Feedback

No Shotpeening on Crack(s)

I just finished reading your article on shot peening and had to take issue with the idea that anyone should ever apply shot peening to a part that already has cracks in it, no matter how shallow. In almost 40 years of powerplant engineering I have used shot peening with excellent results, but I have always ensured that the part was crack free by MPI or FPI first. I don't mean we should get to the level of fracture mechanics to look for cracks, but we should always be sure that no cracks large enough to be detected by MPI or FPI exist. The induced compressive surface stress, although extremely beneficial, is just too shallow to be applied to a cracked part.

Peter G. Hardy
Product Manager - Aftermarket
Company DER - Engines

GA Deserves Awards, Too

I just read the Intelligence section of your magazine and I would like to offer the following suggestion. I know this will alienate some in our field, but we need to recognize individuals in different aspects of the industry. Could there be separate categories, such as airline personnel, corporate personnel, and general aviation personnel for the Time Out for Safety Awards?

I suggest this because of the differences in the environment that all work in. Very few individuals work in all fields and impact the industry as a whole. I know general aviation managers and technicians who would be deserving of an award such as this, but because they work in GA, they are often overlooked when these type of awards are announced. I have worked in general and corporate aviation my entire 30-plus-year career. I have worked in a small three-man shop and for a large corporate operation and I feel that these individuals are being missed when awards are considered.

Most of the time this type of award seems to be given to a corporate or airline individual. General aviation seems to be short-changed because of their limited exposure in the industry. As an industry we should recognize all of these outstanding individuals who contribute to safety.

Bill Reinert
NetJets Quality Systems Auditor

A Training Win-Win

I read with interest your editorial in the October issue, and the subsequent comments by industry professionals in the December issue. I understand that by "... A & P schools are mandated and driven by the FAA..." you meant that the bare minimum requirements, laid down by the FAA, with respect to training syllabus, must be met by the schools. I believe that the FAA, in part, is doing the right thing by mandating and regulating minimum requirements. Anything beyond the purview of the set minimum training requirements must be left as a matter of pure academic interest. These would be driven by organization needs, employer preferences, student aptitude, etc. Creating tracks for students upon completion of certain training, as you suggested, is a good solution. The nature of the aviation maintenance industry and the diversity of aviation needs, makes flexibility a possibility. So, the student undergoes requisite training as per part 147 requirements, including any additional training that a particular school may deem necessary or important to know. Once that's done, companies may be invited to conduct interviews and tests to identify their organization's needs in students vis�- vis the student's aptitude/interests. Once the hiring company has identified their students, their own experts have a discussion with the trainers at the school and derive a module of study and practical, onthe- job training for their future employees. A somewhat similar approach is seen on campus here in India, in the last year of any regular batch. This approach saves time for a greenhorn to come to speed in an organization. A win-win!

Prasanjit Das
AME Trainee
Mumbai, India