Top Results from AME Training Survey January 2014
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Macclesfield
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi AVOdriver
Sorry for the late reply. Thank you for your input. Once again, it just confirms what so many people are aware of, but somehow other "powers that be" have profit and money as a priority rather than airworthiness and a safe fleet.
Most importantly though is the very real potential threat of losing an entire field of specialised engineering skills and knowledge to the next generation when AMEs of your generation come to retire.
I regularly hear not-so-well-informed individuals exulting the virtues of new generation aircraft needing very little maintenance because they are so well made and so not need for real, highly trained and competent AMEs (just LRU changes, type comments)??!!! I just don't know where this idea comes from. Yes, newer aircraft are certainly well made, but maintenance for such machines will ALWAYS be required. Matter in this universe always degrades one way or the other, there's no shortcut to maintenance of man-made machines.
Then again, I think this viewpoint is sadly spreading to many other areas of human skills hence our nation having all be lost its manufacturing, combined with a real shortage of engineers.
There's plenty of work to be done to bring back the nation to a golden age of engineering, manufacture and production!! And it certainly starts with apprenticeship and training the new generation to really be able to work and be competent in their chosen fields. Not this robotic learning by heart and regurgitation in an exam!
Sorry for the late reply. Thank you for your input. Once again, it just confirms what so many people are aware of, but somehow other "powers that be" have profit and money as a priority rather than airworthiness and a safe fleet.
Most importantly though is the very real potential threat of losing an entire field of specialised engineering skills and knowledge to the next generation when AMEs of your generation come to retire.
I regularly hear not-so-well-informed individuals exulting the virtues of new generation aircraft needing very little maintenance because they are so well made and so not need for real, highly trained and competent AMEs (just LRU changes, type comments)??!!! I just don't know where this idea comes from. Yes, newer aircraft are certainly well made, but maintenance for such machines will ALWAYS be required. Matter in this universe always degrades one way or the other, there's no shortcut to maintenance of man-made machines.
Then again, I think this viewpoint is sadly spreading to many other areas of human skills hence our nation having all be lost its manufacturing, combined with a real shortage of engineers.
There's plenty of work to be done to bring back the nation to a golden age of engineering, manufacture and production!! And it certainly starts with apprenticeship and training the new generation to really be able to work and be competent in their chosen fields. Not this robotic learning by heart and regurgitation in an exam!
While on the subject of training costs, I see that Airbus helicopters are now charging 1000 euros a day per person for type training. A B1 course is about 5 weeks for the larger aircraft (AS365/EC155 and up) not including the engine. About 25,000 EURO.
An equivalent Bell course for a 212/412 would be 8500 EURO, spot the rip off.
If you add in transport, hotels, food, wages and overtime cover this becomes a huge disincentive for operators to train additional staff. Yet more pressure being placed on a few.
It appears to me that EASA rule changes have given the manufacturers a licence to print money. Remember a lot of operators do not benefit from the so called free training as they buy their aircraft second hand.
An equivalent Bell course for a 212/412 would be 8500 EURO, spot the rip off.
If you add in transport, hotels, food, wages and overtime cover this becomes a huge disincentive for operators to train additional staff. Yet more pressure being placed on a few.
It appears to me that EASA rule changes have given the manufacturers a licence to print money. Remember a lot of operators do not benefit from the so called free training as they buy their aircraft second hand.
Last edited by ericferret; 24th Apr 2014 at 09:39.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Uk
Age: 59
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Capitaine ,
Thanks for the survey , I did partake and it's interesting to see the results . I have been in the industry for 33 years and have seem a lot of changes . The modern aircraft are a lot easier to maintain in about 2/3rds of cases but the require more knowledge to rectify more complex defects . The modern LAE are generally let down by the training environment that teaches modules and exam questions rather than the actual subject matter , leading to huge holes in their knowledge . Then the license structure gives them a license with woefully insufficient experience !
I have met LAE's who have never done a wiring repair ( B2 ) , or another who had never even witnessed an engine change / ground run ( B1 ) . Extremely worrying !
None of that is the fault of the engineer, nor should they be blamed for it !
Ok , I'll put my soap box away now .......
Thanks for the survey , I did partake and it's interesting to see the results . I have been in the industry for 33 years and have seem a lot of changes . The modern aircraft are a lot easier to maintain in about 2/3rds of cases but the require more knowledge to rectify more complex defects . The modern LAE are generally let down by the training environment that teaches modules and exam questions rather than the actual subject matter , leading to huge holes in their knowledge . Then the license structure gives them a license with woefully insufficient experience !
I have met LAE's who have never done a wiring repair ( B2 ) , or another who had never even witnessed an engine change / ground run ( B1 ) . Extremely worrying !
None of that is the fault of the engineer, nor should they be blamed for it !
Ok , I'll put my soap box away now .......
Everybody who has been within the training system in the last few years cant help but be aware that there are serious problems.
With many of the training organisations the exams have turned in to little more than a short term memory test. There is little breadth or depth to the training.
One training school in the UK recently had to refund money due to the poor quality of the training provided. On another occasion a section of a conversion course had to be taught by two of the students as the instructor provided had not a clue about the subject.
Worth remembering that all these courses are "approved" therefore the real responsibility for the standard rests with the CAA and EASA from a UK point of view.
With many of the training organisations the exams have turned in to little more than a short term memory test. There is little breadth or depth to the training.
One training school in the UK recently had to refund money due to the poor quality of the training provided. On another occasion a section of a conversion course had to be taught by two of the students as the instructor provided had not a clue about the subject.
Worth remembering that all these courses are "approved" therefore the real responsibility for the standard rests with the CAA and EASA from a UK point of view.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Macclesfield
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ericferret and Tinytim 2.
I couldn't agree more with both of you. This is exactly why I am working hard in this area and doing research and dealing with persons in various organisations to hopefully contribute to bringing about changes in the modern training of aircraft engineers.
I am well aware that it is not the fault of the new engineer that he has paid and been trained incorrectly. However, I have only recently graduated (uni, not Part-66 but including some Part-66 modules) and out of my own pride, I have refused to look at any answer banks etc. I have wanted to learn the data and the subject properly, not to remember by heart.
There is unfortunately a real attitude, particularly in the West, that passing exams is the way forward rather than learn a subject for real, like decades ago, when engineers and other artisans, craftsmen, tradesmen and professionals were really trained well to do a good job, not to pass exams!! This attitude must change and students should want to study for understanding and not exams. Conversely, educational institutions should teach only for understanding and application, and not for exams only!
This is pandemic and is not confined to aircraft maintenance engineering only. My eldest son completed his GCSEs last year, and he couldn't stand it by the end as his class spent the entire year just going over past papers to learn to pass the exams. They didn't learn anything, just rote.
So this goes much deeper and starts in high-school and primary school.
Just my views. Real pride in one's competence nowadays with young students seems to have gone. (not with everyone obviously).
I couldn't agree more with both of you. This is exactly why I am working hard in this area and doing research and dealing with persons in various organisations to hopefully contribute to bringing about changes in the modern training of aircraft engineers.
I am well aware that it is not the fault of the new engineer that he has paid and been trained incorrectly. However, I have only recently graduated (uni, not Part-66 but including some Part-66 modules) and out of my own pride, I have refused to look at any answer banks etc. I have wanted to learn the data and the subject properly, not to remember by heart.
There is unfortunately a real attitude, particularly in the West, that passing exams is the way forward rather than learn a subject for real, like decades ago, when engineers and other artisans, craftsmen, tradesmen and professionals were really trained well to do a good job, not to pass exams!! This attitude must change and students should want to study for understanding and not exams. Conversely, educational institutions should teach only for understanding and application, and not for exams only!
This is pandemic and is not confined to aircraft maintenance engineering only. My eldest son completed his GCSEs last year, and he couldn't stand it by the end as his class spent the entire year just going over past papers to learn to pass the exams. They didn't learn anything, just rote.
So this goes much deeper and starts in high-school and primary school.
Just my views. Real pride in one's competence nowadays with young students seems to have gone. (not with everyone obviously).
