Has new technology "deskilled" us?

[Talk Wrench]

A comment made on another thread insinuated that technological advances on aircraft have "deskilled" the aircraft trades.

I take this to mean that the use of "intelligent" aircraft systems removes the need for highly qualified tradesmen and women.

In essence, the aircraft tradesman is now no more than box changer or spanner twirler. These people do not need to be highly qualified because the IT specialist will now deliver the fault diagnosis via fault codes to the aircraft techs and computerised predictive maintenance will be the realm of a new breed of "aircraft engineering IT disciplines".

Has new technology paved the way for deskilling of the aircraft trades or does it mean that we have to be more qualified in new tecnologies than ever before?

Is there a need to integrate the IT specialist into the coalface engineering make up or should the training of aircraft techs be enhanced with advanced IT skills to allow the flexible delivery of Air Power?

TW

 

[Weebl]

I have not worked on Typhoon so cannot comment on that, however I remember hearing something similar about Tornado when I was first posted on to them, the pretty lights tell you what is wrong, and then you fix it. Apart from the pretty lights are normally wrong.

I also worked on the C130J, that also has a built in suite of systems designed to self diagnose and point out what needs doing. It too is quite often wrong.

I believe that the aircraft trades have been seriously de-skilled since I joined up, but that is more to do with the RAF contracting out anything remotely interesting because it saves 10p this financial year (and costs £4m next financial year and leaves us in the sh1t when the civvies refuse to do something because it is not in their contract)

 

[broadsword]

Same argument could be used for the motor trade, in that a garage now is not the same as it was 20 years ago. I don't think you get IT specialists in these garages, the technicians are trained onto new kit and new ways of working (i.e. using engine management systems instead of stripping carburateurs).

My opinion; no need to move IT people into the aircraft space. The aircraft techies will deal with technological progress in their own inimitable way.

Caveat: I stopped aircraft techying 10 years back.

 

[Ex-Bay]

It's not just the aircraft trades. The 'de-skilling' of most techies is endemic in Industry as well as the military. Personally I think it has a lot to do with wages and the cost of training.

:S

 

[Odie]

A greater effect on de-skilling, IMHO, has been the rush to put 2nd and 3rd line maintenance out to contract and civilianisation. DT_Xtremez_25: There was a time when the RAF had guys in blue suits who, because they had things in bits, knew exactly how they worked. When they returned to a flying squadron that knowledge came with them - some guys who used to do majors at Saints could be a real boon on a squadron with the systems knowledge they'd accumulated. By having guys employed at all levels of maintenance, you'd get a more rounded tradesman. DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[broadsword]

You need to think positive. It's reskilling, not deskilling...

 

[Ex-Bay]

You need to think positive. It's reskilling, not deskilling...

Please pardon me, but can you hear the sound of cynical laughter echoing down the corridors of power ?
I think I can.

 

[broadsword]

My apologies, you know best.

I'll doff my cap...

 

[propersplitbrainme]

When I re-entered the training world a few years back I was amazed at how shallow the depth of training had become since I'd done my course back in the 70's. But the answer soon became clear, how often do we use skills such as pipe bending and flaring, how often do we need to diagnose an engine fault down to an individual component in an FCU. And even now, these observations have been borne out during the multi-skilling program as time and again we are asked "why are we going into this in such depth"?
So IMHO Broadsword makes a good point, the old skills are not required in such intensity (if thats an appropriate choice of word) but new ones are required, such as reading and interpreting the output from an onboard computer, or operating MPCDs.

 

[JimBeau]

The tech world has been going down the LRU path for a long time .... thats progress and as such the component skill has lessened with time. The only issue is the legacy kit (TG4 is littered with it), which remains legacy and not replaced because of budget limitations. Its then left to the old heads to sort it out, and start teaching the new kids the techniques required which they don't get when training now.
Skill fade is a major issue, as i'm sure all the tech type trades will agree.DT_Xtremez_34:

 

[Shugster]

If self diagnosis is wrong then I would say whoever wrote the code for it either doesn't understand the systems himself or needs a boot up the jacksy.

It should be possible to see the position / setting of everything on the A/C.

The contents of registers would be going too far for 1st / 2nd line but should be available to the bay wallahs.

It comes down to speed as well, yes you could strip the PFCU right down and change the seals or Change a component on a card in a box, but as we all know the jet is U/S for longer. And as we have fewer and fewer that's a no no!

 

[Weebl]

But the answer soon became clear, how often do we use skills such as pipe bending and flaring

I needed a pipe making last shift. Although I know how, none of the kit is available. None of my lads know how and have never been shown, so it would have been me and a fellow Snec signing and undersigning (not a problem now, what about in a few years when we have gone?)

We had to get a bay to make the pipe, which is not even on this camp. In the meantime we had to rob the pipe from a different jet, which obviously leaked so we now had 2 dead jets and needed a civvy bay on a different camp to make 2 new pipes.

Trouble is it was Saturday, and the bay was not open till Monday, so it was actually quicker to buy a pipe from the states to get one jet back serviceable and operational.

Just one example of skills Riggers used to take for granted 15 years ago still being needed, but being outsourced for short term financial reasons.

 

[broadsword]

It comes down to speed as well, yes you could strip the PFCU right down and change the seals or Change a component on a card in a box, but as we all know the jet is U/S for longer. And as we have fewer and fewer that's a no no!

Correct. I can't speak for the bay as I never worked in one but, on the line, I personally didn't care if my unused skills were going rusty because it was about using my relevant skills to make an unserviceable aircraft serviceable as quickly and efficiently as possible. If computery things with flashing lights reduce the turnaround time then that's progress.

 

[Talk Wrench]

If self diagnosis is wrong then I would say whoever wrote the code for it either doesn't understand the systems himself or needs a boot up the jacksy.

Self diagnosis is not a bad way to go, particularly as aircraft become more complex and centralised network based. However, self diagnosis has its drawbacks. It cannot tell you the position of a degraded bonding point, it cannot tell you that a screen has an intermittent contact with the airframe, it cannot detect the broken crimp at the back of a connector etc etc.

It should be possible to see the position / setting of everything on the A/C.

It is on some aircraft using real time monitoring.

The contents of registers would be going too far for 1st / 2nd line but should be available to the bay wallahs.

That's where the IT geeks would be worth their weight in gold

It comes down to speed as well, yes you could strip the PFCU right down and change the seals or Change a component on a card in a box, but as we all know the jet is U/S for longer. And as we have fewer and fewer that's a no no!

But it is still important to have these skillbases. Sadly, these have been eroded over recent years.

We're thinking along similar lines here Shugs. My comments in blue.



TW

 

[JonnyB]

My 2p, I dont see it as deskilling, its more of a shift away from the manual engineering skills of yore, towards more IT based skills, in some cases these can be more technical than doing it the good old fashioned way as anyone who has tried to set up a SPGR will, I'm sure testify!

 

[wobbly]

A comment made on another thread insinuated that technological advances on aircraft have "deskilled" the aircraft trades.

I take this to mean that the use of "intelligent" aircraft systems removes the need for highly qualified tradesmen and women.

In essence, the aircraft tradesman is now no more than box changer or spanner twirler. These people do not need to be highly qualified because the IT specialist will now deliver the fault diagnosis via fault codes to the aircraft techs and computerised predictive maintenance will be the realm of a new breed of "aircraft engineering IT disciplines".

Has new technology paved the way for deskilling of the aircraft trades or does it mean that we have to be more qualified in new tecnologies than ever before?

Is there a need to integrate the IT specialist into the coalface engineering make up or should the training of aircraft techs be enhanced with advanced IT skills to allow the flexible delivery of Air Power?

TW

Speak for yourself chap.

I work on the new Hercules (C130J) glass cockpit, fly by wire, mission computers, 1553 databus and all that "Technology" We don't even need to do aircrew debriefs now as the aircraft downloads every single bit of data during the flight which we can interogate on a computer.

Now even though its all bells and whistles it isn't as good as its sales pitch. We now have to be an expert on a computer, knowing how to interogate and milk/interpret all this data is a skill that needs years of hands on. It doesn't always get its faults correct either so yet again its experience and trade knowledge that has to step in. Sometimes it doesn't even tell us there is a snag at all but the GE tells us whats happened.

Technology hasn't de-skilled us its just how often we use our skills on a daily basis that makes it feel like it. However, technology has made our life a bit easier with regards to finding faults quicker.

I think that the government and our head shed that have de-skilled our work force. Years ago we had Engine bays, hydraulic bays and many other side bays where in depth skills were learnt. Now all those bays are civvy we have lost the chance to gain invaluable trade knowledge in a 2/3/4th line environment.

In my opinion the only reason we have blue suits on the flight line now is to send to war and that is it.

 

[Talk Wrench]

Wobbly.

My initial post was in response to this post http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=339553&postcount=76 in another thread.

It was made by a self confessed IT geek and in it he gives his viewpoint as to the way us Aircraft techs are thought of in other circles.

My original post was to stimulate a little bit of discussion about the role of IT in aircraft engineering.

Your post above illustrates perfectly what the IT crowd do not seem to understand the finer points of aviation engineering.

I work on an aircraft which is at the very edge of cutting edge. It is the most integrated, computerised, network based machine flying in the skies today. Putting it lightly, ARINC is there only as a back up so that will give you some idea of the advanced technology network wise on the aircraft.

I don't see any IT geeks running the show though. It's me who accesses fault codes and makes judgements and diagnoses iaw the AMM and TSM. The IT geeks are all locked in a bunker somewhere writing code and nowhere near the aircraft.


IMHO, Aircraft engineers are phasing through a period of upskilling as opposed to deskilling.

TW

 

[PTR Hoar]

i currently work 2nd line and it's getting bad there aswell, for example we get some LRU's in and because of dumb ass contracts if they are broken we cant fix them, even though we have the trained manpower and, get this, the spares to do it beacuse of a seperate contract. instead our lovely boxes go to a certain civillian contractors who only work to produce a set amount of serviceable units a month. As a result squadrons are having to rob LRU's that could quite easily be fixed at unit level. My anger at BAE's contract guys has gotten me into a bit of bother but someone has to say something, even though their complete apathy at the situation drives me mad. So all i get to do is test a box and if it's a no fault found it goes out, if its broke it goes 500 miles away to get fixed, cept for a couple of LRU's that are a pain in the ass to fix, which, funnily, the civvys don't want.::/: ::/: ::/:

 

[Joe_90]

The problem with computers trying to tell you what's wrong usually comes back to the fact that the sensors say that this bit is broken so change it. Unfortunately that bit may be working fine and it is doing what another sensor tells it because something else is broken in a way the computer can't be taught to recognise. As things get older this happens more and more often, so that is when you need your skilled technicians who understand how the whole system should work that can go back to old fashioned fault finding only with the added difficulty of trying to work round the modern technology.

 

[OneTimeSooty]

Agree with the above. I work on the same Sqn as Wobbly and have found myself changing more sensors and black boxes than engine components.

Actually, I think I can count on both hands the amount of times I've actually changed a component as part of fault rectification (that's in 5 years of being on the Sqn). More often we're busy changing / checking sensors. It says something when the Fault Isolation always says to conn check the sensor harness first!

IMO fault diagnosis is a skill that is being lost, but is being replaced with a more reasoned approach eg the computer says this, but the aircrew didn't report it. Do I change the component or the monitoring sensor?

And as ex-TPF I feel every techie should experience bay life. The trade knowledge you gain from having the thing in your hands in bits and seeing how it works cannot be replicated or gained from anywhere else. Wobbly has hit the nail on the head with his comment on blue suits being on 1st line. It'll be interesting to see how the next few years develops.