Has new technology "deskilled" us?

[harris921]

Im a car mechanic who is trying to join up as an air tech, anyway, thought Id give you my take on this.

The motor trade relies on fault diagnosis heavily, especially as there is so much technology on a modern day vehicle. Its no longer just points and condenser. Common rail, pumpe duse, Variable valve timming, Immobilizers, Air Con, heated seats, hard top folding roofs, rain sensors, auto head lamps, air bags, traction control, electronically opening and closing side loading doors, SAT NAV, alarms, tow bar electrics, etc, etc. All of these systems are on something called a can-bus system/multiplex wiring. Basically each system has its own ECU and they are constantly talking to each other.

Sometimes its as simple as plugging in the fault code reader and replacing a faulty sensor(TDC sensor, MAP Sensor), other times it can take a series of wiring tests via a complicated wiring diagram to determine the fault. Its not as de-skilled as you think, quite the opposite. Alot of old school mechanics can't and won't get involved in this side of the trade, they are scared by the technology. They prefer to stick to what they know; cambelts, clutches, gearboxes, head gaskets, and general spannering.

I assumed aircraft fault finding would be pretty simlar, do you the RAF use diagnostic computers???

 

[harris921]

We also have a seperate office based PC with on-line data for the older vehicles that tallys up with your fault code. This data then gives you a series of tests to follow. The test plan for the new stuff is built into the diagnostic computer and sort of talks to the vehicle as you are testing.

 

[Weebl]

I assumed aircraft fault finding would be pretty simlar, do you the RAF use diagnostic computers???

Aircraft fault finding is absolutely nothing like using a canbus interface on a car. I taught myself how to use VAG-COM in about 30 minutes, and I am a heavy.

You need to know how a system works and interfaces with other systems to a fairly intimate level to understand why something is doing what it is doing. Very few of the faults you will encounter can be diagnosed or rectified by plugging in a computer and running a test.

 

[MrMasher]

I worked in a few bays and then went onto a Sqn. The bay time put me in a hell of a good stead. I'm glad I had that experience because it helped me out no end on the Sqn. Experience learned from dismantling, checking, fixing, rebuilding and testing components can't be found in the aircraft manuals.
As for these techno type a/c you're talking about, I haven't worked one yet and shouldnt think I will in my time left.

 

[3wheeledtechie]

In my view the only time IT techs will get involved in aircraft engineering is if the aircraft can via datalink predict what faults it will land with and therefore order the likely LRUs to be replaced, in a just in time fashion, to be available as it lands. As it stands the air force, despite current initiatives, is a million miles away from this, with robs to service becoming more, not less, frequent. And in actual fact the precedent has been, talking various pods here, that aircraft technicians are responsible for the techical aspects at the ground end, although granted I am referring to imagery pods.
I recall doubting very much on my fitters course, that I would ever see a klystron or magnetron again, but low and behold I was posted to a bay maintaining an equipment that included TWTs. Point being that there's far too much being removed from courses in the assumption that the few unlucky sods that get posted somewhere on an equipment using principles they've never been taught, will get ojt. Well time for the RAF to grasp the fecking reality of the fact that they've got legacy kit scattered everywhere, and that as someone said earlier, saving 10p now on training will costs millions in the future when someone fecks up, due to damage to equipment or loss of life.
Its the same argument for attracting the best people to be techies - even disregarding the risks to operators, do you really want to risk not having the best people working and responsible for maintaining £millions of potentially dangerous equipment? Do you really, really want that, Air Chief Marshal Massingbird-Massingbird??

 

[harris921]

Im pretty sure Vagcom is just for reading fault codes and knocking out service lights. It is unable to perform Guided Fault Finding/test plans.

 

[Shugster]

Im pretty sure Vagcom is just for reading fault codes and knocking out service lights. It is unable to perform Guided Fault Finding/test plans.

Don't forget that a car manufacturer doesn't want you to change a transistor / Sensor but the whole unit.

And CAN Bus will allow you to ask anything within the sensor range, you just need to read the specs and write your own code to talk to it.

Get into "PICs" from Microchip if you want to really know whats wrong.

 

[Weebl]

Im pretty sure Vagcom is just for reading fault codes and knocking out service lights. It is unable to perform Guided Fault Finding/test plans.

20 minutes on google shows you how to use the OBDII or CanBus interfaces to do pretty much anything you want.

You can use it to display or output anything it monitors. It might not perform guided fault finding, but I have been an Engineer for 20 years so I tend to have a few idea's of my own, and I generally manage to find a way to work out if I am right or wrong.

You need to get out of your head right now any idea that you will fix aircraft by plugging in a scanner and following on screen instructions, it does not work like that.

 

[Rigga]

"Aircraft engineers are phasing through a period of upskilling as opposed to deskilling." TW

I currently work near (but not on) some 30-year old airframes. 30 years ago these airframes were full of 10 year-old technology as they took that long to design and build.

Just like buying a computer today - they had already been superseded before they got to the shops.

35 years ago I was an Apprentice Printer in a small business making books, business cards, bags and brochures for local industries- new technology has seen the end of most small print shop jobs along with most Typists and Clerks, making them a rare entity worth keeping - if you can find one! (Pay Bands noted)

I started working on 25 year-old airframes when I joined up in 1975. New technology to me was a Buccaneer!

Developments everywhere require new skills - and all developments require maintenance - we all have to adapt to the new stuff or find work in museums.

In the not so distant future; I see CRP aircraft with FBL control looms laid into the fabric and construction of the airframe itself, and a form of electro-magnetic powered jet engine. This technology is already out there and being worked on, but even this will require maintenance and records (and probably HR too - god help us all!).

 

[3wheeledtechie]

Off Topic

(and probably HR too - god help us all!)

Funny you should say that. HR (or RH as it is here) has the reputation of being in the pocket of the bosses, in order to explain to them how to best exploit the human resource. No wonder union membership is so high here. They certainly aren't the people you turn to if you want to find out what your rights and entitlements are under your contract.

 

[Goatherdingsplitter]

"Aircraft engineers are phasing through a period of upskilling as opposed to deskilling." TW

I currently work near (but not on) some 30-year old airframes. 30 years ago these airframes were full of 10 year-old technology as they took that long to design and build.

Just like buying a computer today - they had already been superseded before they got to the shops.

35 years ago I was an Apprentice Printer in a small business making books, business cards, bags and brochures for local industries- new technology has seen the end of most small print shop jobs along with most Typists and Clerks, making them a rare entity worth keeping - if you can find one! (Pay Bands noted)

I started working on 25 year-old airframes when I joined up in 1975. New technology to me was a Buccaneer!

Developments everywhere require new skills - and all developments require maintenance - we all have to adapt to the new stuff or find work in museums.

In the not so distant future; I see CRP aircraft with FBL control looms laid into the fabric and construction of the airframe itself, and a form of electro-magnetic powered jet engine. This technology is already out there and being worked on, but even this will require maintenance and records (and probably HR too - god help us all!).

Got told that was in development in '85 whilst on a tour of Westlands during my Wessex airframe course. The most important computer in a technician's tool kit is still the same as in the old days - the one between the earsDT_Xtremez_28:

 

[Joe_90]

I assumed aircraft fault finding would be pretty simlar, do you the RAF use diagnostic computers???

Generally the RAF wont pay for stuff like that, it's difficult to persuade a Chief who's been in for 200 years that a computer can be used as a tool as much as a spanner.

 

[Rigga]

Whilst the idea of CRP aircraft was floated in the 80's, the only pressurised airframe built to date is Boeing's 787 and that has FBW controls - not FBL.

The GenEX engines are "merely" quiet and low emission engines for their size (I was involved with the UK Airworthiness Board for 787 for a short while, so I paid some attention!)

This airframe has some quite nifty ideas that engineers will have to get a grip of.

As far as I know there are no FBL applications in regular service at the moment.

 

[Goatherdingsplitter]

Generally the RAF wont pay for stuff like that, it's difficult to persuade a Chief who's been in for 200 years that a computer can be used as a tool as much as a spanner.

I know an ex-Chief just like that, he reluctantly took his Volvo automatic to a dealer to diagnose (on their expensive test equipment), why his recently fitted gearbox was playing up. Their diagnosis was unsurprisingly "you need a new gearbox mate".
Trusting them about as far as he could spit them, he had as I recall, the filters cleaned and the gearbox flushed and re-filled, suspecting it to be build debris and at about a tenth of the price of a replacement box.
Result - fixed and it stayed fixed. This is an example of why experienced "spanner wielders" prefer to use computers as an option but not to replace a bit of basic engineering common sense.DT_Xtremez_44:

 

[Joe_90]

You definately have to know how to use them and how to interprete the data they provide and most garages today just try and change the most expensive part. The same can be said of a lecky though, if they don't really know how to use a multimeter they can diagnose the big part as being U/S because they don't understand what the readings they take actually mean.
That's why I said they can be used as a tool as much as a spanner, not as the actual diagnoser of faults, at the end of the day computers are stupid.

 

[Odie]

it's difficult to persuade a Chief who's been in for 200 years that a computer can be used as a tool as much as a spanner.

That same Chief, with 200 years experience, may just be able to do the job as well by using his experience and knowledge. Just occasionally new technology is a backwards step - the newer NWS Test Set for the Tonka comes to mind, the fecker is just too damned fussy and snags a perfectly functional system for niff-naff and trivia. DT_Xtremez_35:

 

[185]

there is soft ware and there is hard wear and if hard were is involved you will allways need someone who knows how to use a spanner and move lumps of metal about. it guys havent a clue

 

[sumps]

Speeking as a Mechanical Engineer...(BEng, IEng...Blah Blah!)

Speeking as a Mechanical Engineer...(BEng, IEng...Blah Blah!)

I don’t think that it’s the technology that is the reason for the apparent De-skilling. I see it as the contract and the buzz lines of the new product driving the vision of those-who-hold-the-purse-strings toward their greater (in their minds) goal of a reduced defence budget.

E.g. The C-130J originally came with a strap line "higher, further, faster" This, in my mind, alludes to greater reach and capability through the advent of new technology. On the face of it looks as if the maintainers will have to reskill. But if it is sold by a company that is looking to cover its losses due to the new technology proving troublesome to come into service why not convince the IPT that "When we get this all sorted you wont need half as many people, trained to an even greater standard, to fix it, as the aircraft as the will look after themselves" - (just ask the Electrical desk about inception into service pain).

In essence the Mechanicals will need to increase the scope of their engineering knowledge i.e. Electro-Mechanical furtherment as opposed to dropping some systems that may be regarded as legacy or out of RAF (blue-suit) maintenance regimes but in that of the supporting contractor. By that I mean a comprehensive understanding of Electronic and Electrical systems on top of a Mechanical technology update with any new product brought on to the books. (Not 3-5 weeks at Cosford to acquaint ones-self with an adaptation of a system previously understood)

 

[SecretSquirrel]

That same Chief, with 200 years experience, may just be able to do the job as well by using his experience and knowledge. Just occasionally new technology is a backwards step - the newer NWS Test Set for the Tonka comes to mind, the fecker is just too damned fussy and snags a perfectly functional system for niff-naff and trivia. DT_Xtremez_35:

Just a quick one on the NWS test set. The old test set was ridiculously finicky and NFF has dramatically decreased with the new one. However, not being able to switch power off for hours on end and riggers not having a clue how to use it can be slightly annoying... DT_Xtremez_30:

Stop beating the **** out of the centering switches and shim it for ****'s sake!! DT_Xtremez_09:

 

[ChocMonster]

I don’t think that it’s the technology that is the reason for the apparent De-skilling. I see it as the contract and the buzz lines of the new product driving the vision of those-who-hold-the-purse-strings toward their greater (in their minds) goal of a reduced defence budget.

I believe most of the de-skilling is the commisioned master class beliving the hype from the equipment suppliers. The MTBF figures and the ease of operation on most new equipment is not as advertised. An example on delivery of a new J Herc, we had to change the Radar processors after about 14 hours, instead of the 2000 hours quoted.

All this technology will find the faults for you, does not really ring true either. The more a system is integrated and the more techology is involved the wider the scope of what can cause the fault and make it harder to find.

The training at Cosford is being reduced, which means the skills you get on the line are going down. They are probably still training equipments used in obsolete aircraft, rather than teaching on more modern integrated systems.

The wide spread curriculum at school means that kids are leaving school with tonnes of GCSEs but have no real depth of knowledge in core subjects. I witnessed this while teaching at Cosford and we had students that had never done trigonometry at school.

Well that my view, back to my desk in the real world. DT_Xtremez_30: