Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Starlionblue wrote:Apart from the pilots.
fr8mech wrote:Starlionblue wrote:Apart from the pilots.
The yoke actuator and the short between the headset are a problem that transcends aircraft type.
Starlionblue wrote:PRBC?
fr8mech wrote:The yoke actuator and the short between the headset are a problem that transcends aircraft type.
fr8mech wrote:I think every aircraft has its challenges.
On the JT9 equipped Classic Jumbos, the PRBC and the Fuel/Air converter were a pain.
Just about anything you do on the tail engine of the DC10/MD11 can no be a challenge.
It seems that the PTU on the B757 was hung from the assembly building ceiling and the aircraft built around it.
My point is, every aircraft has its good points and its bad points. Each manufacturer approaches certain challenges their own way.
I think, if it’s thought about, mechanics will like working on the aircraft they are most comfortable with.Starlionblue wrote:Apart from the pilots.
The yoke actuator and the short between the headset are a problem that transcends aircraft type.
889091 wrote:Pressure Ratio Bleed Control?
Lpbri wrote:This question is more easily answered with regards to engines. For me, no question, the easiest engine is the RR Trent 892. Most things are mounted on the fan case, which gives much easier access. Fuel control changes are a breeze. It’s not always RR. PW2000s had the edge over the RR211. Late model CF6’s were the absolute worst. JT8s not to bad as long you have a suitable platform.
Lpbri wrote:This question is more easily answered with regards to engines. For me, no question, the easiest engine is the RR Trent 892. Most things are mounted on the fan case, which gives much easier access. Fuel control changes are a breeze. It’s not always RR. PW2000s had the edge over the RR211. Late model CF6’s were the absolute worst. JT8s not to bad as long you have a suitable platform.
ElroyJetson wrote:Lpbri wrote:This question is more easily answered with regards to engines. For me, no question, the easiest engine is the RR Trent 892. Most things are mounted on the fan case, which gives much easier access. Fuel control changes are a breeze. It’s not always RR. PW2000s had the edge over the RR211. Late model CF6’s were the absolute worst. JT8s not to bad as long you have a suitable platform.
Are you referencing the RR211-535's on 757's versus the PW2000 on the 757? I've heard different things about each engine. DL swore by the PW, yet I believe the majority of carriers ultimately opted for the 535. It sounds like you feel from a mechanics point of view the PW engine was easier to maintain and work on.
lightsaber wrote:
Are you referencing the RR211-535's on 757's versus the PW2000 on the 757? I've heard different things about each engine. DL swore by the PW, yet I believe the majority of carriers ultimately opted for the 535. It sounds like you feel from a mechanics point of view the PW engine was easier to maintain and work on.
Strebav8or wrote:Most difficult......hands down.... The DC-8
The overall engineering design of the aircraft was just bad.
The DC-10/MD-10/MD-11/KC-10 and the DC-9 closely follow the -8
The easiest has to be the 777. Completely mechanic friendly, you just need a ladder for EVERYTHING.
gregorygoodwin wrote:I prefer to do structural repairs on the Boeing aircraft versus Airbus. Yes, there may be some bias in play here, but to me Boeing's structural repair manuals are easier to understand versus the Airbus structures manuals.
Strebav8or wrote:Most difficult......hands down.... The DC-8
The overall engineering design of the aircraft was just bad.
The DC-10/MD-10/MD-11/KC-10 and the DC-9 closely follow the -8
The easiest has to be the 777. Completely mechanic friendly, you just need a ladder for EVERYTHING.
Horstroad wrote:And if there's a black box you open the manual and can follow exactly what's happening inside.
Horstroad wrote:The 777 has the overhead CB panel on the flight deck, there are 7 CB panels in the main equipment center, each of the 4 flight control power supply assemblies has a set of circuit breakers (one of the four is located in the fwd lower cargo door frame), there are additional circuit breakers in each lower cargo door frame for the cargo handling system, some more CBs in the aft cabin ceiling or behind the sidewall of the bulk cargo compartment for the APU for example, and of course the CBs for the cargo loading system on the main deck are distributed all over the cargo compartment.
Horstroad wrote:There's a lot to hate about each and every aircraft and some engineers need a slap in the face for the crap the have designed. Aircraft are (mostly) not built to be maintained/repaired, but to be flown. Which is understandable of course. But sometimes this can be actually dangerous or annoying at least.
hitower3 wrote:Dear all,
Does Boeing / Airbus have a "Tech Support Number" that you can call up and get help?
Kind regards,
Hendric
hitower3 wrote:Does Boeing / Airbus have a "Tech Support Number" that you can call up and get help
hitower3 wrote:Dear all,
This is a highly interesting read even though I am not an aviation professional. One side question arises:
What happens if you are doing maintenance on a big jet and you happen to get "stuck" - like a system not behaving as expected, or a maintenance manual that gives unclear instructions? Does Boeing / Airbus have a "Tech Support Number" that you can call up and get help?
Kind regards,
Hendric
celestar345 wrote:Don't forget to pull the fire bottle CBs if a 777 is left unpowered overnight...
fr8mech wrote:hitower3 wrote:What happens if you are doing maintenance on a big jet and you happen to get "stuck" - like a system not behaving as expected, or a maintenance manual that gives unclear instructions? Does Boeing / Airbus have a "Tech Support Number" that you can call up and get help?
Well, at my operator, the problem gets kicked to my department. Airlines have a technical support department that develops plans to work a repetitive problem. We do have the ability to liaise with the manufacturers and even other operators if the problem is beyond our collective abilities.
fr8mech wrote:Airlines have a technical support department that develops plans to work a repetitive problem.
LMP737 wrote:I've changed the BUG on a Trent 892 powered 777 and one on a GE90 powered 777. The RR by far was much easier, and quicker.
LMP737 wrote:I think when they built the pylons they put the PRSOV in a production jig and built the pylon around it.
Strebav8or wrote:The easiest has to be the 777. Completely mechanic friendly, you just need a ladder for EVERYTHING.
celestar345 wrote:the RB211 on 747 nearly killed me when getting in
Horstroad wrote:On the 777 it's almost exclusively grease 33, which can stink horribly depending on the supplier. The landing gear alone needs like 4 or so different types of grease. There's a ton of grease points on each flap track. You need to open almost all leading edge panels for slat drive lubrication/service.
Horstroad wrote:But the 777 apparently has at least one screw that is different to all the others in each access panel. Either a different head, diameter or length or a combination of those. Very annoying.
hitower3 wrote:Dear all,
This is a highly interesting read even though I am not an aviation professional. One side question arises:
What happens if you are doing maintenance on a big jet and you happen to get "stuck" - like a system not behaving as expected, or a maintenance manual that gives unclear instructions? Does Boeing / Airbus have a "Tech Support Number" that you can call up and get help?
Kind regards,
Hendric
extender wrote:I haven't worked for an operator, but as a maintenance organization, we submit the request via the Boeing Portal, depending on the severity/priority, is how long it will take to get a response. Boeing also had Field Service Reps.
twincommander wrote:If you weren't an alcoholic before you touched a Learjet, you became one after the first day of a Phase inspection.
Here are some things I remember hating (in somewhat order, least hated to worst hated) from my corporate/lifeguard days:
0.5 Recovering from the hangover due to working on a Learjet.
1. Line service misfuel the tip tanks, causing an imbalance, and having to roll a jack out to level the wing and let the fuel self level.
2. Line service properly fueling the plane, but then the flight getting cancelled and the pilots leaving the interconnect switch open after power down, causing one wing to be 3 - 4 inches off the ground, getting called in to put a jack under the wing and self level.
3. Closing the main door for a maintenance run, sometimes you won't get that stupid electric lock to work right
4. Opening the main door after said maintenance run, because you end up skinning a knuckle getting the lower half open.
5. Opening the engine cowls (731 series) for pretty much anything
6. Pulling the main ship batteries, because pilots played too long with no GPU
7. Pulling the main ship batteries, because of any other reason
8. Opening that stupid raisbeck door, and finding the only razor sharp trim edge by the inner compartment latch.
9. Hydraulic filter changes ( at least its red fluid)
10. Removing the elevator counterbalance assembly
11. Changing cables
12. Changing cables in the aft compartment
13. Changing cables in the cockpit
14. Opening any floor board
15. Removing the main gear
16. Setting the zero-null on the nose steering
17. Finding out that the shop who sent you an overhauled nose gear with steering potentiometer installed it incorrectly, and you can'tt find null.
And lastly, but I could probably add more
18. Being told you are being assigned to a Phase A - D on a company med-evac Lear 35, ergo negating any positive effects the alcohol had in numbing the pain and misery of working on the previous Lear 31 Induction inspection.
hitower3 wrote:Dear all,
This is a highly interesting read even though I am not an aviation professional. One side question arises:
What happens if you are doing maintenance on a big jet and you happen to get "stuck" - like a system not behaving as expected, or a maintenance manual that gives unclear instructions? Does Boeing / Airbus have a "Tech Support Number" that you can call up and get help?
Kind regards,
Hendric
celestar345 wrote:Sliding down the exhaust for the first time to remove panel for changing the ignitor plug... and forgot to keep my head down...
jetmech wrote:celestar345 wrote:Sliding down the exhaust for the first time to remove panel for changing the ignitor plug... and forgot to keep my head down...
You hit your head on the cookie cutter?
Regards, JetMech
milhaus wrote:ATR nothing good about, landing gear is too low, engines too high, to change NLG wheel You need specific tool. And Troubeshooting manuals are just not useable at all.
gregorygoodwin wrote:Some of you mechanics may know of what I'm talking about.
LMP737 wrote:Probably the biggest headache for me is the MD-11. Never mind the spare engine in the tail.
The eleven is a text book example of what happens when a manufacturer decides to cheap out. The plane is beset with all sorts of wiring issues. Why, because MD decided to use Kapton wiring when they built the thing. Even though by the time the -11 came to fruition the industry knew Kapton was junk. And now we get to deal with all the intermittent faults , shorts to ground, broken wires etc.
It has more than it's fair share of what the hell were they thinking moments. My all time favorite is the ant-skid shutoff valve design, of which it has two. One in each wheel well. Who ever was responsible for that system never heard of drip loops. That's because instead of having the electrical connector on the side with wiring going to it having a loop the connector is on the top of the valve.
gregorygoodwin wrote:In my career in aircraft maintenance, I've always worked structures and composites. For me, the Lockheed L1011 had one of the best structural repair manuals. It was simple, straight-forward, and gave you clear and concise graphics and information.
fr8mech wrote:
The LAMM is a sweet manual. About the only thing good about the aircraft.
Every wonder why the LAMM is needed? Because the AMM, the FIM and the WDM are just about useless for telling you what’s happening.
I’ve seen better D&O’s in Haynes Manuals.
hitower3 wrote:Does Boeing / Airbus have a "Tech Support Number" that you can call up and get help?
DL_Mech wrote:The LAMM is a great manual. Just remember that it is not an updated manual to be used on the aircraft.
Genista wrote:hitower3 wrote:Does Boeing / Airbus have a "Tech Support Number" that you can call up and get help?
Yes they do.
A whole, big building next to LFBO is dedicated to customer technical service. A few hundred people working there.
The ground floor is, among other things, hosting the 24/7 AOG, quick response service, while the floors above contain large office open spaces.
In a nutshell, each open space is dedicated to one ATA chapter,
For example, you'd have the ATA 27 "flight controls" open space, with 10 or 15 offices, the walls are "decorated" with technical drawings and system schematics. The shelves are full of actuators and other salvaged ATA27 parts from every Airbus type.
At the beginning I remember asking something about the A350 spoiler arm mechanism was working and sure enough, they said "hold on", went to one of the shelves and handed me the whole damn spoiler lever with the functional mechanism. Museums would be jealous, really...
From what I could see A320 was a very reliable workhorse, not too many ongoing issues except the engines on the NEO versions.
A300 and A310 are getting old and have leaky hydraulics
A330 had some funky stuff happening in the hydraulic lines going through the engine pylon. It has been fixed by a non mandatory SB but not every operator did the upgrade/fix (IIRC)
A350 flies great but the IFE power supplies are, let's say, not the most reliable piece of equipment ever. I do not like the maintenance philosophy on that bird. Many many computers, it is loosing touch with the "hands on" parts of maintenance and troubleshooting. Less hydraulics, less pipes, less analog wires, more annoying software.
Genista wrote:hitower3 wrote:Does Boeing / Airbus have a "Tech Support Number" that you can call up and get help?
Yes they do.
A whole, big building next to LFBO is dedicated to customer technical service. A few hundred people working there.
.
Horstroad wrote:DL_Mech wrote:The LAMM is a great manual. Just remember that it is not an updated manual to be used on the aircraft.
But there's the SSM which is an updated manual. It's 100% the LAMM, but digital and maintained by Boeing. Last revision date is 15 Jul 2021.