and vice versa.
I have one simple fix.
Get rid of simplified English and the people that think it's a good idea. That seems to be where the degradation in our tech data started and continues to be perpetuated.
Cdfmxtech
Looks like you and I are completely on the same page on this one.
One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
FDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 38 Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1693 times:
Interesting differences between Boeing/ MDD and Airbus schematics. Boeing and Lamm normally present schematics as systems configured normal (example; door indication system with door closed) with power off. Airbus is the opposite (door is open).
Also, many schematics require a cross reference to other schematics to gain a full understanding of the system. Also many mistakes.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1338 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jun 2003, 320 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
