Technician Certification
Is this a good thing? Is it necessary? If so, why? Who or which group should establish the certification process and why? Is there a better method? What exactly do you think is being attempted? Are the existing programs of recognition adequate? Etc.
The above are all questions that are on the forefront in the general aviation maintenance community. I do not know of any efforts along these lines for air or regional carrier mx ops.
There are several organizations that are attempting to establish certain standards that, when achieved, will attest to a technician’s capability and knowledge. The reason for this blog is to find out what you think about this.
Some background:
For years many A&Ps have not been content with their place in the aviation hierarchy. This is especially noted when salaries, career opportunities and management decisions are discussed. One of the explanations given goes back in history to WWII when pilots were officers and the mx personnel enlisted. This structure carried over to the beginnings of general aviation and air carrier ops and some say continues to this day.
As such maintenance associations like AMTSociety, PAMA/SAE, NCATT and NBAA are working on programs that will raise the recognition and the level of importance for those technicians that have evidenced the attainment of certain standards. Additionally, training organizations like FlightSafety have a Master Technician path that recognizes levels of accomplishment in training.
What do you think about this? Are these efforts something you support? Are you willing to devote the time and resources necessary to achieve levels of certification?
Or do you believe another type of effort would achieve more. For instance, I have heard many say there should be a type rating system in place similar to
AMT is interested in what you think. We look forward to your input.
To me it seems not so much what the maintainer (A&P) wants out of this process, it is what the industry will support. Mechanics can have all the certs in the world on their resume, but most of the industry can care less. Airlines still feel mechanics are a dime a dozen and treat A&P’s as such. Other parts of the industry are more supportive to the A&P and pay more for the certifications or pay for the mechanic to get them. Then you also have the mechanics who are just wanting to be where they are at and no ambition to progress. So both sides of the equation need to get on board for a single destination for any upgrades in the current system to take hold.
Mike Molzahn
A&P Mechanic.
Years ago, USAirways paid a premium to A&P Line Mechanics who got an FCC General License. As a result, they had a very large percentage of A&Ps who obtained that certification. Any advanced certification effort should be rewaded by additional pay. Without that, there is no incentive to put out the effort. That is the one part of the equation we haven’t seen. Should the unions push for incentive pay in the labor contracts, we’ll see a wholesale rush for advanced cetification. Without that, all the A&Ps will say is: “What’s in it for me?” There must be a reward beyond self-satisfaction for any advanced eductional program to work. Otherwise, it’s just like weting your trousers while wearing dark blue pants–it gives you a nice warm feeling, but nobody notices.
I would have to say that as the industry does change we in the maintenance field have to change with it. As far as advancing ones career you’ll have the mechanic/technicians that will want to do so and those that do not. I feel that many are willing to take the extra steps and advance but only if the feel they will get the proper recognition and or compensation for doing so. It will be hard for the mechanic/technician to get into the spot light or be recognized as pilots are. Just due to the stigmatism that is attached to being an old grease monkey mechanic.
As far as going to a system similar to Europe or Canada, it has its pro’s and con’s. It is good to have people trained on specific aircraft and systems, as they are more proficient and most likely can save both operator and provider down time and money. It is also fine if they are employed at place that only works on those particular aircraft. But the down side is if you choose to change employers or physical location of where you are in the states you are limited to what you can apply for and where can apply for a job. I think if we had that system in place you would be hard pressed to find a potential employer to look at you if you did not have the credentials to work the type of aircraft they have. It’s like hiring a 10,000 hour Citation pilot to fly your new Gulfstream, you know he or she can do the job and plenty of flying time under his or her belt but the Fed’s and the insurance companies say he or she has to go to school before even attempting to fly the airplane. So you would have to provide a serious investment to bring this person up to par. With that said just how many maintenance providers out there are going to drop that kind of money on technicians, when they don’t even want to pay a wage comparable to the Ford Dealership. So I don’t see the U.S. going to that kind of system for quite awhile.
There is a need for a change and general overhaul of the U.S. system but it will be slow to come.
Scott Minshall
A&P/ IA
1st let me say, welcome aboard Nick. It’s good to have an editor who can put together a 300+ word opinion article again. However, as long as the U.S. Dept. of Labor still classifies an A&P mechanic as semi-skilled labor, then that is all we’ll be.
Aviation has to get away from the notion that the mechanics capabilities are restricted to what they have done in the past. Continuing with an earlier response, I personally have it in writing that I am not qualified to perform A checks on DC-10 airliners. This is from my last aviation job. I left the industry for good after that one. They were going down the tubes anyway, and three weeks after I changed jobs, they started the first round of layoffs, which I would have been in had I stayed there. Three months later they shut the doors.
I would also like to see someone with maintenance ratings in charge of maintenance. One place I worked, the maintenance manager, who was in authority over the chief of maintenance had not one federal rating of any kind to his name. I still think there is something wrong with that picture.
I think there should be a type rating system in place similar to Canada and Europe. The USA normally leads rest of the world but in this area of aircraft maintenance the rest of the world leads us and we need to get onboard.
I All the posts and comments above are rights
Sorry for my mistake on my previous post ….
I agree with all the posts and comments above.
I started my mechanic or engineer (as you like) career with an American FAA A&P.
I had O.A.C.I. licences in Africa and different companies licences in Europ (Belgian and British) and now I have the EASA part 66 licence for acft’s above 5.700 Kgs.
We are now in Belgium in the process of the licence for acft’s below 5.700 Kgs which should be on rail for end of September 2008 …. normally ….
I starded my experience in general aviation (helicopters & airplanes) and continued to airline and cargo (express mail).
Don’t think that there are no differences between europeans and it is true that the EASA (JAR) 66 licence system puts everybody on the same level …. but the process is still going on !
Some european countries didn’t have before individual mechanic licence like belgium (for exemple) and it’s a serious change for those aeronautical administration …. !
The FAA A&P gives you more freedom to move and less restrictions and the EASA part 66 is more restricted to acft’s type rating.
The problem is that every countries practice a protection of their licences and their mechanics and it is difficult to go from one system to the other ….
The EASA mechanic licencing process will be more difficult to do for the new mechanics in Europ because they will have to go to a bigger and general training program which is not so bad in fact ….
So I think that the solution is like some academy in America were the engineer training is going to a complete training program !
You start a complete training and an instruction program from general aviation (airplanes & helicopters) to bigger airplanes on all acft’s systems (hydraulics, pressurisation, fire protections, pistons-turboprop and jet engines ….).
Then you can go to a specific acft’s training program following the need of the company which hired you for a job.
But in all what’s mentionned above, on thing will always remain “the more licence, paper, training, certification , qualification, etc … a mechanic/engineer will have …. there will ALWAYS be a licence, a paper, a training, a certification, a qualification, etc …. missing or that you don’t have for an aviation administration or a aviation companies in the world …. :o(
What I always say to an administration is that all the arcfts maintenance manuals and parts catalogs are coming from acfts or helicopters factory and that all the mechanic/engineer of the world follows the same manuals to work on an airplane or an helicopter.
The rest is just …. EXPERIENCE and it as a great value in a mechanic career ….
On think is sure about our problems, we have all the same salaries and respect problems but thinks are changing .. .. :o)