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.
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...