AMTonline Blogs

It is gratifying to see the number of participants increase as the discussion revolves around the need for representation in D.C.

There is not a single response indicating there is no need for this. Rather the responses, albeit a very small percentage of the total readers of this magazine, are clear in their message that representation is needed. It is “strategically imperative” that this be accomplished as one comment emphasized. It’s necessary “to look after and speak for the (A&Ps’) interests in regulatory matters and to support professional growth” as another reader commented.

What is not clear is how this can come about. Some support an advocacy group that is a union or one that joins an existing union. Personally I would not favor this as I think it could cause more harm to the effort than benefit. Others support lining up with an already successful lobbying group such as the AOPA. I am not trying to sound negative, but is the AOPA “charter” consistent with the goals of the A&P? Sure, they have big bucks, but what about issues that might be in contradiction, such as allowing pilots without an A&P license to work on aircraft? This has been an issue with some regulations emanating on behalf of growth in GA.

I am fortunate. I am able to list among my friends and associates many A&Ps. And what I hear consistently is the call for a grass-roots movement, one in which A&Ps join under one banner and leverage their numbers and expertise to gain recognition and clout in the regulatory arena.

I believe an organization built through the joint efforts of aviation maintenance personnel from all areas can succeed, provided it:

• Sends a clear message that supports and acts in accordance with the goals of the aviation maintenance professional.
• Is operated by a professional staff and has respected leadership.
• Does not abuse trusts and is transparent in its operation to its membership.
• Finds ways to produce the resources necessary to continually gather strength, with a goal of eventually reaching critical mass. This will mean initially working with limited financial support from membership and finding creative ways to raise capital.

Keep in mind, an organization that credibly represents most professional aircraft maintenance personnel certainly will have clout — lots of it! Think of that when you join and are asked for a few bucks to help the thing get going. Participate and benefit the “Me Inc.” offered by some readers.

The responses received from last week’s Blog were, in a word, excellent. I would like to reiterate some of what I heard in these responses as a way of emphasizing the input.

I heard unanimous agreement for an advocacy of aviation mechanics in DC. I also heard a willingness to pay for this representation provided the services rendered are truly professional, with “boots on ground” and an in-your-face spirit.

Additionally, I heard continued significant concern related to the greater use of non-certificated personnel in aircraft maintenance operations, both at the management and floor levels.

An excellent observation related to the aviation maintenance tech subsets: airline, general aviation, subdivided into corporate and FBO/MRO ops. Let me add regional carriers tech as different subset, the reason being the regional techs function in a more universal manner as opposed to the often rigidly segmented mx ops of major trunk carriers.

Taking these subsets into account, do you think it is possible to represent these as a whole? It seems to me that this will mean many members, which in turn will result in a more effective advocacy. On the other hand are the interests of each of these subsets too diverse as to make unification of promotion not possible? If the latter, then which subsets do you see would result in an effective support office in DC. PAMA was unable to lure airline techs into its folds because the airlines would not support membership in what it perceived to be a unionizing effort. PAMA did add avionics technicians to its membership in an effort to add numbers and representative interests. Do you think this was good idea?

My personal opinion, and mine only, is that it is too difficult to try to represent airline techs under one hat. I think an effective representation for aircraft maintenance technicians includes corporate, regional, FBO and MRO certificated A&Ps. I am sure there are enough numbers to generate the clout and resources necessary to properly promote the interest of these professionals.

What has to happen was also cited often in the aforementioned responses to the earlier Blog – A&Ps have to get off their butt and become actively engaged in support of efforts to achieve this necessary advocacy if they want to improve their positions. Each has to quit lamenting his or her role in the overall aviation structure, and start being the professional each is by working continuously to improve.

Don’t you think it is time for mechanics to stop being “victims”?

Several of the messages I received from my last Blog stated clearly that for the aircraft maintenance person to advance in today’s socio-economic arenas, there must be an advocacy presence in Washington, D.C. I agree wholeheartedly with this. 

I recall my days of roaming the corridors of 800 Independence Ave. looking for knowledge and sometimes support for my company. As an unofficial advocate for maintenance personnel resulting from my years with PAMA, it was clear to me that the FAA was looking hard for an association to represent the particular interests of the technician. Not anything more.    

They were and I believe still are looking for an advocacy group that has a credible, growing membership, no political or commercial axes to grind, and offers professional representation at their offices. I think they know the input they receive from other groups represents only tangentially the interests of the aircraft mechanic. These other groups represent pilots, FBOs MROs, and the like. While maintenance issues, such as how to comply with maintenance-related FARs are on the agenda, there is no one with any clout telling the FAA what the technician thinks and how complying with a particular FAR may effect him or her.   

How do you feel about this? Do you have a suggestion(s) on how this situation can be corrected, if at all? Do you agree that aircraft technicians need a single voice with clout representing just their interests in D.C.? 

We would like to hear from you on this and please don’t pull any punches.

I would like to thank each of those that responded to the question, “will various basic and advanced certifications help aircraft mechanics improve their status in the industry?”

All of you pointed out in one way or another that the career of an aviation mechanic requires improvement in pay and recognition. Additionally I read the opinion that some of this is due to the technician’s lack of ambition. This latter point may be a symptom of the problem and not a cause. You agree that new certifications attesting to skills and knowledge levels will not bring about any change unless there are incentives to obtain these certifications, the most obvious of which is higher pay rates. Satisfaction in doing a job at a professional level is just not enough. And you are saying that there must also be a buy-in by management to recognize and support the certification effort. For what it is worth I agree.

I do not agree, however, that there is a stigma associated with being an aircraft mechanic. My former chairman used to say, “If you don’t like what you are doing here, why are you here.” The same is true for aircraft technicians. I believe 99 percent of technicians like what they do; to me, it might be that the lack of appreciation or recognition, etc. by others may be self-fulfilling.

Scott mentioned the continued ranking as semi-skilled labor by the U.S. Dept. of Labor. This is a problem. I know that for many years PAMA worked hard trying to change this. Unfortunately there are political considerations whenever you try to change anything in our bureaucracy and there are factions, mostly management, which will not support this. I recommend each of you support the efforts that are and will be made on your behalf in this area.

As to the European system versus ours, many of you made good points, especially Jean Pierre. Regardless of the negatives, I think the transition to this system will help the technician in the long run. I do not think jobs will change because some one is not rated in an aircraft; to the contrary, that does not occur now. Technicians receive training that is needed for the most part. This may not have been true 20 years ago but that has changed.

Please continue to send your remarks and or opinions on these issues. I feel there is more here than has been stated. It goes to the heart of your “career.” If efforts are being made and resources used toward this end, your beliefs, ideas, and opinions should shape the directions these take.