Chow

You were looking for a job when you found that one.

All of the basic rules apply. If you don't lie, you don't have to remember what you lied about.

Remember these?

• Anti-authority: Follow the rules. They are usually right.
• Impulsivity: Not so fast. Think first.
• Invulnerability: It could happen to me.
• Macho: Taking chances is foolish.
• Resignation: "I’m not helpless. ?I can make a difference.

JohnBurke

I'm not unucky. I'm experienced. Perhaps one day you'll be old enough to know the difference.

If you're smart, you'll work to be less ignorant of the equipment that you fly. If you're actually an aviator, that is.

12oclockHi

I'm not sure how much older I'll need to get to meet the standard you have set. You have plenty of excellent advice, but your Kryptonite is a thin skin. Your history around airplanes, by your discription, reads like a demolition derby. Maybe you are doing it for affect, maybe its all true, doesn't matter. I pimped you and you lashed out.

I think a discussion on aircraft maintance, the failings and out right fraud of some operators is a subject that deserves a thorough airing. Most of what most pilots see is the dealing of line maintance. The pencil wipped response to log book entries; "Could not duplicate, ok for further sevice", "Fuel drip within limits per, XXXXXXXX", an old favorite, "Reracked XXXXX, obs checked ok". Clearly the most affective tool in a mechanic's box is his pen and signature.

Ignorance is either a deliberate attempt to avoid knowledge, or possibly just a lack of exposure to a learning moment. The former is a personality fault, the latter is just a lack of exposure to the reality of the world. In aviation, that which doesn't kills you makes you wiser, that which kiils you, puts you on the evening news. Lets all try to share and educate those we can, to avoid that notoriety.

JohnBurke

The fact that you have no idea what "pimp" means, reveals considerable about your age, and experience. That you think that was "lashing out," speaks volumes about your sheltered life. If I'd lashed out, your freckles would be bleeding.

The fact that you think a "could not duplicate" entry is "pencil whipping" reveals how little you know about aircraft maintenance. Ignorance.

You understand that maintenance manuals spell out the number of drips per minute for a leak, and a seap, and that identification of that rate, and it's relationship to the manufacturers published standard is a correct, and appropriate maintenance signoff, don't you? You didn't know that?

Do you know why equipment is re-racked and why it can make a difference? If a radio or piece of equipment is re-racked and ops checks within tolerance, what do you suggest that the mechanic does further? Would it make you feel better, if instead of "re-racking," the mechanic actualky spelled out that he'd removed and re-installed the equipment in anticipation of a better electrical connection, perhaps sprayed the pins or sockets with electrical cleaner, re-installed the equipment, and secured, in accordance with approved documentation? Have you ever signed off a maintenance write up based on work you've done, and put your name and A&P mechanic number to it with a date and signature? Are you qualified, or are you dictating what a legitimate mechanic should do, when you're not qualified? Are you qualified?

How many times have you performed aircraft maintenance, and found that the reported problem was not repeatable, or could not be duplicated, or the equipment functioned correclty and within tolerance? You haven't experienced that? I have, many thousands of times. Perhaps you need more experience.

Which is yours?

Chow

I've been here less than a week and I'm already scared of JohnBurke. I love his allegorical insights paired with his lived experience, and know that I'm gonna eventually say something stupid enough to get a tounge lashing.