1. Make a new A&P rating that is good for part 23 airplanes only. Same test as the rating today but reduce the requirements to take the test. Same accountability as the A&P we have today.
Tim
I don't think the proposal is the correct way to go about this.
1. Just because you own a plane doesn't mean you are qualified to work on it.
2. I don't want others making parts for a plane I fly my family in. Most people are not qualified and do not have the correct tools and materials knowledge to do so.
Here are some solutions:
1. Make a new A&P rating that is good for part 23 airplanes only. Same test as the rating today but reduce the requirements to take the test. Same accountability as the A&P we have today.
2. The norsee approach could be implemented for parts production for non-critical components. This would reduce the workload of mido offices and still have some accountability.
Tim
Explain?
Web
Easing up on parts requirements plays it's hand for the planes that came originally with automotive master cylinders and such. Other examples as well.
Making a simpler A&P rating does little good when there is a fare share of them that barely do a quality job now.
I seriously doubt that any one pilot out there has a death wish to do something wrong or so bad that they would have a failure.
Much of the issue today is that A&P schools don’t teach what is required to maintain small aircraft. The push has been large aircraft systems, turban engines, and “advanced avionics” while dropping or significantly reducing dope and fabric, welding, sheet metal, reciprocating engines. It actually takes more skill and knowledge to maintain little airplanes than to work for an airline as a mechanic. Many of them are simply parts changers!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's been 'some time' since I've had to sit in class, but if my memory serves me there were some sketchy 'schools' back then too. One chain, that all ended with the same label, seems to have faded out, no doubt due to the low quality of education they imparted. The school I attended (Winona Tech) put us through the proverbial wringer. Two year course with only a month long summer break between first and second year, separate classes for piston and turbine engines, very little on avionics as that isn't an A&P function usually, dope and fabric classes, NDI, sheet metal, etc.
Point is, if there is a school problem, it needs to be fixed at the school level. I don't believe that making multiple A&P ratings is going to solve the issue. Lets face it, the school should be teaching systems not aircraft. If I learn how to troubleshoot a hydraulic pump on an Aztec, I can also troubleshoot a hydraulic pump on an MD-11, even if some one has to help me find it, lol.
If I have a knock on the present day system for A&Ps/IAs it's that there isn't some sort of peer review. As has been stated above, some bad apples out there got through the system. Talk to a Special Forces guy. They have it set up so that they run their own qualification courses, and even if you pass the course, they can still decide they don't want you.
Web
Somebody has to tell me about a two day oral! Exactly what can anyone come up with to talk about for two days?! I did my oral and practical in about a day.
Web
I see what Tim (BehindPropellers) is talking about, maybe like a repairman's certificate for your own airplane.
My oral and practical was a full 5 days!
Holy jumpin' what in the....???? How in the name of our good Lord could any test be stretched out to 5 days? Somebody was overdoing it for sure. My A&P oral and practical tool all of about 4 hours. Maybe it might have been 5. but it was all done in an evening. And the guy was pretty darned thorough even at that. Five days?? SHEESH!!!
Much of the issue today is that A&P schools don’t teach what is required to maintain small aircraft. The push has been large aircraft systems, turban engines, and “advanced avionics” while dropping or significantly reducing dope and fabric, welding, sheet metal, reciprocating engines. ….
I almost think maybe they need to have a separate license for GA aircraft,
as opposed to jets & large turboprops.
My daughter talked to a mechanic examiner recently and that is what he told her as well. It is a test generated by the FAA. People taking advantage to the system causes more regulation and makes it harder for those who follow the rules.
I don't see how the FAA could ever cover every aspect of aviation in the A&P test. I went to school and worked at the Confederate Airforce hanger all weekend. I learned more practical things on the weekends but what I needed to know for the test in school. It is no difference than accounting or other trades. My wife has done accounting since high school. She laughed at what her professors taught in college and the same with the CPA test.
Like Tim posted I know several people who are not A&Ps who did great work, researched things and were excellent mechanics. My Dad wasone and I pushed him to get his A&P and he finally did and then his IA. That was a problem with my daughter when she worked for me because I wouldn't give her another raise until she got at least her airframe license. Now that she lives 60 miles away and in another aviation related business she is working on her A&P. I see what Tim (BehindPropellers) is talking about, maybe like a repairmans certificate for your own airplane.
For my IA in 1980, you needed to bring in a wheelbarrow full of books ( regulations, TCDS, ADs, ACs) since there was no internet! The test wasn’t multiple guess like today, you had to not only write out the answer, you had to cite paragraph and page number where the answer came from!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk