Double Standard?
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 07. 2024
- The FAA doesn't make it easy to earn an A&P mechanic certificate. It requires 30 months full-time or 4,800 hours part-time experience swinging wrenches on aircraft before you're even eligible to take the exams. But once a person earns his A&P, there is no requirement to get recurrent training...ever! And there are no mechanic "type ratings" -- any A&P is legal to swing wrenches on anything from a J-3 Cub to a Boeing 747 to a Blackhawk helicopter. In this webinar, Mike Busch asks why the FAA requires pilots to get flight reviews every two years and instrument proficiency checks every six months and type ratings for large airplanes and turbojets, yet grants mechanics a lifetime license to swing wrenches on anything that flies without requiring any sort of periodic review or recurrent training?
Savvy Aviation offers Professional Maintenance Services to owners of General Aviation aircraft, such as: Savvy Mx (Professional Maintenance Management), Savvy QA (Expert Consulting), Savvy Prebuy, SavvyAnalysis (Engine Data Analysis) and Breakdown Assistance. Savvy also publishes a monthly newsletter with lots of interesting information for the general aviation enthusiast; subscribe to it at www.savvyaviation.com/home/ge.... For more information, visit us at savvyaviation.com. This webinar was hosted by the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA). - Auta a dopravní prostředky
Hi, Mike, I am an A&P/IA with many years experience, and I truly appreciate your webinars. I agree completely with your understanding of the problems with over-maintaining, and have enjoyed your books, as well. However, I think the root problem you are attempting to address is different than you describe: the actual problem is one of money-- a robust aircraft maintenance environment would improve this situation drastically, but most of us 1) don't have the income; and 2) therefore don't have the time to invest in new training. I don't think most pilots and aircraft owners have a clue about how "hand-to-mouth" most A&P's live; nor do they care.
The analysis of the difference between the pilot and mechanic's licenses given here is not accurate-the regulatory systems in place for each are different and can't really be compared. I am an A&P and IA, and have been working on aircraft since 1981. I have done quite a variety of things in that time, from being a KC-135A crew chief, to 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, and DC-10 overhaul, to experimental aircraft development, to J-3 oil changes.
All of the training used to achieve my license was to prepare me to enter the aviation "universe". When a pilot gets his private pilot's license, it is not restricted to only the exact type of aircraft that he was licensed in, but to a variety of aircraft within a category, which constitutes his "universe"--similar to the A&P, who is licensed to work on aircraft, but this does not authorize them to work on aircraft outside the environment of the "general aviation universe"...and this begins to show why the two licenses are different animals.
The aircraft mechanic's limitations, re-qualifications, etc., are based on THE TYPE & USE OF THE AIRCRAFT. General aviation has the least requirements; anything beyond GA has a much greater level of requirements. This is controlled in the regulations via the requirements for Repair Stations, for example, (a third "universe") which go far beyond the basic A&P license, and provide for limitations of the aircraft type and the type of work that can be performed on it. The same extends to Part 121 and 135 operations, etc., (more "universes!") which restrict the maintenance that can be performed and prescribes the training that is needed.
I worked for one of the major airlines for a decade, in 747 overhaul. the A&P only gets you eligible for an interview. Once hired, I spent substantial hours in training, qualification, and re-qualification.
When I left the airline, I went to work at a repair station, which was being formed at the time. I was able to help in the writing of the repair station manual, and became very familiar with the regulatory requirements. I started as a mechanic, and finished as the director of maintenance, having filled the roles of inspector, chief inspector, and parts manager along the way. I can tell you that the requirements for repair stations satisfy many of the "gripes" given in the presentation. In addition, we had an experimental component within the business, and I was able to be a part of the certification process for a new powerplant, and it's installation. That had its own universe of regulations.
I then worked as an inspector for a commercial aircraft systems provider, and have seen the industry from that perspective, as well.
Currently, I am the owner and operator of an aircraft shop/FBO. I am the only employee; I do the A&P mechanic work, and the inspections etc. as an IA. And here's the real crux of the problem: I cannot afford to hire anyone, because aircraft owners are unwilling to pay what it really costs to do the job of a mechanic and IA. I can barely feed my family! My goal is to be very thorough, but if I were to be required to do any of the things being mentioned here in addition, my costs would skyrocket,my ability to be thorough would be compromised, and I would be out of business. I don't have time to do hours of retraining and requalification--I already have a second job to meet expenses, along with commanding a CAP squadron and volunteering for church.
When you add to this the constant threat of litigation, you are basically asking me to do everything for nothing, at my own cost, and at my own risk..because pilots and aircraft owners deserve it.
I agree. But some of us pilots are "cheap skates" and want to do our own work, because we aren't rich either. The root problem is overregulation causing aviation to be unreasonably expensive. This results in fewer pilots, further driving up costs. This results in pilots not being able to afford as much. This results in them not being able to afford their maintenance. The root cause is Overregulation.
I work in commercial aviation as a mechanic. Prior to that I worked at a primarily GA airport. Mike said all he needed to when he stated he never wanted to be an A&P. To many pilots seek their A&P to try and save money by working on their own aircraft. Do you study medicine so you can save on healthcare? Do you start a butcher shop to save money on meat? The answer is no. But many pilots seem to think mechanics are stupid and have no appreciable skill for which they should pay. Maintenance is expensive for a reason. There is a tremendous amount of liability behind it. I cannot just start cranking out 100 hour inspections on my weekend. Why? Because in order to not get my pants sued off if I make a mistake, I need to pay for insurance. If sign off a bolt as being torqued to spec, I better make sure that torque wrench is calibrated per FAA standards. Point being, insurance, tooling, manuals , the hangar etc all represent cost of doing business. You’re also paying for expertise of subject manner when you select a qualified mechanic. It’s no different than people who work on their own cars when they have no business doing so. They get in over their head and want a mechanic to bail them out for free. There is this mentality toward maintenance in any industry that we’re the devil. We’re “out to rip everyone off” which isn’t true. People think they can do our jobs better than we can and cheaper. Sure you can read a manual and change your own oil. But do you know what to look for when doing an inspection? Are you aware of common failures that can be caught early be an experience eye? Im not saying there aren’t bad mechanics out there. There are bad people in every industry. But the generalization that it’s the Wild West out here in aviation maintenance couldn’t be further from the truth. In commercial aviation we receive gen fam classes on all ETOPS aircraft. We also receive gen fams on non-etops aircraft, although it’s not required. My company operates 14 fleet types and I’ve worked all of them extensively. Avionic systems (navigation, altimeters, flight data computers, etc) require a separate qualification which consists of gen fam class (40-120 hours) and a 240 hour avionics training course. That system and may autopilot related system cannot be returned to service by just some guy who got his A&P last week. I have multiple gen fams, avionics training, and a college degree. We aren’t all stupid grease monkeys. A pilot is responsible for the flight from point A to point B. If he makes a mistake in that time frame, he is held accountable. If a mechanic makes a sheet metal repair and makes a mistake, it may not become apparent for years! Guess what? He is still held accountable when it fails. As an aircraft owner, you are not simply paying for a guy to do an inspection. You are paying an experience technician who has invested time and money in to their craft. You can have cheap, fast, or quality. Pick two. If your goal is to save money by doing your own maintenance, you’re in it for the wrong reason. If your goal is to better understand your aircraft then by all means get your A&P, but spend some time working alongside someone who knows what they’re doing. It just might save your life.
Well said
Most aircraft manufacturers do NOT hire A&P mechanics, they hire anyone cheaply and give them some training to do specific jobs. So much for "standards". This is "WWII mentality", "Rosie the Riveter" because most of the men were at war. Check out the videos about how poorly the current Boeing aircraft are built, some of those interview would NOT fly on the aircraft that they build.
It doesn't take specialized 2 years training if you are only going to be doing one task and only one task. Like riveting all day long.
Interesting, but it seems more like a solution in search of a problem.
I am a big fan of Mike but this presentation and proposal needs work and Mike needs to do a bit more research, especially before making bold industry-changing proposals. First, the American Bonanza Society DOES have mechanic training. It has been in existence for many years and focuses on maintenance and troubleshooting of Bonanzas and Barons. ABS also, until recently, had a program for service centers to become a Bonanza Center of Excellence. Second, the equivalent of ASE program (industry-led generic training program for automotive techs) will not work here because EACH make and model of an aircraft has own intricacies. A Bonanza maintenance is MUCH different than Cirrus for example. Hence you need a model-specific training to make sense which should be led by the OEM or type club and that recurring training would incorporate latest maintenance issues facing each make (e.g. the turnbuckle inspection is currently the hot potato for Bonanzas). Even in the automotive world, the real beneficial recurring training for a tech is MAKE-SPECIFIC. For instance, BMW has a specific program for BMW technicians, Toyota for Toyota techs, etc. In the independent mechanic world you see shops specializing on certain brands of cars (e.g. German cars) as the knowledge is increasingly make and model specific and the diagnostic and repair tools are proprietary to each make of a vehicle (again BMW factory service tools will not work on a Honda).
Having a non-profit create standards sounds great but some of these organizations become self serving and push testing and/or procedures for the sake of sounding superior to set themselves apart. Not saying they all do but it is a road I would prefer to not explore. As an owner, it is our responsibility to talk to shops and discover their strengths and take it to the appropriate A&P, nobody is great at everything.
Here is the problem where an industry led organization would probably not work. If say, an ASE certified mechanic worked on an aircraft that had an accident that was caused by a negligent ASE certified mechanic. ASE would be sued out of existence by the relatives. The FAA doesn't get sued because they are the government.
Took about $2-3K to get me Diamond Aircraft factory trained. If I had to pay this out of pocket and had control of pricing, I would certainly raise my shop rates to cover the cost.
Not that cost should be the end all, but should the type rating for mechanics be implemented, maintenance cost will rise for at least GA.
The airlines do have some company regulations that mirror what Mike proposes. We have to take "gen-fam" courses before wrenching on certain aircraft types like Boeing, Airbus, CRJ, etc and airlines do have recurrent training. This might not be a terrible idea for larger GA shops.
Hi Mike,
Having been worked in aviation maintenance industry for around 48 years. Worked in general aviation, MRO and airline maintenance, I fully agree with you. Of course CAA UK and CASA regulations are highly bureaucratically controlled, which I don't wanna see in US. As you suggest it should be voluntary kind of certification with time limit e.g. 2, 3 or 5 years.
When you said you were a pilot first, .... That said everything I needed to know...
ASE Certification replaced four-year comprehensive apprenticeships in many jurisdictions. I'm not sure that was a good thing.
Maybe one of the online universities would be willing to provide courses, but the courses would need to be done by people who are experts in the subject of the course, such as metallurgy and welding, or basic electronics or sheet metal for either non-pressurized or for pressurized aircraft, engine overhaul and radial engines, etc. A method of ensuring that the student was actually studying the material and good testing with the end result of having a certificate of completion for each "module", "chapter" or "subject" would be given after sufficient passing grades. It would require funding from multiple sources and a small contribution from the student. As the seminars that you put on, like this one and many others that I have seen, have contributed to improvement in the knowledge base of mechanics, such as myself, what you are proposing could really improve the aircraft maintenance industry. Thank you for your ideas. The FAA could of course monitor what is being done, but keep their meddling fingers out of the control, but they could also provide some of the courses, especially, in regard to what the regulations actually require and what the regulation means to accomplish. I totally agree, the aviation industry needs to be self governing and educating for the benefit of everyone.
And the Continuous Certification Program is just like the Wings program in aviation.
Another problem is the "credit for military service" to obtain their A&P & IA. I know of an IA who could NOT even time a Magneto to an AirCraft Engine, but he was "certified" by the FAA.
Roger Bartels I experienced this myself, being a military trained experience for A&P. Totally different ballgame. Luckily I work for a shop that was willing to work with me and train. Yes, I can time mags to the engine.
@@TheReadBaron91 GOOD JOB!!! It is amazing how many mechanics do not even read the manufacturers manuals or try to learn things before they have it in their face on the job. You might be surprised at how many pilots do not even read the Flight Manuals. I also had the "credit for military" to get my A&P, but I studied every day for over a year before taking the test. I did not really have enough experience, but I studied so much that I had good knowledge. The examiner was surprised that I "knew all the answers" on the practical. After he signed my "ticket", he offered me a job with Eastern Airlines, but I was already moving out west to Arizona should have taken the job.
@@rogerbartels5223 The issue is that being an A&P is a broad spectrum of aviation maintenance, for the military guys given the fact that 99% of their aircraft are either turboprop or jet aircraft it's normal for them to not be familiar with magnetos and other reciprocating engine powered aircraft components. They would do well in a shop that does annuals on King Air's, PC-12's and the like. Then you get airline guys who don't even handle propellers and part 91 might as well be a foreign language to them.
I did not address this during a webinar as every question and or statement I have ever made has been ignored! I got my a&p 20 years ago. I worked on a couple of friend planes for the first year on and off. I did not work the 6 months in 2 years to stay current. The instructor at the colledge where I took the classes was the faa inspector and gave me my tests, orals . I went back to school for 6 months to help out with projects and students until the instructor said he considered me current. 2 more years went by and not current again! I contacted the local fisdo to verify I could get current at the colledge again. I was told that I could not and never could get current by returning to school,only by working 6 months under a a&p but no number of hours needed was mentioned. About 6 months later I called to again ask questions. I was turned over to a different person who told me a bill was on the head of the faas desk in Washington and it was ready to be signed and it would answer my questions. 6 months later it had not been signed. 6 months later and I spoke again with the second person. He was not happy that I kept following up on this issue. At this time he told me it was not signed and did not know if or when it would be signed and to "just go out and get a job and forget about it!" No answers ever came. If I build a plane or buy one and work on it, does this count if I am not working under a a&p? In class we were told of a person that was caught working on his plane by the faa and as the inspector had caught him many times before, the inspector said to close the hanger when working, or better yet, for him to get the papers ready and he would sign them next time and he could get his certificates with time served. One fisdo around my home says each week counted for currency had to be 40 hours. Different fisdos just said look it up in the regulations and would not address the hours need. Your thoughts?
WTF !!!
Bryan Averi
Try reading it again if it didn't make since to you! In short, the faa makes you go to school to get the certs, but they do not let you get current by getting the same training! They have no way for you to get back at it except by working under another a&p. The fisdo can't even clairify the rules. Is that clear!
Stop talking to the FISDO. Never talk to them unless you need a field approval for something.... You are reading too much into the Regs.
Repair stations can hire people right out of high school and never formally train them. You want owners to do move and then this.......make up your mind. Think a pilot shortage is a issue.....wait till a mechanic making 25 buck a hour needs to cough the fees.....
What I heard is Mike proposes non regulatory change. I think it could be summarized as not required, but an enhancement to the current structure. Often new ideas take time to make progress. keep going Im all for less regulation...The insurance approach has value..
Unfortunately, I don't think the problem of incoptetence in GA mechanics can be effectively dealt with by the industry, and the reason for that is the lack of market pressure on A&Ps.
Most GA pilots don't have the option to shop around for an A&P - if your plane cannot fly, your options for fixing it are typically limited to the FBO at the airport you're stuck at.
When doing planned maintenance work, the options can be a little broader, because pilots can then fly to where the shop is, but even then there are serious constraints on any work that cannot be accomplished same-day. If a plane needs to be left overnight or for an extended period of time, the pilot has to be prepared to deal with ramp fees, find a place to stay, or arrange transportation back to where they need to be for their day job.
Combined with how damned difficult it is to get an A&P cert in the first place, and most A&P mechanics will never feel a squeeze for business. Without that squeeze on the pocketbook, the vast majority of them will never voluntarily spend time and money to get certs which will not get them more business.
Want recurrent training, get your ia
The FAA offers an AMT Awards Program specifically to incentivize recurrent training for aviation mechanics. It’s similar to the Wings Program for pilots. Participation is voluntary, but it does show a mechanic is interested in staying “current”. Check out Advisory Circular 65-25: Aviation Maintenance Technician Awards Program for more information. www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1029857
There is no requirement for an IPC every 6 months if you do approaches with either a simulator, safety pilot or in actual instrument conditions. Also, if you go non-current you can do the approaches in the next 6 months. After 12 months of not being current then you require an IPC. Unless your insurance company requires it but this video is about FAR requirements.
Better insurance rates if you have a IPC
I have been an A&P/I.A for 42 years. I went to school full time for 22 months with no summer/winter breaks, before the FAA issued my A&P certificate. I have worked for Part 145 Repair Stations most of my career and have seen it all. I know of people that have been issued an A&P certificate after attending a one week course that taught the answers to the exam and had a lenient practical test examiner. I also know of Air Force mechanics that were issued an A&P certificate, and the only thing they know is the left wing of the C-130. Don’t ask them what is in the right wing, because they don’t know. That being said I have worked with some excellent Marine and Navy mechanics. The FAA needs to standardize the training process.
But the real thing is cost. Who is going to pay for all this training? Flight Safety and other companies have model specific training on business aircraft maintenance, but it is very expensive. Someone will have to shoulder the burden of the training costs. It will be the owner/operators that will share the costs. Raising the costs related to flying, is not going to encourage more people to fly.
Mike, I really enjoy listening to your training seminars! Keep up the good work. I always learn something new.
Community colleges offer A&P courses for a reasonable cost. Mine is a 2 year program that has a winter but no summer break and our examiners range from reasonable to pretty strict and we have functional airplanes in our hangar to work on for class projects. All in all my A&P will cost me around $15,000 if they don't raise tuition before I finish.
I think you have a great idea here Mike.
I’ve had my A&P for a long time but not worked in aviation yet, and I would not dare put wrench to plane without being checked by a competent mechanic.
At this point I want to work in aviation, but I would insist on being overseen until I re-familiarize myself with the way things need to be done. Thanks
My gripe about A&P certification is this: out of all those hours not one is spent on some kind of engineering basics. Nothing to give the student even a rudimentary idea of structures, loads, theory of stress and strain, bending, torsion, compression, tension etc. Lots of "do this" but no "do this because" . No mechanic I know has any understanding of basic structural engineering. And yet they are free to repair major damage of all kinds. (Well, most kinds.) It's mindboggling. It's not that hard, they don't even really need to learn the math, but just have them understand what is happening inside a wing spar when it's under load, that kind of thing. I knew one who claimed Cessnas are stronger than Pipers because they had struts! Arrgghh!!!
PDZ1122 I agree with you. All mechanics ought to have a basic working knowledge of engineering. My A&P training did include elements of engineering especially types and effects of stress on structure and hardware. Sad to think this is not the standard.
A&P mechanics can NOT just repair damage of all kinds. They have to follow instructions set forth in the manufacturers Structural Repair Manual, or other FAA approved data. If no data is available for the specific repair, they have to get an FAA Designated Engineering Representative to supply the approved data.
@@seapilot2 Absolutely
That’s it. I am leaving this none sense
Bye
44:33 ASE certification might not guaranteed greatness, but I guarantee that the high school kid that jerry-rigged a hideous repair on my car (instead of following the standard procedure) wasn't certified. Even name-brand car dealerships employ poorly-supervised kids. How many times are we going to hear the "kid didn't even know to reinstall the oil drain plug" story?
This would be fine if the requirements for becoming an A&P would be lessened. It took 40 hrs of instruction for me to become a private pilot but I was required to receive 1900 hrs of instruction from a part 147 school to become an A&P. There seems to be a need to balance things out here. Also GA needs to anticipate to pay their shop/mechanic a better rate if expecting increased profiency checks and training. Sad that people are willing to pay more for their Honda to get worked on than their Cessna.
Lmao how this ended with the savory comments not mentioned. Hope you have thick skin Mike, it'll be a tough hill to climb but I think it's good discussion.
Yes, maintenance mistakes do happen. So let’s lessen the requirements
And no, just because an owner could work on his own aircraft DOESNT guarantee anything. 3 reports in the last week of accidents with homebuilts with legal owner maintenance.
I usually agree with you Mike, but you lost me on this one. The principles and practices of maintenance seldom change. Look at the amount of revisions to maintenance manuals and ACs that would require training for severely altered maintenance practices, they don't exist. Maybe packing a CAPS parachute system would be something mechanics need training on but I've only heard of CRS's doing those jobs anyways. If you are talking Avionics I agree with you, but there are already countless industry requirements for recurrent training in that field. Those 4,800 hours are necessary for learning the basics, but hardly enough time to become an expert, everyone knows that. The cliche that an A&P is a license to learn is true. Not every mechanic can be an expert and its not even feasible with recurrent training.
You also make it seem that it's only mechanics that don't comply with FARs. Pilots are equally as guilty of this and I believe most mechanics hold themselves to a higher standard than what could be interpreted from the FARs.
Recurrent training is already thing for A&Ps who practice their skills every day at work, we don't need Textron controlling who can be an aircraft mechanic and who can't.
Technically weak, faa DER