Top Results from AME Training Survey January 2014
Thanks to everyone who helped with my AME Training Survey between 11- 25 January 2014. Here are the top results. I hope to be able to pass on these results to people who may have the authority to look further into the training situation and work on improvements. Cheers! 
Disclaimer: This survey was conducted on-line from 11 to 25 January 2014. It was carried out in good faith for the purpose of research. The survey results are anonymous and the respondents were informed that anonymity would not be violated. The following results represent the top results from the 120 respondents who took the survey. A copy of all survey responses, including date and time of said responses, is kept by the author. You are required to ask permission from the author should you wish to use the data in this summary report and to reference the source accordingly.
SURVEY RESULTS
Q1 – Please state whether you are a civil aviation AME or a military AME.
81 % are Civil AMEs.
12.5 % are AMEs with experience of both civil and military aircraft maintenance.
6.5 % are Military AMEs.
Q2 – What type of licence do you hold (e.g. Part 66 B1, BCAR Section L)?
77% hold an EASA Part 66 licence. Of that 77%, a further 13% stated specifically that they also have or have held a BCAR Section L licence.
23% have non-EASA licences (e.g FAA, CASA) or military authority/approval or no licence (mechanics).
Q3 – How long have your worked as an AME (licensed or unlicensed)?
The 120 respondents had a combined 3338 years of experience, averaging 28 years per person. The years of individual experience ranged from 3 years to 50 years.
Experience (Years)/Percentage
< 10 8 %
10 – 20 16 %
21 – 30 31 %
31 – 40 40 %
41 – 50 5%
Q4 – In the past 20 years, what changes in civil or military AME training have you personally observed. State whether you consider these changes to have created a positive effect or a negative effect.
76% observed changes with negative effects.
15% observed some or no changes, but did not state whether negative or positive.
9% observed changes with positive effects.
Of the 76% who have observed changes with negative effects,
58% consider that the training standards have declined through Part 147 colleges/training institutions which only teach would-be engineers to pass exams with little or no hand skills, rote learning of EASA Part 66 module exam answers (available on-line) in order to pass exams but not necessarily understand the basics, lack of real apprenticeships and even falsification of training achievements in some observed cases. This results in Part 147 churning out graduates who have only data, but no experience.
39% consider that the reduction of proper experience on aircraft type and the reduction and dilution of basic hand skills such as riveting, sheet metal work, handling and use of tools and measuring appliances are having a negative impact. Those respondents have stated that they have observed a non-existence of such hand skills in newer engineers. This applies to military and civil maintenance.
30% have observed a lowering of maintenance standards in both civil and military aviation as a result of declining training standards.
26% consider that changes in licensing to EASA Part 66 and the removal of oral examinations by the CAA has opened the door to a dilution and lowering of standards, with some respondents believing that UK AME standards have suffered as a result of the introduction of Part 66.
7% consider that the lowering training standards are creating engineers who are unable to problem solve and think for themselves as a result of lack of knowledge and experience.
6% consider that technology based training and on-line courses, rather than proper class room courses which verify students’ understanding, are contributing to lowered standards.
Of the 9% who observed changes with positive effects
50% consider that technology based training, aircraft visits, coloured notes, combined B1 and B2 courses are positive changes.
20% consider the training to have improved.
13% consider the changes in licensing to EASA Part 66 to be an improvement.
Q5 – If you have experience of both civil and military aircraft maintenance, what do you consider are the key differences between the two?
43% consider that commercial pressure in terms of time and cost is a key difference. The commercial pressure of civil maintenance forces engineers to think for themselves and become better fault diagnosticians and use what spares they have to get the aircraft off the ground. Whereas in the military, there is no commercial pressure, there usually are plenty of spares and engineers tend to replace next higher assembly irrespective of cost. However, this in turn leads to engineers who cannot think for themselves and think fast enough on their feet, and who are more regimented by a rank structure.
29% consider military training to be more in-depth and specialised, with discrete trades and good basics, whereas civil maintenance is more geared towards general aviation but with better type training.
29% consider that military maintenance standards have slipped including the Military Aviation Authority not managing to phase in MIL Part 145 as successfully as it should.
7% consider that military and civilian maintenance standards are the same.
7% consider that civil aviation maintenance has too many sets of rules and regulations whereas the military tends to have one set of rules, regulations and certification standards.
Q6 – Do you consider military AME training to be more thorough than civil AME training?
38% consider that military AME training is more thorough than civil AME training.
29% consider that civil AME training is more thorough than military AME training, with some considering that civil AMEs were more able to think on their feet in an environment not regimented by command/rank.
27% felt they could not precisely comment since the dilution and dumbing down of both military and civil AME training over the past two decades made it difficult to judge if military training was currently better than civil AME training or vice-versa based on their own experiences.
4.5% consider military and civil AME training to be the same.
Q7 – EASA Part 66 modules exams use a method of multiple choice answers. Do you consider this method to be an effective way of gauging the student engineer’s understanding of the data?
55% consider MCQs (multiple choice questions) to be an ineffective way of gauging the student engineer’s understanding of the data.
24% consider that MCQs can be an effective method only when and if combined with other methods such as essays, oral examinations and practical examinations as well as a continual change of questions so that student do not learn the answers rote off “data banks” or “on-line”.
19% consider MCQs to be an effective way of gauging the student engineer’s understanding of the data.
It is worth noting that 24% of respondents commented on the effectiveness of the one-to-one oral examination that the CAA used to carry out in the past as part of the licensing system, and that this oral examination should be brought back into use.
Q8 – Do you consider the standards of today’s AME training to be higher than the training standards of a decade ago?
76% consider that the standards of today’s AME training are NOT higher than those of a decade ago. On the contrary, they are lowering.
14% did not comment or considered that the standards were similar or in line with technology advances.
7.5% considered that the standards of today’s AME training are higher than those of a decade ago.
Q9 – Based on your own experience and observations, describe what you consider would be the best way to train up highly competent and effective aircraft maintenance engineers.
75% consider that the training of aircraft maintenance engineers should be made up, first and foremost, of extensive hands-on experience, OTJ training including thorough time-served apprenticeships (3-4 years), workshop skills (sheet metal work etc.) and good mentoring. This practical experience should be complemented with class-room training or college day-release with practical and theory exams (written/oral) but only after the student engineer has gained enough hands-on experience so that the theory fits in with the practical.
48% of respondents specifically stated that traditional, time-served, thorough and well managed 3-4 years apprenticeships (with theory/licence exams at the end) are the best way to train up highly competent AMEs.
17% would like to see the UK licensing system reverting to BCAR Section L standards including the re-introduction of oral exams with a CAA surveyor and the CAA being the final authority on the granting approval, not the air operator.
Q10 – Do you have any other comments you would like to communicate?
41% expressed their concerns at the state of current AME training, including type rating no longer requiring actual experience on the aircraft, the need to revert back to oral exams, the need to have Part 147 training organisations more thoroughly regulated to ensure an improvement in training results and the general need to revert the declining standards in AME training (one respondent gave an example of a recently licensed B1 engineer not knowing what a stringer was).
18% expressed their concerns with respect to air operators’ commercial pressure resulting in negative cost-cutting measures which in turn is lowering standards, losing valuable experience, putting additional admin burden on AMEs and failing to properly support AMEs. Some respondents feel that they are not respected as AMEs and are taking a back seat when in fact, an aircraft would not safely fly without the work of competent AMEs.
8% expressed their view that AMEs’ pay should improve as their responsibility is on par with that of pilots. They feel AMEs should not be relegated to second class citizens.
Last edited by capitaine flam; 4th Feb 2014 at 19:39.