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
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.
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.
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%
< 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.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capitaine
I would like to express my gratitude to you for a thought provoking, well considered and balanced survey also following it up by sharing the results.
Having completed your survey myself, I have been keen to see the results. I found the majority respondent answers to be carbon copies of my own which does not bode well for the future of our industry.
I really feel these issues need to be looked at carefully and urgently as the current direction is possibly now irreversible.
Regards
I would like to express my gratitude to you for a thought provoking, well considered and balanced survey also following it up by sharing the results.
Having completed your survey myself, I have been keen to see the results. I found the majority respondent answers to be carbon copies of my own which does not bode well for the future of our industry.
I really feel these issues need to be looked at carefully and urgently as the current direction is possibly now irreversible.
Regards
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: B1.1 Land
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A really useful survey, it agrees with what myself and colleagues have been saying lately, I would like the CAA to read this and possibly carry out there own survey with 10 year plus Licensed engineers, maybe reintroduce elements of the old BCAR system, and try and bring back some pride within the profession.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,754 Likes
on
1,172 Posts
Thank you, as said, it concours with most of our thoughts
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA will not or can not do anything, they are dictated to be EASA and can not make their own policy.
The only thing they do do is make it as hard as possible for us and make us jump through as many hoops as they can put in the way and then move the goal posts at the last minute, oh and charge extortionate prices!
The only thing they do do is make it as hard as possible for us and make us jump through as many hoops as they can put in the way and then move the goal posts at the last minute, oh and charge extortionate prices!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,754 Likes
on
1,172 Posts
Now now, it's well known the CAA take 20 page directives from EASA, read them, muse over them, then produce a 570 page directive for us to digest.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Macclesfield
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To quinkytube, gsy boy and Nutloose
Thank you very much for your positive comments. The results confirmed my own opinions and observations of the last few years. I am of the opinion myself that it is now a matter of urgency for the UK to look at reverting the decline in maintenance engineering training (and to be honest all engineering in general, as it is unlikely that aviation is the only industry suffering from a decline in engineering caliber and competence).
I know this survey only received 120 respondents, but in view of the percentages, it is most probable that the same survey on 1000 or 5000 UK AMEs would produce the same results. It would certainly be an interesting exercise.
I am quite determined to persist in my line of work in attempting to bring about positive changes in that field. One just has to keep going and keep one's eyes on the mountain regardless of the hurdles to be surmounted.
I must add that, to my delight, I have already been approached by an important aviation authority seeking more info about the survey responses. So one can only hope that perhaps a seed has been planted and that it may start to grow into something more significant and positive, or at least the start of further genuine research/investigation with the goal of solving the problem for the benefit of the UK industry and posterity!
In the meantime, I would whole-heartedly encourage those veterans and competent AMEs to do what they possibly can in helping those young and newly trained AMEs become competent if you find yourself working with them. I am sure that there are a certain percentage of very keen and aviation-mad lads and ladettes who may have been short-changed in their "Part 66 training" at "Part 147 training centres" and who could really benefit from genuine mentoring.
In the same way, it would be very worthwhile to demand high standards from one's fellow engineers regardless of reasons one shouldn't. Quality work is always good for morale!
As for myself, had it not been for two real decent veterans who gave me a break and a chance to have a go, with good mentoring, I would not be on this forum today.
I know this survey only received 120 respondents, but in view of the percentages, it is most probable that the same survey on 1000 or 5000 UK AMEs would produce the same results. It would certainly be an interesting exercise.
I am quite determined to persist in my line of work in attempting to bring about positive changes in that field. One just has to keep going and keep one's eyes on the mountain regardless of the hurdles to be surmounted.
I must add that, to my delight, I have already been approached by an important aviation authority seeking more info about the survey responses. So one can only hope that perhaps a seed has been planted and that it may start to grow into something more significant and positive, or at least the start of further genuine research/investigation with the goal of solving the problem for the benefit of the UK industry and posterity!
In the meantime, I would whole-heartedly encourage those veterans and competent AMEs to do what they possibly can in helping those young and newly trained AMEs become competent if you find yourself working with them. I am sure that there are a certain percentage of very keen and aviation-mad lads and ladettes who may have been short-changed in their "Part 66 training" at "Part 147 training centres" and who could really benefit from genuine mentoring.
In the same way, it would be very worthwhile to demand high standards from one's fellow engineers regardless of reasons one shouldn't. Quality work is always good for morale!
As for myself, had it not been for two real decent veterans who gave me a break and a chance to have a go, with good mentoring, I would not be on this forum today.
Thanks for taking the time to carry out this survey. Of course, to any of us who originally obtained Section L licenses, the results are certainly not a surprise. Unfortunately, my experience is that most of today's youngsters are let down by the current EASA licensing system.
For those of you who think the CAA may come to the rescue take a read of the following.......Some of you may already be aware of its contents but either way it makes depressing reading and of course remember that much worse has gone on at other EASA authorities!
http://www.alae.org/_assets/File/Doc...20UK%20CAA.pdf
For those of you who think the CAA may come to the rescue take a read of the following.......Some of you may already be aware of its contents but either way it makes depressing reading and of course remember that much worse has gone on at other EASA authorities!
http://www.alae.org/_assets/File/Doc...20UK%20CAA.pdf
Last edited by boeing_eng; 4th Feb 2014 at 09:52.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to see the results, much to be expected really, but,
to confirm lowering standards, in addition to the B1 who didn't know what a stringer was I have come across a B1 Licensed contractor who didn't know how to use a torque wrench during a wheel change. He was also due to embark on a type course, with a promise of licensed work once completed,
At the maintenance facility of one of the UK LCC's.
Good luck with the rest of your career, and I to would be interested to know of any further developments.
to confirm lowering standards, in addition to the B1 who didn't know what a stringer was I have come across a B1 Licensed contractor who didn't know how to use a torque wrench during a wheel change. He was also due to embark on a type course, with a promise of licensed work once completed,
At the maintenance facility of one of the UK LCC's.
Good luck with the rest of your career, and I to would be interested to know of any further developments.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,754 Likes
on
1,172 Posts
A stringer? Isn't that what you hang a plumb off?
One of my EASA pet hates is the messing about with licence groups, the CAA one based on AUW's was so simple, the current one which changes everytime a new model comes out is not only a bureaucratic nightmare, but pointless you now can have licences with aircraft that have moved into other groups or are not listed, and they will only be corrected at the next licence change. I often wonder the legal ramifications if you certify an aircraft listed on your valid licence, but has been moved to another group.... I thought it would settle down, but then they brought out the new light licence. Simply doing it on weight got around all this crap. The guys I felt sorry for were those that paid to get a EASA licence to cover their DC3 etc, for it to be removed off it a year later and back onto a section L.
One of my EASA pet hates is the messing about with licence groups, the CAA one based on AUW's was so simple, the current one which changes everytime a new model comes out is not only a bureaucratic nightmare, but pointless you now can have licences with aircraft that have moved into other groups or are not listed, and they will only be corrected at the next licence change. I often wonder the legal ramifications if you certify an aircraft listed on your valid licence, but has been moved to another group.... I thought it would settle down, but then they brought out the new light licence. Simply doing it on weight got around all this crap. The guys I felt sorry for were those that paid to get a EASA licence to cover their DC3 etc, for it to be removed off it a year later and back onto a section L.
ME, I would like a B3 licence
CAA, You cant have one as you have a restricted licence.
ME, The restriction only applies to aircraft over 5700kg, B3 is aircraft under 2000kg
CAA, Silence
ME, Still waiting, but in reality I can't be arsed to follow it up.
CAA, You cant have one as you have a restricted licence.
ME, The restriction only applies to aircraft over 5700kg, B3 is aircraft under 2000kg
CAA, Silence
ME, Still waiting, but in reality I can't be arsed to follow it up.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The party.
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further
CF,
Also to those fulltime students out there that watch these threads...
Has anyone ever crunched the numbers/percentages of an MRO's status, both line and dock as they would be different....
% of staff that are B1 restricted.
% of staff that are full B1.
% of staff that are B2.
% of staff that are unlicenced.
% of staff that are A1 or A2.
The interesting part would be comparitively to 20 years ago, but may be impossible to guage.
Also to those fulltime students out there that watch these threads...
Has anyone ever crunched the numbers/percentages of an MRO's status, both line and dock as they would be different....
% of staff that are B1 restricted.
% of staff that are full B1.
% of staff that are B2.
% of staff that are unlicenced.
% of staff that are A1 or A2.
The interesting part would be comparitively to 20 years ago, but may be impossible to guage.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: norfolk
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iam both a technical instructor and former BCAR Sect L license holder since the 1980's after completeing military service. Having spent a number of years delivering PT147 type course it is so true that the quality is declining. I have witnessed instructors complaining that course have been chopped too much only to be told that the company has to do it to remain competitive. Extra pressure is brought to the instructor and we work in a 'results are what counts' enviroment. The students are being robbed by the bean counters and not supported by the NAA's. This side of the industry is in a shocking mess caused by financial considerations only. I am now very selective which assignments I accept for obvious reasons.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Macclesfield
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your input nautical norman. It is always interesting and useful to hear of instructors' direct experience in this Part-147 business since they are under great pressure too and are there observing what is happening first hand.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: France
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
State of training and exam standards
Hi shame I missed your survey otherwise I would have submitted for sure. Having been through the mill of the "old" exam process BCAR section L with its combination of multi choice questions (with negative marking) essay questions followed (if successful) by an oral exam it took me approximately 4yrs to gain a multi X license. Lets wind the clock forward to EASA and the current standards. I recently decided to complete the engine and airframe modules in pursuit of a B1 license. As you have stated, questions freely available on the internet made studying a joke, total preparation time for first time pass in all modules probably about six weeks.
In my own estimation, would I now hold and A and C license to the standards applied when I sat my avionics licenses? Absolutely not. Anyone claiming standards have not dropped really does not know what they are talking about.
In my own estimation, would I now hold and A and C license to the standards applied when I sat my avionics licenses? Absolutely not. Anyone claiming standards have not dropped really does not know what they are talking about.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Birmingham
Age: 58
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi, I too enjoyed reading the results of your survey and was also saddened to read that newly qualified engineers are not leaving training facilities with the right skills.
I have over 25 years of hands on engineering skills, gained in the commercial vehicle coach/body building sector, as well as experience gained as a volunteer in the heritage aviation sector, for over 15 years now
I am currently employed in the aviation industry,in a managerial,but non engineering capacity, but would jump at the chance to get more hands on in the aircraft maintenance sector, if only I could get a job!
Sadly it seems that my engineering skills and knowledge,combined with my current aviation experience, aren't what employers are looking for.
It seems that they would rather have someone with the papers, but not necessarily with the skills,knowledge and ability to get the job done.
I have over 25 years of hands on engineering skills, gained in the commercial vehicle coach/body building sector, as well as experience gained as a volunteer in the heritage aviation sector, for over 15 years now
I am currently employed in the aviation industry,in a managerial,but non engineering capacity, but would jump at the chance to get more hands on in the aircraft maintenance sector, if only I could get a job!
Sadly it seems that my engineering skills and knowledge,combined with my current aviation experience, aren't what employers are looking for.
It seems that they would rather have someone with the papers, but not necessarily with the skills,knowledge and ability to get the job done.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Macclesfield
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Alan I
Yes, I concur with you. It seems that certificates is what is required these days and not true hand skills and real aviation knowledge, but according to the the survey results, it seems that it's only going to be a matter of time before the current lowered standards cause problems.
From my own experience so far, I can see clearly that those veterans who have gone through a thorough apprenticeship in their younger days, with plenty of practical and then studying for exams are of a superior cut than those trained in a class room with little hand skills.
But then again, it is not really the fault of the student, since many of them fork out a large sum to train up and are really being short-changed.
At any rate, I shall continue in my mission to advocate for change in AME training back to the real, workable way, before an entire body of knowledge is lost. A bit like shipbuilding.
Yes, I concur with you. It seems that certificates is what is required these days and not true hand skills and real aviation knowledge, but according to the the survey results, it seems that it's only going to be a matter of time before the current lowered standards cause problems.
From my own experience so far, I can see clearly that those veterans who have gone through a thorough apprenticeship in their younger days, with plenty of practical and then studying for exams are of a superior cut than those trained in a class room with little hand skills.
But then again, it is not really the fault of the student, since many of them fork out a large sum to train up and are really being short-changed.
At any rate, I shall continue in my mission to advocate for change in AME training back to the real, workable way, before an entire body of knowledge is lost. A bit like shipbuilding.