I have also sent an email to AM of Quality, Mr.Tan Koon Hin, to seek his stand on your issue. The email content goes like this:
"on an ETOPS certified aircraft, is it legal for one engineer to work on different components on both engines and then also asked to sign off on both engines trade column on the last page of the engine run process sheet? Also, for Avionics trades, is it OK for one engineer to sign off both the E anf I column in the last page of the engine run process sheet?"
I seek advice from season AFM: leak checks require separate engineers for both engines; engine ground run for defect confirmation allows one engineer to sign on both engine trade columns of the final sign-off sheet page.
On working on different components of both engines, it is allowed so long as the tasks are not similar.
Of course I know what is ETOPS, I am talking about Base practise, if you gonna agree with management, prepare to day1 eng1 fuel pump
day2 eng2 prsov
day3 eng2 IP8
day4 eng1 hyd pump
day5 eng2 bug
day6 eng1 l/h t/r
day7 eng2 r/h t/r
dayx engx xxxxxx
.
.
.
.
.
eng run that time, which eng to sign?
Their poor planning (manpower resource, aircraft check and bla bla bla) become our problem?
When there is an engine change, only the engine is changed and nothing else. Hence, this concept could have concluded an engine and its accessories are separate items. The grouping of these items under Powerplant chapter is to make us see how they are combine together to shape and improve the function of an engine assembly.
Thus, the way BM handles is that it looks at individual system being performed by a maintenance personnel: an engine mod done on one engine is different form a removal/installation actions done on reversers on another engine.
I have also sent an email to AM of Quality, Mr.Tan Koon Hin, to seek his stand on your issue. The email content goes like this:
"on an ETOPS certified aircraft, is it legal for one engineer to work on different components on both engines and then also asked to sign off on both engines trade column on the last page of the engine run process sheet? Also, for Avionics trades, is it OK for one engineer to sign off both the E anf I column in the last page of the engine run process sheet?"
I seek advice from season AFM: leak checks require separate engineers for both engines; engine ground run for defect confirmation allows one engineer to sign on both engine trade columns of the final sign-off sheet page.
On working on different components of both engines, it is allowed so long as the tasks are not similar.
Of course I know what is ETOPS, I am talking about Base practise, if you gonna agree with management, prepare to day1 eng1 fuel pump
day2 eng2 prsov
day3 eng2 IP8
day4 eng1 hyd pump
day5 eng2 bug
day6 eng1 l/h t/r
day7 eng2 r/h t/r
dayx engx xxxxxx
.
.
.
.
.
eng run that time, which eng to sign?
Their poor planning (manpower resource, aircraft check and bla bla bla) become our problem?
Anyway it not happened to me, and is diff sys.
When there is an engine change, only the engine is changed and nothing else. Hence, this concept could have concluded an engine and its accessories are separate items. The grouping of these items under Powerplant chapter is to make us see how they are combine together to shape and improve the function of an engine assembly.
Thus, the way BM handles is that it looks at individual system being performed by a maintenance personnel: an engine mod done on one engine is different form a removal/installation actions done on reversers on another engine.
Please refer to Boeing ETOPS requirements: http://boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_07/etops.html#basic
Boeing AMM stated clearly chapter 70 onwards under Powerplant.
Our company practise is powerplant only do engine core doesn't meant that EC quality is better than Boeing to classified ATA 78 under airframe.