I want my A&P ticket

[Gorilla]

This is not a whim or wishful thinking... I've always wanted an A&P license, and am ready to do the work necessary to obtain one. I have a solid working knowledge of much of the material, but of course am lacking in others. Apparently there is a written test, oral exam, and a practical test. I am a part 121 pilot and do have free time, but not in the sense that I can go to a school for months - it'll need to be part time.

Anyone else done this pretty much on their own? I would appreciate any hints or tips, or recommendations for schooling.

Thanks!

 

[avbug]

Absolutely you can do it on your own. I did. You'll just need 30 months of dedicated full time experience working on airplanes under the supervision of a certificated mechanic or repair station, first.

Or eighteen months for a powerplant or airframe rating only, on the certificate. But yes, you can certainly do it.

 

[CRJ's suck]

I went a different route than avbug but he is correct. I may be wrong but I think you need to document everything you do to show the FSDO that you have the required hours for training. Others on here surely know more than me about it.

Maybe you could find a FBO that would let you work part time. Good luck anyway.

 

[Gorilla]

Thanks guys. I live in an airpark neighborhood that is loaded with A&P's, examiners, aircraft owners, and we all pitch in to help each other with everything from covering an antique wooden airplane, to painting, wiring, pretty much everything. For example, today I am going to machine true the cylinder heads of an American Eaglet, a 3 cylinder radial engine. Somehow I've got to document this sort of apprenticeship work.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Funny thing, I wanted my A&P before ever thinking about flying. Ended up doing the flying instead of the A&P, but would love to have it.

 

[avbug]

Maybe you could find a FBO that would let you work part time. Good luck anyway.

The FAA specifically states that the 30 months is full time employment as a mechanic assistant under the supervision of a mechanic or in a repair station.

Some FSDO's and examiners will let you cheat. Some mechanics will do the same by signing for your experience.

Maintenance and maintenance certification isn't a hobby or part time thing. The knowledge and understanding and experience is far more substantial that that required for the ATP. Many pilots don't seem to take maintenance personnel too seriously; mechanics are regarded as the blue-collared red-headed stepchild...somehow the lower class of the aviation community. What's required in terms of training and experience and depth of knowledge and equipment is for the mechanic much more extensive for the mechanic.

I see the attitude of wanting to rush out and get the mechanic certification, like it's an extra thing that might be nice to have, as offensive. Most pilots wouldn't take kindly to a mechanic who tries to find a shortcut to picking up the ATP by getting someone to sign them off or who cheats the system...and th ATP isn't nearly as involved.

When you get a type rating, you get signed off on one airplane. When you get your mechanic certification, you get signed off on all of them. Think about that for a moment. When you make a flight as a pilot, you're responsible or what happens on that flight, only. When you work on an airplane, you're responsible for the work performed on that airplane since it was made...including everyone else's work. Think about that. Then try to imagine what it would be like to make a flight in an airplane when you are responsible for everything everyone else has done on every flight that airplane has made since the factory delivered it...as well as anything done at the factory. That's the level of responsibility of the mechanic.

You can surely find somebody to sign you off for a little part time work and someone who will let you go test...and in so doing you will be cheating the system. The FAA mandates 30 months of full time experience as a mechanic as the starting point. Over the past few years there's been talk of eliminating that or modifying it because many believe it's not comprehensive enough.

Personally when I went to the FSDO I had 54 months, and I presented a bound document with letters from each employer, each shop, each mechanic, certifying the experience. I also presented documentation on all the work I'd done during that time, right down to the registration numbers of the aircraft. I had about ten years experience at that point, but was only able to document thoroughly about four and a half. (In many cases a FSDO will accept single signed letter by a mechanic or shop). I went to work in a repair station, and quickly learned I didn't know squat. It wasn't until then, when I began doing everything in the shop, that the education began...and that was with a decade of mx experience behind me.

I'm not discounting the mx experience you're getting now, and I'm not saying you can't get someone to sign you off based on part time occasional work. People cheat the system, so to speak, all the time to gain their certification. I think you get my point, though.

To answer your other questions; there is an oral and practical test, and there are three wrritten tests (general, airframe, and powerplant). I suggest the prep books by ASA for the wittens themselves, as the oral exam test book by Dale Crane. You'll need to have a good working knowledge of the regulation (particularly Part 43), understand mx documents (TCDS, mx pubs, etc), and AC 43.13 especially. You'll be asked to do things such as inspect an airplane, time a magneto, rivet a lap joint and set it up with proper spacing, balance a propeller, properly safety wire things...basic representative tasks. My practical test was eight hours.

I believe you'll need to present your documentation of experience to the FSDO, and then you'll receive authorization to take the knowledge tests ("written" tests). Presentation of the three tests at the practical test is your ticket to test for the rating. When I did mine, I prepared on my own and then approached an examiner at a maintenance school for the practical test. A lot of people take weekend schools...which abound for people who take the back door to getting certification.

Either way, good luck.

 

[Gorilla]

AVBug, I have no desire to cheat. I appreciate the time it took you to pass this info along. I get the feeling you believe me to be yet another hobby pilot who just wants to do his own maintenance. Nothing could be farther from the truth. All my life I have enjoyed mechanics, moreso than flying. I get more of a rush boring a hole in metal than I do boring holes in the sky.

I machined this functional 9 cylinder radial engine from bar stock over a period of three years:

http://www.5bears.com/radpics/runin03.jpg
http://www.5bears.com/radpics/fnl01.jpg
http://www.5bears.com/radpics/fnl02.jpg

I simply want to demonstrate that this is not a passing fancy, and I do have what I believe are the necessary mechanical skills. I will do what it takes... I just hope that some shop's notion of "apprenticeship" doesn't include exclusively sweeping out a hangar floor and fetching coffee and sandwiches for the "real" mechanics. I don't mind putting in the time and effort, but I also don't want to waste time.

Thanks again.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Impressive handy work, Gorilla.

 

[avbug]

I appreciate the time it took you to pass this info along. I get the feeling you believe me to be yet another hobby pilot who just wants to do his own maintenance.

I'm not judging you, or your motivations, Gorilla. Just making a strongly worded general statement. Clearly you wouldn't have asked if you weren't motivated, and clearly you have a drive to achieve this goal.

The nature of maintenance is that it's all about conformity to approved documentation. Machining isn't even a maintenance skill; it's a separate skill that few mechanics know or understand. It's a valueable skill to be sure, and obviously one you do well. Maintenance in general, however, is a little bit different an animal. I'll give a few examples, with the caveat that holding the certification doesn't make one a good mechanic or mean that one does things right, either...I've known a lot of people involved in experimental aviation that were superb mechanics and more skilled and knowledgeable than many certificated mechanics. I've also known more than a few certificated mechancis and IA holders who were flat-out dangerous.

JAL had a 747 that was involved in a tail strike some years ago. Boeing did the repairs. They failed to do a double row or rivtets in a pressure bulkhead. It was signed off, approved by factory personnel, inspectors, long time exprts working with that specific product and that specific repair. Under pressure that seam failed, and the aircraft lost all hydraulic control. The aircaft crashed in Japaen with all but three dead. Boeing later admitted that they'd made a mistake. Something as simple as a small section of rivets in an unseen location.

Steve Whitman as regarded as a genius in the homebuilding and experimental community. He did some great work, and was well liked. He and his wife were killed on the way to Oshkosh some years ago, due to aileron flutter. He'd made the mistake of mixing two fabric processes, and the pinked seam tapes on an aileron delaminated, leading to flutter, which lead to the loss of the aircraft. Such a repair, you'd never recognize from the outward appearance. It would never be caught on an inspection. But mixing stits and ceconite, for example, just mixing dopes or fabric tapes, even though they're nearly the same...can be disasterous.

I found a big problem on a C-82 during an inspection some time ago. It had already been signed off at the time, but I re-opened the squawk and found a problem that lead me to remove all the fuel lines in aircraft and fabricate new ones. Had it flown in that condition, the aircraft would without any doubt have been lost to an inflight fire. I have no doubt about that. The individuals who inspected that particular item and signed it off were putting their signatures, unknowingly, on an improper repair done many years before...one that wasn't found without considerable effort and time.

I've seen repairs made with household silicon, with improper metal, with improper rivet spacing or sizes (the loss of RV-3 wings, or the failure of them years ago, was often traced to incorrect fasteners...they looked very close, but clearly weren't up to the task). I saw an exhaust repaired by an IA that was composed of a beer car and safety wire. A 182 signed off after an annual with the ailerons rigged 90 degrees out...to put the ailerons neutral, the control wheel was tilted 90 degrees to one side, and the aircraft couldn't turn left! That, by a 25 year IA!

I'm not saying you'll do these things. Looking at the pictures of your work, I see detail orientation and craftsmanship...something lacking in many today. I think you'll probably do fine. I think any inspector would be impressed by the pictures or by the finished product and I suspect a lot of mechanics or inspectors would be quick to sign you off based on that. However, again, the comprehensive nature of maintenance covers making a proper flare on a hydraulic line to safetying a control turnbuckle to balancing a propeller or control surface, to electrical wiring, fabric repair, or performing non-destructive inspection work on components.

I went to work in a repair station with a fresh A&P based on years of experience, and found that I was just scratching the surface. The first hour of work on the first day saw me fabricating fuel lines for a C-97...something I'd never done. I got schooled and got to work. I didn't intend on really using my certificate much. I'd used it in the past, but I had no idea how extensive the work would be that I'd be called on to do.and it was very extensive.

A few years ago I was in a hangar working on a company airplane, and the owner rented out a corner of the hangar to a mechanic who was trying to peddle repair services. His first job was a Commanche that needed an inspection and some work. I watched him progressively strip ever screw on the cowl, then ruin three windscreens. Later I was approached to see if I could open a brake with my shop air. I popped out the puck and looked over the brake, and was told that it was freshly overhauled and leaking like a sieve. The rubber 0-ring packing was the wrong material, wrong size, wrong color, and a cheap harbor freight type. The cylinder walls were scored and scratched, and the entire assembly was filthy, caked with years of buildup. Overhauled? I told the owner exactly what I thought of the individual who could have done that kind of work, and then learned he was standing next to me...and older idiotic IA who made a living pencil whipping annuals and work. That guy isn't alone. There are more out there. All I can say, and exhort n the strongest possible terms, is that whatever you decide to do and whatever path you decide to take, do everything in your power to keep from being that guy.

I'm sure you'll do well. Take it seriously, take the regulation and approved data seriously, and remember that the devil really is in the details. It's the smallest of corrosion, the tiniest of stress risers, the littlest knick or dent or scratch, the most detailed of part numbers or chemical compositions, that make the difference...between your career and the street, between legal and illegal, and between someone's bed, and their grave. One can never take it seriously enough; it's serious business. Vow to never compromise a standard, and to adhere to published procedure and practice like a dear religion. I've seen mechanics who felt they could build it better, stronger...and that's very much the wrong thing to do. There's no such thing as "good enough." Only "correct," or "right."

Again, regardless of your choices, good luck. Congratulations on that engine. It looks like a beauty.

 

[CFIcare]

Nice

Wow, Gorilla.

That's beautiful work.