Hi Jetz!
Sorry for the delay in getting back, I’ve been working.
> There are obvioulsy large gaps in your aeronautical knowledge,
> particularly with respect to flying airplanes.
This must be one of them. Would you mind explaining your version of the Concord wreck? You remember? The pilot was in control of a plane that “looked like a fireball tumbling through the air.†(One eye witness’s description) That MIGHT work with a Pitts, but not a Concord.
> And I never claimed that pilots are mechanics and could do their jobs.
No?
“Simple fact: Pilots have training, experience, and understanding of everyone else’s job. … (metrology, flight planning, weight & balance, ATC, maintenance, engineering, evacuation, fire fighting, security, and on and on…)â€
> “I do know that any aviation degree consists of quite a few credit hours
> of recip and turbine theory, performance, meteorology, etc. Show me one
> mechanic who’s required to learn a darn thing about cloud formation.
I didn’t say they do. You said that YOU do. Myself? I roomed with an aerographer for a year. One of the areas I know a little, but not much.
> Show me one fueler who’s required to know how that fuel gets from the tank
> to the tailpipe.
Again, I didn’t say they do. You said that you do.
> Has very little to do with self preservation.
Do you have that voice recorder transcript I mentioned to back this statement up?
> It is the pilots who must deal with situations as they
> come up, ... but unless
> you are in our shoes, you are in no position to speak with authority on
> the matter.
The first part I agree with. As for the second, 1800+ hours crew time in a Navy P-3 doesn't count here?
> Bottom line is that with greater education/skill/experience/responsibility comes
> greater financial reward, as it should be.
Not always. As has been stated several times in this thread, market forces dictate compensation, not education. If you wish, I can give several examples of PhDs I know who earn minor salaries for various reasons.
> Which was my original premise in this thread anyway. I never dismissed anyone else’s
> contribution to the task of moving jets from A to B.
You have done exactly that, several times, in this post. And:
“We are responsible for many lives ... Many more than most professions.â€
Your follow up did take a slightly different tack than some, but they all boil down to, ‘Pilots are the most important’, when in fact any number of people are just as responsible for the safety of each flight. The ONLY part you have right here is that when something does go wrong, the pilot is the one who has to deal with it. Then the NTSB, FAA, engineers, mechanics, etc. etc. …
As for the rest, let me quote from you:
“Sometimes a little knowledge is the most dangerous. There are obviously large gaps in your aeronautical knowledge, particularly with respect to flying airplanes.â€
> But the idea that a fueler could bring a jet down by not doing his job is a stretch.
> The brakes are not even released until I’ve verified the proper fuel load is on board.
Unless you drop every dripstick and do the necessary calculations, you are not verifying the fuel load. All you are doing is checking that the gage reads what you want. There are many conditions that could lead to an improper reading, just ask Air Canada.
> Same with the flight plan, the ATC clearance, and most everything else you
> mentioned.
Okay, you checked that everything was perfect. Did the crew of the other A/C? If you haven’t heard at least a few reports of in-flight near misses, you are leading a very sheltered life. I was on one such flight. We were lucky. A couple other crews weren’t so lucky:
Moffett Field, California. ATC was bringing two aircraft in at the same time. One was coming in to the right runway on a steep approach, the other to the left runway on a shallow approach. The last transmission to the one on the right was ‘cleared to land runway left.’ The flight crew did not question ATC, they moved over and impacted the other A/C a few hundred yards short of the runway. Both planes came to a very abrupt halt in the middle of a golf course, about a chip shot short of a major highway.
> And by the way it’s impossible for glycol to be pumped into the tanks;
> if anything but jet fuel was in there you wouldn’t get to the end of the runway
> without other indications;
That one was a bit of a stretch, but, wrong again. One of the FEW P-3s the Navy lost was an Alpha model. The P-3A uses water-alcohol injection during high power settings. In this instance all four engines got very quiet at about 200 feet, just after takeoff. Now, care to guess why? This one begs an earlier question. When is Jet-A1 appropriate and Jet-A not?
> if the controls are cross rigged I’ll find it during the control check;
They don’t have to be cross rigged. A loose control rod-end bolt might take a couple hours of vibration before falling out. An improperly swedged cable could take any number of cycles before separating. An improperly routed cable …
E.g. (Very lucky crew) After landing and taxi at CVG (1988), a DL 727 pilot told the mechanic meeting the flight to leave the plane alone, everything was fine. On his walk around the mech. found an aileron buss cable, or a part of one, hanging out of the left gear well. It was later determined that someone who worked for the outfit who did the overhaul on that A/C two days earlier (outsourced by Delta to South Carolina) routed the cable incorrectly. Instead of riding around a pulley, the cable was routed outside the keeper, resulting in the cable being worn through in those two days. (probably during taxi in.)
Thank you. Peace to you.
MB
Oh yes. There have been several challenges to various people on this thread to post credentials. So far I haven't seen any takers.
3 years crew - Navy P-3 (B and D)
You guessed right about the aviation degree. Economics minor.
2 years aircraft manufacture.
16 years aircraft maintenance.
14 years aircraft inspection.
Know a little about the weather.
Know a little less about ATC.
