Silly Question !

[Thewingcommander]

I know that this is probably a very silly question, but here goes - what is the exact difference between an aircraft maintenance technician and an engineer ?

Where can I find more information on how to become a technician or an engineer ?

Thanks.
.................................................

[ 17 January 2002: Message edited by: Thewingcommander ]</p>

[Blacksheep]

Hmmm. Wing Commanders are notorious for asking silly questions and winding people up, but this one isn't too silly to be worthy of an answer.

'Engineer' is now widely recognised as a title reserved to professionally qualified engineers holding a degree in engineering, plus a significant amount of post-graduate experience and development. The men and women who maintain our aircraft are mostly non-graduates trained to a level of technical knowledge guaranteed by examination. In the case of the engineering profession this defines them as technicians.

Internationally, maintenance work carried out on aircraft must be certified as meeting accepted airworthiness standards. In Britain those technicians who may legally certify aircraft maintenance work hold an 'Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Licence' issued after examination by the CAA. Hence, they are referred to as Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineers - Licenced Engineers or LAEs for short. In the USA, aircraft maintenance technicians holding Airframe and Powerplant Mechanics Licences are generally referred to as A & P Mechanics but they are broadly similar to LAEs and may also be considered as technicians.

With the UK adoption of JARs, the old style of licence is being discontinued and replaced by 'JAR 66' A, B1, B2 and C technician's licences and henceforth those previously known as Licenced Engineers or LAEs will be referred to as Licenced Technicians.

The odd point here is that even professionally qualified engineers may not legally certify maintenance work carried out on an aircraft unless they hold a licence to do so. Thus it is now possible to be both an "Engineer" and a "Licenced Technician" at the same time. [In fact it is just a matter of time before we hear from one in this thread. Ghengis, where are you?] Meanwhile, in the USA it is possible to be both an "Engineer" and a "Mechanic" at the same time.

Assuming that as a Wing Commander you are British or at least Commonwealth based, you can find out more about becoming a technician or an engineer at the following websites:

<a href="http://www.justengineers.net/links-institutes.html" target="_blank">http://www.justengineers.net/links-institutes.html</a>


<a href="http://www.engc.org.uk" target="_blank">http://www.engc.org.uk</a>


and, since you are posting on PPRuNe and thus obviously interested in aviation, you can find out about aircraft technician's licencing at:


<a href="http://www.srg.caa.co.uk/pld/eld/eld_information.asp" target="_blank">http://www.srg.caa.co.uk/pld/eld/eld_information.asp</a>


Good luck in your future career, Wing Commander.

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[Genghis the Engineer]

Yes.

G

[spannersatcx]

Oh no not the technician Engineer thing again............ please don't bite....... <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[Thewingcommander]

Thanks a lot , Blacksheep, - very informative !, and thanks for the links.

Regards,

Thewingcommander

[SeldomFixit]

Quite simple, really. An Engineer carries his toolbox in a sliderule, whilst the technician has his armoury in a pen.
Oh, and one of them has perenially dirty fingernails.

[HOVIS]

I was once told that a CAA LWTR plus type authorisation was at least equivalent to a degree.
In that case does not a Licensed Technician automatically qualify as Engineer?

But what do I know? I'm a Mechanic! :) :)

[Genghis the Engineer]

No more than an engineering degree qualifies anybody to service an aircraft. Or a nursing degree makes a nurse a doctor. The last issue of Aerospace International said that some Universities are now offering JAR-66 maintenance degrees.

A law degree is equivalent to an Engineering degree, doesn't make me a lawyer. Nor does it make the Engineer, Technician, or Lawyer any less important than each other.

Well, maybe we can put the lawyer a couple of rungs further down than people who do something useful. Perhaps Doctors and Nurses are a better analogy.

Oh damn, here we go again.

G

[ 11 January 2002: Message edited by: Genghis the Engineer ]</p>

[Blacksheep]

Lets not degenerate into a futile argument again folks. Someone posted a reasonable question and, assuming that it was an honest question, I gave an honest answer; I hope that it helped the young 'wingcommander' on his way.

As to the relative merits of different qualifications, there is no answer. Not all engineers have clean fingernails and many, including my brother (who is a PhD in Civil Engineering) remain very hands-on. At the other end there are ancient technicians such as myself, who seldom leave the 'comfort' of their air-conditioned offices any more. Which is not to say that I didn't pay my dues along the way - fourteen years man and boy under the colours then three years permanent night shift rewiring B707 pylons and the like. We're all "aviationists" and we're all rowing in the same boat, lets not squabble about which seat we sit in.

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm with Blacksheep, lets stick to being rude about lawyers, accountants and politicians; it's far more fun.

G

[The Weasel]

So you want to hear about lawyers eh? My dear mother decided she was saving the family a lot of work by appointing a solicitor as her executor. When she died, the first thing he did was to empty her bank account. This stopped the direct debit for the house insurance of course. Some time later the insurance co caught up with him and he paid the ARREARS, but did not reinstate the insurance. A bit later the house was broken into whilst uninsured..that's when I began to find that the only reason for the legal profession, is to draw the really dumb idiots away from professions involving safety. That was 6 years ago and I'm still battling with the law society, who say that the solicitor is only accountable to the client (even if she is in no position to complain) and whilst acting as an executor, rather than a solicitor is not even accountable to the law society either. So that's it, they have set themselves up to protect the interests of the dishonest and/or incompetent solicitor, and sod the rest of us. Be as rude as you like gents, they deserve it.

[Blacksheep]

Mmmmm.... there are Black Sheep in every profession.

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[Bus429]

...and mad professors!

[Greg Baddeley]

six munfs ago i cuddnt evun spel injinear - and now i are one!!!!

[Pilot16]

" 'Engineer' is now widely recognised as a title reserved to professionally qualified engineers holding a degree in engineering, plus a significant amount of post-graduate experience and development."

Just how long can it take for one to gain a degree in Aircraft Engineering?

[STC]

With respect to aviation and aircraft, I usually just simply say that Engineers design airplanes and Technicians repair them.

Maintenance technicians have the authority to restore an aircraft to its certified configuration. They have no authority to repair or modify the aircraft in a manner that is not contained in the maintenance manual or on other approved documentation.

An Aeronautical engineer can take different roles. Some are committed to design, others to certification. (Some are both)

Engineers can design aircraft, repairs and modifications. Appropriately delegated engineers (or other such delegated persons) can approve said designs, repairs and modifications.

[Phil Lister]

With respect to aviation, I usually say that people by the handle of STC (airplay), are fools..

You're a wannabe, admit it.. You don't have the pinky ring but you try to be one... You try to elevate yourself above others with your prose but it doesn't work... All your lecturing does is disgust people...

Phil

[Blacksheep]

I beg to differ STC.

In our approved design organization there are two Approved Design Signatories who do not have an engineering degree but who do hold aircraft maintenance engineering licences. Thus, despite being technicians, these two individuals are also professional engineers. It is a matter of training, background and experience that counts when issuing a design approval.

Complicated isn't it?

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[STC]

Blacksheep,

I stated:

Appropriately delegated engineers (or other such delegated persons) can approve said designs, repairs and modifications.

"Or other delegated persons" means persons other than engineers that are delegated to approve designs. So yes, you don't HAVE to be an engineer to take on this particular role. But "approving" a design on behalf of the administrator is a bit different than approving a design on its technical merits.

Being a signatory (or delegate) doesn't make you a P. Eng.

Phil Lister

Please try to sober up before you post and "remove all doubt" of exactly how big a "fool" you really are. In other words, this is a very civil discussion, let's try to keep it civil.

[Blacksheep]

In your earlier post STC, you said that engineers design aeroplanes and technicians maintain them. Further into the post, you pointed out that engineers design not only aeroplanes but also modifications and repairs. I simply point out that we have people who both design and approve repairs and modifications that are beyond the maintenance or structural repair manuals. They do not need to refer to any other authority in order to do this, but may only design repairs classified as 'Minor'. They perform the classification themselves (although the classification documents are submitted to the local regulatory authority for perusal and filing). They are therefore approving their own designs on their technical merits, not on behalf of an administrator (me).

I submit that this makes them professional engineers by definition. The United Kingdom Engineering Council (UKEC) obviously agree as they are prepared to enter such people in the register of Incorporated Engineers. Those that do not hold an engineering degree must satisfy more stringent experience, training and background requirements than those for engineering graduates before being acceptable to the regulatory authorities as design signatories.

All I am saying is that in certain specific and controlled circumstances it is not necessary for an 'engineer' to be an engineering graduate. Technicians by training and experience may also function as 'engineers' after appropriate and recognised formation.

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ultimately it's somebody's capabilities that make them an Engineer, not a specific route to that point. Similarly, it's somebody's abilility to do a job that results in them being authorised as a signatory, not whether they fit any particular mould of qualifications, experience, etc.

It just happens that a lot of Engineers, and signatories, have Engineering degrees. Many others have completed long and tough apprenticeships or equivalent courses. More importantly, the vast majority of them have years of relevant experience in the job during which they've proved their worth.

There is of-course a third breed, those who build them in the first place. Wherever I've worked, they've been called "craftsmen" or "fitters" but I imagine there are a lot of other job titles around the world.

I understand that the people who built and maintained the Titanic were far better qualified than those who built Noah's arc.

G

[STC]

Someone who signs off a minor mod is an Engineer?

I guess my Mom is a doctor then. She's great at affixing bandages....

I'm not sure how it works in your particular country, but here in Canada, aircraft maintenance personnel are allowed to sign off minor modifications in accordance with "acceptable" data. Acceptable data (as defined by the CARS) is not approved data. So that whole argument of "tech equals engineer because he performs engineer functions" doesn't hold water here. I assume your airworthiness system is similarily administered?

[Blacksheep]

Depends on your definition of 'Minor', STC.

A five foot by four foot hole in a pressurised fuselage is pretty nasty, the repair is beyond SRM limits, yet it may be classified as minor. The repair design is a bit more complicated than affixing bandage, though and an 8110-3 is an 8110-3 at the end of the day...

**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[STC]

An 8110-3 is signed by a DER. Not an AMT. It is a statement of compliance, not a statement of conformity.

AMTs are responsible for conformity to approved data and typically sign 337 forms. DERs are responsible for compliance to airworthiness standards and sign 8110-3 forms. We have similar forms in Canada (Mod reporting form and AE-100)

By the way....there is no way in hell that a 4x5 foot hole in a pressure vessel that isn't covered in the SRM is a "minor" modification or repair. Not only that, but the tech doing a such a repair needs a special rating. In Canada the limit is for holes over 6 inches.

Am I missing something in your explaination Blacksheep?