AMTonline Blogs

For many years I had the privilege of working with and for PAMA. I worked with some highly dedicated persons who gave of their time and resources to help the organization succeed. Most of these efforts were selfless; some not. Regardless, PAMA was an organization committed to the promotion of professionalism among aviation technicians. Over the years as it tried to grow and reach critical mass it never quite made it. There were always financial problems, even after the successful national conventions of ’95 and ’96 that left over $435,000 in its coffers. Less than two years later money was an issue again. I don’t know why and could never find out. Ultimately the marriage with SAE became a necessity. PAMA did not have the resources to manage on its own. While this marriage offered the promise of additional resources, it was met with varying degrees of doubt by the membership, possibly because they never voted on it. As such, memberships did not grow as anticipated and programs that were supposed to add benefits for the membership never quite took off. Now SAE and PAMA have dissolved their marriage and PAMA is on its own once again. I have heard they intend to rehire the management company that they had prior to the SAE move and hold two large meetings a year. Frankly, I don’t think they can do it. Nothing is different from the almost bankrupt position they were in prior to SAE. I think it is time to move on!

There is now a relatively new organization, AMTSociety, started by this magazine a few years back. It was started by a publisher that felt the inertia of PAMA and determined there was a better way to go. He was able to convince management that it would be a good business and an appropriate way to benefit the magazine’s readers if it were to start a new organization, which we now know as AMTSociety. A charter was written, significant funds invested, a highly credible, active and professional board of directors formed, an executive director hired to manage operations and serve as spokesperson, a web page established, marketing efforts to obtain and retain memberships created, membership feedback organs fashioned, corporate sponsors signed on, and a schedule of member benefits started. Since then the Society is now part of a national aviation exposition attracting thousands of attendees and vendors, and its director participates in several active association and regulatory committees providing feedback and soliciting input from membership. Most importantly the Society supports and operates many regional IA renewal programs throughout the United States. Everyone that is part of the Society is working hard to make it a success.

I do not think there is the room or the resources for two aviation maintenance organizations at this time that purport to espouse the same causes and benefits. It will create confusion among potential members, dilute resources, send a mixed message to the community, and mystify vendors and OEMs that are looking to find ways to support and communicate with technicians, and result in a mixed, disharmonious message to those outside aviation maintenance.

I recommend all aviation technicians join AMTSociety and participate in its growth, especially at these unsure times where unemployment is growing, rules are changing almost daily, and efforts are being made to move more of the business outside this country. This is not a union. It is a professional organization dedicated to promoting the professional aviation technician.

I realize I will be accused of taking favorites as I am employed by the sponsoring organization; however, I believe my years on the PAMA board and the work others and I did for the organization qualify me to make this recommendation. If you do not agree lets hear from you; if you do lets hear from you also. If you have questions I will be glad to try to answer them. As some of my readers state … “Stand up and be heard.”

Last week I wrote about regional airlines and how the inherent culture of these carriers may be a cause for less than fully safe operations. While I did not receive many replies, I will take a chance and pursue a subject that has bothered me for years about air carrier flight ops and regionals in particular. I am not sure there is a relationship to aircraft maintenance, as I do not see a similar problem.

There is no other industry that I can think of that uses its least experienced, trained, and paid staff to conduct its most difficult tasks. Of course I am talking about air carrier pilot ops and specifically regionals. Regional ops are the most demanding from a pilot perspective … many short hops at low altitude where the weather is generally nastier to smaller airports with shorter runways in difficult terrain and, perhaps, limited guidance and landing aids. On top of this those asked to fly these routes are the least paid and trained, and the most inexperienced. Regional pilots are doing this to primarily build time, while carrying paying passengers who expect the same level of safety that they get at a major trunk carrier. I realize someone has to provide this service, as air service to all communities is essential, but why is the pilot who has thousands of hours, years of experience, and a training record that exceeds that of a college grad, flying the over water or transcontinental hops with one take off and one landing; fulfilling hourly requirements in less sorties than a regional pilot accomplishes in just a few days? Why can’t a program be established where these highly paid and experienced pilots act as mentors and fly the line for a period of time with a regional that is allied to the major? If the RAA, FAA, and Congress want to start getting it right so that the maximum level of safety is achieved in all air carrier ops why not start here? I recognize this will not be a popular suggestion with the major airline pilots and the regional owners that will have to pay the higher wages. But don’t we want to achieve the highest levels of safety for all the traveling public? Air transportation is unique in that there is no room to compromise on safety.

Frankly, I realize this has little to do with aviation maintenance, although I am wondering if similar or analogous situations might exist within this arena. If there is I would sure like to hear about it. Maybe it’s something we should be focusing on.  Are there cases where greater responsibilities are being handled by less paid and trained technicians? I don’t think it works that way in maintenance, but if there are situations like this, please let me know.

Finally, to all those that have contributed their thoughts and expertise to this blog, a sincere thanks.

Currently there is a re-energized watch of regional airline operations. This is as a direct result of the Colgan accident in Buffalo. In recent Senate hearings the new FAA Administrator was quizzed hard on the government’s supervision of these carriers. Fifty percent of all U.S. commercial flights involve regionals. Preliminary emphasis is on flight operations, duty time, and training. The Administrator was asked if he would have terminated someone who had flunked several flight tests and replied, “people are human.” Hmmm! He was also asked if he thought $23,000 a year was a low rate of pay for a regional pilot. He replied that there are major carriers that start at that level. Hmmm!

Now the Regional Airline Association has announced it has embarked on a strategic safety initiative. This will involve the establishment of a safety board, fatigue studies, fatigue awareness management programs, and a reach out for industry government partnerships.

All of this is good — but I do not think it addresses the central issue with regionals. That is the culture from which many of these carriers sprang. Regionals are not first air carriers, they are first  business opportunities. They were created to make money. Yes, they have to abide by the FARs and other standards for the industry … but first and foremost the intent is profit. There is not a thing wrong with this motive. After all, this is the incentive that drives our nation’s economy. (At least I hope so.) Safety is a paramount consideration in these operations. My point is that until it is the foremost consideration, the culture of regionals will not change. At times budgets will be minimized, i.e. a few extra landings on a set of tires, reduction of staff, and increased workload per employee, shortcuts on training, etc. These may work for a trucking, busing, or even railroad operation, but not for an air carrier. There can be no shortcuts.

Take for instance the recent case of Gulfstream International Airlines. The FAA is proposing a $1.3 million fine for violations that include maintenance infractions in addition to crew time and record-keeping abuses. CNN reported that mechanics told pilots to “go” regardless of the fact that maintenance systems did not check out properly on an aircraft before flight. It also reported a maintenance person that said the maintenance operations at this airline were “the worst he has seen in 30 years.” Worse yet, it has been stated that auto air conditioning compressors were used to repair the system in Beech 1900Ds. Gulfstream states it used proper parts but did not install these properly.

Not to pick on one airline who has its day in court … this is to bring to light what I suspect is a culture problem in this sector that is exacerbated by the fact that it is highly capital intensive and regulated in a decidedly competitive business. Regardless of any profit motive, air travel must have safety as its priority 100 percent of the time.

Do you think I’m being overly hard on the regionals or do you agree? Have any of you seen for yourself similar poor practices in this sector? Let me know; initials will suffice. What can be done to change the culture? Otherwise, if it doesn’t change, I see something similar to Buffalo occurring in the future, and maybe this one will point to a maintenance shortcut.

Thanks to all of you that participated in the recent questions that were posed. Interesting, there were no responses that I saw related to what regulations might be changed for the better.

Question three drew the most responses, all of which were clearly informed and represented the true opinions of the writers — including Bob M., who is happy at what he does and his position in life. Bob, you are truly blessed, but I do not think most of your peers share your feelings.

After reviewing the comments to question three I spent some time on the Department of Labor site —  and while admittedly not an exhaustive study — I did become more informed about the numbers holding a position with a certain title, what the median pay is, how the position is defined, schooling needed, opportunities in the future, etc. What I learned, and this is probably not any news to most of you, is that the aviation mechanic or technician is for the most part one of the better paid “mechanics or technicians,” compared to others so defined. The difference comes when you designate someone an “engineer.” Nuclear engineers, aerospace engineers, etc., make much better money. Yet it is true that in Canada and Europe the aviation mechanic is an engineer — so it would seem a rose by any other name would not smell as sweet.

So, if it’s money or the opportunity to make more money that is the issue, then there appears to be something amiss. If, as I suspect, it is more than money, then what might be needed is a better packaging of the profession. Such might not only relate to a title that engenders the respect it deserves, it might also include a campaign to make the general public and business leaders and politicians more aware of the contributions to safety and efficiency made by the profession. A good idea might also be to make such a campaign first within the profession itself, with the objective of generating core values and esteem that flows outward.

Am I being realistic or fantasizing?

Again, thanks to all those that have chosen to participate to this date. I will be back next week and look forward to continuing this discussion.

The final question I have for you is this: What do you think can be done to change an aircraft technician’s identity? I am assuming you will agree with me that the general public has no idea of the knowledge, skill and responsibilities associated with your profession. Most think of aircraft mechanics as the wings TV show character. Many see the job equivalent to an auto mechanic.

What an injustice. Something has to be done to change your image. The public has to realize that when they get on any aircraft an aircraft technician has taken the responsibility for the airworthiness of the aircraft.

I know this is a much discussed and written about subject in our field. But, maybe we can generate some new ideas. After all, the field is changing with advancing technologies. Technicians do not only have to know how to effect a repair, they must also be able to diagnose complex computer-related systems.

So do you have any ideas on how we might take steps to begin to change this image?

Following up on last week’s blog, and, oh by the way, thank you to those that chose to participate, the following is question #2:

What rule do you think the FAA should amend to make things easier and less complicated for you on the job? How does this current regulation make it unnecessarily difficult for you? How should the rule be amended? Do you think it will ever happen?

Happy AMT Day! 

As I will be out of the country for the next several weeks, I will not be able to provide a timely blog. Accordingly, I thought that I would use this opportunity to develop some information and ideas from those that participate in the blog and maybe some new contributors. So for the next three weeks I will ask a question or two of you and hopefully you will choose to answer providing feedback here and to others.

My question for this week is ”what do you consider the biggest challenge facing you in 2009, outside of family or personal considerations?” In other words, as a professional aircraft technician, what do you consider the biggest test facing you this year? And what do you think you can do to overcome it?

Simple question, but I bet there will be some complex answers.

I have just read that the FAA has withdrawn its proposed rule making changing Part 145, rules governing repair stations. What’s up? 

The FAA started the process of amending 145 with the idea of revising the system of ratings and requiring that repair stations implement a quality system that included the establishment of a mandatory capability list, appointing a chief inspector, and setting up permanent housing for equipment, facilities, personnel, and materials. This NPRM has its roots going back to the nineties with public meetings, ARAC reviews, and several NPRMs for comment, the last being issued in December of 2006 with the comment period extending to April of 2007. Now they have withdrawn the NPRM because “it does not adequately address the current repair station environment and because of significant issues commenters raised.” What about Advisory Circulars, the usual rule modification method? 

Here is the catch … by withdrawing the NPRM the FAA has indicated it does not preclude it from issuing another proposal on the subject. “In fact we have initiated rulemaking to update and revise the regulations for repair stations to more fully address the significant changes in the repair station business model,” it says. Paraphrasing, the new proposal will incorporate the concerns of the 2006 NPRM as well as other issues related to bringing repair station regulations up-to-date with industry practice. 

Why, after so many years, time, and resources spent, have they done this? I admit to a rhetorical question because I suspect the real reason is to get our 145 more in line with EASA’s 145 and the current bilateral agreements that exist. This will serve to strengthen the agency’s position in its battle with congress related to the approval of foreign repair stations. Congress is insisting in its current FAA reauthorization bill that FAA inspectors inspect approved foreign repair stations twice a year, just as they do in the States and that foreign repair station personnel be subject to the same alcohol and drug testing that personnel in the States undergo.  

Think about it. Does the FAA want to see us risk scrubbing our bilateral safety agreements because we need to protect jobs in the United States? Just today I read another bilateral aviation safety agreement has been executed with Japan. Does the FAA want to make it more costly for U.S. carriers to do business by requiring the same standards for approved foreign repair stations as it does here at home?  

This is a hot political football so each of you needs to stand up for what you believe should happen here. I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Last week I asked “what would you do if you were laid off and found another job in the interim; would you come back to aviation?” I then stated that the responses would give us an indication as to how much trouble the industry will be in if it lays off its highly talented, certificated maintenance personnel. Well, even though I know it is not very scientific and limited in coverage, 100 percent of the responses said, “would not return to the industry.” Not one “I love this business and what I do and would come back if the opportunity presented itself.” I admit, I am not sure this unanimous position represents reality – but if it does, I suggest all you OEMs, MROs, and flight departments that are laying off, furloughing, or whatever, be mindful of the consequences for the future. Now is not the time to panic. We all should be assessing our resources and formulating plans for when this recession ends. Based on what I have heard and read, we have just about bottomed out and late this year or early next year we will begin to see continued industry growth. Hopefully the leaders of our industry will see this and keep their talent.

I recently heard our vice president tell the American people in an interview he would not recommend flying in an aircraft in the immediate future and he suggested the public minimize use of mass transportation. This, of course, is in response to the swine flu epidemic – notice I did not say pandemic. True, we all have to be careful, especially old guys like me whose immune systems have been working overtime, but I think he could have chosen his words more carefully and not given aviation another knockdown. I do not understand our government sometimes. Aviation is a business that is one the foremost contributors to our growth, freedom, and way of life. It contributes millions of jobs, positive results with respect to trade balances, and hundreds of millions if not billions in tax revenues to support our government. Let’s get smart, D.C.!

The other day a 747 circled New York City with a fighter escort. It was on a White House-sponsored picture-taking exercise – except no one told anyone in N.Y., including the mayor. I am sure you have all heard the flap over this and that “heads will roll.” My concern is that I have heard some of these heads might be at the FAA, the agency that provided permission for this flight. I’m sorry, I just don’t think the blame belongs there. This was a failure in communication, like in Hud. At this point I don’t see how the agency could be blamed for not communicating. All they did was approve an executive request. Hopefully none of our overworked FAA people will get caught up in this mess.

Well, I have sounded off here and I am sure many of you do not agree with what I have written. I am anxious to hear your points of view on these miscellaneous thoughts that are related to our business. Your contributions show interest and that tells us we are generating useful ideas. Thank you all for that.

We are all aware of the recent spate of layoffs that have occurred throughout U.S. industry due to the current financial morass. Aviation has not been an exception, including flight departments, repair stations, and MROs. No one knows how long this downturn will last or even if it has hit bottom. I just heard that Boeing is white tailing some 777s, evidencing the numerous aircraft order cancellations that are happening with the OEMs. Additionally, flight departments have sold and/or retired aircraft. This all flows downstream to maintenance departments and repair stations.

With the slowdown in maintenance work, the inevitable layoffs are occurring – sometimes just a few from a flight department or midsized repair station, while at other times hundreds, especially from the OEMs. While many of these layoffs include non-skilled and administrative personnel, others unfortunately include talented and proficient A&Ps. Trust me, organizations do not want to lay these people off, but financial necessity often controls these decisions. Sometimes it is just a vanilla layoff, while at other times the business tries to keep the door open by offering leaves of absence, furloughs, or extended shutdowns of a particular department. In any case the technician is without a paycheck and most likely without benefits such as medical coverage and insurance. This is a tough spot for anyone. So what does the tech do?

Clearly, finding other ways to maintain income is a necessity. And often many technicians do find this work … in the computer service business, auto repair, and many other areas needing skilled, technologically sharp people.

My question is this: would you return to the position you were laid from if you did get a good position in another industry? After having spent many dollars getting certifications, hours on hours of additional learning, and years of gaining experience in aviation, would you chuck it for a job that probably pays just as well, has better working conditions, and offers more security? Let us hear from you.

If most of the responses we receive indicate a permanent absence from our business is most likely, our industry is in trouble. It can not afford to lose this kind of talent.