Read thread and reply to the thread and the replies must be at least 250 words each. Each reply must incorporate at least one scholarly citation(s) in APA format. Any sources cited must have been pub

 Read thread and reply to the thread and the replies must be at least 250 words each.  Each reply must incorporate at least one scholarly citation(s) in APA format. Any sources cited must have been published within the last five years. Acceptable sources include the most current sources you can find which likely means the Internet. Make sure to cite all facts in text.

Thread 1

Pro-Tips

“Listen to advice and accept instruction, that you may gain wisdom in the future” (Bible Gateway Passage: Proverbs 19:20 - English Standard Version, n.d.).  Considering that we are discussing pro-tips, little nuggets of advice that we can share and learn from, even the bible instructs us to listen.  Some of these may help out in the future as we continue to pursue our troubleshooting expertise. 

Troubleshooting needs to start somewhere, and my advice is to start with the history of the problem, or the history of the plane, work, and situation that you are in.  I used to work heavy check maintenance as a lead.  On one particular aircraft while I was on my weekend, the plane I was working went outside for post check engine runs.  When I came back a couple of days later, the plane was outside and the one of the generators on the #2 engine was not working.  Troubleshooting had bee going on for a couple of days with no luck.  As I think history and context are important I started asking a lot of questions and started going back through all the paper work for the aircraft while it had been in check.  I did this because when we brought the plane into check, we did initial engine runs and everything was normal.  During my research I found a non-routine generated by a technician that had been signed off by another technician.  The discrepancy was for a wire bundle drilled into on the left-hand side of the aircraft, that is located in the cargo compartment and goes to the #1 engine.  The sign-off was basically that there was no discrepancy.  Now why would a mechanic write-up that he drilled into a wire harness only to have it signed off as essentially, no you didn’t?  In this instance, the technician performing the work and the inspector performing his duty failed to ask any questions on the situation.  I went and spoke with the technician that generated the discrepancy and asked him what the situation was and why the non-routine was signed off with no repair.  Come to find out, while he wrote left on the paperwork, the damage was actually done on the right-hand side.  Once we opened up the panels, we were able to find the damaged wires with ease and correct the problem. 

Besides asking questions and looking at the history for context on the problem, critical thinking and using the “WHAT, WHERE, WHEN” ANALYSIS” (Mostia, 2006), and applying some critical thinking can help to narrow down the scope of troubleshooting.  This type of scenario could have been used to identify that it didn’t happen when the plane came in, and it is now happening when we are trying to release the aircraft.  What happened in the meantime? 

Troubleshooting always seems to begin with a problem, a discrepancy, and of course, time is never on your side, so the pressure starts immediately.  Sometimes this pressure gets us going too fast, too quickly, and ends up with us running in the wrong direction.  When this happens, I like to sit down, take a breath and discuss everything that we know about the situation, start to dig into the manuals to read and do some research.  If I can get others involved, I like to be able to have an open dialogue with as many people as possible to get different perspectives and ideas.  It can be amazing how much more information can be presented on the problem when that happens.  One person with previous experience on the problem can really start to put the problem in perspective and give the team a better understanding of the problem.  The more analysis of the problem initially is going to pay off in the long run.

Troubleshooting can make or break us, make us look like heroes or fools.  How we address it in our careers is all up to us.  There are a lot of ways to apply the knowledge, and there are a lot of tips out there to help us in our quest.  As long as we keep an open mind, ask questions and think critically we will succeed.  We just need to be willing to get out there and attack the problem head on.  That would be my biggest tip to everyone, attack, attack, attack!

Thread 2

“Ask for Help” this is probably the most important piece of advice anyone can ever give you, and to add to it, there are no such things as stupid questions. It is common, specially in aviation for mechanics to try to solve every problem on their own, even when stuck. Mainly out of fear of reprisal or their skills being called into question. But as I always tell my new mechanics, you will never learn unless you ask questions, the day you believe you know everything is the day you need to retire because you will become a danger to yourself and the operation. I will combine this nugget with another one, “admit when you don’t know”. Many mistakes are often made when a technician does something above their skill level, normally is to prove they can do it, or they are under a time pressure to complete a job. If a mechanic ever gets to the point where they just can’t figure out the problem. The best route at this point is to go back to the beginning, review the manuals, and ask for help.

     “There is more than one way to fry an egg”  There are several methods to approach a problem and troubleshoot it, our book has given us a lot of information regarding those methods. Each problem will require its own approach, not only is every problem different but every solution will be different. One prime example I’ve seen many times on the line is repetitive or chronic problems. Most mechanics make the mistake that they approach the issue as they did the last time, they saw it. They replace or go down the same path they did last time, when the faulty component is on the other end of the system, now you just wasted all this time troubleshooting the wrong thing, instead of treating every issue as if it’s the first time you’ve encountered it. Most fault isolation manuals are written in a way that will use a combination of most troubleshooting methods, even for those who don’t have extensive knowledge of the systems, but a general analytical framework can narrow down the issue, basically if you can read you can fix it.

       The last nugget I will talk about is “compare it with a known good component”, this is what we call the Chinese blueprint, you’ll hear this often on the line on the hangar, “check the other side see if it’s the same or look at that plane and see if it matches”. This is a great way to get some reference, but it should never be used as a final authority, now, troubleshooting by putting a known good part to see if that was the problem can be a quick way out, but you run the risk of ruining the good part. If the problem is an overvoltage due to a short circuit or a faulty component that’s frying everything downstream, now you have to bad parts. That’s why its best to be cognizant and test the whole system before replacing parts to ensure you have completely solved the issue.