Originally Posted by grounded27
Guessing you have not been to one in the USA, I have been to one near or in Cambridge England and I have to say it was much different for the better than any of the hack shops here.
From what you say you're about as familiar with European MROs as I am Stateside ones. The problems you describe simply don't exist in Europe, and if as another guy suggested the FAA are doing their auditing jobs well, then they shouldn't be a lot different. The Feds we get in here are at least as fussy over standards, training and use of licensed personnel and the home grown inspectors.
Q: what is the ratio of LAME's to AME's in MRO's over there and does an AME have to do anything other than work on an aircraft to have that distinction?
A: There is a strict set of requirements for the training and experience of licensed guys within EASA, google "Part 66". It's also a requirement under EASA Part 145 to have a maximum specified number of unlicensed guys or connies to each licensed man.
Originally Posted by Safety Concerns
lets stop the pretence that aviation is only driven by safety. It aids nobody. Tell the bloody truth.
If you're in the industry you should know the bloody truth, though your UserID does suggest a certain mindset. Of course there are cost pressures, we all know that. Maybe there are people who let those override safety, but if so I've never found them, and I've worked in a few places over the years. The art is to provide acceptable levels of safety at the minimum cost. Any engineer worth his title knows that and should not be afraid to stand his ground. Which is not the same as refusing to accept any changes from the status quo or whingeing that all the competition are allegedly unsafe.