Well, it is sweeps month in the US (when local TV stations and networks try to drum up ratings that are used to determine advertising rates). I saw this online, and the report outraged me.

If you live in San Diego, please call the station and set the facts straight -- ValuJet and Concorde crashes were NOT related to outsourced maintenance. Give me a break.

It's bad enough that the public has to read about terrorism threats, long security lines, crowded planes. This gives them one more reason to not fly, further hurting the industry we all love.

Here's a snippet of the report:

Airlines Decisions To Outsource Repairs Costing Lives? – KGTV San Diego
Country's 13 Largest Airlines Outsource Mechanical Work

POSTED: 4:50 pm PDT May 26, 2004

SAN DIEGO -- The next time you fly, the airplane you board may have been repaired by someone who isn't a certified airline mechanic, according to 10News.

More and more, airlines are outsourcing maintenance, 10News reported.

Experienced airline mechanics said sending repair work to third-party shops is like playing Russian roulette with a jet. They added that several crashes have already prove their point.

In 1996, a Value Jet plane crashed into the Florida Everglades and killed 110 people. In 2000, 113 died in the Concorde crash in France. And, 21 more people were killed when an Air Midwest commuter plane crashed last year.

What do these disasters have in common? According to Ken Mactiernan, from the Aircraft Maintenance Technicians Association, outsourced maintenance played a part in all of the accidents.


[Edited 2004-05-27 16:34:15]

too words one is BULL i'm sure you can guess the other. Really that is total jackassary.

I Belive Value Jet was due to Contract MX 'Sabertech' Shipping a whole box of Impropperly packed Oxgen generatos that started the fire..this was a co-mat shipment of parts to ATL ..they we labled as empty..but where not..I'm sure others can recant the exact story and final report of the crash..

Yeah, but outsourced maintenance on the AIRCRAFT had nothing to do with ValuJet.

Just one question... Who did the maintenance on the AA DC 10 that crashed in Chicago?

Absoilutely utter rubish!

Cheers, Thomas

Someone else can comment on the final report but..Some-one at Sabertech Mis-Loaded those Oxgen Generators MX is not just Mechanics but stores Folks and Mechanics that are careful when Shipping out sometimes hazmat parts..It wasn't Rev-Pax or Cargo that caused the crash..SO..Yes the Contractor wasn't carefull in this case...It could have happened to a Company Mechanic but it Didn't..

>>>Just one question... Who did the maintenance on the AA DC 10 that crashed in Chicago?

The work was done at AA's facility at TUL...

Boeing 757/767-

I beg to differ, if you look at the details of the valujet crash you'll find one of the contributing factors was the failure of the mechanics that removed the oxygen generators months before, to install the shipping caps. If they had installed the proper shipping caps, as they had signed their task card off to, rather then just cutting the strings, there was no way an accidental discharge of the generators would be possible. Who did these mechanics and poorly trained shipping clerk work for? Sabrtech, yes outsourced maintenance.

Now without trying to anger anyone here, including Boeing757/767. I strongly believe the public should be informed of the danger of outsourcing maintenance. And this is not only because I'm an AMFA member, and risk losing my job to outsourcing. But also because I believe outsourcing is dangerous. Putting unskilled people to work on airplanes, that work with no license, poorly supervised, high turnover rates, no accountability and no motivation for the lowest bidder is a poor idea in most industries. This is an industry where it takes many failures in the system to create an unsafe situation. In my opinion outsourcing maintenance is the first failure. If I only had time to discuss the mistakes found in our hangar by real mechanics, that were made at the factory 3rd party maintenance facility, yes these are from the same "people" that build the airplanes. I think the public should be aware of what's going on so that they can make the final educated decision on what airline they chose to fly, X airline that outsources maintenance, or Y airline that doesn't. We're aviation buffs here, lets not try to hide the facts when they exist.

Late
PC

Linemechqx,

You make good points. However, what this media report failed to mention is that all outsourced maintenance has oversight by the FAA, the airline itself, etc. I don't mind having the issue raised in the media -- what I object to is an imbalanced report.

And again, the Sabretech issue involved something ON the plane, not maintenence TO the plane.

I searched the SAN station's website and couldn't find the original story, but I did find a "rebuttal" from the ATA...

http://www.thesandiegochannel.com/news/3350558/detail.html

"in fact, there is absolutely no statistical difference in the safety record of aircraft that have been maintained by contract providers and aircraft maintained by the airlines themselves."

would have liked to have them site a source, but a good rebuttal none the less.

Boeing757/767-

I do object to an imbalanced report, I guess its hard for me as a mechanic to remember sometimes the general public doesn't know all those details about oversight and what not. Though I strongly feel from my own observations its not nearly good enough. (ie, when having planes painted at a nearby hangar by outsourced maintenance, we send supervisors with the planes to oversee the operation, yet a few have still returned with dents and other structural damage they didn't leave with). Hopefully as OPNLguy has shown increased media attention will allow both sides to argue their case.

And though it sounds like you won't agree with me on this, mechanics improperly removing aircraft parts that eventually fall through the cracks and bring down an airplane does constitute a failure of outsourced maintenance to provide a quality safe product. Not to say in house mechanics couldn't have made the same mistakes, this time they didn't though and for me its just another card on the stack against outsourcing.
Did I mention I don't like outsourcing?

Late
PC

You make good points. However, what this media report failed to mention is that all outsourced maintenance has oversight by the FAA, the airline itself, etc. I don't mind having the issue raised in the media -- what I object to is an imbalanced report.
____________

WHAT A GODDAMN JOKE!!! Who are you kidding? Tell that to the 21 folks aboard that Air Midwest 1900 in CLT last year! Where was the FAA, the airline, OR COMMON SENSE????? Those mechanics deliberitly skipped steps IN FRONT OF THE INSPECTOR!!! AND THE INSPECTOR SIGNED IT OFF! The TIMCO's of the world are nothing more than 3rd rate hack shops. My carrier used to allow 3-4 days for jets to sit in the hangar after they arrived from 3rd party facilities, just so company MX could go back over most of the work. We averaged around 30 discrepancies for each arriving jet. The UAL bash site www.untied.com has a wonderful breakdown of 3rd party screw-ups. Check it out. The sad sad truth is that 3rd party MX will finally be brought to light after one of the majors loses a big jet and all souls on board. I'll do some searching and i'll post some wonderful 3rd party screw-ups.

BILLAMT,

First, don't get upset. I'm in airline management, and I am familiar with this issue. At most carriers, outsourced maintenance is watched like a hawk by airline reps.

I never mentioned Air Midwest because as we all know it WASrelated to outsourced MX. I'm not disputing that.

But for the media report to mention ValuJet and Concorde -- they had nothing to do with outsourced MX ON the airplane.

[Edited 2004-05-27 19:32:06]

Valuejet - Improperly packed oxygen cannisters. Not a maintenance problem, but a packing problem.

Air Midwest BE1900 - Bad install on an elevator control unit. Maintenance problem sure, but there were control proplems previously reported on the aircraft, and it may have been prevented if the flight crews shared greater concern about it.

Concord - Bad maintenance or bad tire manufacture????

The contracted maintenance workers have the same standards as an airline maintenance worker. It's foolish to suggest otherwise. Accidents were just as frequent before outsourcing, and probably more frequent before given the stong urge to place "pilot error" on everything up until the last few years.

I think they are trying to link the Concorde incident with the part falling off a CO DC-10, the part was titanium (should not have been) and was fitted by Bedek.
If you want to look for blame on this accident, try an airline, but not the one which outsourced, (incredible how on this incident, they've got away with it).

@Linemechqx

"And though it sounds like you won't agree with me on this, mechanics improperly removing aircraft parts that eventually fall through the cracks and bring down an airplane does constitute a failure of outsourced maintenance to provide a quality safe product. Not to say in house mechanics couldn't have made the same mistakes, this time they didn't though and for me its just another card on the stack against outsourcing.
Did I mention I don't like outsourcing?"

As I am working for one of the biggest independent MRO's, I take your statement as an insult. I have seen so much cases of bad workmanship that was performed by airlines maintenance organisation, that I would rather say that third party MRO's are the better choice if you want to have a save operation...........

I have no problem that you don't like outsourcing. But your claim that outsourcing maintenance equals lowering safety standards is simply not true. Care to back your statement up? I do not think that you really mean what you say "mechanics improperly removing aircraft parts that eventually fall through the cracks and bring down an airplane does constitute a failure of outsourced maintenance to provide a quality safe product".... Does this imply that airline mechanics are all superman that do not do any mistakes at all? If so, I feel sorry for you!

There are black sheeps around on both sides of the fence, airline and non airline maintenance facilities, and it is the duty of the authorities to eliminate them on both sides!

Cheers, Thomas

Good Poind MD 11 Forever there are very good 3 Party MX Centers..and less than good ones...I guess its up to the Govt to regulate them..By the way is it true an Uncertified PTV system was the cause of the Swissair crash at Hallifax..any info..from your side of the SKY who put that in...???

Putting unskilled people to work on airplanes, that work with no license, poorly supervised, high turnover rates, no accountability and no motivation for the lowest bidder is a poor idea in most industries.

This is what Tramco used to be like before they became BFGoodrich Aerospace at PAE. Tramco was known to be very strict with their empoyees and they also helped unlicensed mechanics get their A&P licenses while working on check aircraft. Dont ask me how that worked because I dont know. I only heard about this thru other AS mechanics when I was working at AS in SEA.

It's not uncommon these days to see aircraft parts being manufactured all over the world before being assembled in Seattle or Toulouse for that matter. So if people outside the US or France can produce quality products or services with less cost, why not just let them do it? Maintenance is no difference. The key is whether or not we can ensure the service is up to the standard, regardless of who is providing it. Outsourcing is not the problem; it's the quality of work that matters. I completely agree with MD-11 forever that "outsourcing maintenance equals lowering safety standards is simply not true."

Do not always associate outsourcing with India, China, or Mexico; and even if you do, do not assume that those countries do not have well-trained mechanics who are as good as their western counterparts.

Imagine that (hypothetically) if a US carrier decides to delegate the overhauling of its 777 engines to some companies in Cardiff, Wales. Think why the engines are made there (up-to-date technology, good workmanship, lower cost, and economies of scale). Would that be a problem in most peoples' eyes?

Anywho, my point is there's no reason to be scared of outsourcing per se. Lou Douglas' program "Exporting America" has more to do with elections than making true economic sense.

@Cospn

First of all, the PTV system was CERTIFIED! I don't know, where you got the information from, that it was not certified, but it is definitely not true. The system was certified according FAA standards. However, the investigation revealed, that there are flaws in the process the FAA used (don't know if they changed it in the meantime) to approve the STC (supplemental typecertificate). But it is a fact that the system was approved and a FAA STC was issued for it. The system itself was installed by a US company.

"Do not always associate outsourcing with India, China, or Mexico; and even if you do, do not assume that those countries do not have well-trained mechanics who are as good as their western counterparts. "

Good point! There's nothing to add, otherwise the discussion would slip down to non-av levels.....

Cheers, Thomas

Lets put it this way....if you dont have an A&P license then you have no business doing MX on any aircraft for any reason.

The sad sad truth is that 3rd party MX will finally be brought to light after one of the majors loses a big jet and all souls on board

Heaven help us that a airline shop might turn over a job that only comes up a few times in an aircraft life to a company that specializes in that sort of maintaince, instead of doing the job in-house, on rented equipment that the company maintaince staff is not familiar with. Learjet wing de-matings, and x-raying of spar straps on Beech 18's comes right to mind.

Both are very specialized jobs that reqire a particular skill-set, and in the case of the x-ray certifications from outside agencies. And an airline with one or two beech 18's isn't going to keep a full time NDT tech on hand to do that x-raying, they will outsource the job to a repairshop with the needed certifications.

if you don't have an A&P license then you have no business doing MX on any aircraft for any reason.

I am sure that there are a bunch of maintaince helpers apprenticing, and FCC GRT license holders working for repair stations that might have some arguements with that statement. You can argue the aprentice is working under the repair stations or the A&P's certificate. But correct me if I am wrong, there are a lot of guys working radio repairs at stations that only have the FCC licenses not the FAA A&P certificate. They work is approved under the repair station's certificate.

Thanks MD 11 ..

Now I Know...Lots of Mis-Info Floating Around

"Learjet wing de-matings, and x-raying of spar straps on Beech 18's comes right to mind."

What airline flies lears and Beech 18's? And what airline doesn't have X-ray and NDT in house? We used to x-ray F-28's on a regular basis, though I wasn't qualified, it didn't seem to be a big issue for the inspectors.

MD-11, having not seen mtx outsourcing done outside of the United States, I can't comment on it, and wasn't trying to so please don't take offense to my comments, I believe 3rd party mtx can be done effectively in theory(though I don't see the financial gain for the airline), and may very well be in Europe. In the US however I have seen it done poorly, (with my own two eyes, documenting these cases for you however, would put me in an awkward position with my airlines name in my s/n), heard of it done poorly(through the grapevine et cetera), and have talked to people that have come from it.
And no, airline mechanics are not superman, some are farther from it then others. My only point in that statement was in ref to the original post, that 3rd party mtx IMO was responsible for the crash.
I have to say I am going to continue to be anti-outsourcing until it no longer threatens my job. I can't help that, but I can also say in the end, I believe my case will be proven. It just seems to be common sense to me. Safety in the air, begins with quality mtx on the ground.

Late PC

Actually I can think of several 135 on damand carriers that operate several single types of different variety.

And don't maintain NDT in-house either.

Lets put it this way....if you dont have an A&P license then you have no business doing MX on any aircraft for any reason.

Tell that to the US military, who incidently take exceptional care of Air Force 1.

Tell that to the US military, who incidently take exceptional care of Air Force 1.
_

I'm sure the tech reps that Boeing undoubtly provides has nothing to do with that.
_______
I am sure that there are a bunch of maintaince helpers apprenticing, and FCC GRT license holders working for repair stations that might have some arguements with that statement. You can argue the aprentice is working under the repair stations or the A&P's certificate. But correct me if I am wrong, there are a lot of guys working radio repairs at stations that only have the FCC licenses not the FAA A&P certificate. They work is approved under the repair station's certificate.

________

Well if they have an arguement, get a liscense! Also, ( its been a long time since my FAR's in AP school ) but I don't believe you need an AP to perform radio repairs. Or componet repairs in general. They work under the repair station. But they are not touching the aircraft either. There is legislation in the works right now to restrict wet ink AP's from working part 121 ops. There is too much at stake for the learn as you go attitude that has been in the industry for decades.

Well if they have an arguement, get a liscense.........There is legislation in the works right now to restrict wet ink AP's from working part 121 ops. There is too much at stake for the learn as you go attitude that has been in the industry for decades.


That would explain why they are apprenticing. To learn the skills that they need. I also note that to get the AMT certificate in Canada you need a two year apprenticeship in addition to the A&P training. The only way to transfer over a US license is to have an I/A endorsement because of the 3 year experience requirement for it.

And it also brings up the point that the A&P is not capable of knowing all things about all aircraft. There are reasons why manufactures and airlines have both aircraft and component specific training and familiarzation programs for their people. Both New hire and reccurent.

but I don't believe you need an AP to perform radio repairs. Or componet repairs in general. They work under the repair station. But they are not touching the aircraft either

You do need the General Radio Telephone License from the Federal communications commision. But the end result still has to be kosherwith the FAA

Likewise a repair station can be set up for any aircraft component, not just radios. The inspection procedures that are part of their certification is what insures compliance with FAA regs. Not the licenses of the people working for the repair station. As you pointed out there is no need for the employees of the repair station to even be A&P's. Why shouldn't a shop hire, say somebody who has been doing machine setups and lathework, since time began, to run a mill vs. and A&P. Last time I checked that wasn't part of the A&P certificate.

It goes to the point that many repair jobs on aircraft are going to require skills that are not part of the A&P license. It is better to have somebody without a license but that skill set do the job then it is to have somebody that while FAA licensed, is not familiar with that job do it. Remember an A&P can shop out work to unlicensed people, but is responsible to

Likewise a lot of the people who actually build the airplanes aren't licensed mechanics either. One of my instructors had a story about somebody he knew, who after he retired got what he thought was a dream job at a major manufacturer, one who's products he had fixed for years. He later told my instructor that the guy that was responsible for inspecting his work at this jet airliner plant, get his job because he has previously been quality control at a shoe factory.


I'll admit most of my comments are in the Part-91 world but again, Just because somebody has an A&P license doesn't mean that they are capable of all repairs. A lot of these much maligned repair shops exist to handle work that is outside the normal skill set of an airline or private shop.

Air Midwest BE1900 - Bad install on an elevator control unit. Maintenance problem sure, but there were control proplems previously reported on the aircraft, and it may have been prevented if the flight crews shared greater concern about it.


I believe this may be a little incorrect. The cables were not adjusted correctly, and the plane did indeed fly 6 flights before the crash and no one reported anything wrong with it. If the crew noticed a problem before the crash it would have been MEL'd in a second and the plane would have been taken out of service. And please don't disrespect the flight crew, I lost 2 friends that day, plus 19 innocent people and, they were both very good pilots who did their job in a safe and professonal way. It was not their fault they did the best they could when the shit hit the fan. According to what we were told the plane was almost turned right side up just before it hit the ground, if only they had a few more seconds they possibly could have put it down on its belly.

if you don't have an A&P license then you have no business doing MX on any aircraft for any reason.

I am sure that there are a bunch of maintaince helpers apprenticing, and FCC GRT license holders working for repair stations that might have some arguements with that statement. You can argue the aprentice is working under the repair stations or the A&P's certificate. But correct me if I am wrong, there are a lot of guys working radio repairs at stations that only have the FCC licenses not the FAA A&P certificate. They work is approved under the repair station's certificate.

At WN, you must have your A&P to get into the MX apprenticeship program in DAL. There are no exceptions to that. They dont offer to help you get your A&P. You have to get it on your own.

At AS in SEA, I was a Technician Helper. I did not have my A&P at the time and was going to school for it. My duties there was strictly limited to cleaning only. We were not allowed to do skilled duties or sign off paperwork including the cleaning paperwork during checks. Only A&P's were allowed to sign off our cleaning duties for us. My original post was a little misleading so Im correcting it here. I only think that the skilled duties should be for A&P licensed mechanics ONLY...and the cleaning work should be done by both A&P and Technician Helpers.

At most carriers, outsourced maintenance is watched like a hawk by airline reps.

Oh yeah...thats definately correct!! AS sends some of their MX to BFGoodrich Aerospace in PAE. AS also sends a supervisor and 4 inspectors of its own to oversee the checks being done on AS aircraft at BFGoodrich Aerospace.

In Canada you have to go to an accredited school....Which give you 1800 hours credit towards apprenticeship....Then apprentice for 1800 more hours...Then you get a lisc. You can skip the school some what but then you have to do 3600 hours of apprenticeship...But you need some school still. When you have your lisc. You are then called an aircraft maintenance engineer up here.

There are also a bunch of exams that have to be written to get your lisc. Depending on the class of lisc. There are 2 classes....m1 and m2. They are broken at 12500 lbs....Anything below this point is m1 and anything heavier is a m2.

To sign off an Transport category A/c you need an endorsement course. This is usually given by the company. Then with the lisc. And the endorsement you can release the log books.

If you leave the company you do NOT lose the endorsement. That is attached to your lisc by transport Canada.

There are a few circumstances when you can release a log book without the endorsement but usually limited and just to get the A/C to the repair station...

There is some transferability between Canada and the USA. I am not sure how much or how to do it. But I have released a few log books for continental express up here. But to do that their maintenance control gives me a special number and they have sent me on their maintenance type[e course for the erj.

GS

What worries me is a legal loophole within the FAA regulations. I´ll try to explain, but it is a little difficult:

You´ve got a MX company outside the US, e.g. in Europe. They have ONE mechanic licenced under JAR 66 B1 or C to certify for a certain A/C type. Now they get a European JAR 145 company approval for this A/C type, based on this guy´s licence and the fact that they have the proper tools and facilities. Now if a European registered plane of this type would come in ONLY this particular mechanic may certify for this plane. He has to be present at the station.
Now this company gets an American customer. Normaly to certify for an American plane the mechanic would need an A&P licence as well. Now this company doesn´t want to pay for people who have an A&P licence (people with two qualifications are more expensive than with one). They approach the FAA and the FAA gives them an FAA repair station approval based on the European JAR 145 approval. Only thing is that now the quality manager can send anybody and his dog, who doesn´t even need a European licence, on a FAM course and give them company approvals to sign off American airplanes. The merchanic with the European licence doesn´t even have to work on this station, as long as he is employed by the company. Also, now the FAA approval would include planes of the same type, but with different engines as well. And the boss can hire some car mechanics from the street, give them a 5 week fam course and let them certify. Of course, this will save him a lot of money.
Originaly this thing was set up that. e.g. lufthansa mechanics, who are handling United Airlines planes in AB) (FRA / FRF / EDDF), Germany">FRA, wouldn´t need to go to school again and get a US licence, same as United Airlines mechanics could handle a Lufthansa plane, but what worries me is that loophole, which permits any guy from the stret to certify for American airplanes, as long as a quality manager approves it. Sure, it saves the companies lots of $$$, but what about the safety?

Jan

At most carriers, outsourced maintenance is watched like a hawk by airline reps.

Oh yeah...thats definately correct!! AS sends some of their MX to BFGoodrich Aerospace in PAE. AS also sends a supervisor and 4 inspectors of its own to oversee the checks being done on AS aircraft at BFGoodrich Aerospace



As an A&P mechanic who happens to work at Goodrich at PAE, you're right AirframeAS, the airlines do send at least one supervisor and at least one inspector to our facility during maintenance checks. But watching us like a hawk??? I think not. I have never heard anything more offensive and inflamatory than a statement like that. Just because you work for an airline and not an MRO facility, that doesn't make you SuperMechanic. I take GREAT pride in the work that I do and know that our aircraft are much safer when they leave our hangars than when they roll in.

I was looking into it because I was thinking about that AMT school in Dawson City, instead of a US school.

From what I gathered Greesepot, is that it is easier to go from the Canadian certificate to the US one, then vice versa.

Most A&P's will have to perform that 1800 hour apprenticeship.

Like I said, I/A holders where the only ones I found that didn't need it.

Makes a good five minute sound bite on the evening news but nothing more. For the past twenty years my employment resume includes 3rd Party repair facilities and airline maintenance departments. For anyone to categorically state that airlines are superior to MRO's is completely misinformed. Airlines and MRO's both have maintenance capabilities of varying compentincies and neither has the right to point fingers to the other.

As an A&P mechanic who happens to work at Goodrich at PAE, you're right AirframeAS, the airlines do send at least one supervisor and at least one inspector to our facility during maintenance checks. But watching us like a hawk??? I think not. I have never heard anything more offensive and inflamatory than a statement like that. Just because you work for an airline and not an MRO facility, that doesn't make you SuperMechanic. I take GREAT pride in the work that I do and know that our aircraft are much safer when they leave our hangars than when they roll in.

Jet, I didnt mean that AS watches you guys like a hawk at all. I was just simply stating that carriers do send their own personnel to over see the check being done and making sure it was to the carrier's own specifications and done correctly. You guys have done good work for us, no doubt about that. But as me being a 'SuperMechanic', I wouldnt go that far because I dont have my A&P yet. I may know the 737 inside/out very well, but that doesnt make me a 'SuperMechanic' as you would put it.

In Canada you have to go to an accredited school....

In the U.S. you must to go to a F.A.A. approved FAR Part 147 school. The school Im currently going to in Arizona states: "The combined Airframe and Powerplant certificate program encompasses 84 credits, equal to 2250 hours of training. This total exceeds the F.A.A. minimum standard for training in a Part 147 program. Students wishing to complete the certificate must be willing to commit to approximately 40 hours per week for 18 months." Ive also heard that you can get your A&P training through the military, but I dont know how that works.

Also I wanted to add this to my last post but was unable to do so:

At WN, you must have your A&P to get into the MX apprenticeship program in DAL. There are no exceptions to that. They dont offer to help you get your A&P. You have to get it on your own.

In addition to that, you must be already employed by WN in order to get into their apprenticeship program in DAL providing that you have been employed in your position for 14+ months. WN does not take applications for this program from people from off the street. Like I said, you must be a WN employee already with 14+ months with the company under your belt.

Has FAA ever come to terms with the outsourcing issue? By that I mean staffing at all the sites. Several years ago when this first came up , one issue that was receiving a lot of attention was the lack of FAA inspectors at the facilities we already had. If many more overseas operations were used they would not have people to oversee them. That was also when the problem of counterfeit parts surfaced that had never been certified as meeting specifications. I seem to remember that same year in response to these concerns the FAA inspector budget was actually cut instead of increased. How has this been solved or did money just change hands to "fix" it?

In the U.S. you must to go to a F.A.A. approved FAR Part 147 school

If can do the school, route, you can also apprentice under an A&P for two years. Your work history and instruction is documented. Then when you have the two years you take the writtens, pass them and then find and examiner who will administer a practical exam, usually that exam takes two or three days.

I know two guys who have done exactly that where I work.

Ive also heard that you can get your A&P training through the military, but I dont know how that works.

For air force mechanics they get a sheet from the military that outlines their training. That sheet is the documentation of work history that will meet the experience requirements. If memory serves that was the authorization to take the writtens. I used to give them constantly when I gave FAA tests in North Dakota but right now I can't remember the number of the Air Force form. After they passed the written I gave them, they just like the apprentices would have to track down an examiner to administer the practical test.

I don't want to speak for the other services, but I suspect that their rules are simular.

Everybody here seems to belive that the 147 schools provide the best training, but in truth when you go through a 147 school, the FAA experience requirements are waived.


Just like the difference between taking Pt61 flight instruction or going to a 141 school. A lot of the time requirements are waved at the 141 school.

[Edited 2004-05-31 06:31:03]

Everybody here seems to belive that the 147 schools provide the best training, but in truth when you go through a 147 school, the FAA experience requirements are waived.

Thats true that people think that the Part 147 approved schools are the best training. When I was in the South Seattle Community College A&P program, it was an okay program, it was not the best program as my dad thinks it is the best program in the country (since it was Seattle and all...) The instructors didnt seem to care very much at all and not a whole lot of seriousness in the instructors either. They did alot of nagging and complaining about unimportant stuff. Im glad I didnt finish my A&P studies there, I dropped out. But here in AZ, I found out that Chandler-Gilbert Community College's Williams Campus A&P program has one of the highest standards in the nation and very difficult to get into the program as my advisor has told me. They just dont take anyone who wishes to get an A&P. My point is that there are two totally different programs between Seattle and Chandler-Gilbert but still both are approved under F.A.R. Part 147.

Well 147 schools are good, IMHO opinion from the fact that you will get a bite of about everything, and that they will show you items that if you get your ticket apprenticing, you might not see in real life. I am willing to be that hardly any of those Air Force guys (not to pick on them) have every had to time an O-320 or rebuild a Carb.

But on the same hand if I had a job open and I had to pick between a 141 school grand and somebody that had apprenticed at the company. At face vatue I would have to go with the latter. The learning curve for the equipment I operate, will be nil. He allready knows it because he has been working on it for two years.

AirframeAS,


I not sure if you really know how a MRO works or not. The airlines send their own people, QC, MX, Parts, etc, to us. But we have our own internal people make sure we follow the customer's GMM, our RSM, and the FAR's. We also have our own team of FAA PMI's that are permanently assigned to us as well as the airline's PMI's.

I enjoy the work I've been doing there and the best reward yet is to have a flight crew walk up, introduce themselves, shake my hand, and personally thank me for the work that we do for them.

Jet, I dont know how MRO works for you guys, I do know that we sent parts from our hangar to your repair station and stuff like that. I was only told by what others said about Tramco/BFGoodrich Aerospace. I can safely say that it was probably speculation because Ive never been to a repair station before but it would be cool to see how you guys do things there. Im sure its the work is done the same way.