Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>> Beats going broke like Virgin did.

>>>>> Yes doubt if Australia can support the many Airlines serving
>>>>> Australia maybe 3 at most.

>>>> I thought Bonza might be gone by now.

>>>> Going to be interesting to watch.

Specially thru the winter when far fewer
will be travelling, even at their low fares.

>>>> Rex is expanding but is having a hell of
>>>> a problem with getting enough pilots.

>>> Not enough long term job's IMO

>> Can't see that.

>>> Sydney Mascot is moving half it's control tower staff.
>>> Moving them to Melbourne.
>>> <https://www.civilair.asn.au/news/2554-smh-plan-to-shift-half-of-sydney-s-air-traffic-controllers-to-melbourne>
>>> https://t.ly/oLRI0
>>> Plan to shift half of Sydney’s air traffic controllers to Melbourne
>>> Aircraft flying through all but a small part of greater Sydney’s
>>> airspace would be handled by a control centre in Melbourne under a
>>> controversial plan partly aimed at cutting costs by shifting up to
>>> half the city’s air traffic controllers to Victoria.
>>> Airservices Australia’s plan to relocate up to 65 air traffic
>>> controllers to Melbourne from its terminal control unit at Sydney
>>> Airport is contained in internal briefing documents seen by The Sydney
>>> Morning Herald and The Age.

>> We'll see...

> Possibly "our" government believing it's own bull about the
> infrastructure for the Western Sydney Airport all that is showing is a
> LGBTQ+ rainbow spiral
> https://ibb.co/52ZsB5m

It wouldnt have been anything to do with the govt.

> for a cost of more than $500 million to the , at least Thats what NSW
> has paid the government bureaucrats have paid for infrastructure of
> western Sydney aerotropolis Government oversight body!
> Some big wheelers and dealers not seeing the humor in this joke
> https://t.ly/fAf5D

> A case of don't believe everything you read!
> Our Government and media often lies to us intentionally
> <https://www.governmentnews.com.au/bradfield-blueprint-slammed-for-lack-of-infrastructure-planning/>
> https://t.ly/e7Vmt
> Liverpool Mayor Ned Mannoun: infrastructure ignored

Just because some fool polly claims something...

On 2/4/2024 1:25 pm, Petzl wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 13:15:04 +1100, Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/4/2024 10:29 am, Petzl wrote:
>>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 18:59:54 +1100, Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've been to London twice, 2014 and 2016 and both times
>>>> the flights were well under AU$2000 economy return,
>>>>
>>> Just looked for next month return from Sydney to London
>>> https://t.ly/Udyzo
>>> Economy 29 hours
>>
>> 29hrs means a long stop over in Singapore, try looking for flights with
>> less than 24 hrs total travel time and watch the prices increase.
>
> But cheaper if you go by others but you and luggage end up in another
> carrier (but even cheaper). Seems AFIAK that is the only way to get to
> London totally via Qantas?
> 29hrs you could break jet lag by splitting trip by a stay over in
> Singapore catching QANTAS the next time it comes through?

I like to break up the trip with a stopover of at least a couple of
nights but my wife doesn't agree so guess who gets her way:-)
We stayed in Singapore for 3 nights on the way back in 2014.
I've never flown Qantas even when I used to fly to places for work, I
worked for Ford and they wouldn't use Qantas because at the time it was
Govt owned, we had to fly Ansett.
At Changi airport you can rent a hotel room in the terminal for enough
hours to have a shower and a few hours sleep before you continue your
journey, probably the same facilities are available in many big
international airports, great idea if you are traveling a very long
distance.

--
Daryl

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>> <https://rumble.com/v4mapg5-breaking-boeing-bosses-fired-after-whistleblower-murdered-redacted-with-cla.html>
>>>>>> https://t.ly/HA3cm
>>>>>> BREAKING! Boeing bosses fired after Whistleblower murdered
>>>>>
>>>>> Just because some fool claims something...
>>>>
>>>> Not much chance that the whistle blower committed suicide and a very
>>>> high chance that foul play was involved.
>>>> What I find annoying with the whole Boeing issue is the way its being
>>>> reported, the news reports are blaming Boeing for what appears to be
>>>> maintenance faults on older aircraft, also interesting to note that 3
>>>> recent problems involved United Airlines yet the news reported blamed
>>>> Boeing instead of asking questions about United maintenance or lack
>>>> thereof, AFAIK the 777 that lost a wheel was 10yrs old so what that
>>>> failure has to do with Boeing is a mystery.
>>>> The door failure on the Alaska flight was definitely a Boeing problem
>>>> but many of the other problems blamed on Boeing are maintenance
>>>> issues, not design or QC problems.

>>> Not sure what is involved un becoming a Boeing maintenance.

>> Presumably you lost a word there given you are blotto, as always.
>> If you meant Boeing maintenance person, there is no such individual.

> I beg to differ.

You are wrong.

> There are indeed licenced aircraft maintenance engineers known in the
> industry as LAMEs.

That's not a BOEING maintenance person. Like I said, they
are licensed to work on ALL aircraft, not just Boeings.

> Not only are they *licenced* but they are also required to be *type
> certified*.

But are not BRAND certified.

> That means a LAME can be type certifiedon Boeing 747s but not the Max.

None are certified on all Boeing aircraft and no other aircraft.

> Type certification is required in order to sign off on aircraft.

Duh.

> So, yes, you can be a Boeing maintenanceperson if they are the only
> aircraft you arecertified to work on.

But no one is ever certified on all BOEING aircraft.

And when something unusual shows up like say an
Antonov, and it needs something to be fixed, there is
never a situation where a lame who is certified on that
particular aircraft has to be flown in to do that work.

> A friend here, a LAME(Engines-turbine)

Thats not a BRAND certification.

> used to be certified for specific Boeing commercialairliner aircraft
> types in his younger days

But was never certified on all Boeing aircraft.

> but those certs have long since lapsed. These days he remains certified
> on smaller turbine aircraft, like the Cessnas, and even at the ripe old
> age of 74, his services are still in high demand in Oceana and Africa,

Irrelevant to whether the lame must be certified on the
specific aircraft before they can legally do any work on
a particular aircaft which has a fault develop in it.

> https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and-certificates/maintenance-engineers/about-aircraft-maintenance-engineers

No news. I am a light aircraft owner.

<reams of shit that is no news at all and never
says that there are ever just BOEING specific LAMEs or AMEs

>> Those allowed to do maintenance on heavys do maintenanceon all heavys,
>> their qualification is not brand specific.

> Qualifications, no, type certificationis brand *and* aircraft type
> specific.

Its nothing like as black and white as you are
ignorantly claiming, most obviously with the
work done on aircraft not usually seen.

>>> Seem to remember when Qantas shifted
>>> it's heavy maintenance to Singapore 2019,

>> That isnt what happened.

>>> seem to hit quality problems afterwards?

>> The union CLAIMED that and presented no evidence of that.

>>> Would of thought Boeing would need for a maintenance somesort of
>>> quality control certification before being OK'ed?

>> Boeing does not do that maintenance.

>>> Used to like Qantas safety 2nd to none
>>> reputation and always used them.

>> Its still true.

>>> Not happy with the video claim of alleged recent6000 deaths from
>>> Boeing aircraft mishaps.

>> Just because some fool claims something...

>> Why are you a sucker for every stupid claim going ?

>> Dementia is rife in this one.

On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 15:16:07 +1100, Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au>
wrote:

>On 2/4/2024 1:25 pm, Petzl wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 13:15:04 +1100, Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/4/2024 10:29 am, Petzl wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 18:59:54 +1100, Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've been to London twice, 2014 and 2016 and both times
>>>>> the flights were well under AU$2000 economy return,
>>>>>
>>>> Just looked for next month return from Sydney to London
>>>> https://t.ly/Udyzo
>>>> Economy 29 hours
>>>
>>> 29hrs means a long stop over in Singapore, try looking for flights with
>>> less than 24 hrs total travel time and watch the prices increase.
>>
>> But cheaper if you go by others but you and luggage end up in another
>> carrier (but even cheaper). Seems AFIAK that is the only way to get to
>> London totally via Qantas?
>> 29hrs you could break jet lag by splitting trip by a stay over in
>> Singapore catching QANTAS the next time it comes through?
>
>I like to break up the trip with a stopover of at least a couple of
>nights but my wife doesn't agree so guess who gets her way:-)
>We stayed in Singapore for 3 nights on the way back in 2014.
>I've never flown Qantas even when I used to fly to places for work, I
>worked for Ford and they wouldn't use Qantas because at the time it was
>Govt owned, we had to fly Ansett.
>At Changi airport you can rent a hotel room in the terminal for enough
>hours to have a shower and a few hours sleep before you continue your
>journey, probably the same facilities are available in many big
>international airports, great idea if you are traveling a very long
>distance.
>
Don't travel any where no getting old
But when I did I had my doctor prescribe sleeping pills on second part
of trip.
Hide your wallet passport then wake up in London fresh.
--
Petzl
Good lawyers know the law
Great lawyers know the judge

justice is open to all; like the Ritz hotel
High Court reveals every current judge is a
member of Qantas’ ‘most exclusive club in Australia’
The High Court has exposed secret members of Qantas’
exclusive Chairman’s Lounge amid a landmark case over
the sacking of 1700 workers.

On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 15:05:27 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>> Beats going broke like Virgin did.
>
>>>>>> Yes doubt if Australia can support the many Airlines serving
>>>>>> Australia maybe 3 at most.
>
>>>>> I thought Bonza might be gone by now.
>
>>>>> Going to be interesting to watch.
>
>Specially thru the winter when far fewer
>will be travelling, even at their low fares.
>
Fail to see why money is spent on something that looks like it's going
to fail?
>
>>>>> Rex is expanding but is having a hell of
>>>>> a problem with getting enough pilots.
>
>>>> Not enough long term job's IMO
>
>>> Can't see that.
>
>>>> Sydney Mascot is moving half it's control tower staff.
>>>> Moving them to Melbourne.
>>>> <https://www.civilair.asn.au/news/2554-smh-plan-to-shift-half-of-sydney-s-air-traffic-controllers-to-melbourne>
>>>> https://t.ly/oLRI0
>>>> Plan to shift half of Sydney’s air traffic controllers to Melbourne
>>>> Aircraft flying through all but a small part of greater Sydney’s
>>>> airspace would be handled by a control centre in Melbourne under a
>>>> controversial plan partly aimed at cutting costs by shifting up to
>>>> half the city’s air traffic controllers to Victoria.
>>>> Airservices Australia’s plan to relocate up to 65 air traffic
>>>> controllers to Melbourne from its terminal control unit at Sydney
>>>> Airport is contained in internal briefing documents seen by The Sydney
>>>> Morning Herald and The Age.
>
>>> We'll see...
>
>> Possibly "our" government believing it's own bull about the
>> infrastructure for the Western Sydney Airport all that is showing is a
>> LGBTQ+ rainbow spiral
>> https://ibb.co/52ZsB5m
>
>It wouldnt have been anything to do with the govt.
>
Both sides have been led by Government Lobbyists and bureaucrats.
>
>> for a cost of more than $500 million to the , at least Thats what NSW
>> has paid the government bureaucrats have paid for infrastructure of
>> western Sydney aerotropolis Government oversight body!
>> Some big wheelers and dealers not seeing the humor in this joke
>> https://t.ly/fAf5D
>
>> A case of don't believe everything you read!
>> Our Government and media often lies to us intentionally
>> <https://www.governmentnews.com.au/bradfield-blueprint-slammed-for-lack-of-infrastructure-planning/>
>> https://t.ly/e7Vmt
>> Liverpool Mayor Ned Mannoun: infrastructure ignored
>
>Just because some fool polly claims something...
>
Might. Seems to of stirred the NSW Government into gas lighting.
But a lot of international investment is no longer interested and have
formally withdrawn support in going ahead with aerotropolis because it
is not moving.
Why Australia moved away from France bull that aside from taking a
billion dollars after 2 years they could not even show a office or
even a desk?
Albo has just paid AU$4 Billion to British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak
to build our submarine.
The nuke engine is to be built in the US of A.
https://ibb.co/LNmMxdF

Mystically just after gave US$3 billion to the Ukraine.
<https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/u-k-boosts-military-aid-to-ukraine-amid-u-s-deadlock-0523f356>
https://t.ly/pysUI
LONDON—The U.K. government pledged nearly $3 billion in fresh military
support for Ukraine on Friday, the latest example of Europe bolstering
aid for the war-torn country as additional U.S. funding hangs in the
balance amid deadlock in Congress.
--
Petzl
Good lawyers know the law
Great lawyers know the judge

justice is open to all; like the Ritz hotel
High Court reveals every current judge is a
member of Qantas’ ‘most exclusive club in Australia’
The High Court has exposed secret members of Qantas’
exclusive Chairman’s Lounge amid a landmark case over
the sacking of 1700 workers.

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>>>> Beats going broke like Virgin did.

>>>>>>> Yes doubt if Australia can support the many Airlines serving
>>>>>>> Australia maybe 3 at most.

>>>>>> I thought Bonza might be gone by now.

>>>>>> Going to be interesting to watch.

>> Specially thru the winter when far fewer
>> will be travelling, even at their low fares.

> Fail to see why money is spent on somethingthat looks like it's going to
> fail?

Because it sort of worked in Canada and
some choose to see if it works here.

>>>>>> Rex is expanding but is having a hell of
>>>>>> a problem with getting enough pilots.

>>>>> Not enough long term job's IMO

>>>> Can't see that.

>>>>> Sydney Mascot is moving half it's control tower staff.
>>>>> Moving them to Melbourne.
>>>>> <https://www.civilair.asn.au/news/2554-smh-plan-to-shift-half-of-sydney-s-air-traffic-controllers-to-melbourne>
>>>>> https://t.ly/oLRI0
>>>>> Plan to shift half of Sydney’s air traffic controllers to Melbourne
>>>>> Aircraft flying through all but a small part of greater Sydney’s
>>>>> airspace would be handled by a control centre in Melbourne under a
>>>>> controversial plan partly aimed at cutting costs by shifting up to
>>>>> half the city’s air traffic controllers to Victoria.
>>>>> Airservices Australia’s plan to relocate up to 65 air traffic
>>>>> controllers to Melbourne from its terminal control unit at Sydney
>>>>> Airport is contained in internal briefing documents seen by The
>>>>> Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.

>>>> We'll see...

>>> Possibly "our" government believing it's own bull about the
>>> infrastructure for the Western Sydney Airport all that is showing is a
>>> LGBTQ+ rainbow spiral
>>> https://ibb.co/52ZsB5m

>> It wouldnt have been anything to do with the govt.

> Both sides have been led by Government Lobbyists and bureaucrats.

Nothing to do with govt.

>>> for a cost of more than $500 million to the , at least Thats what NSW
>>> has paid the government bureaucrats have paid for infrastructure of
>>> western Sydney aerotropolis Government oversight body!
>>> Some big wheelers and dealers not seeing the humor in this joke
>>> https://t.ly/fAf5D

>>> A case of don't believe everything you read!
>>> Our Government and media often lies to us intentionally
>>> <https://www.governmentnews.com.au/bradfield-blueprint-slammed-for-lack-of-infrastructure-planning/>
>>> https://t.ly/e7Vmt
>>> Liverpool Mayor Ned Mannoun: infrastructure ignored

>> Just because some fool polly claims something...

> Might. Seems to of stirred the NSW Government into gas lighting.

Fantasy.

> But a lot of international investment is no longer interested and have
> formally withdrawn support in going ahead with aerotropolis because it
> is not moving.

Fantasy

> Why Australia moved away from France bull that aside from taking a
> billion dollars after 2 years they could not even show a office or
> even a desk?

Try that again in english. Not even google translate does gobbledegook yet.

> Albo has just paid AU$4 Billion to British PrimeMinister Rishi Sunak to
> build our submarine.

Fantasy.

> The nuke engine is to be built in the US of A.
> https://ibb.co/LNmMxdF

Just because some fool claims something...

> Mystically just after gave US$3 billion to the Ukraine.

Fantasy

> <https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/u-k-boosts-military-aid-to-ukraine-amid-u-s-deadlock-0523f356>
> https://t.ly/pysUI

Nothing whatever to do with ANZUS

Just because some fool claims something...

> LONDON—The U.K. government pledged nearly $3 billion in fresh military
> support for Ukraine on Friday, the latest example of Europe bolstering
> aid for the war-torn country as additional U.S. funding hangs in the
> balance amid deadlock in Congress.

On 2/04/2024 3:20 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>> The door failure on the Alaska flight was definitely a Boeing problem
>>>>> but many of the other problems blamed on Boeing are maintenance
>>>>> issues,  not design or QC problems.
>
>>>> Not sure what is involved un becoming a Boeing maintenance.
>
>>>  Presumably you lost a word there given you are blotto, as always.
>>>  If you meant Boeing maintenance person, there is no such individual.
>
>> I beg to differ.
>
> You are wrong.
>
>> There are indeed licenced aircraft maintenance engineers known in the
>> industry as LAMEs.
>
> That's not a BOEING maintenance person. Like I said, they
> are licensed to work on ALL aircraft, not just Boeings.
>
>> Not only are they *licenced*  but they are also required to be *type
>> certified*.
>
> But are not BRAND certified.
>
>> That means a LAME can  be type certifiedon Boeing 747s but not the Max.
>
> None are certified on all Boeing aircraft and no other aircraft.
>
>> Type certification is  required in order to sign off on aircraft.
>
> Duh.
>
>> So, yes, you can be a Boeing  maintenanceperson if they are the only
>> aircraft you arecertified to  work on.
>
> But no one is ever certified on all BOEING aircraft.
>
> And when something unusual shows up like say an
> Antonov, and it needs something to be fixed, there is
> never a situation where a lame who is certified on that
> particular aircraft has to be flown in to do that work.
>
>> A friend here, a LAME(Engines-turbine)

And as usual, Tomas/xeno pulls a "friend" out of his arse to try to give
his imagination some credence.... an example:

All information per a friend who is a seismic survey navigator, now
retired, who spent a lifetime navigating seismic survey vessels all over
the worlds oceans in search of oil." 03/04/17 1.29pm

and then, in the space of 1 hour 10 mins, he passes it off as his knowledge:

"New found knowledge? Ocean currents, winds, etc. was something I learnt
at school, both primary and high school. Geography, remember that?"
03/04/17 2.40pm

Oceanography, in geography class, in primary school?? Tomas is suffering
from early Altz. Has been for some time, right xeno/kryspis?

On 2/4/2024 3:20 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>> <https://rumble.com/v4mapg5-breaking-boeing-bosses-fired-after-whistleblower-murdered-redacted-with-cla.html>
>>>>>>>    https://t.ly/HA3cm
>>>>>>> BREAKING! Boeing bosses fired after Whistleblower murdered
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just because some fool claims something...
>>>>>
>>>>> Not much chance that the whistle blower committed suicide and a very
>>>>> high chance that foul play was involved.
>>>>> What I find annoying with the whole Boeing issue is the way its being
>>>>> reported, the news reports are blaming Boeing for what appears to be
>>>>> maintenance faults on older aircraft, also interesting to note that 3
>>>>> recent problems involved United Airlines yet the news reported blamed
>>>>> Boeing instead of asking questions about United maintenance or lack
>>>>> thereof, AFAIK the 777 that lost a wheel was 10yrs old so what that
>>>>> failure has to do with Boeing is a mystery.
>>>>> The door failure on the Alaska flight was definitely a Boeing problem
>>>>> but many of the other problems blamed on Boeing are maintenance
>>>>> issues,  not design or QC problems.
>
>>>> Not sure what is involved un becoming a Boeing maintenance.
>
>>>  Presumably you lost a word there given you are blotto, as always.
>>>  If you meant Boeing maintenance person, there is no such individual.
>
>> I beg to differ.
>
> You are wrong.
>
>> There are indeed licenced aircraft maintenance engineers known in the
>> industry as LAMEs.
>
> That's not a BOEING maintenance person. Like I said, they
> are licensed to work on ALL aircraft, not just Boeings.
>
>> Not only are they *licenced*  but they are also required to be *type
>> certified*.
>
> But are not BRAND certified.
>
>> That means a LAME can  be type certifiedon Boeing 747s but not the Max.
>
> None are certified on all Boeing aircraft and no other aircraft.
>
>> Type certification is  required in order to sign off on aircraft.
>
> Duh.
>
>> So, yes, you can be a Boeing  maintenanceperson if they are the only
>> aircraft you arecertified to  work on.
>
> But no one is ever certified on all BOEING aircraft.

You need to have training/certification on every aircraft type so it is
customary to only be certified on a limited subset, even of a brand.
>
> And when something unusual shows up like say an
> Antonov, and it needs something to be fixed, there is
> never a situation where a lame who is certified on that
> particular aircraft has to be flown in to do that work.

Bzzzztt, wrong, wrong, wrong. The plane will not leave the ground
unless/until a *type certified LAME signs off on it*. They WILL fly
LAMEs all over to do exactly what you deny happens. My friend often gets
plane tips to Africa to service/repair specific aircraft that he is
certified for. He was recently flown to one of the far flung Pacific
islands to do an engine change and tail section change - million dollar
repair job. Did I mention he is a LAME(engines), LAME(Airframe) and
LAME(Electrical). So, yes, they do fly certified LAMEs all over.
Remember, no sign off, no fly!
>
>> A friend here, a LAME(Engines-turbine)
>
> Thats not a BRAND certification.

Never said it was. It's just what he specialises these days. He did
rattle off the types he was certified for but I cannot recall them all.
The Cessna Caravan was one, the Beechcraft King Air another.

This be the man! We even went to the same high school albeit at
different times.

https://au.linkedin.com/in/graeme-sambell-b2269337
>
>> used to be certified for  specific Boeing commercialairliner aircraft
>> types in his younger days
>
> But was never certified on all Boeing aircraft.

No one is. You have to do certification for any new aircraft. You also
have to recertify if you let the certification lapse, ie. not work on
one of said type for extended periods. LAMEs will only certify for
aircraft that they will encounter on a day to day basis, gets a bit time
consuming and expensive otherwise.
>
>> but those certs have long since lapsed. These days he remains
>> certified on smaller turbine aircraft, like the Cessnas, and even at
>> the ripe old age of 74, his services are still in high demand in
>> Oceana and Africa,
>
> Irrelevant to whether the lame must be certified on the
> specific aircraft before they can legally do any work on
> a particular aircaft which has a fault develop in it.
>
>> https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and-certificates/maintenance-engineers/about-aircraft-maintenance-engineers
>
> No news. I am a light aircraft owner.

But not a certified LAME.
>
> <reams of shit that is no news at all and never
> says that there are ever just BOEING specific LAMEs or AMEs

If all you have ever worked on and are certified for are Boeing
aircraft, then you are a Boeing specific LAME.
>
>>> Those allowed to do maintenance on heavys do maintenanceon all
>>> heavys, their qualification is not brand specific.
>
>> Qualifications, no, type certification is brand *and* aircraft type
>> specific.
>
> Its nothing like as black and white as you are
> ignorantly claiming, most obviously with the
> work done on aircraft not usually seen.
>
If you have no one who is *certified* to work on a specific aircraft
brand/type, that aircraft doesn't leave the ground since it has to be
signed off by a type certified LAME.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 2/4/2024 3:01 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 13:10:19 +1100, Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 2/4/2024 5:22 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 18:59:54 +1100, Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/4/2024 6:37 pm, Petzl wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 14:25:14 +1100, Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/4/2024 1:10 pm, Petzl wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 09:21:40 +1100, Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 31/3/2024 3:22 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 14:55:25 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://rumble.com/v4mapg5-breaking-boeing-bosses-fired-after-whistleblower-murdered-redacted-with-cla.html>
>>>>>>>>>>      https://t.ly/HA3cm
>>>>>>>>>> BREAKING! Boeing bosses fired after Whistleblower murdered
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just because some fool claims something...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not much chance that the whistle blower committed suicide and a
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>> high chance that foul play was involved.
>>>>>>>> What I find annoying with the whole Boeing issue is the way its
>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>> reported, the news reports are blaming Boeing for what appears
>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>> maintenance faults on older aircraft, also interesting to note
>>>>>>>> that 3
>>>>>>>> recent problems involved United Airlines yet the news reported
>>>>>>>> blamed
>>>>>>>> Boeing instead of asking questions about United maintenance or lack
>>>>>>>> thereof, AFAIK the 777 that lost a wheel was 10yrs old so what that
>>>>>>>> failure has to do with Boeing is a mystery.
>>>>>>>> The door failure on the Alaska flight was definitely a Boeing
>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>> but many of the other problems blamed on Boeing are maintenance
>>>>>>>> issues,
>>>>>>>> not design or QC problems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not sure what is involved un becoming a Boeing maintenance.
>>>>>>> Seem to remember when Qantas shifted it's heavy maintenance to
>>>>>>> Singapore 2019, seem to hit quality problems afterwards?
>>>>>>> Would of thought Boeing would need for a maintenance some sort of
>>>>>>> quality control certification before being OK'ed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Certainly would, don't know if that certification comes from the
>>>>>> manufacturer or the local aviation authority, probably both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Used to like Qantas safety 2nd to none reputation and always used
>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They still have that safety reputation, shame that the way they have
>>>>>> treated their customers in recent years has been so poor.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Never had problems with bad customer service, but air flights have
>>>>> become cheaper, would say it works both ways there are bad customers
>>>>> also.
>>>>
>>>> I was referring to their appalling on time/cancellation record in
>>>> recent times, its pretty poor and even worse than their own low cost
>>>> airline Jetstar.
>>>>
>>>> The city of London put city circle public transport costs
>>>>> (bus/rail) up to keep out the riff-raff, seemed to work.
>>>>
>>>> LOL, I very much doubt that keeping riff raff out was the reason for
>>>> a price increase.
>>>> Prices might be cheaper than during Covid but they are still up on
>>>> pre Covid prices, I've been to London twice, 2014 and 2016 and both
>>>> times the flights were well under AU$2000 economy return, not easy
>>>> to find flights that cheap unless you want to fly on a Chinese or
>>>> other dodgy Asian airline or willing to take about 34hrs+ to get there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not happy with the video claim of alleged recent 6000 deaths from
>>>>>>> Boeing aircraft mishaps.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I looked again, over 10 years was not clearly mentioned,
>>>>> 9:29 minute mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't watch the video to the very end but that number is
>>>>>> bullshit if
>>>>>> it is saying the 6000 is "recent", there hasn't been that number of
>>>>>> people killed in all commercial aircraft crashes in the last 30yrs
>>>>>> let
>>>>>> alone just Boeing aircraft.
>>>>>> If you count up the 4 most notable Boeing crashes including the 2 737
>>>>>> Max crashes plus MH370 and the Malaysian Airlines flight that was
>>>>>> shoot
>>>>>> down over Ukraine that adds up to 868 fatalities.
>>>>>> Its crazy to blame Boeing for the loss of the 2 Malaysian Airlines
>>>>>> aircraft, one was shot down and the other seems to be due to a
>>>>>> deliberate act of someone on board.
>>>>>> If there was 6000 "recent" deaths on Boeing aircraft no one I know
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> be stupid enough to fly in one and all the aircraft would all be
>>>>>> grounded.
>>>>>>
>>>>> But he was emphasising problems blowing out this year.
>>>>> Not sure if the 10K figures included terrorism or what ever, maybe.
>>>>
>>>> Like I said previously he and many other journalists blame Boeing
>>>> for problems that are out of their control,
>>>
>>>> if your 10yr old car had a wheel  fall off would you blame the car
>>>> manufacturer?
>>>  Yes, if the design meant that that was even possible
>
>> If wheels were regularly falling off the same make andmodel  of car
>> or  aircraft then it could be a design fault
>
> Of course it would be. Wheels shouldnt ever fall off.
>
>> but if its just a random event
>
> A wheel falling off never is. It has fallen off for a reason.
>
>> them more likely to be a maintenance issue.
>
> You shouldnt have to do any maintenance to stop the wheel
> falling off. It should be designed so that it doesnt fall off.

Correct, most likely the wheel fell off because whoever was doing
maintenance such as replacing a tyre or repairing a brake didn't refit
the wheel correctly therefore it was a maintenance done improperly issue.
I've seen quite a few car wheels fall off because who ever fitted the
wheel didn't do the nuts/lugs up correctly.

--
Daryl

lindsay <noneofyour@biz.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>>> The door failure on the Alaska flight was definitely a Boeing
>>>>>> problem but many of the other problems blamed on Boeingare
>>>>>> maintenance issues, not design or QC problems.

>>>>> Not sure what is involved un becoming a Boeing maintenance.

>>>> Presumably you lost a word there given you are blotto, as always.
>>>> If you meant Boeing maintenance person, there is no such individual.

>>> I beg to differ.

>> You are wrong.

>>> There are indeed licenced aircraft maintenanceengineers known in the
>>> industry as LAMEs.

>> That's not a BOEING maintenance person. Like I said, they
>> are licensed to work on ALL aircraft, not just Boeings.

>>> Not only are they *licenced* but they arealso required to be *type
>>> certified*.

>> But are not BRAND certified.

>>> That means a LAME can be type certifiedon Boeing 747s but not the Max.

>> None are certified on all Boeing aircraft and no other aircraft.

>>> Type certification is required in order to sign off on aircraft.

>> Duh.

>>> So, yes, you can be a Boeing maintenanceperson if they are the only
>>> aircraft you arecertified to work on.

>> But no one is ever certified on all BOEING aircraft.

>> And when something unusual shows up like say an
>> Antonov, and it needs something to be fixed, there is
>> never a situation where a lame who is certified on that
>> particular aircraft has to be flown in to do that work.

>>> A friend here, a LAME(Engines-turbine)

> And as usual, Tomas/xeno pulls a "friend" out of his arse totry to give
> his imagination some credence.... an example:

> All information per a friend who is a seismic survey navigator, now
> retired, who spent a lifetime navigating seismic survey vessels all over
> the worlds oceans in search of oil." 03/04/17 1.29pm

> and then, in the space of 1 hour 10 mins, he passes it off as his
> knowledge:

> "New found knowledge? Ocean currents, winds, etc. was something I learnt
> at school, both primary and high school. Geography, remember that?"
> 03/04/17 2.40pm
>
> Oceanography, in geography class, in primary school?? Tomas is suffering
> from early Altz. Has been for some time, right xeno/kryspis?

And he utterly mangles who can sign off aircraft maintenance.

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>>>> <https://rumble.com/v4mapg5-breaking-boeing-bosses-fired-after-whistleblower-murdered-redacted-with-cla.html>
>>>>>>>> https://t.ly/HA3cm
>>>>>>>> BREAKING! Boeing bosses fired after Whistleblower murdered
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just because some fool claims something...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not much chance that the whistle blower committed suicide and a very
>>>>>> high chance that foul play was involved.
>>>>>> What I find annoying with the whole Boeing issue is the way its
>>>>>> being
>>>>>> reported, the news reports are blaming Boeing for what appears to be
>>>>>> maintenance faults on older aircraft, also interesting to note that
>>>>>> 3
>>>>>> recent problems involved United Airlines yet the news reported
>>>>>> blamed
>>>>>> Boeing instead of asking questions about United maintenance or lack
>>>>>> thereof, AFAIK the 777 that lost a wheel was 10yrs old so what that
>>>>>> failure has to do with Boeing is a mystery.
>>>>>> The door failure on the Alaska flight was definitely a Boeing
>>>>>> problem
>>>>>> but many of the other problems blamed on Boeing are maintenance
>>>>>> issues, not design or QC problems.
>>
>>>>> Not sure what is involved un becoming a Boeing maintenance.
>>
>>>> Presumably you lost a word there given you are blotto, as always.
>>>> If you meant Boeing maintenance person, there is no such individual.
>>
>>> I beg to differ.
>> You are wrong.
>>
>>> There are indeed licenced aircraft maintenance engineers known in the
>>> industry as LAMEs.
>> That's not a BOEING maintenance person. Like I said, they
>> are licensed to work on ALL aircraft, not just Boeings.
>>
>>> Not only are they *licenced* but they are also required to be *type
>>> certified*.
>> But are not BRAND certified.
>>
>>> That means a LAME can be type certifiedon Boeing 747s but not the Max.
>> None are certified on all Boeing aircraft and no other aircraft.
>>
>>> Type certification is required in order to sign off on aircraft.
>> Duh.
>>
>>> So, yes, you can be a Boeing maintenanceperson if they are the only
>>> aircraft you arecertified to work on.
>> But no one is ever certified on all BOEING aircraft.

> You need to have training/certification on every aircraft type

Wrong. Most obviously when something
needs to be done on an unusual aircraft.

> so it is customary to only be certifiedon a limited subset, even of a
> brand.

So there is no such animal as a Boeing maintenance person.

>> And when something unusual shows up like say an
>> Antonov, and it needs something to be fixed, there is
>> never a situation where a lame who is certified on that
>> particular aircraft has to be flown in to do that work.

> Bzzzztt, wrong, wrong, wrong. The plane will not leave theground
> unless/until a *type certified LAME signs off on it*.

Wrong, as always.

> They WILL fly LAMEs all over to do exactly what you deny happens.

Ignorant fantasy. Read the memoirs of those who specialise
in ferrying aircraft. Those do often end up with maintenance
problem and they are not stuck on the ground until a LAME
who is type certified for that particular aircraft is flown in
to sign off on the work that has been done.

> My friend often gets plane tips to Africa to service/
> repair specific aircraft that he is certified for.

That's for his specialised knowledge, not because
he is certified on that particular aircraft.

If he actually exists and isnt just another of your inventions.

> He was recently flown to one of the far flung Pacific islands to do an
> engine change and tail sectionchange - million dollar repair job.

Because that place didnt have anyone who
could do that work, not because he is type
certified for that particular aircraft.

> Did I mention he is a LAME(engines), LAME(Airframe) and
> LAME(Electrical). So, yes, they do fly certified LAMEs all over.
> Remember, no sign off, no fly!

But that LAME does not have to be certified
FOR THAT PARTICULAR AIRCRAFT TYPE.

>>> A friend here, a LAME(Engines-turbine)

>> Thats not a BRAND certification.

> Never said it was.

That is what we are discussing.

> It's just what he specialises these days. He did rattle offthe types he
> was certified for but I cannot recall them all. The Cessna Caravan was
> one, the Beechcraft King Air another.

But that does NOT mean that he has to be certified
for every aircraft type he signs work off on.

> This be the man! We even went to the samehigh school albeit at
> different times.

> https://au.linkedin.com/in/graeme-sambell-b2269337

Irrelevant to your ignorant claim that the LAME that
signs off on work done has to be type certified for
the aircraft whose work is being signed off on.

>>> used to be certified for specific Boeing commercialairliner aircraft
>>> types in his younger days

>> But was never certified on all Boeing aircraft.

> No one is. You have to do certification for any new aircraft.You also
> have to recertify if you let the certification lapse,ie. not work on
> one of said type for extended periods.

Utterly ignorantly mangled all over again.

> LAMEs will only certify for aircraft that they willencounter on a day
> to day basis, gets a bit time consuming and expensive otherwise.

Utterly ignorantly mangled all over again.

That was never the case with our LAME and we at one time own
the Fairchild 24 and he had never seen one of those before and it
isnt even possible to get certified on those. Its still flying even now.

>>> but those certs have long since lapsed. These days he remains
>>> certified on smaller turbine aircraft, like the Cessnas, and even at
>>> the ripe old age of 74, his services are still in high demand in
>>> Oceana and Africa,

>> Irrelevant to whether the lame must be certified on the
>> specific aircraft before they can legally do any work on
>> a particular aircaft which has a fault develop in it.

>>> https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and-certificates/maintenance-engineers/about-aircraft-maintenance-engineers
>> No news. I am a light aircraft owner.

> But not a certified LAME.

Don't need to be given I know the vast range of stuff ours signs off on.
And one of us used to work for him.

>> <reams of shit that is no news at all and never
>> says that there are ever just BOEING specific LAMEs or AMEs

> If all you have ever worked on and are certified for areBoeing
> aircraft, then you are a Boeing specific LAME.

Wrong, as always.

>>>> Those allowed to do maintenance on heavys do maintenanceon all
>>>> heavys, their qualification is not brand specific.

>>> Qualifications, no, type certification is brand *and* aircraft type
>>> specific.

>> Its nothing like as black and white as you are
>> ignorantly claiming, most obviously with the
>> work done on aircraft not usually seen.

> If you have no one who is *certified* to work on a specific aircraft
> brand/type, that aircraft doesn't leave the ground since it has to be
> signed off by a type certified LAME.

Wrong, as always. And we know that because we owned
a Fairchild 24 at one time that no one was type certified on.

You don't have a fucking clue what a LAME can sign off on.

On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 22:25:25 +1100, Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote:

> On 2/4/2024 3:01 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 13:10:19 +1100, Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/4/2024 5:22 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 18:59:54 +1100, Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/4/2024 6:37 pm, Petzl wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 14:25:14 +1100, Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/4/2024 1:10 pm, Petzl wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 09:21:40 +1100, Daryl
>>>>>>>> <dwalford@westpine.com.au>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 31/3/2024 3:22 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 14:55:25 +1100, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://rumble.com/v4mapg5-breaking-boeing-bosses-fired-after-whistleblower-murdered-redacted-with-cla.html>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://t.ly/HA3cm
>>>>>>>>>>> BREAKING! Boeing bosses fired after Whistleblower murdered
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just because some fool claims something...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not much chance that the whistle blower committed suicide and a
>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>> high chance that foul play was involved.
>>>>>>>>> What I find annoying with the whole Boeing issue is the way its
>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>> reported, the news reports are blaming Boeing for what appears
>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>> maintenance faults on older aircraft, also interesting to note
>>>>>>>>> that 3
>>>>>>>>> recent problems involved United Airlines yet the news reported
>>>>>>>>> blamed
>>>>>>>>> Boeing instead of asking questions about United maintenance or
>>>>>>>>> lack
>>>>>>>>> thereof, AFAIK the 777 that lost a wheel was 10yrs old so what
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> failure has to do with Boeing is a mystery.
>>>>>>>>> The door failure on the Alaska flight was definitely a Boeing
>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>> but many of the other problems blamed on Boeing are maintenance
>>>>>>>>> issues,
>>>>>>>>> not design or QC problems.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not sure what is involved un becoming a Boeing maintenance.
>>>>>>>> Seem to remember when Qantas shifted it's heavy maintenance to
>>>>>>>> Singapore 2019, seem to hit quality problems afterwards?
>>>>>>>> Would of thought Boeing would need for a maintenance some sort of
>>>>>>>> quality control certification before being OK'ed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Certainly would, don't know if that certification comes from the
>>>>>>> manufacturer or the local aviation authority, probably both.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Used to like Qantas safety 2nd to none reputation and always used
>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They still have that safety reputation, shame that the way they
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> treated their customers in recent years has been so poor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Never had problems with bad customer service, but air flights have
>>>>>> become cheaper, would say it works both ways there are bad customers
>>>>>> also.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was referring to their appalling on time/cancellation record in
>>>>> recent times, its pretty poor and even worse than their own low cost
>>>>> airline Jetstar.
>>>>>
>>>>> The city of London put city circle public transport costs
>>>>>> (bus/rail) up to keep out the riff-raff, seemed to work.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL, I very much doubt that keeping riff raff out was the reason for
>>>>> a price increase.
>>>>> Prices might be cheaper than during Covid but they are still up on
>>>>> pre Covid prices, I've been to London twice, 2014 and 2016 and both
>>>>> times the flights were well under AU$2000 economy return, not easy
>>>>> to find flights that cheap unless you want to fly on a Chinese or
>>>>> other dodgy Asian airline or willing to take about 34hrs+ to get
>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not happy with the video claim of alleged recent 6000 deaths from
>>>>>>>> Boeing aircraft mishaps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I looked again, over 10 years was not clearly mentioned,
>>>>>> 9:29 minute mark
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't watch the video to the very end but that number is
>>>>>>> bullshit if
>>>>>>> it is saying the 6000 is "recent", there hasn't been that number of
>>>>>>> people killed in all commercial aircraft crashes in the last 30yrs
>>>>>>> let
>>>>>>> alone just Boeing aircraft.
>>>>>>> If you count up the 4 most notable Boeing crashes including the 2
>>>>>>> 737
>>>>>>> Max crashes plus MH370 and the Malaysian Airlines flight that was
>>>>>>> shoot
>>>>>>> down over Ukraine that adds up to 868 fatalities.
>>>>>>> Its crazy to blame Boeing for the loss of the 2 Malaysian Airlines
>>>>>>> aircraft, one was shot down and the other seems to be due to a
>>>>>>> deliberate act of someone on board.
>>>>>>> If there was 6000 "recent" deaths on Boeing aircraft no one I know
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> be stupid enough to fly in one and all the aircraft would all be
>>>>>>> grounded.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But he was emphasising problems blowing out this year.
>>>>>> Not sure if the 10K figures included terrorism or what ever, maybe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like I said previously he and many other journalists blame Boeing
>>>>> for problems that are out of their control,
>>>>
>>>>> if your 10yr old car had a wheel fall off would you blame the car
>>>>> manufacturer?
>>>> Yes, if the design meant that that was even possible
>>
>>> If wheels were regularly falling off the same make andmodel of car
>>> or aircraft then it could be a design fault
>> Of course it would be. Wheels shouldnt ever fall off.
>>
>>> but if its just a random event
>> A wheel falling off never is. It has fallen off for a reason.
>>
>>> them more likely to be a maintenance issue.
>> You shouldnt have to do any maintenance to stop the wheel
>> falling off. It should be designed so that it doesnt fall off.
>
> Correct, most likely the wheel fell off because whoever was doing
> maintenance such as replacing a tyre or repairing a brake didn't refit
> the wheel correctly therefore it was a maintenance done improperly issue.
> I've seen quite a few car wheels fall off because who ever fitted the
> wheel didn't do the nuts/lugs up correctly.

Yep, thats usually the case

On 3/4/2024 4:54 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>>>> <https://rumble.com/v4mapg5-breaking-boeing-bosses-fired-after-whistleblower-murdered-redacted-with-cla.html>
>>>>>>>>>    https://t.ly/HA3cm
>>>>>>>>> BREAKING! Boeing bosses fired after Whistleblower murdered
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just because some fool claims something...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not much chance that the whistle blower committed suicide and a very
>>>>>>> high chance that foul play was involved.
>>>>>>> What I find annoying with the whole Boeing issue is the way its
>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>> reported, the news reports are blaming Boeing for what appears to be
>>>>>>> maintenance faults on older aircraft, also interesting to note
>>>>>>> that 3
>>>>>>> recent problems involved United Airlines yet the news reported
>>>>>>> blamed
>>>>>>> Boeing instead of asking questions about United maintenance or lack
>>>>>>> thereof, AFAIK the 777 that lost a wheel was 10yrs old so what that
>>>>>>> failure has to do with Boeing is a mystery.
>>>>>>> The door failure on the Alaska flight was definitely a Boeing
>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>> but many of the other problems blamed on Boeing are maintenance
>>>>>>> issues,  not design or QC problems.
>>>
>>>>>> Not sure what is involved un becoming a Boeing maintenance.
>>>
>>>>>  Presumably you lost a word there given you are blotto, as always.
>>>>>  If you meant Boeing maintenance person, there is no such individual.
>>>
>>>> I beg to differ.
>>>  You are wrong.
>>>
>>>> There are indeed licenced aircraft maintenance engineers known in
>>>> the industry as LAMEs.
>>>  That's not a BOEING maintenance person. Like I said, they
>>> are licensed to work on ALL aircraft, not just Boeings.
>>>
>>>> Not only are they *licenced*  but they are also required to be *type
>>>> certified*.
>>>  But are not BRAND certified.
>>>
>>>> That means a LAME can  be type certifiedon Boeing 747s but not the Max.
>>>  None are certified on all Boeing aircraft and no other aircraft.
>>>
>>>> Type certification is  required in order to sign off on aircraft.
>>>  Duh.
>>>
>>>> So, yes, you can be a Boeing  maintenanceperson if they are the only
>>>> aircraft you arecertified to  work on.
>>>  But no one is ever certified on all BOEING aircraft.
>
>> You need to have training/certification on every aircraft type
>
> Wrong. Most obviously when something
> needs to be done on an unusual aircraft.
>
>> so it is  customary to only be certifiedon a limited subset, even of a
>> brand.
>
> So there is no such animal as a Boeing maintenance person.
>
>>>  And when something unusual shows up like say an
>>> Antonov, and it needs something to be fixed, there is
>>> never a situation where a lame who is certified on that
>>> particular aircraft has to be flown in to do that work.
>
>> Bzzzztt, wrong, wrong, wrong. The plane will not leave theground
>> unless/until a *type certified LAME signs off on it*.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>> They WILL fly  LAMEs all over to do exactly what you deny happens.
>
> Ignorant fantasy. Read the memoirs of those who specialise
> in ferrying aircraft. Those do often end up with maintenance
> problem and they are not stuck on the ground until a LAME
> who is type certified for that particular aircraft is flown in
> to sign off on the work that has been done.
>
>> My friend often gets  plane tips to Africa to service/
>> repair specific aircraft that he is  certified for.
>
> That's for his specialised knowledge, not because
> he is certified on that particular aircraft.
>
> If he actually exists and isnt just another of your inventions.

https://au.linkedin.com/in/graeme-sambell-b2269337

Note his current domicile. Also note where he attended high school. If
you look at my LinkedIn profile, you'll see we both come from the same
state and attended the same high school.
>
>> He was recently flown to one of the far flung Pacific islands to do an
>> engine change and tail sectionchange - million dollar  repair job.
>
> Because that place didnt have anyone who
> could do that work, not because he is type
> certified for that particular aircraft.

No, it was because the plane was damaged in an accident and it needed
certification before it could fly again. He did the repair, he then did
the certification.
>
>> Did I mention he is a LAME(engines), LAME(Airframe) and
>> LAME(Electrical). So, yes, they do fly certified LAMEs all over.
>> Remember, no sign off, no fly!
>
> But that LAME does not have to be certified
> FOR THAT PARTICULAR AIRCRAFT TYPE.

He does and he is.
>
>>>> A friend here, a LAME(Engines-turbine)
>
>>>  Thats not a BRAND certification.
>
>> Never said it was.
>
> That is what we are discussing.
>
>> It's just what he specialises these days. He did  rattle offthe types
>> he was certified for but I cannot recall them all. The Cessna Caravan
>> was one, the Beechcraft King Air another.
>
> But that does NOT mean that he has to be certified
> for every aircraft type he signs work off on.

He can only sign off for work done on aircraft he is certified for.
>
>> This be the man! We even went to the samehigh school albeit at
>> different times.
>
>> https://au.linkedin.com/in/graeme-sambell-b2269337
>
> Irrelevant to your ignorant claim that the LAME that
> signs off on work done has to be type certified for
> the aircraft whose work is being signed off on.
>
>>>> used to be certified for  specific Boeing commercialairliner
>>>> aircraft types in his younger days
>
>>>  But was never certified on all Boeing aircraft.
>
>> No one is. You have to do certification for any new aircraft.You also
>> have to recertify if you let the certification lapse,ie. not work on
>> one of said type for extended periods.
>
> Utterly ignorantly mangled all over again.

Nope, recertification was something we discussed on our last catchup.
>
>> LAMEs will only certify for  aircraft that they willencounter  on a
>> day to day basis, gets a bit time consuming and expensive otherwise.
>
> Utterly ignorantly mangled all over again.
>
> That was never the case with our LAME and we at one time own
> the Fairchild 24 and he had never seen one of those before and it
> isnt even possible to get certified on those. Its still flying even now.

FFS, those things are ancient history! Are they even certified to fly
these days?
>
>>>> but those certs have long since lapsed. These days he remains
>>>> certified on smaller turbine aircraft, like the Cessnas, and even at
>>>> the ripe old age of 74, his services are still in high demand in
>>>> Oceana and Africa,
>
>>>  Irrelevant to whether the lame must be certified on the
>>> specific aircraft before they can legally do any work on
>>> a particular aircaft which has a fault develop in it.
>
>>>> https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and-certificates/maintenance-engineers/about-aircraft-maintenance-engineers
>>>  No news. I am a light aircraft owner.
>
>> But not a certified LAME.
>
> Don't need to be given I know the vast range of stuff ours signs off on.
> And one of us used to work for him.
>
>>>  <reams of shit that is no news at all and never
>>> says that there are ever just BOEING specific LAMEs or AMEs
>
>> If all you have ever worked on and are certified for areBoeing
>> aircraft, then you are a Boeing specific LAME.
>
> Wrong, as always.

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>>>>>> <https://rumble.com/v4mapg5-breaking-boeing-bosses-fired-after-whistleblower-murdered-redacted-with-cla.html>
>>>>>>>>>> https://t.ly/HA3cm
>>>>>>>>>> BREAKING! Boeing bosses fired after Whistleblower murdered
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just because some fool claims something...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not much chance that the whistle blower committed suicide and a
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>> high chance that foul play was involved.
>>>>>>>> What I find annoying with the whole Boeing issue is the way its
>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>> reported, the news reports are blaming Boeing for what appears to
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> maintenance faults on older aircraft, also interesting to note
>>>>>>>> that 3
>>>>>>>> recent problems involved United Airlines yet the news reported
>>>>>>>> blamed
>>>>>>>> Boeing instead of asking questions about United maintenance or
>>>>>>>> lack
>>>>>>>> thereof, AFAIK the 777 that lost a wheel was 10yrs old so what
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> failure has to do with Boeing is a mystery.
>>>>>>>> The door failure on the Alaska flight was definitely a Boeing
>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>> but many of the other problems blamed on Boeing are maintenance
>>>>>>>> issues, not design or QC problems.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Not sure what is involved un becoming a Boeing maintenance.
>>>>
>>>>>> Presumably you lost a word there given you are blotto, as always.
>>>>>> If you meant Boeing maintenance person, there is no such
>>>>>> individual.
>>>>
>>>>> I beg to differ.
>>>> You are wrong.
>>>>
>>>>> There are indeed licenced aircraft maintenance engineers known in
>>>>> the industry as LAMEs.
>>>> That's not a BOEING maintenance person. Like I said, they
>>>> are licensed to work on ALL aircraft, not just Boeings.
>>>>
>>>>> Not only are they *licenced* but they are also required to be *type
>>>>> certified*.
>>>> But are not BRAND certified.
>>>>
>>>>> That means a LAME can be type certifiedon Boeing 747s but not the
>>>>> Max.
>>>> None are certified on all Boeing aircraft and no other aircraft.
>>>>
>>>>> Type certification is required in order to sign off on aircraft.
>>>> Duh.
>>>>
>>>>> So, yes, you can be a Boeing maintenanceperson if they are the only
>>>>> aircraft you arecertified to work on.
>>>> But no one is ever certified on all BOEING aircraft.
>>
>>> You need to have training/certification on every aircraft type
>> Wrong. Most obviously when something
>> needs to be done on an unusual aircraft.
>>
>>> so it is customary to only be certifiedon a limited subset, even of a
>>> brand.
>> So there is no such animal as a Boeing maintenance person.
>>
>>>> And when something unusual shows up like say an
>>>> Antonov, and it needs something to be fixed, there is
>>>> never a situation where a lame who is certified on that
>>>> particular aircraft has to be flown in to do that work.
>>
>>> Bzzzztt, wrong, wrong, wrong. The plane will not leave theground
>>> unless/until a *type certified LAME signs off on it*.
>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>>> They WILL fly LAMEs all over to do exactly what you deny happens.
>> Ignorant fantasy. Read the memoirs of those who specialise
>> in ferrying aircraft. Those do often end up with maintenance
>> problem and they are not stuck on the ground until a LAME
>> who is type certified for that particular aircraft is flown in
>> to sign off on the work that has been done.
>>
>>> My friend often gets plane tips to Africa to service/
>>> repair specific aircraft that he is certified for.
>> That's for his specialised knowledge, not because
>> he is certified on that particular aircraft.

>> If he actually exists and isnt just another of your inventions.

> https://au.linkedin.com/in/graeme-sambell-b2269337

Easy to find someone like that and claim you know them.

> Note his current domicile.

Irrelevant to whether a LAME can sign off work on
an aircraft for which he is not currently certified for.

> Also note where he attended high school.If you look at my LinkedIn
> profile,

No Xeno on Linkedin.

> you'll see we both come from the same state and attended the same high
> school.

>>> He was recently flown to one of the far flung Pacific islands to do an
>>> engine change and tail sectionchange - million dollar repair job.

>> Because that place didnt have anyone who
>> could do that work, not because he is type
>> certified for that particular aircraft.

> No, it was because the plane was damaged in an accidentand it needed
> certification before it could fly again. Hedid the repair, he then did
> the certification.

I meant he didnt have to have type certification for that particular
aircraft.

>>> Did I mention he is a LAME(engines), LAME(Airframe) and
>>> LAME(Electrical). So, yes, they do fly certified LAMEs all over.
>>> Remember, no sign off, no fly!
>> But that LAME does not have to be certified
>> FOR THAT PARTICULAR AIRCRAFT TYPE.

> He does

Wrong, as always.

> and he is.

Irrelevant.

>>>>> A friend here, a LAME(Engines-turbine)
>>
>>>> Thats not a BRAND certification.
>>
>>> Never said it was.
>> That is what we are discussing.
>>
>>> It's just what he specialises these days. He did rattle offthe types
>>> he was certified for but I cannot recall them all. The Cessna Caravan
>>> was one, the Beechcraft King Air another.
>> But that does NOT mean that he has to be certified
>> for every aircraft type he signs work off on.

> He can only sign off for work done on aircraft he is certified for.

Wrong, as always.

>>> This be the man! We even went to the samehigh school albeit at
>>> different times.
>>
>>> https://au.linkedin.com/in/graeme-sambell-b2269337
>> Irrelevant to your ignorant claim that the LAME that
>> signs off on work done has to be type certified for
>> the aircraft whose work is being signed off on.
>>
>>>>> used to be certified for specific Boeing commercialairliner
>>>>> aircraft types in his younger days
>>
>>>> But was never certified on all Boeing aircraft.
>>
>>> No one is. You have to do certification for any new aircraft.You also
>>> have to recertify if you let the certification lapse,ie. not work on
>>> one of said type for extended periods.
>> Utterly ignorantly mangled all over again.

> Nope, recertification was something we discussed on our last catchup.

You don't have a fucking clue about what is legally required.

>>> LAMEs will only certify for aircraft that they willencounter on a
>>> day to day basis, gets a bit time consuming and expensive otherwise.
>> Utterly ignorantly mangled all over again.
>> That was never the case with our LAME and we at one time own
>> the Fairchild 24 and he had never seen one of those before and it
>> isnt even possible to get certified on those. Its still flying even now.

> FFS, those things are ancient history!

Irrelevant to your pig ignorant claim that any LAME has to be
type certified to be able to sign off on work done on one of those.

On 3/4/2024 2:07 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://rumble.com/v4mapg5-breaking-boeing-bosses-fired-after-whistleblower-murdered-redacted-with-cla.html>
>>>>>>>>>>>    https://t.ly/HA3cm
>>>>>>>>>>> BREAKING! Boeing bosses fired after Whistleblower murdered
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just because some fool claims something...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not much chance that the whistle blower committed suicide and a
>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>> high chance that foul play was involved.
>>>>>>>>> What I find annoying with the whole Boeing issue is the way its
>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>> reported, the news reports are blaming Boeing for what appears
>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>> maintenance faults on older aircraft, also interesting to note
>>>>>>>>> that 3
>>>>>>>>> recent problems involved United Airlines yet the news reported
>>>>>>>>> blamed
>>>>>>>>> Boeing instead of asking questions about United maintenance or
>>>>>>>>> lack
>>>>>>>>> thereof, AFAIK the 777 that lost a wheel was 10yrs old so what
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> failure has to do with Boeing is a mystery.
>>>>>>>>> The door failure on the Alaska flight was definitely a Boeing
>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>> but many of the other problems blamed on Boeing are maintenance
>>>>>>>>> issues,  not design or QC problems.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not sure what is involved un becoming a Boeing maintenance.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Presumably you lost a word there given you are blotto, as always.
>>>>>>>  If you meant Boeing maintenance person, there is no such
>>>>>>> individual.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I beg to differ.
>>>>>  You are wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There are indeed licenced aircraft maintenance engineers known in
>>>>>> the industry as LAMEs.
>>>>>  That's not a BOEING maintenance person. Like I said, they
>>>>> are licensed to work on ALL aircraft, not just Boeings.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not only are they *licenced*  but they are also required to be
>>>>>> *type certified*.
>>>>>  But are not BRAND certified.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That means a LAME can  be type certifiedon Boeing 747s but not the
>>>>>> Max.
>>>>>  None are certified on all Boeing aircraft and no other aircraft.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Type certification is  required in order to sign off on aircraft.
>>>>>  Duh.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So, yes, you can be a Boeing  maintenanceperson if they are the
>>>>>> only aircraft you arecertified to  work on.
>>>>>  But no one is ever certified on all BOEING aircraft.
>>>
>>>> You need to have training/certification on every aircraft type
>>>  Wrong. Most obviously when something
>>> needs to be done on an unusual aircraft.
>>>
>>>> so it is  customary to only be certifiedon a limited subset, even of
>>>> a brand.
>>>  So there is no such animal as a Boeing maintenance person.
>>>
>>>>>  And when something unusual shows up like say an
>>>>> Antonov, and it needs something to be fixed, there is
>>>>> never a situation where a lame who is certified on that
>>>>> particular aircraft has to be flown in to do that work.
>>>
>>>> Bzzzztt, wrong, wrong, wrong. The plane will not leave theground
>>>> unless/until a *type certified LAME signs off on it*.
>>>  Wrong, as always.
>>>
>>>> They WILL fly  LAMEs all over to do exactly what you deny happens.
>>>  Ignorant fantasy. Read the memoirs of those who specialise
>>> in ferrying aircraft. Those do often end up with maintenance
>>> problem and they are not stuck on the ground until a LAME
>>> who is type certified for that particular aircraft is flown in
>>> to sign off on the work that has been done.
>>>
>>>> My friend often gets  plane tips to Africa to service/
>>>> repair specific aircraft that he is  certified for.
>>>  That's for his specialised knowledge, not because
>>> he is certified on that particular aircraft.
>
>>>  If he actually exists and isnt just another of your inventions.
>
>> https://au.linkedin.com/in/graeme-sambell-b2269337
>
> Easy to find someone like that and claim you know them.

We live in the same town, we come from the same area in the same state,
went to the same high school, he lives a mere 3 kilometres from me as
the crow files and I have been to his home on numerous occasions - but
he isn't home very often.
>
>> Note his current domicile.
>
> Irrelevant to whether a LAME can sign off work on
> an aircraft for which he is not currently certified for.
>
>> Also note where he attended high school.If  you  look at my LinkedIn
>> profile,
>
> No Xeno on Linkedin.
>
Look for my real name, it's been bandied around here often enough.

>> you'll see we both come  from the same state  and attended the same
>> high school.
>
>>>> He was recently flown to one of the far flung Pacific islands to do
>>>> an engine change and tail sectionchange - million dollar  repair job.
>
>>>  Because that place didnt have anyone who
>>> could do that work, not because he is type
>>> certified for that particular aircraft.
>
>> No, it was because the plane was damaged in an accidentand it needed
>> certification before it could fly again. Hedid the repair, he then
>> did  the certification.
>
> I meant he didnt have to have type certification for that particular
> aircraft.
>
>>>> Did I mention he is a LAME(engines), LAME(Airframe) and
>>>> LAME(Electrical). So, yes, they do fly certified LAMEs all over.
>>>> Remember, no sign off, no fly!
>>>  But that LAME does not have to be certified
>>> FOR THAT PARTICULAR AIRCRAFT TYPE.
>
>> He does
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>> and he is.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>>>>>> A friend here, a LAME(Engines-turbine)
>>>
>>>>>  Thats not a BRAND certification.
>>>
>>>> Never said it was.
>>>  That is what we are discussing.
>>>
>>>> It's just what he specialises these days. He did  rattle offthe
>>>> types he was certified for but I cannot recall them all. The Cessna
>>>> Caravan was one, the Beechcraft King Air another.
>>>  But that does NOT mean that he has to be certified
>>> for every aircraft type he signs work off on.
>
>> He can only sign off for work done on aircraft he is certified for.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>>>> This be the man! We even went to the samehigh school albeit at
>>>> different times.
>>>
>>>> https://au.linkedin.com/in/graeme-sambell-b2269337
>>>  Irrelevant to your ignorant claim that the LAME that
>>> signs off on work done has to be type certified for
>>> the aircraft whose work is being signed off on.
>>>
>>>>>> used to be certified for  specific Boeing commercialairliner
>>>>>> aircraft types in his younger days
>>>
>>>>>  But was never certified on all Boeing aircraft.
>>>
>>>> No one is. You have to do certification for any new aircraft.You
>>>> also  have to recertify if you let the certification lapse,ie. not
>>>> work on  one of said type for extended periods.
>>>  Utterly ignorantly mangled all over again.
>
>> Nope, recertification was something we discussed on our last catchup.
>
> You don't have a fucking clue about what is legally required.
>
>>>> LAMEs will only certify for  aircraft that they willencounter  on a
>>>> day to day basis, gets a bit time consuming and expensive otherwise.
>>>  Utterly ignorantly mangled all over again.
>>>  That was never the case with our LAME and we at one time own
>>> the Fairchild 24 and he had never seen one of those before and it
>>> isnt even possible to get certified on those. Its still flying even now.
>
>> FFS, those things are ancient history!
>
> Irrelevant to your pig ignorant claim that any LAME has to be
> type certified to be able to sign off on work done on one of those.
>
>> Are they even certified to fly  these days?
>
> Corse they are.
>
>>>>>> but those certs have long since lapsed. These days he remains
>>>>>> certified on smaller turbine aircraft, like the Cessnas, and even
>>>>>> at the ripe old age of 74, his services are still in high demand
>>>>>> in Oceana and Africa,
>>>
>>>>>  Irrelevant to whether the lame must be certified on the
>>>>> specific aircraft before they can legally do any work on
>>>>> a particular aircaft which has a fault develop in it.
>>>
>>>>>> https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and-certificates/maintenance-engineers/about-aircraft-maintenance-engineers
>>>>>  No news. I am a light aircraft owner.
>>>
>>>> But not a certified LAME.
>>>  Don't need to be given I know the vast range of stuff ours signs off
>>> on.
>>> And one of us used to work for him.
>>>
>>>>>  <reams of shit that is no news at all and never
>>>>> says that there are ever just BOEING specific LAMEs or AMEs
>>>
>>>> If all you have ever worked on and are certified for areBoeing
>>>> aircraft, then you are a Boeing specific LAME.
>>>  Wrong, as always.
>
>> Prove it.
>
> YOU made the claim.
>
> YOU get to do the proving.
>
> THAT'S how it works.
>
>>>>>>> Those allowed to do maintenance on heavys do maintenanceon all
>>>>>>> heavys, their qualification is not brand specific.
>>>
>>>>>> Qualifications, no, type certification is brand *and* aircraft
>>>>>> type  specific.
>>>
>>>>>  Its nothing like as black and white as you are
>>>>> ignorantly claiming, most obviously with the
>>>>> work done on aircraft not usually seen.
>>>
>>>> If you have no one who is *certified* to work on a specific aircraft
>>>> brand/type, that aircraft doesn't leave the ground since it has to
>>>> be signed off by a type certified LAME.
>>>  Wrong, as always. And we know that because we owned
>>> a Fairchild 24 at one time that no one was type certified on.
>>>  You don't have a fucking clue what a LAME can sign off on.

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://rumble.com/v4mapg5-breaking-boeing-bosses-fired-after-whistleblower-murdered-redacted-with-cla.html>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://t.ly/HA3cm
>>>>>>>>>>>> BREAKING! Boeing bosses fired after Whistleblower murdered
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just because some fool claims something...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not much chance that the whistle blower committed suicide and a
>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>> high chance that foul play was involved.
>>>>>>>>>> What I find annoying with the whole Boeing issue is the way its
>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>> reported, the news reports are blaming Boeing for what appears
>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>> maintenance faults on older aircraft, also interesting to note
>>>>>>>>>> that 3
>>>>>>>>>> recent problems involved United Airlines yet the news reported
>>>>>>>>>> blamed
>>>>>>>>>> Boeing instead of asking questions about United maintenance or
>>>>>>>>>> lack
>>>>>>>>>> thereof, AFAIK the 777 that lost a wheel was 10yrs old so what
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> failure has to do with Boeing is a mystery.
>>>>>>>>>> The door failure on the Alaska flight was definitely a Boeing
>>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>> but many of the other problems blamed on Boeing are maintenance
>>>>>>>>>> issues, not design or QC problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not sure what is involved un becoming a Boeing maintenance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Presumably you lost a word there given you are blotto, as always.
>>>>>>>> If you meant Boeing maintenance person, there is no such
>>>>>>>> individual.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I beg to differ.
>>>>>> You are wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are indeed licenced aircraft maintenance engineers known in
>>>>>>> the industry as LAMEs.
>>>>>> That's not a BOEING maintenance person. Like I said, they
>>>>>> are licensed to work on ALL aircraft, not just Boeings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not only are they *licenced* but they are also required to be
>>>>>>> *type certified*.
>>>>>> But are not BRAND certified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That means a LAME can be type certifiedon Boeing 747s but not the
>>>>>>> Max.
>>>>>> None are certified on all Boeing aircraft and no other aircraft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Type certification is required in order to sign off on aircraft.
>>>>>> Duh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, yes, you can be a Boeing maintenanceperson if they are the
>>>>>>> only aircraft you arecertified to work on.
>>>>>> But no one is ever certified on all BOEING aircraft.
>>>>
>>>>> You need to have training/certification on every aircraft type
>>>> Wrong. Most obviously when something
>>>> needs to be done on an unusual aircraft.
>>>>
>>>>> so it is customary to only be certifiedon a limited subset, even of
>>>>> a brand.
>>>> So there is no such animal as a Boeing maintenance person.
>>>>
>>>>>> And when something unusual shows up like say an
>>>>>> Antonov, and it needs something to be fixed, there is
>>>>>> never a situation where a lame who is certified on that
>>>>>> particular aircraft has to be flown in to do that work.
>>>>
>>>>> Bzzzztt, wrong, wrong, wrong. The plane will not leave theground
>>>>> unless/until a *type certified LAME signs off on it*.
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>
>>>>> They WILL fly LAMEs all over to do exactly what you deny happens.
>>>> Ignorant fantasy. Read the memoirs of those who specialise
>>>> in ferrying aircraft. Those do often end up with maintenance
>>>> problem and they are not stuck on the ground until a LAME
>>>> who is type certified for that particular aircraft is flown in
>>>> to sign off on the work that has been done.
>>>>
>>>>> My friend often gets plane tips to Africa to service/
>>>>> repair specific aircraft that he is certified for.
>>>> That's for his specialised knowledge, not because
>>>> he is certified on that particular aircraft.
>>
>>>> If he actually exists and isnt just another of your inventions.
>>
>>> https://au.linkedin.com/in/graeme-sambell-b2269337

>> Easy to find someone like that and claim you know them.

> We live in the same town, we come from the same area in the same state,
> went to the same high school, he lives a mere 3 kilometres from me as
> the crow files and I have been to his home on numerous occasions - but
> he isn't home very often.

Easy to claim and no way to verify your claim
and we know you lie thru your teeth all the time

>>> Note his current domicile.
>> Irrelevant to whether a LAME can sign off work on
>> an aircraft for which he is not currently certified for.
>>
>>> Also note where he attended high school.If you look at my LinkedIn
>>> profile,

>> No Xeno on Linkedin.

> Look for my real name, it's been bandied around here often enough.

And you stupidly don't list it now.

And even if you did, proves nothing about whether you even know him.

>>> you'll see we both come from the same state and attended the same
>>> high school.
>>
>>>>> He was recently flown to one of the far flung Pacific islands to do
>>>>> an engine change and tail sectionchange - million dollar repair job.
>>
>>>> Because that place didnt have anyone who
>>>> could do that work, not because he is type
>>>> certified for that particular aircraft.
>>
>>> No, it was because the plane was damaged in an accidentand it needed
>>> certification before it could fly again. Hedid the repair, he then
>>> did the certification.
>> I meant he didnt have to have type certification for that particular
>> aircraft.
>>
>>>>> Did I mention he is a LAME(engines), LAME(Airframe) and
>>>>> LAME(Electrical). So, yes, they do fly certified LAMEs all over.
>>>>> Remember, no sign off, no fly!
>>>> But that LAME does not have to be certified
>>>> FOR THAT PARTICULAR AIRCRAFT TYPE.
>>
>>> He does
>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>>> and he is.
>> Irrelevant.
>>
>>>>>>> A friend here, a LAME(Engines-turbine)
>>>>
>>>>>> Thats not a BRAND certification.
>>>>
>>>>> Never said it was.
>>>> That is what we are discussing.
>>>>
>>>>> It's just what he specialises these days. He did rattle offthe
>>>>> types he was certified for but I cannot recall them all. The Cessna
>>>>> Caravan was one, the Beechcraft King Air another.
>>>> But that does NOT mean that he has to be certified
>>>> for every aircraft type he signs work off on.
>>
>>> He can only sign off for work done on aircraft he is certified for.
>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>>>>> This be the man! We even went to the samehigh school albeit at
>>>>> different times.
>>>>
>>>>> https://au.linkedin.com/in/graeme-sambell-b2269337
>>>> Irrelevant to your ignorant claim that the LAME that
>>>> signs off on work done has to be type certified for
>>>> the aircraft whose work is being signed off on.
>>>>
>>>>>>> used to be certified for specific Boeing commercialairliner
>>>>>>> aircraft types in his younger days
>>>>
>>>>>> But was never certified on all Boeing aircraft.
>>>>
>>>>> No one is. You have to do certification for any new aircraft.You
>>>>> also have to recertify if you let the certification lapse,ie. not
>>>>> work on one of said type for extended periods.
>>>> Utterly ignorantly mangled all over again.
>>
>>> Nope, recertification was something we discussed on our last catchup.
>> You don't have a fucking clue about what is legally required.
>>
>>>>> LAMEs will only certify for aircraft that they willencounter on a
>>>>> day to day basis, gets a bit time consuming and expensive otherwise.
>>>> Utterly ignorantly mangled all over again.
>>>> That was never the case with our LAME and we at one time own
>>>> the Fairchild 24 and he had never seen one of those before and it
>>>> isnt even possible to get certified on those. Its still flying even
>>>> now.
>>
>>> FFS, those things are ancient history!
>> Irrelevant to your pig ignorant claim that any LAME has to be
>> type certified to be able to sign off on work done on one of those.
>>
>>> Are they even certified to fly these days?
>> Corse they are.
>>
>>>>>>> but those certs have long since lapsed. These days he remains
>>>>>>> certified on smaller turbine aircraft, like the Cessnas, and even
>>>>>>> at the ripe old age of 74, his services are still in high demand
>>>>>>> in Oceana and Africa,
>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant to whether the lame must be certified on the
>>>>>> specific aircraft before they can legally do any work on
>>>>>> a particular aircaft which has a fault develop in it.
>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and-certificates/maintenance-engineers/about-aircraft-maintenance-engineers
>>>>>> No news. I am a light aircraft owner.
>>>>
>>>>> But not a certified LAME.
>>>> Don't need to be given I know the vast range of stuff ours signs off
>>>> on.
>>>> And one of us used to work for him.
>>>>
>>>>>> <reams of shit that is no news at all and never
>>>>>> says that there are ever just BOEING specific LAMEs or AMEs
>>>>
>>>>> If all you have ever worked on and are certified for areBoeing
>>>>> aircraft, then you are a Boeing specific LAME.
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>>> Prove it.
>> YOU made the claim.
>> YOU get to do the proving.
>> THAT'S how it works.
>>
>>>>>>>> Those allowed to do maintenance on heavys do maintenanceon all
>>>>>>>> heavys, their qualification is not brand specific.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Qualifications, no, type certification is brand *and* aircraft
>>>>>>> type specific.
>>>>
>>>>>> Its nothing like as black and white as you are
>>>>>> ignorantly claiming, most obviously with the
>>>>>> work done on aircraft not usually seen.
>>>>
>>>>> If you have no one who is *certified* to work on a specific aircraft
>>>>> brand/type, that aircraft doesn't leave the ground since it has to
>>>>> be signed off by a type certified LAME.
>>>> Wrong, as always. And we know that because we owned
>>>> a Fairchild 24 at one time that no one was type certified on.
>>>> You don't have a fucking clue what a LAME can sign off on.

On 3/4/2024 4:22 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://rumble.com/v4mapg5-breaking-boeing-bosses-fired-after-whistleblower-murdered-redacted-with-cla.html>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    https://t.ly/HA3cm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BREAKING! Boeing bosses fired after Whistleblower murdered
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just because some fool claims something...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not much chance that the whistle blower committed suicide and
>>>>>>>>>>> a very
>>>>>>>>>>> high chance that foul play was involved.
>>>>>>>>>>> What I find annoying with the whole Boeing issue is the way
>>>>>>>>>>> its being
>>>>>>>>>>> reported, the news reports are blaming Boeing for what
>>>>>>>>>>> appears to be
>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance faults on older aircraft, also interesting to
>>>>>>>>>>> note that 3
>>>>>>>>>>> recent problems involved United Airlines yet the news
>>>>>>>>>>> reported blamed
>>>>>>>>>>> Boeing instead of asking questions about United maintenance
>>>>>>>>>>> or lack
>>>>>>>>>>> thereof, AFAIK the 777 that lost a wheel was 10yrs old so
>>>>>>>>>>> what that
>>>>>>>>>>> failure has to do with Boeing is a mystery.
>>>>>>>>>>> The door failure on the Alaska flight was definitely a Boeing
>>>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>>> but many of the other problems blamed on Boeing are
>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance issues,  not design or QC problems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not sure what is involved un becoming a Boeing maintenance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Presumably you lost a word there given you are blotto, as always.
>>>>>>>>>  If you meant Boeing maintenance person, there is no such
>>>>>>>>> individual.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I beg to differ.
>>>>>>>  You are wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are indeed licenced aircraft maintenance engineers known
>>>>>>>> in the industry as LAMEs.
>>>>>>>  That's not a BOEING maintenance person. Like I said, they
>>>>>>> are licensed to work on ALL aircraft, not just Boeings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not only are they *licenced*  but they are also required to be
>>>>>>>> *type certified*.
>>>>>>>  But are not BRAND certified.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That means a LAME can  be type certifiedon Boeing 747s but not
>>>>>>>> the Max.
>>>>>>>  None are certified on all Boeing aircraft and no other aircraft.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Type certification is  required in order to sign off on aircraft.
>>>>>>>  Duh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, yes, you can be a Boeing  maintenanceperson if they are the
>>>>>>>> only aircraft you arecertified to  work on.
>>>>>>>  But no one is ever certified on all BOEING aircraft.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to have training/certification on every aircraft type
>>>>>  Wrong. Most obviously when something
>>>>> needs to be done on an unusual aircraft.
>>>>>
>>>>>> so it is  customary to only be certifiedon a limited subset, even
>>>>>> of a brand.
>>>>>  So there is no such animal as a Boeing maintenance person.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  And when something unusual shows up like say an
>>>>>>> Antonov, and it needs something to be fixed, there is
>>>>>>> never a situation where a lame who is certified on that
>>>>>>> particular aircraft has to be flown in to do that work.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bzzzztt, wrong, wrong, wrong. The plane will not leave theground
>>>>>> unless/until a *type certified LAME signs off on it*.
>>>>>  Wrong, as always.
>>>>>
>>>>>> They WILL fly  LAMEs all over to do exactly what you deny happens.
>>>>>  Ignorant fantasy. Read the memoirs of those who specialise
>>>>> in ferrying aircraft. Those do often end up with maintenance
>>>>> problem and they are not stuck on the ground until a LAME
>>>>> who is type certified for that particular aircraft is flown in
>>>>> to sign off on the work that has been done.
>>>>>
>>>>>> My friend often gets  plane tips to Africa to service/
>>>>>> repair specific aircraft that he is  certified for.
>>>>>  That's for his specialised knowledge, not because
>>>>> he is certified on that particular aircraft.
>>>
>>>>>  If he actually exists and isnt just another of your inventions.
>>>
>>>> https://au.linkedin.com/in/graeme-sambell-b2269337
>
>>>  Easy to find someone like that and claim you know them.
>
>> We live in the same town, we come from the same area in the same
>> state, went to the same high school, he lives a mere 3 kilometres from
>> me as the crow files and I have been to his home on numerous occasions
>> - but he isn't home very often.
>
> Easy to claim and no way to verify your claim
> and we know you lie thru your teeth all the time

Easy to verify - if you had a clue.
>
>>>> Note his current domicile.
>>>  Irrelevant to whether a LAME can sign off work on
>>> an aircraft for which he is not currently certified for.
>>>
>>>> Also note where he attended high school.If  you  look at my LinkedIn
>>>> profile,
>
>>>  No Xeno on Linkedin.
>
>> Look for my real name, it's been bandied around here often enough.
>
> And you stupidly don't list it now.

I have never listed it here.
>
> And even if you did, proves nothing about whether you even know him.

Send him a message on LinkedIn and *ask him*.
>
>>>> you'll see we both come  from the same state  and attended the same
>>>> high school.
>>>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://rumble.com/v4mapg5-breaking-boeing-bosses-fired-after-whistleblower-murdered-redacted-with-cla.html>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://t.ly/HA3cm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BREAKING! Boeing bosses fired after Whistleblower murdered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just because some fool claims something...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not much chance that the whistle blower committed suicide and
>>>>>>>>>>>> a very
>>>>>>>>>>>> high chance that foul play was involved.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What I find annoying with the whole Boeing issue is the way
>>>>>>>>>>>> its being
>>>>>>>>>>>> reported, the news reports are blaming Boeing for what
>>>>>>>>>>>> appears to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance faults on older aircraft, also interesting to
>>>>>>>>>>>> note that 3
>>>>>>>>>>>> recent problems involved United Airlines yet the news
>>>>>>>>>>>> reported blamed
>>>>>>>>>>>> Boeing instead of asking questions about United maintenance
>>>>>>>>>>>> or lack
>>>>>>>>>>>> thereof, AFAIK the 777 that lost a wheel was 10yrs old so
>>>>>>>>>>>> what that
>>>>>>>>>>>> failure has to do with Boeing is a mystery.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The door failure on the Alaska flight was definitely a Boeing
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>>>> but many of the other problems blamed on Boeing are
>>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance issues, not design or QC problems.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure what is involved un becoming a Boeing maintenance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Presumably you lost a word there given you are blotto, as
>>>>>>>>>> always.
>>>>>>>>>> If you meant Boeing maintenance person, there is no such
>>>>>>>>>> individual.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I beg to differ.
>>>>>>>> You are wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are indeed licenced aircraft maintenance engineers known
>>>>>>>>> in the industry as LAMEs.
>>>>>>>> That's not a BOEING maintenance person. Like I said, they
>>>>>>>> are licensed to work on ALL aircraft, not just Boeings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not only are they *licenced* but they are also required to be
>>>>>>>>> *type certified*.
>>>>>>>> But are not BRAND certified.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That means a LAME can be type certifiedon Boeing 747s but not
>>>>>>>>> the Max.
>>>>>>>> None are certified on all Boeing aircraft and no other aircraft.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Type certification is required in order to sign off on aircraft.
>>>>>>>> Duh.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, yes, you can be a Boeing maintenanceperson if they are the
>>>>>>>>> only aircraft you arecertified to work on.
>>>>>>>> But no one is ever certified on all BOEING aircraft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You need to have training/certification on every aircraft type
>>>>>> Wrong. Most obviously when something
>>>>>> needs to be done on an unusual aircraft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so it is customary to only be certifiedon a limited subset, even
>>>>>>> of a brand.
>>>>>> So there is no such animal as a Boeing maintenance person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And when something unusual shows up like say an
>>>>>>>> Antonov, and it needs something to be fixed, there is
>>>>>>>> never a situation where a lame who is certified on that
>>>>>>>> particular aircraft has to be flown in to do that work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bzzzztt, wrong, wrong, wrong. The plane will not leave theground
>>>>>>> unless/until a *type certified LAME signs off on it*.
>>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They WILL fly LAMEs all over to do exactly what you deny happens.
>>>>>> Ignorant fantasy. Read the memoirs of those who specialise
>>>>>> in ferrying aircraft. Those do often end up with maintenance
>>>>>> problem and they are not stuck on the ground until a LAME
>>>>>> who is type certified for that particular aircraft is flown in
>>>>>> to sign off on the work that has been done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My friend often gets plane tips to Africa to service/
>>>>>>> repair specific aircraft that he is certified for.
>>>>>> That's for his specialised knowledge, not because
>>>>>> he is certified on that particular aircraft.
>>>>
>>>>>> If he actually exists and isnt just another of your inventions.
>>>>
>>>>> https://au.linkedin.com/in/graeme-sambell-b2269337
>>
>>>> Easy to find someone like that and claim you know them.
>>
>>> We live in the same town, we come from the same area in the same
>>> state, went to the same high school, he lives a mere 3 kilometres from
>>> me as the crow files and I have been to his home on numerous occasions
>>> - but he isn't home very often.

>> Easy to claim and no way to verify your claim
>> and we know you lie thru your teeth all the time

> Easy to verify - if you had a clue.

Not even possible to verify that you even know him.

>>>>> Note his current domicile.
>>>> Irrelevant to whether a LAME can sign off work on
>>>> an aircraft for which he is not currently certified for.
>>>>
>>>>> Also note where he attended high school.If you look at my LinkedIn
>>>>> profile,
>>
>>>> No Xeno on Linkedin.
>>
>>> Look for my real name, it's been bandied around here often enough.

>> And you stupidly don't list it now.

> I have never listed it here.

Your problem.

>> And even if you did, proves nothing about whether you even know him.

> Send him a message on LinkedIn and *ask him*.

No point, given you don't say who you are.

>>>>> you'll see we both come from the same state and attended the same
>>>>> high school.

On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 18:59:54 +1100, Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au>
wrote:

>>> They still have that safety reputation, shame that the way they have
>>> treated their customers in recent years has been so poor.
>>>
>> Never had problems with bad customer service, but air flights have
>> become cheaper, would say it works both ways there are bad customers
>> also.
>
>I was referring to their appalling on time/cancellation record in recent
>times, its pretty poor and even worse than their own low cost airline
>Jetstar.
>
>The city of London put city circle public transport costs
>> (bus/rail) up to keep out the riff-raff, seemed to work.
>
>LOL, I very much doubt that keeping riff raff out was the reason for a
>price increase.
>
This is common in Aircraft travel now!
<https://www.tiktok.com/@realkingjon/video/7353790143557422378?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc>
https://t.ly/ewAup
Removing a woman by Sheriff's from inside a US plane!
--
Petzl
Good lawyers know the law
Great lawyers know the judge

justice is open to all; like the Ritz hotel
High Court reveals every current judge is a
member of Qantas’ ‘most exclusive club in Australia’
The High Court has exposed secret members of Qantas’
exclusive Chairman’s Lounge amid a landmark case over
the sacking of 1700 workers.