A&P question

[lordofthewings]

Can someone please answer the following.
After gaining your A&P licence can you:

1 Certify for any N registered aircraft
2 Do you need any training on type before certifying
3 Do you have to have some experience on type before certifying
4 Can you certify for only your own work

Help would be appreciated

[Flightmech]

All the info you require can be found in Subpart D here

FAR Part 65: Certification: Airmen other than flight crewmembers -- FAA FARS, 14 CFR (http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_65.html)

[lordofthewings]

Thanks for the link.
Too me it looks like once you have an A&P licence you can certify for any type , even without having type specific training or any previous type experience..So a mechanic that has worked on say Caravans and twotters his entire life could take a job at United and certify for work on a 747-400.
What a **** system, and somewhat puts mechanics in a dangerous position, particularly being unaware of safety critical systems, that you are made aware of on type specific training..:confused:

[SNS3Guppy]

A **** system?

Perhaps a better reading comprehension will enable you to form a different opinion in time.

You may also wish to consider reading 14 CFR Part 43.

§ 65.81 General privileges and limitations.

(a) A certificated mechanic may perform or supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance or alteration of an aircraft or appliance, or a part thereof, for which he is rated (but excluding major repairs to, and major alterations of, propellers, and any repair to, or alteration of, instruments), and may perform additional duties in accordance with §§65.85, 65.87, and 65.95. However, he may not supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration of, or approve and return to service, any aircraft or appliance, or part thereof, for which he is rated unless he has satisfactorily performed the work concerned at an earlier date. If he has not so performed that work at an earlier date, he may show his ability to do it by performing it to the satisfaction of the Administrator or under the direct supervision of a certificated and appropriately rated mechanic, or a certificated repairman, who has had previous experience in the specific operation concerned.

(b) A certificated mechanic may not exercise the privileges of his certificate and rating unless he understands the current instructions of the manufacturer, and the maintenance manuals, for the specific operation concerned.


Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3a11fe8c6fea1d29fe52f057994f21c1&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.4.4.1.7&idno=14)

§ 65.83 Recent experience requirements.

A certificated mechanic may not exercise the privileges of his certificate and rating unless, within the preceding 24 months—

(a) The Administrator has found that he is able to do that work; or

(b) He has, for at least 6 months—

(1) Served as a mechanic under his certificate and rating;

(2) Technically supervised other mechanics;

(3) Supervised, in an executive capacity, the maintenance or alteration of aircraft; or

(4) Been engaged in any combination of paragraph (b) (1), (2), or (3) of this section.


Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3a11fe8c6fea1d29fe52f057994f21c1&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.4.4.1.8&idno=14)

§ 43.13 Performance rules (general).

(a) Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in §43.16. He shall use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted industry practices. If special equipment or test apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, he must use that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent acceptable to the Administrator.

(b) Each person maintaining or altering, or performing preventive maintenance, shall do that work in such a manner and use materials of such a quality, that the condition of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance worked on will be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition (with regard to aerodynamic function, structural strength, resistance to vibration and deterioration, and other qualities affecting airworthiness).

(c) Special provisions for holders of air carrier operating certificates and operating certificates issued under the provisions of Part 121 or 135 and Part 129 operators holding operations specifications. Unless otherwise notified by the administrator, the methods, techniques, and practices contained in the maintenance manual or the maintenance part of the manual of the holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate under Part 121 or 135 and Part 129 operators holding operations specifications (that is required by its operating specifications to provide a continuous airworthiness maintenance and inspection program) constitute acceptable means of compliance with this section.


Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3a11fe8c6fea1d29fe52f057994f21c1&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.21.0.363.10&idno=14)

A type rating is not necessary, nor should it be.

[Jet II]

A type rating is not necessary, nor should it be.

You are joking surely? :eek:

[SNS3Guppy]

Surely I am not.

A type rating for mechanics is not necessary. Many jurisdictions do require mechanics to obtain ratings for specific aircraft on which they work. Happily, the US has not resorted to this foolishness thus far.

[lordofthewings]

Thanks for the cut and paste job, had already read all of that but thought there was surely something i was missing.
If i was a mechanic in the states i would be pushing for type training, not only makes you a better mechanic, makes you more efficient and definately gives you a level of knowledge about an aircraft that should give you confidence in working it.
Sorry you think the rest of the world is foolish, unfortunately the foolish licence is more valued and harder to attain.

[HOVIS]

A type rating for mechanics is not necessary. Many jurisdictions do require mechanics to obtain ratings for specific aircraft on which they work. Happily, the US has not resorted to this foolishness thus far.

Interesting.

I have an A&P License, but I was not allowed to certify US registered airplanes until I could prove I had attended and passed a type rating course.
One of my colleagues had to go to the states to attend the airline's type course.

Your interpretation of the FAA rules is correct but in practice the airlines still require type ratings (in my experience). :ok:

[Jet II]

Surely I am not.

A type rating for mechanics is not necessary.

sorry but I really have to disagree with that - the idea of an untrained mechanic being let loose on todays modern aircraft is pure madness.

If you are working on something like a 777 or A340, then IMHO without training you should not be doing any task without direct supervision of someone who has been trained properly.

[Flightmech]

I stand corrected but i don't know of any 121 carriers that don't provided type training for their A&P's.

[the rim]

how can you think that by getting your a&p's you can sign for anything.......gaining your a&p's is like getting all your basics from there you get type training then you can certify.......

[jmig29]

(...gaining your a&p's is like getting all your basics from there you get type training then you can certify.......)

Looks like the same system in Europe's EASA: get all the basics on a 2400 (minimum) hours instruction course, then get the type rating, then get the "hands-on" experience (minimum 2 years), and only then certify....

[SNS3Guppy]

sorry but I really have to disagree with that - the idea of an untrained mechanic being let loose on todays modern aircraft is pure madness.


No one has said anything about an untrained person. A mechanic is a trained person. The regulation stipulates that one cannot perform any maintenance function unless one has done it before under supervision, and been trained in the task, and additionally requires that the work be done in accordance with all approved data and industry standard.

At nearly all organizations in the US, specific training is available on any given type of aircraft...but no type ratings are issued, and none are available to be placed on the FAA mechanic certificate. The rating is unnecessary.

Not holding a paper rating doesn't mean one hasn't been trained. Operators, airlines, certificate holders, agencies...all insist upon and use mechanics trained on their aircraft.

We simply don't need a type rating on the certificate to crow about.

[lordofthewings]

Guppy,

Mate, me thinks that is what we were all getting at, yes you are not type rated, but having done a type specific course would make you more attractive as an A&P mechanic when it comes to find another job.
So if someone has shown you how to a job once, you are able to certify for this task the next time you do it. Is it logged that you have been shown this task before, or is it up to you as an A&P to say.
What i am getting at is that i know operators that certify for N registered aircraft(not in the States) that will certify for a task on an aircraft that they have never touched let alone could identify the type it is.
This too me seems very wrong.

[TURIN]

Not holding a paper rating doesn't mean one hasn't been trained. Operators, airlines, certificate holders, agencies...all insist upon and use mechanics trained on their aircraft.

Mr Guppy, How does an A and P Mechanic prove that he/she has had the required training?

An EASA type rating is written proof that an individual has received the approved type training and on job experience (or at least that is what is supposed to happen, in practice I know there are other issues there but that is for another debate).

I don't doubt that good A and P Mechanics are trained but surely there is some sort of proof, that he/she can carry around to wave under the nose of an employer when moving from job to job. I can't imagine the quality department of for example US Airways allowing someone to certify their aircraft without documented evidence of training, experience etc. Which is what a type rating is. No crowing involved it's just very practicle.

[Siguarda al fine]

I am amazed at the arrogance of the holier than thou "Real License" holders. The US has a system that works and works well, and amazingly they do a lot of flying too. The Mechanics that call themselves "Engineers" (What a laugh) and hail from that mud bank in the north sea should get their heads out of their asses and see the real world.

[TURIN]

Uncalled for and inappropriate when you consider the tone of this thread.

Mods, I would be abliged if you would remove the above post and deal with the poster accordingly.

[smudgethecat]

His geographic knowledge aint up to much either.

[Flightmech]

You find alot of that on here. EASA licence holders looking down on their FAA colleagues. Although i have both it never fails to amaze me how the A&P guys are considered. Just because you have an EASA licence doesn't make you a rocket scientist:=

[smudgethecat]

I have done both EASA and FAA approved type courses FAA course (a300) was nothing more than a gen fam type thing with a open book exam at the end(whats all that about?) bit of a joke really it also included the avionics chapters all in about 3 weeks to cover what under the uk system would have taken about eleven weeks.

[SNS3Guppy]

Mr Guppy, How does an A and P Mechanic prove that he/she has had the required training?


No need to prove anything. If one goes to work for Bill's Peanut Sales and works on his Falcon 50, then the company sends one to Flight Safety International, or to a factory school, to obtain the requisite training. The company knows what training has been given.

If one elects to leave and work elsewhere, one can certainly place on one's resume the training information...it's not listed on the mechanic certificate. A good employer will verify the mechanic's information when he performs a background check. The employer that doesn't check references has a tendency to deserve what he or she gets.

When one completes a training course, say for example, the Honeywell TPE-331 initial, one receives a certificate of graduation. One can carry copies of these certificates to a job interview as proof, if one desires. More commonly, one will cite this information on a resume, and then provide the documentation if requested.

One doesn't need a factory training course on a Learjet, however, to be able to repair a brake assembly or install a seat. The FAA recognizes this fact. A mechanic can do this work if one is qualified to do so and has performed the work before, or one can do it under the supervision of another mechanic who is qualified...no factory course, no type rating required.

Commonalities among many airplanes mean that one can do a function on many types of aircraft without having a requirement for a type rating on that aircraft.

[TURIN]

Mr Guppy, thankyou for a polite and reasoned explanation.

The FAA system of verifying ones experience and training does seem a bit long winded to be honest.

A single piece of paper with a type rating on it would seem simpler (to me anyway).

I also think we may be talking at cross purposes too.

From my (admitedly limited) dealings with US companies and the FAA, the A & P Mech is more hands on and is given instructions from Inspectors, (DQC?) from a remote Maint control centre. whereas the B1 tends to get more bogged down in inspection, fault isolation and supervisory work and, at present, is authorised to, for example, raise a MEL deferral without consultation with MOC,MCC etc.

I did find it odd when first encountering US organisations that judgement calls that I was used to making were taken out my hands and made thousands of miles away by someone sat behind a desk on the end of a phone.
Got used to it now though as I get paid the same but someone else makes the decision. :ok:

There's good and bad in all systems, the A&P system is different to EASA/CAA etc thats all, no better or worse, just different. :ok:

[simonchowder]

Bottom line is theres a world of difference betwixt the FAA system and the UK system, the UK demands a far higher standard both in the requirements to obtain a licence and the standard of type training required to obtain a type rating on that licence, whether or not the UK system is over the top and demands more than is actually really required is a different matter, however maybe these higher standards have actually helped the UK licence holder as without doubt the status and pay of the licensed engineer in the uk generally speaking is a lot higher than the A and P mechanic enjoys in the states, and no i dont hold any engineer licences so no axe to grind ,however i do deal on a daily basis with both FAA and EASA mechs /engineers

[the rim]

like i have said i have my a&p's as well as my casa[aussie] lic on several large aircraft...the difference in course time is between these two is big even now that the major players here in aus have cut back course time due to cost...but have to agree with some on here that once you are licensed on a few aircraft you dont need to drive every wiring diagram or fuel control unit ....i know most are electronic now just proving my point before someone steps in and as far as easa well who needs human factor and all the other bulls#*t we are mechanic's or engineer's the other stuff is the warm fuzzy feeling crap that the world want us to have....

[SNS3Guppy]

My decisions aren't made by those thousands of miles away. I make decisions in the field and then act on them. If there's a decision which must be made by a management position (such as an expense which must be authorized by a Director of Maintenance, for example), then that decision must be deferred.

I've filled the various positions, from line mechanic to inspector to Director of Maintenance, and appreciate the needs at each level. I'm not at all against bringing others into any decision, and I frequently do. A simple "what do you think about" bounced off the next guy often leads to insights I might not have considered, or perhaps even a solution that others have tried and found true.

I'm all for being self-sufficient, and while one can and certainly should be capable of operating that way, the wise mechanic/engineer will use all the resources available...which often includes other mechanics, inspectors, supervisors, and even company reps from the manufacturer or repair stations, in order to make an informed decision and a good repair.