Hmm... It might well be worth looking at what the NAA's expect of
their own LAE's, AMT's or LAME's that work or qualify under regulations.
The FAA A&P has not really altered much in over 40 years. So much
technology including many materials & practices have evolved in that time.
Implementation of FAR 66 failed apparently due to the objection of US MRO's Workers Unions if I'm correct?
There is a relatively new NBAA initiative to enhance the training and qualification of all FAA AMTs. How much support they will gain from
the US MRO industry (or the FAA even) appears unknown.
http://www.nbaa.com/prodev/bootstrap/whitepaper.pdf
If it enhances the training, standards and prospects of the AMT,
I support it fully. But, it will need bigger FAA AMT staff inputs to succeed.
In my career so far, I've been in a good position to assess many FAA/EASA/CASA aircraft maintenance certifiers based on their true competences, maintenance standards, attention to the finer details and importantly, attitude. I won't go into how some of these amusing clowns percieve good team building and demonstrative leadership.
There have been equal numbers of FAR65 A&P AMTs and EASA Part66 LAEs whose standards have been far less than basics the NAA demands.
Many of these likely gained qualification merely on attendance or repeated use of Q&A 'Study Guides' , not effort or merit. It is far too evident when
working with such individuals to deny..
The FAA/SWA B737 AD business was compounded by a local (and
cozy) team of FAA inspectors that granted permission for AD extension...
Clearly unnacceptable, this has since been dealt with. I am also aware
of many more serious issues with the FAA, not least the laziness and
makeup of the FAA AFS-300 Mechanic Licensing Dept at Oklahoma.
Very little can be acheived communicating from the outside of a licensing Dept run largely by college graduates with limited comprehension of current AMT duties. Limited concept of international licensing initiatives & developments also a big factor in the unwillingness of the FAA to maintain
equivalence.
As for EASA/UKCAA? The 20+ British Airways Engineering line station FAA AMTs that were granted restricted EASA Part66 B1.1s by the UKCAA without additional examination on the basis of required EASA regulation conversion reports (THAT ACTUALLY DO NOT EXIST -UKCAA/EASA confirmed) continue to certify EASA registered aircraft to this day. As stated before, these EASA Part 66 Licences have
no official conversion report - what would the fallout be if those licences were withdrawn???
Keep up the pressure ALAE 1981.
I think the EASA Part 66 AML is here to stay until events (holes in ground)
prove otherwise. The 'B' licences I think will merge ultimately, which is academically far larger than the A&P syllabus. The 'B' AML holders will then operate as 'A&C' or 'Avionics' under that AML. Existing B1/B2 combined AML holders work to this today at my company, mostly operating in 'A&C' or 'Avionics' capacities. Very very few are comfortable with the entire scope of both present B1/B2 AML's but will happily take the money.. Thats of course to be expected!
Solid training & practical skillsets amongst all NAA's certifying staff will need to improve as aircraft technology evolves, simple. With thorough training, attested practical experience & a decent Oral/Practical examination (This should return for EASA Part 66, make no mistake)
comes good standards.
BAE 146
Avionic Tech
FAA AMT
P.S. MrFixer, I'm certain Turin was having a laugh, I had a chuckle
Linear Mode
