Rather than leave this blog on that note, I thought perhaps this would be a good venue for others to contribute their comments, feelings, and thoughts about Bill. Those of you that worked with him, we would like to hear from you. Those of you that only came in contact with him through his monthly piece in AMT, let us hear from you. I know some of you have comments about what you may have learned, and others what changes you may have made after meeting him or reading his articles.

I believe Bill conferred a unique sense of pride to all aviation maintenance people he touched. Join us in eulogizing him by celebrating the good he did for our profession.

Courtesy of Bill’s son Mike you can enjoy some of the family’s photographs of Bill at rememberingbillobrien.blogspot.com.

Well, it would be foolish to think there were no changes imminent in our industry.

A recent article revealed business aircraft flight activity is off 9 percent so far this year from ‘07. Light jets are down 12 percent, while midsize is down 5 percent, and long-range business jets are down 6 percent. Additionally the article stated, “We believe the deterioration in our survey combined with the increase in available for-sale aircraft and decline in flight activity presage what we think will be a significant slowing in new aircraft order activity.” The expectation is that service businesses of the manufacturers and suppliers will be affected negatively. This means lay-offs and work-force reductions. I understand both Cessna and Hawker Beechcraft have indicated they will be exercising various economic restraints with work-force reductions.

While gas prices have come down considerably in the last months, International Air Transport Assn. (IATA) predicts that the airline business will lose up to $5.2 billion this year. That means continued economic cuts, including reduced flights, aircraft, and personnel. In the United States alone some 512 aircraft are being grounded as I write.

There is another kind of change heading our way. This is in the distant, or perhaps not-so-distant, future. The Air Force has initiated two new training programs for drone pilots. One of the test programs will include 1,100 non-pilots who will be given aircraft basics in a small aircraft for six weeks, as well as simulator training, and then go on to UAV training. UAV pilots will not have to meet the AF pilot physical requirements. While we are talking piloting here, it does not take any kind of logic leap to realize that some one has to maintain these unmanned aircraft and that perhaps the maintainers may be actually better qualified to fly the equipment. And it will not be long before we see UAVs as part of commercial aviation. I heard that a major package carrier requested UAV approval for one of its specially equipped Airbuses to fly revenue routes from Alaska to Japan. While disapproved, how far away can this be?

The above are dynamic forces that will affect each of us. We must be prepared as the ripples come our way. And just as sure those ripples will change, we must be flexible and adapt to changes. Change is something we have to accept. The better we accept it and adapt to it, the more successful our lives.

I recall in the early ‘90s speaking to an FAA person of some rank at a show. We were discussing the oncoming formation of the JAA in Europe. When I asked if the FAA was concerned that it might lose its leadership position in the aviation regulatory world, he said there was no way the Europeans would ever get it together. There were too many cultural, economic, and political differences.

Well look where we are now. It appears the United States will be following the lead of our counterparts overseas in many areas including maintenance operations. To say this will have no effect on how you do your job is probably naïve.

What do you think of what is going on with EASA and the FAA? Do you think it will or will not have an effect on how you do your job? Will more jobs be outsourced overseas because of this? What can be done to try to right the ship?

We look forward to hearing from you.

I recall my first NBAA. I’m fairly sure it was held at the Sheraton Hotel in Washington, D.C. I manned a booth that was part of the exhibits lining the walls of a lobby section. Has it ever grown! This is certainly a testament to the viability of this subset of aviation maintenance.

More than 30,000 attendees are expected. More than 1,000 exhibitors will be hawking their wares. Each day includes seminars, business meetings, manufacturer maintenance and ops meetings, social events, and new product announcements. It is an exciting time for those in this end of our business.

Hopefully, many of you will be in attendance. The AMT staff is looking forward to seeing you there. Please drop by booth #841 and say “hi.” Meet our staff and perhaps take the opportunity to tell us what we can do better to make the magazine more interesting and helpful to you.

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.

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”?

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.

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.

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 Canada and Europe enhancing harmony and that the 147 curriculum should be changed to accommodate this new path. Of course this will require regulatory change and that is difficult. But if it is a preferred path our leaders should be made aware.

AMT is interested in what you think. We look forward to your input.