Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'American Airlines' started by conehead777, Feb 15, 2017.
Stay in your lane....
I enjoy just reading the thread when you guys stay focused on the present and the future and not obsess over the past.
Particularly when it’s not even your own past.
I just came across a copy of the imposed terms while doing some spring cleaning. It's a tough read, even now. Draconian is definitely a good description.
That really depends on what kind of timeline you're basing the definition of success on. Isn't funny how soon people forget how rocky things were for the first couple of years. I saw it first hand, I haven't forgot.
Replaceable in small numbers maybe. There just isn't that many qualified A&Ps available nowadays. Especially ones that can pass a background check, and drug screen. Add to that, finding qualified AMTs that are willing to relocate to high cost of living areas, working nites, weekends, and holidays further erodes the chances of enticing new talent.
Good luck with that though.
If it pertains to aircraft maintenance, then it is by proxy part of my past. It did affect family members, and friends as well. Still pisses me off.
So do you guys vote for the ones there, or worry about the ones that aren't there. The longer it goes the harder it gets.
I don't need to understand them, you do. I just think in general manuals should be written to be as easy as possible to understand. That is not a slight against the mechanics in any way. I feel that way about manuals in general.
While I was at TULE the mechanics installed part of an entry door backwards. I am dead serious. Despite them being experienced, intelligent people using an approved aircraft maintenance manual they installed part of the door backwards. The dock had to call in engineering because they could not figure out why the door would not close.
Now I don't think of those men as incompetent or fools. I worked with them all the time and I know they were good mechanics. But their interpretation of the source material was obviously flawed. Simplification and clarity may have helped.
Yes, but our jobs are very different. When you install a part you install it the same way every time as per the manual. They may upgrade or modify things from time to time but you are pretty much just doing the same thing over and over again. In computer networking you have to be adaptive because you are not dealing with a rigid manual but varied customers. Understanding manuals will only take you so far. Same thing when I worked in electrical. You can know equations and electrical code but at the end of the day it is up to you to design a workable solution for your customer using available technology and staying within a budget.
Maybe so, but I can honestly say I have never had an engineer tell me I have installed something backwards.
Now let me ask you, why are you getting so butt hurt over my opinion that if possible they should simplify the manuals? It's not like I have any expertise or authority to implement simplification. Do you see simplified manuals as a threat to your job or something? Afraid if they simplify them too much some third world mechanic is going to take your job? Seriously, what is your problem?
This does not even deserve a response. Incredible.
Not butt hurt at all, just amazed that someone needs the manuals to be dumbed down so they can understand them better. First time I have ever heard that one. Think about it. Your comment was so stupid and was deserving of my response.
Again I am not an aircraft mechanic. I don't NEED to understand your manuals because I have not and will not ever use them.
I could not care less about how "stupid" you think my comment was. I don't need your validation.
The whole point of making a manual is to provide approved step by step instructions resulting in consistency and efficiency. The secondary goal is to remove thinking from the tasks as much as possible to minimize mistakes (aka human error).
You may be able to read a manual and follow it but it is very obvious you don't know a damn thing about writing for other people.
This is my final post on this subject. Apply some Preparation H on and move on. If you need clarity on how to apply it......... just read the manual.
I think you’re both right. Any manual should emphasize consistency, and ease of interpretation across a wide range of people.
At the same time, I bristle any time my own training panders to the lowest common denominator.
It’s important to remember the past so we don’t shoot ourselves in the foot again.
That, and act as liability protection to the OEM. The manuals are written to give step by step instructions so that 1: the aircraft is repaired in the method which the manufacturer intends it to work and 2: in the easiest instructions possible so that the mechanic can do the work and, regardless of what happens to the aircraft, the OEM will be legally protected in the event of an incident/accident. Engineering writes the info, other engineers review it, tech pubs writes it, legal reviews it, then it is published.
There are so many references in each ch/sec that are written solely for the purpose of CYA to the OEM that anyone operating IAW on the line should take a major delay. Just the time it takes to print each section and locate the required tooling should drive an OTS, not to mention actually perform the work.
That is a good point.
One thing to know, the contract that the IAM at Eastern turned down and went on strike for, was a better deal then what the mechs at AA were working under at that time. The 80s were a tough time for airlines just as the early 2000s were.