Type Specific Technicians?

[The_Russian]

What do you all think about type specific training being required for technicians (A&P's)?

Why is it not already required for a mechanic to have type specific training like pilots? To me it sounds like the best and safest thing. If pilots have a type rating, why not type the guy making sure that it won't fail during the operation? Maybe a two week ground school or something.

Any thoughts?

(please don't move this thread to maintenance! )

 

[propsarebest]

Canada has that already, and it is a real PITA to try to get an airplane fixed up there.

 

[JediNein]

FAA regulations require a mechanic to have training in a procedure before doing the procedure. I am too lazy to look up the specific reg, but I bet if you dug up part 43 you could find it.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Because type-specific maintenance training, just like type-specific pilot training, does not necessarily make one qualified to do the job.

I have had several occasions where my (pilot) supervision of maintenance technicians while in contact with my maintenance people at home was more than sufficient, and others where my supervision was still required even though the technician was "trained" on the airplane.

Fly safe!

David

 

[avbug]

The depth of and breadth of knowledge and skills required of aircraft mechanics is far more extensive that that required of a pilot. Pilots learn basic skills, and then learn specific aircraft system arrangements. Mechanics cannot address a function unless they have received training in that specific function or have performed it before, adn that applies to any aircraft.

A pilot can receive minimal training, be issued a type rating, and fly the aircraft with minimal reference to an instructions beyond performance data and a checklist. A mechanic must constantly have available and use approved item-specific data, which is far, far more extensive than what is provided to the pilot, in dealing with any aircraft, applicance, engine, or component.

Type ratings for mechanics is a concept which will only serve to limit the availability and ability of mechanics to address maintenance issues. Presently advanced type specific training is available and many companies have their employees attend that training. However, even if a mechanic were to receive a type rating for a specific aircraft and then face an operation he or she had never done before...the mechanic couldn't do the job. A mechanic with a type rating for an airplane but withotu certification and experience in nondestructive testing, for example, still couldn't do the work if required for part of an inspection. Mechanics are already bound by the regulation and are already fully covered by the performance requirements of Part 43.

 

[The_Russian]

Good points.

What about strictly for 121, 135, etc? The mechanic and the aircraft are already in house. It would be just like sending your pilots to school for the aircraft.

For example, a tech can work on any aircraft under part 91. Then if the tech becomes employed by an operator, the operator must give type specific training to work on all applicable aircraft under that operation for the tech's position within the company. (The training would be completed under a syllabus prior to performing work on any company aircraft)

What do you think about that?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Good points.

What about strictly for 121, 135, etc? The mechanic and the aircraft are already in house. It would be just like sending your pilots to school for the aircraft.

Sure...except that airplanes sometimes break away from home base, in which case, you either spend tons of time and money getting one of your mechanics to the airplane, or you spend tons of time and money finding a non-company mechanic who's trained on the airplane.

The last two mechanicals I had away from home were a starter-generator and a boost pump. Changing either of these is a VERY basic operation in the Hawker (I could have done either one without difficulty, and I'm not an A&P). My mechanics at home shipped the appropriate parts and faxed the appropriate maintenance manual excerpts, and mechanics who had never worked on Hawkers before had no problems wtih the "remove and replace" requirement to get me flying again.

OTOH, the cheapest and quickest way to get a "type-trained" mechanic to the remote locations where I was would have been to have my mechanic drive 2 hours, take two airline flights, rent a car, and drive for another 2-5 hours to get to the airplane and fix it. Unnecessary both in terms of time and expense.

Fly safe!

David

 

[erj-145mech]

Good points.

What about strictly for 121, 135, etc? The mechanic and the aircraft are already in house. It would be just like sending your pilots to school for the aircraft.

quote]

Are you even remotely familiar with the General Maintenance or training manuals at any 121?

This is already addressed by these FAA approved manuals.

 

[avbug]

What about strictly for 121, 135, etc? The mechanic and the aircraft are already in house. It would be just like sending your pilots to school for the aircraft.

See my previous comments. This is already the case. Adding the requirement for a type rating accomplishes nothing.