I know that the resolution hasn't been passed in all states, but it has here in Texas and many other states. May 24th, the birthday of Charles Taylor, has been designated as Aviation Maintenance Technician Day. It's nice that we mechanics, often viewed as the red-headed stepchildren of aviation (but we're more like unsung heroes), have been recognized with our own day. Hopefully this will raise public awareness of who we are and what we do (doubtful I know, but I can hope). So raise a glass to your AMT brothers and sisters and thank them for all they do.

OK, now GET BACK TO WORK!

Happy AMT Day to you too Doc...!!! I had the day off from the hangar, but still didn't get my scheduled round of golf in...!!!! OOh, I am now enjoying a cold brew....!!!!

[Edited 2004-05-25 00:16:29]

The question is, how many people know who Charles Taylor is without having to look it up on the net.  

I see that the proclaimation states:

Charles Edward Taylor, the aircraft maintenance technician who built and maintained the engine that was used to power the Wright brothers' first flying machine

Gee...I wonder how many AMTs "build" airplane engines these days?

Gee...I wonder how many AMTs "build" airplane engines these days?

And your point would be...

Well...to put it plainly (or is it "planely"), I don't understand how AMTs claim Mr. Taylor as their own. Designing and building an airplane is not what an AMT does. AMTs establish conformity with design. They don't design.

Of course Mr. Taylor acted in the capacity of maintainer as well, but again, the practice of maintaining an airplane in those days was much more like design. After all, there were no established standards or maintenance manuals to conform to. I'm sure he improved the design when he saw fit. Again another task not part of the AMT definition.

Many AMT's build engines everyday, who do you think overhauls them? Sure Charlie designed the engines he built, but its not like they were the first recip engines ever designed. He simply made a lighter more efficient engine made to the Wright brothers specs., improving on older designs. This was a different era and if you believe there are no AMT's out there today that could do the same (placing them back in 1903, or even today look at the Wright replicas built last year) then you're a fool. And what is it about maintaining an engine, no matter who built it that isn't done every minute of everyday by an AMT? You think the job of an AMT is like color by numbers? Sure we have procedures outlined to us to make aviation safer, but there's a lot of things the book won't tell you, a lot of skills honed by years in the industry. By stating that Charles Taylor is too good to be the father of aviation maintenance, you're degrading every single person who ever maintained an aircraft. Lets give a little support to the men and women who work around the clock, all over the world, who make modern aviation safe and reliable.

PC

Well said, Linemechqx! There are those among us who love nothing more than nitpicking. As an old friend and crewchief liked to say, "Thank God for the picture-straighteners of the world. Where would we be without them?" I for one am proud to be an AME, aka AMT, and I'm happy to see at least some recognition coming our way for a change. I'll take the gift horse, and not look in its' mouth...................

[Edited 2004-05-25 20:38:40]

if you believe there are no AMT's out there today that could do the same (placing them back in 1903, or even today look at the Wright replicas built last year) then you're a fool.

I am not a fool. And I know for a fact that the vast majority of AMTs/AMEs can NOT do what Mr. Taylor did. Its not nitpicking. There is a huge difference between an AMT and an Aeronautical engineer or even an AMT and a skilled machinist. There is no shame in being a maintainer however and my post was not meant to belittle either profession. Engineers typically are not capable of maintaining airplanes just as maintainers are not capable of designing them. Mr. Taylor was exceptional as he was capable of design, machining/manufacture, maintenance, and product improvement.

The roles of maintainer, manufacturer and designer that Mr. Taylor espoused way back in 1903 have since divided into stand-alone categories and as time marches on, there is overwhelming evidence (resumes and interviews) that the average AMT these days is a very different animal.

Let's look at those involved in the Wright Replica:

http://www.wrightflyer.org/Members/current.html

I can assure you that those with "engineer" after their names are "engineers" not AMTs. The replica wasn’t made by a bunch of maintainers with spare time.

By stating that Charles Taylor is too good to be the father of aviation maintenance, you're degrading every single person who ever maintained an aircraft. Lets give a little support to the men and women who work around the clock, all over the world, who make modern aviation safe and reliable.


Degrading? You are talking about two very different roles. If you feel slighted by my comments, they you are delusional about what you do for a living.

I'm sorry you feel that way Airplay, hopefully you'll feel comfortable on your next airplane trip. Sounds like you'd be happy with a couple of monkeys installing that engine or attaching that flap. With the continued growth in outsourcing maintenance you may just get your wish.

PC

There's always one out there...adding nothing to constructive to a discussion, only trying to knock others.

The mechanics where I work are indeed skilled craftsmen. The work they do on a daily basis involves laying out repairs and fabricating repair parts. Yes, they have manuals and technical specifications to work by, but they are still taking raw materials and turning them into a functional part of an airplane. Your flawed logic is like saying that the first person to sucessfully perform surgery on someone was somehow more than today's doctors, because the medical procedures and journals didn't exist at the time. If anything, today's AMT's have taken the foundation laid before them and built upon it, working with advanced composites and complex computer systems that good 'ol Charley could have never envisioned.

So say what you like about Charles Taylor and today's AMT's, how the roles have changed and blah, blah, blah. He was indeed the first aircraft mechanic, history recognizes him as such, and you coming along and trying to piss on everyone's parade just shows what you think about us mechanics in the first place.

I'm sorry you feel that way Airplay, hopefully you'll feel comfortable on your next airplane trip. Sounds like you'd be happy with a couple of monkeys installing that engine or attaching that flap. With the continued growth in outsourcing maintenance you may just get your wish.

Judging from the quality of work I’ve seen over the years, I agree with this statement. It’s a damn good thing that airplane design and certification standards are as stringent and complete as they are. Don’t think I’m coming here from left field to crap on your parade but you should be glad the average passenger doesn’t drag a flashlight around the belly of most modern airliners. I have a fairly long history as an aircraft maintainer so I know what I’m talking about. Maintainers who think they can do more than what the AMM says are the most dangerous ones.

I’ve seen everything from part substitution (Air Transat glided to a landing because of this) to process substitution, such as using different chemicals than that called for in the AMM to speed things up.

Anyway…I should say that I did a bit more research into Charlie Taylor before posting before. It seems that I was wrong about him somewhat. He didn’t act in the role of designer. He used his skills to fabricate the Wright Brothers designs. Some of which were mere sketches. Of course he didn’t have knowledge of aerodynamics or of standard practices, because they just didn’t exist as common knowledge at the time.

So…he wasn’t an engineer, and he wasn’t a mechanic in the strictest sense. He was a skilled machinist. He made all the engine parts, and machined many of the metal fittings used to hold together the whole airplane. Does that describe what a maintainer does these days? Nope. Still not the same thing. You won’t see an AMT hunched over a lathe sitting on the hangar floor at your local airline hangar.

Which makes me wonder still if old Chuck is still the appropriate father of aircraft maintenance.

Your flawed logic is like saying that the first person to sucessfully perform surgery on someone was somehow more than today's doctors, because the medical procedures and journals didn't exist at the time.

I see. So Lindburgh didn't pull off anything special either? The "first" of anything typically takes the most effort. Anything that follows is just repetition and taking advantage discovery.

If anything, today's AMT's have taken the foundation laid before them and built upon it, working with advanced composites and complex computer systems that good 'ol Charley could have never envisioned.


Hahahaa.....are you saying Charlie couldn't replace that composite panel or change out an LRU as good as the average AMT? What do you use to replace an "advanced" composite panel? An "advanced" screw driver?

Airplay- the correct response to "Merry Christmas" is a big smile and a "Merry
Christmas to you too, sir!"
A "Happy Birthday" deserves a "Thanks very much!"
"Happy New Year" merits a similar response, not a glum discourse on why it wasn't a good year, or why the new one will suck.
"Happy AMT Day" should be answered with a positive affirmation of our trade, not an argument about how the concept is wrong in the first place.
Why are you raining on our parade?

One of the great things about a public forum, is that you get to discuss things. You don't have to just blindly accept everything someone writes.

Merry Christmas on a discussion forum stimulates everything from the benign "Seasons Greetings to you too" to people discussing whether or not December 25 is the "real" Christmas.

In my opinion, the latter is much more interesting and informitive. Doncha' think?

Anyway...I've stimulated enough discussion here. I'll move on and rain on someone else's parade for awhile...

 

Well, Airplay, if we're just "maintainers", I maintain that you don't know what the f*ck you're talking about...

That's it. I'm done arguing with you. Happy Maintainer Day.

Hey Doc...Don't let it get to you... We get to play with real airplanes everyday...and we get paid doing it too...   Let the 'wanna be's'...'Na Say'rs'.. and all the rest say what they want.

Well, Airplay, if we're just "maintainers", I maintain that you don't know what the f*ck you're talking about...

Actually...that intrigues me. It would be interesting to hear your version of what an AMT "does" 737doctor. Give me your job description.

Now there`s a nice tradition to start for AMT Day- pick a fight with other AME/AMTs!
"I'll move on and rain on someone else's parade for awhile..."
Airplay, take your own advice.

My apprenticeship included machine shop work (lathe, milling machine etc.) and welding (oxygen-acetylene, TIG, Arc), and if I remember correctly, my A&P licence exams included stuff like designing structural repairs. I´ll bet I could build you a nice engine just as well as Mr. Taylor, given access to a proper shop, materials, time and money.

Airplay, I wonder how much maintenance experience you have. As most of the guys around here could tell you, there are plenty of situations NOT covered in the manuals, where the AMT/AME has to think of some solution. I personaly often don´t agree with the remote diagnosis given by some writing desk bound "engineers" who tell me what to do based on a few emailed pictures and descriptions, even though I´ve got to get their approval. How often did they come with suggestions, ordering me to do things which are impossible to do.

Jan

Maintainers who think they can do more than what the AMM says are the most dangerous ones.

That's funny.....We call them troubleshooters.

What do you use to replace an "advanced" composite panel?

If only we had the "luxury" of replacement panels. The lead times involved with getting new parts from the manufacturer can be weeks or months. Composite panel repair is pretty much the norm these days.

(edited for spelling)


[Edited 2004-05-26 14:56:10]

I can tell this a thread involving AMT's, everyone's at each others throats.

LMP737- No, it`s only one person`s throat at risk here! I`ve known other guys who can take a happy crew and get them all upset and arguing in no time. The rest of us get along fairly well. Don`t let Airplay ruin your day, it`s not worth it.

I just read that Charles Taylor died alone ad broke in a sanatorium. Hmm...I guess he was an AMT...

 

(Before anyone goes ballistic, remember its just a joke and I have worked for years as an AME)

[Edited 2004-05-26 20:06:52]

A true betrayer.

Airplay what will be your next flight that you will be taking? I am sure one of us could meet you at the gate to remind you of your AMT days.

Airplay,

Job descriptions such as part cleaners, and painters stretch the limits of what we consider AMT's in the US. So tell us, what was it you really did "maintaining" as you say. There's no need to hide it among your new made friends, let it all out. Didn't have the skills to cut it as an AME? Got fired? Laid off? Frustrated? There must be some reason for you to turn like this. Don't hold back, I'm interested. I've met idiots on the job that have been fired for one reason or another, we're not all perfect. We can't all make good mechanics.
And I guess since you say design and certification is what makes flying so safe now adays. Maybe us "maintainers" should put down our tools, and let the airplanes maintain themselves. Our newer Q400's and Rj's require just as much maintaining as our older D-8 100's and F-28s we got rid of. With the older planes it was more structural work, now its computers and wiring. Its not always easy fixing a fault when your computers have 200 inputs. What about the FIM you say? Its obvious the engineers wrote those books. Either way we'll be out in the rain and the weather making these airplanes fly till they design an engine that won't FOD out, and tires that never wear to the tread groove.

PC

I told myself that I wouldn't reply to this topic again and yet here I am.

First off, here's some definitions courtesy of Dictionary.com.

maintain - To keep in a condition of good repair or efficiency.

fabricate - To make, create. To construct, build. To form by art and labor.

modify - To alter somewhat; as to modify a contrivance adapted to some mechanical purpose.

These will come in handy here in a bit.

So what is an AMT?

The California Occupational Guide includes such duties in their AMT job description (among many others):

Modify air systems or components.
Repair or fabricate aircraft sections or parts, using metal fabricating machines, saws, brakes, shears and grinders.
Examine sample or damaged part or structure to determine repair or fabrication procedures and steps of operations.
Read blueprints and specifications.
Cure bonded structure, using portable or stationary curing equipment.
The list goes on and on.

Now let me tie this all together. What do I think an AMT is? I work in Heavy MX. Every day, I see my fellow mechanics do so much more than just "maintain" as you say (R&R components, perform general servicing). The sheetmetal guys lay out repairs, fabricate repair parts (doublers, angles, etc.). They are more than just "maintainers", they create things out of raw material and integrate them into the aircraft itself. The composite guys also lay out repairs and create new panels instead of just replacing them; much skill is involved in that. The avionics guys, like myself, perform modifications which involve building wiring harnesses, modifying existing wiring and troubleshooting (and that is a skill in itself). I could go on...

So, I see ourselves as much more than "maintainers", which implies that all we do is replace LRU's and service fluids. We create, we alter things, we build. The true definition of an AMT is much more than a "maintainer". My fellow AMT's here are indeed craftsmen, not unlike Charley Taylor.

You know what I just did? I think they call that a slam dunk. Booyah!

We create, we alter things, we build.

Bravo! The only thing you left out was that you do all that in accordance with approved data. Approved data that was developed by engineering. "Modify" and "fabricate" are just subsets of "maintain" just like "empty the shitter".

I didn't enter this thread to belittle the AMT profession. I just dropped a fact about Charles Taylor with respect to his skill as a designer and how that didn't quite describe what an AMT does. I later learned that he in fact did not design the engine he built and perhaps he is more accurately described as a machinist rather than an AMT or maintainer, except that he acted as a mobile machinist for the Wright Brothers.

This was not meant as a rub but some took it as such. Not "maintainers"? Why can't AMTs accept that they are maintainers? AMTs maintain conformity to the type design. If the airplane deviates from the type design, its not airworthy (in the legal sense). So don't give people the wrong impression about AMTs. AMTs (at least ones who understand their roles) do not deviate from approved data. The do not build parts as they see fit.

Didn't have the skills to cut it as an AME? Got fired? Laid off? Frustrated?

I've never been fired, laid off or been out of work. Ever. Unless you include that brief time between birth and puberty.....

I developed my skills and experience as an AME as far as I believe I could take them and went to what I believe is the next step up the ladder in design and certification. It that a sign of betrayal N685FE?

Tune in tommorow for AMTs posting how designers and engineers don't know what they hell they are doing and its a good thing AMTs are there to cover their mistakes! Its so predictable!

 

Bravo! The only thing you left out was that you do all that in accordance with approved data. Approved data that was developed by engineering.

Yeah, I can't tell you many times I've seen engineering come up with an ACO, only to have a mechanic tell them how it won't work and then tell them how to change it so it will work.

I'm sorry, but your story has grown tiresome. Next...

Airplay, your betrayal was evident by your actions. You turned on the profession on which you claimed was the foundation for your "next step up the ladder..." Why are you so driven to belittle our profession? Please enlighten us, tell us about your time as an AME. Was it spent at a heavy/mx shop greasing landing gear the whole time? Perhaps they let you progress to removing and installing insulation blankets, corrosion inspections in the lav area, or maybe you were a tank diver. Any of which you could demonstrate your dedication and ability and work your way up to other assignments, but it appears you jumped ship. Perhaps you where the one "delusional about what you do for a living."

Airplay, your betrayal was evident by your actions. You turned on the profession on which you claimed was the foundation for your "next step up the ladder..." Why are you so driven to belittle our profession?

I disagree with your assessment of my statements. I came right out and said I wasn't trying to belittle the AMT profession. If your ego is that fragile, if you feel threatened by my statements, if you're not capable of defining what you do and what you are, then you're in the wrong profession.

I think the bruised ego here is a result of thinking you're something you're not.

No "betrayal" just statements that I can back up.

737doctor:

About three years ago we had an ECO on our 757 fleet that proved most interesting. Although I can't remember exactly what the ECO pertained to I do remember what happened when it first came out. The ECO was so poorly written that tech services was flooded with calls from the stations doing the ECO. Next thing you know they pulled the ECO to do a little "re-tooling". Took them about another week to get it right.

P.S. The ECO was engine related.

I'll prove it later if I must, but I'll make the following statement.

Charles E. Taylor did much more than merely build the Wright Brother's engine.
He DESIGNED and built the Wright brother's wind tunnel. It's in the history books and in the museum. And did it with bits of old hacksaw blades and such.

Where would their engineering be without that little detail?

The ECO was so poorly written that tech services was flooded with calls from the stations doing the ECO.

Yep there are good engineers and bad engineers. Just like there are bad AMTs and worse AMTs...

 

And yes, the wind tunnel idea was awesome. Charles Taylor used the hack saw blades to balance the fan to optimize the efficiency. He was an awesome machinist.

[Edited 2004-05-27 04:07:53]

Hey Airplay,

I hate to break it to you but Orville and Wilbur were much more than pilots too. I'm a pilot and I know I couldn't do what they did.

As for you grease monkeys, I'll keep breaking them, you keep fixing them. Thanks  

And yes, the wind tunnel idea was awesome.

The wind tunnel idea came from the Wright boys. The design came from Charlie...

[Edited 2004-05-27 05:32:09]

Airplay, I just wanted to thank you. If it wasn't for your feeble attempt to spoil this thread, it wouldn't have gained as much attention for my fellow AMT's everywhere. Plus your attitude and behavior has only made us AMT's look even better.

On the downside, for someone who claims that he wasn't trying to belittle our profession, I believe this statement of yours says it all:

Just like there are bad AMTs and worse AMTs...

It looks like you destroyed what tiny shred of credibility you might have had left...Oh well, maybe you can design or engineer some more.

I wish there was a way to get Dumb people to realise what an AMT/AME is,& what it takes for him to get where he is,How he works & under what conditions he works.
Maybe then Respect for our profession would be 100%.
regds
HAWK

Gentlemen, I thank all of you. I've worked in many different situations in many different places and some of my most respected friends come in the form of mechanics. A good friend of mine recovered a 185 by floating down the Yukon river in a raft with the fuselage. Another had 20 plus years with turboprops, I'd ask his opinion anyday.

Lets not forget the guys who swapped an engine in Yellowknife just a month ago. Which one of you would have wanted to do that? Not me, if I knew them I'd buy them a drink.

Behind every pilot, is a great mechanic.

It looks like you destroyed what tiny shred of credibility you might have had left...Oh well, maybe you can design or engineer some more.

When you quoted me, you forgot the "smiley". If you can't recognize humour, you're in the wrong place.

You want to talk about "credibility" Doctor? Right after I posted:

Tune in tommorow for AMTs posting how designers and engineers don't know what they hell they are doing and its a good thing AMTs are there to cover their mistakes! Its so predictable!

You chimed in with:

Yeah, I can't tell you many times I've seen engineering come up with an ACO, only to have a mechanic tell them how it won't work and then tell them how to change it so it will work.

Yep. Predictable. I guess if it wasn't for "mechanics" we would never get those darn airplanes designed. Or the wings would be on backwards....

 

Airplay, I just wanted to thank you. If it wasn't for your feeble attempt to spoil this thread, it wouldn't have gained as much attention for my fellow AMT's everywhere. Plus your attitude and behavior has only made us AMT's look even better.


You're very welcome. Most recognize that discussion helps us understand the subject matter. I feel I've learned alot about Charles Taylor and the Wright Brothers. Things I wouldn't have bothered to research otherwise.

Attempt to "spoil" the thread? I guess its a matter of interpretation and perception. Only those who are not comfortable in their AMT "skin" feel this way in my opinion.

Airplay, are you an engineer for a manufacturer or an airline.

Alright guys, let's just see what kind of person Airplay is and exactly what he thinks of us.

https://www.airliners.net/discussions/tech_ops/read.main/89269/6/
"Personally, I believe that modern airliners enjoy exellent safety records these days because of the design standards, not because of the quality of maintenance. Many maintenance personnel these days seem to be lacking in skill and knowledge and have a poor attitude towards their jobs. If things go wrong the first people they blame is the aircraft designer/manufacturer.

I am often quite disturbed with lack of knowledge of aircraft mechanics I talk to lately that have up to 10 years experience on the job. The schools seem to producing nothing but monkeys who can read procedures out of a book and sign their name on the job card. They have absolutely no independant knowledge of the systems they are maintaining and hence no way to determine if something outside of the written word is out of the ordinary or unsafe.

This may seem like harsh criticism, and a quite generalized statement, but I have a small silver lining. This phenomenon seems to be restricted to the larger airlines that run aircraft that are designed to the latest standards and therefore possess a larger margin of safety with respect to slack maintenance."


Just one example from 753+ post.

[Edited 2004-05-27 19:00:43]

This is the greatest Tech-Ops thread ever!!

DL_Mech...
Maintainers who think they can do more than what the AMM says are the most dangerous ones.

That's funny.....We call them troubleshooters.

That was perfect!

N685FE,

My comments in this thread are no different than the comments you dredged up. As a matter of fact I made that comment fairly recently and it touches on my comments earlier in this thread. It represents my sentiments quite accurately.

CdfMxTech,

If you really think that AMTs that deviate from the AMM are just creative "troubleshooters" then I suspect you are one of the "dangerous" ones.

Troubleshooting is the process of discovering a fault. It has little to do with how the eventual repair is done and whether or not the airplane continues to conform with the type design following the repair. See the difference?

FDXmech,

What difference does it make whether I work for an airline or manufacturer? And why do you assume that these are the only engineering jobs in aviation out there? I know the difference and I think I understand what you are alluding to.

Airline engineering departments tend to be nothing more than "packagers". They take existing engineering from the aircraft manufacturer or third party sources, and disect the installation data in order to produce an engineering order or other such document that details the modification in terms the AMT can understand more readily. I'm not suggesting that AMTs can't read prints, but if the prints can be deciphered before hand into point by point precedure steps, the time spent by the AMTs embodying modifications can be optimized.

There is typically minimal design or compliance input from the airline engineering office. Just a degree of oversight. These poor guys often get crapped on by AMTs (See above) because they misinterpret something or they get continually trashed by AMTs that figure they know better. But...thats just the way it is.

At the manufacturing level, there are several levels of engineering starting at the core. These guys typically have very little direct contact with the AMTs on the floor. They are buffered by the methods department (or equivalent) who take on the role that airline engineers take. Its often difficult to assure 100% that your design will make perfect sense at the floor level. Unfortunately, the legendary "common sense" that AMTs apply at the floor level may contradict compliance issues or procurment issues, or any of a million elements of design and certification. It doesn't however stop them from assuming the engineers are "stupid".

 

There are also "other" levels of engineering with respect to aircraft design certification as I mentioned. Third party entities can be anyone from those who support component design, to those who act as liaison or integrator between the manufacturer of a unit or system and the manufacturer of the airframe.

Perhaps FDXMech, you can let me know what you're driving at and I can give you a better answer.

I said before with the "silver lining" reference, In engineering like maintaining the larger the airline , "the worse the average skill of the AMT in my experience. Those who maintain the smaller operator's aircraft tend to be exposed to a great deal more variety, and are often forced to learn the aircraft systems intimately."

This is my opinion. You don't have to agree. But really. Quit with the "betrayal" rhetoric or trying to convince people I'm just trying to bash the AMT profession for kicks. It just isn't the case.

I think this thread has played out though. Maybe we need to continue this under another heading?

>>>Perhaps FDXMech, you can let me know what you're driving at and I can give you a better answer.<<<

Sorry for the confusion. Let me rephrase the question; are you an engineer for an air carrier or a manufacturer.

Airplay- I don't know if you realize it, but you keep contradicting yourself. On the one hand you insist you are not putting AMEs down, which I hope is true, but then you make statements like those quoted below that seem to be the opposite. Whether it is intentional or not, your style of writing consistently implies that you look down upon those you refer to.
"I suspect you are one of the "dangerous" ones. "
" nothing more than "packagers".
"the legendary "common sense" that AMTs apply "
"I think the bruised ego here is a result of thinking you're something you're not."
" It’s a damn good thing that airplane design and certification standards are as stringent and complete as they are. Don’t think I’m coming here from left field to crap on your parade but you should be glad the average passenger doesn’t drag a flashlight around the belly of most modern airliners."
"you are delusional about what you do for a living."
"Judging from the quality of work I’ve seen over the years"
, "Modify" and "fabricate" are just subsets of "maintain" just like "empty the shitter".

I quoted these lines so you can see (hopefully) where people have a problem with your comments. Now to be fair, I also read the whole thread looking for a positive comment from you about AMEs and couldn't find one. The closest candidate was;
"There is no shame in being a maintainer "
Well, talk about damning with faint praise! Do us a favour and sit in your ivory tower, and let us AMEs struggle along without the benefit of your vast knowledge.

Great post Avt007.

Despite his protestations to the contrary, his attitude keeps exposing his true feelings about us mechanics.

Airplay:

Thank you for pointing out something I already know. Your powers of observation are amazing.

Avt007,

You stated that those quotes were putting down AMTs. Do I really have to go through each one and correct you? I guess so...

"I suspect you are one of the "dangerous" ones. "

This is not a blanket statement about AMTs. It clearly says "you are ONE" of the "dangerous ONES". Doesn't every profession have good "ones" and bad "ones"?

" nothing more than "packagers".

That statement had to do with engineers....not AMTs. If you truly understood the roles of AMTs and engineers, and understood the difference, you wouldn't have included this statement.

"the legendary "common sense" that AMTs apply "

Yes. Thanks for bringing this up. Often in my job and just by coincidence TODAY I had an AME (here in Canada) explain to me how the airworthiness standards I was "forcing" him to conform to, were ridiculous and that common sense would dictate there was no need to go to such lengths. I see it over and over and over....

I was subject to the same prejudices when I was working as an AME. There is a wide spread fundamental lack of knowledge of design and certification standards among the AME/AMT crowd that cause the very misunderstanding(s) you are struggling with Avt007.

"I think the bruised ego here is a result of thinking you're something you're not."

More of the same. (see above) So many AMTs and AMEs seem to be ashamed of what they are (in my opinion) when there is absolutely no basis for it. Everyone in aviation has their role. AMTs maintain airplanes. Pilots fly them.

Its all part of the aviation disease. Not unlike the perception of pilots to the general public. They put a great deal of faith in the word of the pilot. Many think pilots know EVERYTHING about airplanes and aviation. This very board (A.net Tech/Ops) is full of comments from pilots about very technical subjects that AMTs are far more qualified to answer but have their comments disregarded in favour of the pilot "god" of aviation's statement.

So why does it happen? Pilots are very effective at convincing people they have the authoritative and comprehensive answers. Many AMTs like to hint that they are "engineers". Here in Canada when someone asks an AME what he does for a living, the answer is often "aircraft engineer". They somehow forget to mention the "M" for maintenance word. Not a rub. Not an insult. Just an observation.

" It’s a damn good thing that airplane design and certification standards are as stringent and complete as they are. Don’t think I’m coming here from left field to crap on your parade but you should be glad the average passenger doesn’t drag a flashlight around the belly of most modern airliners."

Yes. I stand by this statement. The margin of safety embodied in designs is meant to account for a degree of neglect. Want an example? One day I had an inquiry from a fellow maintainer with a job card to inspect a ground stud. It was a large generator ground stud behind a leading edge that had about a zillion fasteners that needed to be removed. It was to be inpected for corrosion and security. He asked me if we've ever had to replace one. When I indicated "rarely" he signed it off....without doing the inspection. Until I forced him to do it. Makes you wonder how much gets signed off using this "common sense" mentality.

If you were to take the time to read the FAA reports on aging aircraft (structural and non-structural) you would find a great deal of information supporting my statement. The FAA was quite taken aback with what they found.

"you are delusional about what you do for a living."

This is taken out of context. It makes no sense unless you state the whole thing:

"Degrading? You are talking about two very different roles. If you feel slighted by my comments, they you are delusional about what you do for a living."

There. That's the whole thing. Is it putting down AMTs? I don't think so.

"Judging from the quality of work I’ve seen over the years"

Again. Taken out of context. But its an opinion. So what. I've seen a great deal over the years, and I'm basing my comments and opinions on the quality of what I've seen. Remeber, again, you don't have to agree.

"Modify" and "fabricate" are just subsets of "maintain" just like "empty the shitter".

Its true. As a maintainer, you maintain not just the servicability of the airplane, but the airworthiness of it. And airworthiness is defined as "safe for flight and in conformity with the type design". (A little paraphrasing here)

In maintaining airworthiness, AMTs are often called upon to modify airplanes. Not on a whim, but in accordance with approved data. The approved data often calls on AMTs to fabricate parts. Again in accordance with approved data. And, occasionally, AMTs must service the lavatory in accordance with the published procedures. I've done it myself on several occasions. Its just part of the job. So yes. Modifying, fabricating and emptying the shitter are subsets of "maintenance". Not engineering. Not operating. Not dispatching.

Sorry for the confusion. Let me rephrase the question; are you an engineer for an air carrier or a manufacturer.

FDXMech,

It is my personal policy, here in the great world of the internet, not to answer many questions that would help pinpoint my identity. I don't answer questions about my favorite "anything" or my kids names or even if I have kids. These days identity theft is an all too real possibility. So...I won't answer this question but if you tell me why you posed the question I'll try to address your concern(s).

Wow...hows that for a long reply? You'd think I just enjoy listening to myself type...

 

Airplay

With all due respect to everyone in this forum, do not mistake me for one of the guys that is going to try and justify the job that I do...to you of all people. I don't need your respect for my profession. I do think you have some underlying issues with regards to your lack of respect for AMTs. This was illustrated by the "There are bad AMTs and worse AMTs". You forgot to mention that there are actually some pretty good ones out there...even if we don't all fabricate things.

But anyways, what DL_Mech said was a perfect comeback. Of course, inventing your own method to perform maintenance tasks can be dangerous depending on the situation, but there are some instances where you have to think outside the box. Those of us that have ever troubleshot, know that there are times where FIMs and Maintenance Manuals don't always show you the way to go. But I suspect you knew that too!!

BTW - you do actually make a couple of good points, in between a bunch of B.S.

Yeah airplay that was a long reply, good job with the bull, I have however given up on reading your replies. They're all the same, anything new you say is worded differently. You show no evidence to support your theories. (like airplanes falling out of the sky, seeing they were maintained by monkeys) This ceased being a discussion when you started having fun demeaning my profession and started adding smiley faces after you comments, so later you could tell us "see the smiley, that meant I was joking" good job to everyone else especially 737 doctor for doing a great job standing up for the maintenance industry. Its also good to see airplay is alone in bashing us.

Late
PC