Kind of strange but I was scrolling through some of the vintage posts in the "off topic" threads and was pleased to learn that there are many of us who come from or currently work in the aviation industry.

I work at the Boeing plant in Everett Washington. I'm a 31606 In Tank Mechanic for the new 777X. I work in Wing Laydown attaching various structures that aren't done in the Horizontal Build Line, which is where the major components of the wing come together. I currently work with the Nacelles team attaching the fittings that the engines hang from.

I am also a Cessna pilot. On March 22 2014 we suffered a major landslide (Oso Landslide) just 14 miles away from where I was currently living. In 2013 my wife and I were considering purchasing a home in the Steelhead Drive neighborhood, which was ultimately wiped off the map in the slide.

On March 26th 2014 I walked into Wild Blue Aviation at Arlington Municipal Airport (KAWO), met Jerry Painter the owner, and I started flight training the following week. I grew up flight simming and have always had a love for aviation so pretty much had the basics nailed before I took my very first flight. You don't really pay for "flight lessons" though...…. you pay for "landing lessons". I decided life was too short, sold my 1977 GMC Eleganza Motor Home, and my YFZ450 quad.... and flying I went.

I would be interested to hear from anyone else that grew up around, or has a background in Aviation.

I do have a few YouTube videos of a few of my Solo flights, under my name Jared Lazaron.

Thanks, Jared

 

I worked for Goodyear Aerospace, Loral and Lockheed Martin and retired from all of them. Goodyear Aerospace had a few change of owners from the late 1980s but continued to produce the same products until it was split - where the defense division was acquired by Lockheed and the other half eventually became Meggitt Industries.

I entertained getting a private pilot's license and took the first step but getting a license was just too expensive for someone with a young family. Besides that, if you don't fly enough you're just dangerous when you do. I did get enough experience to understand what you mean about paying for "landing lessons". Under ideal circumstances anyone can take off, ascend, turn and descend. Landing is a whole different skill set with the pucker factor included.

I bought all the parts and assembled my first PC (a 10 mhz AT) around 1985. Microsoft marketed their flight sim series shortly before then where I learned to fly a Cherokee Archer II from their complete simulator on an Atari. My cousin had a license and rented that very plane one Sunday morning. I went up with him, told him I was familiar with everything in the plane including the VOR navigation. He told me to take control; I declined. A simulator just doesn't quite train you to overcome that "fear" factor. As for other simulators; the king of them all in my humble opinion was Falcon 4.0 from Microprose. It was so complete in its essence that a software engineer for the actual simulator remarked on just how close to the real deal it was..My dad flew in a B17G as a radio gunner during WWII, flying 51 mission over Europe including 7 missions bombing the Ploesti oil fields. When discharged he got a single engine pilot's license. His stories and enthusiasm left a lasting impression on me. Hence, I was just now energized to do all this typing.

 

I worked as a M.E.R. 1963-1969 for McDonnell aircraft installing electrical components in the phantom fighter f-4 series. I'm retired and enjoy working/ maintaining my Crossfire
Dennis

 

Right on. Unfortunately I never took my FAA checkride, so I never got my PPL. I did log 13 hours as a solo student though..... that's enough to consider yourself a pilot right. I will go back up again one day in pursuit of my PPL, I still chat with my instructor every now and again, he said about 10 hours to knock the rust off and I'd be ready to solo again. I do have the opportunity to pick up a couple of project ultralights for dirt cheap, so may be in the air sooner than I had originally planned. Ones a Maverick and I think the other is a Beaver. Supposed to check them out this weekend.

Jared

 

You be vary careful with those ultralights !
Heck, we were just getting to know you
Don't be tempted to fly when there is any wind over 5 MPH.

I wasn't in the airline industry, but I did pick up and deliver planes for a dealer on weekends for 3 years or so, along with my regular job.

 

Post removed.

 

I worked for McDonnell Douglas Canada in the late sixties to early seventies and I went to St Louis and saw the Phantom assembly line from the Mezzanine, very impressive and as I recall some where in RAF markings.
We were there to discuss the shipping fixtures to carry the DC 10 wings to Long Beach. Initially by air in the Super Guppy but eventually they went in modified rail cars. The air shipping fixtures were used as storage only and never did get off the ground.

 

I'm guessing this post was removed because of sensitive information.

It was a cool read when I got the email though...… most could only dream of working on projects like that!!

Jared

 

We live in an area where you see all types of private aircraft including ultralights. My manager would be my instructor as he's the one offering me the aircraft.

I have a grass strip nearby and this would be an affordable way for me to get back in the air. I'll start flying a 172 again one day, won't be able to afford to fly on a regular basis for a few more years though.

Jared

 

What did you do when you were employed by McD?

Jared

 

I was in Tool Design, mainly shipping and in plant handling. Some DC-10s could carry a spare engine inboard of one of its engines to ferry it from point A to point B. We always wondered what the passengers thought when they saw it. I did the master for that sometime in 1971 or 1972.
Prior to Douglas as it was when I joined, I worked at DeHavilland Aircraft Canada.
Both these companies have gone. The whole plant of McDonnell, later Boeing has been razed to the ground.
DeHavilland is now Bombardier.

 

Fly on the wall? LOL.. I believe we all have 'Shhhhhhh' moments but as I taught our son many years ago (he works on nuke warheads) much of the classifications are way past declassification actions. As with the outdated laws from past CENTURIES, it takes a whole lot of 'effort' to sift through documents (declassify actions), and who has the manpower or funding to actually do these things? It would have to be a 'part-time' labor of love, to go through this stuff. BTW, with all the 'second guessing' going on now (and the reflections of reparations), it is no wonder why all this OLD stuff is better left alone so as to not distract from the current level of mistrust/second guessing already occupying every ones minds (for whatever self-serving reasoning).


.

 

That's awesome, I remember seeing archive footage of a DC-10 with an extra engine inboard...… on the left wing if I remember correctly. Beautiful airplane, cargo doors tarnished their reputation and when it was all fixed revised ETOPS requirements kind of ruined it all. I've always liked the DC-10 over the L10-11, seeing the entire engine at the base of the vertical stabilizer was a better looking setup than the funneled intake on the Tri-Star.

Flew a lot of commercial flights when I was a kid, 12 times back and forth over the pond. I remember one DC-10 we were on specifically, and on our last flight back from Germany we were on a Lufthansa 747-400 from Frankfurt into Logan. I think we were 767 from Logan to Sea-Tac. There's another widebody who's days are numbered as far as passenger transport in concerned..... the 67.

I love hearing about this stuff. Aviation, or just flight in general has always enamored me.

Jared

 

Deleted! Just reread the post, it wasn't interior, it was inboard (on a wing mount). That would be something to see!. Anyone have a picture of that (three engines on a DC-10's wings)? I would not have guess or comprehend the aircraft ferrying an extra inboard wing mounted engine WITH passengers. No, not in all the years of being either a passenger at many civ/mil airfields, or cargo courier in various aircraft.


.

 

The spare engine was ferried on the exterior of the aircraft on a designated pod. Inboard of the left engine if I remember the photos correctly.

I will see if I can dig up a picture or two.

Jared

 

Here's a picture of a Canadian Airlines DC-10 with the engine ferry pod.....

It's just the turbine inside of the pod, no shroud.

Jared

 

WOW you guys are FAST! See my 'corrected' post! I would not have thought that was an engine (being the suspicious type and the military bases I either was on or passed through). They actually transported passengers on those ferry missions? Yeah, I would have loved to see it, and be in one of those flights. I understand the front cover, the drag without it would have been awesome (and yes, I know there was substantial drag even with it on). I am saving that picture, just to look at it on occasion! OK, now for the final statement, I am pretty sure that engine would never have been usable in its mount.


.

 

I couldn't speak from experience but it is logical to think that the nacelles for the transport pod aren't designed to withstand the thrust from the extra engine and were designed purely for the intent of transportation.

I'm sure 180 will chime in on this eventually.

It kind of makes sense in a way to transport them like that though. It's a revenue generating flight and therefore operating costs would be substantially lower than a typical cargo flight. Kill 2 birds with one stone so to speak.

Jared

 

..." logical to think that the nacelles for the transport pod aren't designed to withstand the thrust from the extra engine "... Absolutely, in no way would I think they would have included fuel/electrical/sensor capabilities on that engine. The hard mount would have been strong enough (or stronger, given the availability of the mounts already made for a DC-10 if the same basic mount), to carry the load through all flight variables. Did they only configure that system for the left wing? Did they have the capability to mount one inboard on both wings? Just for conjecture, just imagine a rate of climb if there were one additional engine on both wings, that were functional? It would go through a helluva fuel-flow rate BUT climb like the dickens! Now I have no idea what the T/W ratio is for one, or a total weight of one configured with (5, 2 each wing and the tail), but I see DC-10's climb steep enough with only the three. Imagine 2 more fully capable wing mounted engines? Would the T/W ratio be closer to 1-1 or higher? He he he, that's the twisted mind of mine...

OF COURSE, the entire airframe isn't 'designed for this type of load/stress', it's just a thought... Silly as it sounds!


.

 

I worked for McDonnell Douglas, St. Louis, in the 60s as a repair mechanic on the F4 Phantoms in final assembly. I then moved to Torrance California and worked in fabrication for the DC-10. After that I moved back to St. Louis and became a tool design engineer working in the space program as well as the MD11 and other programs. In those days you had to go where the work went. I finally moved back to California and decided to try something else because I was tired of moving. I went into retail and was able to work myself up to managing a major retail store. After 17 years they decided to close so here I go again. I took a mechanics position in Long Beach working on spare parts. Very humbling after being an upper level manager but honestly I enjoyed not having all of that pressure. As luck would have it I applied for and was able to get an entry level management position in the transportation and logistics sector. I transferred to the C-17 Transport plane Division as it was just starting the (T1) test aircraft. I was able to stay with that program for 26 years and finally retired with about 13 production aircraft to go. I wound up managing their entire Transportation organization, in Long Beach. including trucking, rail, all loading, unloading equipment and air transport including the Guppy and Antenov. McDonnell Douglas and Boeing were very good to me. Lots of opportunity and education if you worked hard. I do miss it sometimes, it gets in your blood like automobiles.