Any Requirement for Maintenance Instructors to maintain currency

[SpeedyG]

Does anyone know if there is any regulation regarding the 'fitness' of a Maintenance Course Instructor to maintain their currency on the type of aircraft they are giving refresher courses on (as opposed to initial)?:rolleyes:

Reason for asking is we have one here who last had practical experiance on the type 35years ago - we question the logic of this being allowed under our regulators when the very class attendees are involved in the type on a day to day basis!

Who actually knows more here:rolleyes:

[spannersatcx]

I know of no regulation, which doesn't mean there isn't.

The instructors are teaching theory as long as they are up to date with that aspect then I do not see a problem with it, can't see how you can expect an instructor to maintain practical recency that's not their job, as long as they know what they are talking about and teach it correctly that's fine.

[Fargoo]

Many fine instructors pick up more tips, tricks and info from their students over the years than they would actually working the aircraft.

Maybe your students should listen with their ears instead of their mouths and give the guy a break. Unless of course he hasn't kept up with the type and is no good as an instructor.

[kingstonboy]

maybe if more students respected the tutor/instructor (esp at app level)then and just maybe they could learn a little. Readily accept that tuition is a two way street ! as i am sure anyone who knows "the actual actuator" will happily concur (bleep bleep)

[Rigga]

The state of your instructors technical knowledge depends on several things:

1. the regulatory set under which the course is run;
2. the type of course
3. the quality of the organisation/instructor running the course, and
4. the money paid for the course!

Many basic training instructors are happy to repeat the same thing year after year, but GOOD type rating course instructors do keep in touch with Base and Line maintenance changes - IF they can.

If the organisation/instructor is not part of an airline or maintenance organisation contact with new developments, specific modifications and other updates can be difficult and the course will start looking like old info eventually.

I have seen some courses run by independant (self-employed) instructors who get patronage due to their low cost - but these courses generally show the level of monetary effort too.

Either way, the instructor (or anyone for that matter) doesn't normally perform his job to the worst of his ability - it may be just what you've paid for.

[Capot]

Part 147.A.105

(f)The experience and qualifications of instructors, knowledge examiners and practical assessors shall be established in accordance with criteria published or in accordance with a procedure and to a standard agreed by the competent authority.

(g) The knowledge examiners and practical assessors shall be specified in the organisation exposition for the acceptance of such staff.

(h) Instructors and knowledge examiners shall undergo updating training at least every 24 months relevant to current technology, practical skills, human factors and the latest training techniques appropriate to the knowledge being trained or examined.

It would be a very irresponsible MTO that did not regard (h) as meaning that type instructors must be trained every 24 months in developments on the type(s) they teach, eg AD's, mandatory mods etc, as well as the rest of the stuff specified.

Problem is, there are many irresponsible schools out there, in the UK at least, and an ineffective and complaisant regulator.

[SpeedyG]

Cabot

Thank you - that was the direction I was looking for, the others merely assumed we were being critical rather than seeking true regulatory guidance

Krgds

[Fargoo]

Reason for asking is we have one here who last had practical experiance on the type 35years ago - we question the logic of this being allowed under our regulators when the very class attendees are involved in the type on a day to day basis!

Who actually knows more here :rolleyes:

Maybe it was this that made us assume you were being critical?

[Capot]

For further information so far as the UK is concerned see Standards Document 46 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_lts_Standards%20Doc%2046%20v1.pdf)