If they can be used on aircraft control surfaces, they have a level of accuracy that far exceeds my skill level.
Sorry to have to say this, but folks got "Aircraft" confused in general with "High Tech". Especially in general civil aviation. The average Lycoming or Continental engine that putts around the skies has clearances you can measure with a wooden ruler, and an overhaul rate that would make a Fifties Chevy dealership slobber at the recurring income!
The CF-18 WAS pretty high tech...for a design that was essentially locked down in 1977 or 1978... Jess sayin'! LOL!
When I worked on them, the joke was that we would have to go to school for three years at least, so we could work on modern tractors or combines at John Deere, mostly to 'unlearn' bunch of bad habits! THAT would be High Technology!
In all seriousness, the capability to do good work, or bad, rests entirely on the user, not the tool. Practice, endeavor to do as well as you can, and endeavor to recognize how and when things did not work so well, as well as especially WHY they do not, along with some effort to not make the same mistakes repeatedly. and any work you choose to undertake, will be in good hands!
In our case, the original Maintenance manual, written to serve the US Navy's short term of service technicians, offered us only three sizes to choose from, before the flight control surface was scrapped or sent to a contractor for a major overhaul and structural repair. The Supply system did not actually hold the three specified sizes of bushings that the supposed 'kit' needed, so we made them as required. Mostly Beryllium-Copper alloy.
The Canadian Forces Techs soon figured out that using a dogs breakfast of various sized fixed and adjustable reamers, we could open up the hole that was worn, 'just' enough to make it round again, then make a custom bushing and install it, sometimes getting as many as a dozen repairs done before the hole was wallowed out to the maximum allowable size.
We played holy hob with a few OTHER supposed "Hard and Fast" rules as laid down in the aforementioned Tech manuals too. Like, we did a LOT of shrink fit bushings, using liquid Nitrogen.
The manual was VERY specific, in that it stated without any sense of doubt, that the amount of interference fit required, was ALWAYS 1.5 thou! The problem with that was, they specified the same interference fit on a five inch diameter bushing on the landing gear, as a sub-quarter inch bushing in the flight controls... People with a LOT too much faith in the Manuals, ruined a lot of parts! I was taught, and taught on, that a person had best to understand just how cold liquid Nitrogen was, and that they needed to understand how to find the coefficient of expansion (amount of size change, per degree temperature change), if they wanted to have even a slight modicum of success in shrinking bearings and getting them installed without actually doing more damage to the parts you were tasked to make serviceable for use again. For the smaller bushings, we could get away with FAR less than 1.5 thou of interference, and in reality, could not have achieved such, given the change in size, of a say, .250" OD bushing, even with LN2.
Essentially on the larger diameter bushings, you could reliably shrink the bushing enough so as to slide it into it's home without undue stress, but if you tried to use 1.5 thou on a sub-inch sized bushing, it would wedge itself in the hole, and rapidly lose all the cold you put into it with the LN2, and either ruin the part when it was removed, or worse, when the partially installed bushing was forced through the hole that it was way to large for...
Seriously. Stop doubting your capabilities. Practice. Pay attention. Try to understand why and how things worked or didn't, don't make the same mistakes too many times in a row!
Thinking your way through the process is always good. But do not allow the doubts to stand in the way of the actual attempts, or you will never 'do' anything! Failures are learning opportunities, always, as well as being opportunities to put problem solving to the test as well. "How do I fix this, now I KNOW it's Fooked?"