should maintenance techs run up helo with no pilot?

[avbug]

You say no mechanic should do so without being trained, then go on to say that rotorwing is different. How so? I know a lot of pilot mechanics also. Both fixed and rotary. So what?

 

I'm a mechanic, and inspector. I'm certainly not trying to protect my job: I have no insecurities about my job, and routinely work as a mechanic, routinely as a pilot, and routinely as both. When I get done posting here, I'll go back into the hangar and finish performing a 100 hour inspection on a turbine engine. Tomorrow I'll fly the aircraft. Big deal.

 

You used the example of your buddy from Skywest, working on fixed wing aircraft, where it's routine and common to start, run, and taxi the aircraft. Where have you found such an example in rotor wing?

 

No mechanic, rotor or fixed wing, should be operating the aircraft without proper type-specific training.

 

Fixed wing operation is straightforward, and very simple. It's routine for fixed wing mechanics to run engines, taxi aircraft, etc.

 

It is not routine for rotorwing mechanics to taxi aircraft, and for certain operations, to turn rotors, without crew present or at the controls.

 

Let's not forget that pilots bend more birds than mechanics do.

 

Let's not speak stupidly.

 

Mechanics aren't flying aircraft. Pilots are. Think.

 

I believe it was YOU who spoke about the amount of damage you did to military aircraft by trying to work on them, was it not?

[nightsta1ker]

Snipped for brevity

 

You take a lot of things out of context. A lot. In just about every post you make in regard to anything I, and others, have written. You make some valid points, but you seem to make them in a contradictory manner when someone else basically said the same thing. You don't seem to take it the same way. I attribute this to you picking through the forums instead of reading and comprehending the material.

 

A little about my background, in case you haven't gathered anything about me yet. I was an Army helo mechanic/crew chief for 6 years. I've been doing civilian helicopter maintenance, both on Army helos as a contractor, and on civilian aircraft which I fly, for nearly 4.

 

I understand your point, and agree! Why you seem to be arguing with me, I don't know.

 

My Brother (of blood relation, not my "buddy") works for Sky West. Although it is a matter of routine for him to run and taxi aircraft, he is type specifically trained to do so. My point was, and is, that if you are going to have a mechanic run up a helicopter, they need to be type specifically trained, and I said as much. I never at any point mentioned that mechanics should be taxiing or flying helos. The discussion was in regard to ground run only. It was not my intention to imply that helicopter mechanics should be able to taxi or fly a helicopter. Ground runs, yes (if properly trained). Flying, no, unless they are also a pilot and trained type specifically.

 

In reference to my post about damaging an aircraft, at that time I was talking about proper training and supervision. I had been sent out to do a task without proper training or supervision. I messed up. I damaged a component. Was it my fault? Not completely, though I sure felt horrible about it for a long time. Who got in trouble? My squad leader. That's what you get when you send a brand new private right out of school to go do something they have no business doing. It actually happened a few times over the years. And that was kind of my point. If you send someone out untrained and unsupervised, bad things will happen.

 

You said: "Mechanics aren't flying aircraft. Pilots are. Think."

 

Except when they are not. Obviously there have been cases where mechanics have bent a bird or this thread wouldn't exist. Think.

 

You seem to pick through the threads, and as soon as you see something you disagree with you post negatively. Why don't you take the time to read the whole thing carefully. You might be surprised at what you missed the first time.

Edited September 9, 2012 by nightsta1ker

[avbug]

A little about my background, in case you haven't gathered anything about me yet. I was an Army helo mechanic/crew chief for 6 years. I've been doing civilian helicopter maintenance, both on Army helos as a contractor, and on civilian aircraft which I fly, for nearly 4.

 

I understand your point, and agree! Why you seem to be arguing with me, I don't know.

 

I know your background. I'm unimpressed.

[nightsta1ker]

I know your background. I'm unimpressed.

 

I don't really care. I'm not trying to impress you. You just seem to keep making remarks that are out of context to what I said. And I keep trying to clear them up. Obviously this is an uphill battle that is going nowhere with you, so I am forced to assume that you are just some grumpy curmudgeon that is pissed off at the world and just wants to put people down all day long. Go right ahead. I'll be busy ignoring you.

[aeroscout]

I don't really care. I'm not trying to impress you. You just seem to keep making remarks that are out of context to what I said. And I keep trying to clear them up. Obviously this is an uphill battle that is going nowhere with you, so I am forced to assume that you are just some grumpy curmudgeon that is pissed off at the world and just wants to put people down all day long. Go right ahead. I'll be busy ignoring you.

 

Don't let someone try to drag you down. I call it the lobster effect, or the basement people effect. It puts a lot of truth into the saying "Misery loves company". That by the way was a great book and movie by Stephen King, read it or rent the DVD, you won't be disappointed.

[avbug]

An army helicopter mechanic is to aircraft maintenance what a nascar fan is to driving a race car. More spectator than a deciding factor in the continued airworthiness of the aircraft. I've met more army helicopter mechanics that left me shaking my head in wonder than any other training source for maintenance technicians. This isn't to say they're all questionable, but enough so that many folks I know won't hire them, and want to see additional training outside of that received in the army.

 

Yes, there are cases where mechanics have damaged aircraft, but your statement was that far more pilots have damaged aircraft than mechanics. Obviously so, and a very stupid statement to make. Pilots routinely put the aircraft in a position to be damaged by flying them. Mechanics, not so much. If pilots weren't damaging aircraft at a much greater rate than mechanics, there would be a big problem. Your statement is much like saying that cars get damaged more when driving, than when parked. Of course they do. It's a very stupid thing to say, but it's your argument, and it comes as no surprise from you.

 

In reference to my post about damaging an aircraft, at that time I was talking about proper training and supervision. I had been sent out to do a task without proper training or supervision. I messed up. I damaged a component. Was it my fault? Not completely, though I sure felt horrible about it for a long time. Who got in trouble? My squad leader. That's what you get when you send a brand new private right out of school to go do something they have no business doing. It actually happened a few times over the years. And that was kind of my point. If you send someone out untrained and unsupervised, bad things will happen.

 

Beautiful. You damage an aircraft, and it's someone else's fault. Hopefully you don't carry such a low ethic with you into the cockpit now. You're a flight instructor presently, aren't you?

 

Take some measure of responsibility. If you damage something, it's not someone else's fault for failing to supervise you. It's your fault. You did it. Own it. Accept it. Embrace your own personal responsibility in the matter. Sounds like the army gave you a perfect medium in which your squad leader took the brunt of the heat for your own failings. Try not to do that in the cockpit.

 

You've already shown us photographs of you taped to a refueling probe, being beaten, to show us how powerless you were against the system. Part of an environment over which you had no control, you've assured us. Instructors beating you with sticks, fellow squad and platoon and squadron members beating and pummeling you. It was always someone else's responsibility, someone else's fault. Never your control, never your responsibility.

 

Are you going to run out of fuel and blame the line guy for failing to put enough fuel in the aircraft? Are you going to fail to pull collective soon enough in an autorotation and then blame the student for the crash? Are you going to fly into weather and blame the meteorologist for failure to alert you to the precipitation or convective activity? Are you going to have a mid-air and blame the controller for not separating you, or the other aircraft for not accurately reporting his position on the radio? Be responsible for your own fuel, take charge of ensuring the safe outcome of the flight, make your own decisions and stand behind them, and use your eyes and not the radio to find traffic. While you're at it, accept responsibility for the aircraft and your actions.

 

If you're not qualified, don't do the job.

 

Placing a mechanic in a helicopter with a spinning rotor is not the same as placing a pilot in that aircraft. On the ground with a spinning rotor, the airfoil is in motion. It's susceptible to external changes, and to internal changes that can cause rapid developments which may be outside the scope of the mechanic to handle, no matter how well he's been trained. Certainly a mechanic can be trained to start an engine and to turn a rotor. Anybody can be taught to do something so long as it doesn't require judgement or quick thinking when things change. Running a fixed wing engine isn't really much different than sitting in the cold, dark airplane on the ramp. Not a lot going on there. Monitor the engine for operation, keep the brakes set. Taxiing isn't much different, either.

 

A helicopter is very different from an airplane. You may have picked upon this in your limited time in aviation, especially the very limited part as an actual pilot (when you weren't duct taped to booms and probes and being beaten as an enlisted boy). With the rotor turning, airflow over the airfoil and rotor disc, numerous dynamics are already in play that aren't applicable to the fixed wing operation. When all goes smoothly and no judgement is required, not a big deal. The first time an input is required involving a pilot skill, that's outside the scope of the basic training that qualifies the mechanic to run the engine, trouble may develop. It's for this reason that many operators require a pilot to be present.

 

Try not to stay too busy ignoring me, and do try not to let your students tape you to anything and beat you with broomsticks. You've had a hard enough life as it is.

[nightsta1ker]

Removed by poster. Remark was not in good taste and my apologies to anyone who read it before removal.

Edited September 10, 2012 by nightsta1ker

[avbug]

I'll be busy ignoring you.

 

So much for that.

[WolftalonID]

We used to do it in our Agusta A109E Power's. The mechs were solid and did it for years. After doing a risk assesment, we could find no good reason why they should be doing it......especially at operating RPM. If there is a chance the aircraft can move or fly, there should be a pilot at the controls. We can trust our outstanding mechs all we want, but if something happens and there is not a pilot at the controls, do you think the insurance company is going to pay bill?This happened when a mech was doing a run up.

Wow....well after reviewing the run up, my recommendation is this helicopter needs more maintenance before further flight! Lol.

[500E]

My take is that they were doing T&B with ground handling wheels on lifted to do hover check wheels locked down &

Note Chadwick gun hanging out of P2 door

[aeroscout]

I fully trained 2 mechanics to achiever their turn quals. They never had any troubles accidents or incidents.