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

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