They did it.
01-22-2020, 07:36 AM
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 516
They did it.
It looks like industry has successfully lobbied congress to remove current FAA training and experience requirements for A&Ps. Schools will be free to teach whatever they want without minimum time requirements. The experience requirement will be extended to all military personnel. Recruitment funding has been allocated for "economically disadvantaged areas". What little value an A&P has will be greatly diluted. Much of the work is already being performed by non certificated help so there is no safety argument to be made. Industry insiders have always been able to get the cert with nothing more than a letter of recommendation. That option will be largely extended to everyone else.
'
;
'
;
01-23-2020, 07:35 AM
#3
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 516
Its the 147 rewrite. The FAA proposed changes that came nowhere close to satisfing industry. After the second extension, industry was able to get several congressmen on board. Now industry gets to call the shots and what they want is to remove any and all barriers to low cost maintenance. They like the idea of everyone having an A&P, they also want to remove their training burden. Both of these issues will be addressed in the new law. The pilot equivalent would be like replacing the ATP with a pilot provided type rating. The flying public would probably accept it and the industry would absolutely love it.
02-22-2020, 01:12 AM
#5
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 516
Originally Posted by Chipjumper
Will it specifically remove the 1800 hour training minimums?
02-19-2021, 07:53 PM
#8
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,001
Part 147 has been in need of change for three decades.
The new changes focus on moving curriculum to Dept of Education oversight, and the ability to update, tailor, and change training programs.
Kevbo has been on a mission for several years to denigrate the industry; he had a failed career of short term, left aviation maintenance, and has spent his time ever since attacking it relentlessly. His information is largely vitriol, false or misleading, and offers little or no substance.
Some years ago I worked in a shop in which a number of new hires were brought aboard from a nearby college. I ran into several cases of new hires who did not know how to remove a stuck 10-32 screw. One of them asked to borrow my die grinder, to cut out the flooring around a screw, so that he could reach behind the screw with vise grips and try to turn it out that way. I asked if he'd tried breaking it by turning tighter, using a longer screw driver, trying valve grinding compound, using an old man, bearing down with a speed handle, notching, or using an ez-out. He had no idea what any of those options were, and he wasn't using the correct bit to remove the screw in the first place. His was not an isolated case.
When I did my A&P, I presented a number of years experience. I studied for a year for each of the writtens, and prepped a year for the practical, and then took a 16 hour practical test given by an examiner at a state college. It was thorough.
While it is true that in repair stations, a number of uncertificated mechanics often work under the repair station certificate (as opposed to their own), but those mechanics are under supervision and are still beholden to the same standards.
It's entirely untrue, in fact a bald-faced lie, that most maintenance is done by uncertified mechanics, or that most maintenance is done outside the US (as kevbo has stated on numerous occasions). The notion that repair stations and shops are seeking less-qualified individuals, or that these changes have been made for that purpose, is without foundation and utterly ridiculous.
It's axiomatic that a pilot certificate is little more than a "license to learn," and the same may be said of the mechanic certificate with A or P ratings. That's exactly what it is, and given the scope of the industry, such learning is a life-long process. Simply because one has a pilot certificate does not mean he or she is ready or able or capable or legal to fly anything. Likewise, possession of an A&P doesn't mean one is ready to do any maintenance, and the regulation has applicable provisions.
I'm a pilot and mechanic, and have been both for a long time now. It's often said that the ATP is the "PhD of aviation," but this isn't really true. It's a glorified commercial pilot certificate with emphasis on instrument work. Aircraft maintenance has a much broader and extensive knowledge and skill base, which requires years of on the job experience beyond the classroom. As students emerge to a widely divergent market that might include extensive composite work advanced electronic work, or other types of work that's not presently a focus of the basic training scheme, it makes sense to update the training in general, and in focus for particular markets, technologies, and newer practices, techniques, and concepts. The re-write focuses on training to the standards, vs. training to an outdated curriculum.
Were kevbo here, he would tell you about the worthlessness of the FAA Mechanic certificate, the FAA certificated mechanic, and the job, in any of it's iterations or forms, as he has preached for years. He's the missionary of mechanic denigration, with a very clear negative agenda.
The upcoming changes are part of the mandates pushed through with Covid legislation at the end of last year; those mandates have given the impetus to force changes that have been in the works since 1990. Expect the adaption to modern times to be an ongoing evolutionary process, rather than a one-time fix.
The new changes focus on moving curriculum to Dept of Education oversight, and the ability to update, tailor, and change training programs.
Kevbo has been on a mission for several years to denigrate the industry; he had a failed career of short term, left aviation maintenance, and has spent his time ever since attacking it relentlessly. His information is largely vitriol, false or misleading, and offers little or no substance.
Some years ago I worked in a shop in which a number of new hires were brought aboard from a nearby college. I ran into several cases of new hires who did not know how to remove a stuck 10-32 screw. One of them asked to borrow my die grinder, to cut out the flooring around a screw, so that he could reach behind the screw with vise grips and try to turn it out that way. I asked if he'd tried breaking it by turning tighter, using a longer screw driver, trying valve grinding compound, using an old man, bearing down with a speed handle, notching, or using an ez-out. He had no idea what any of those options were, and he wasn't using the correct bit to remove the screw in the first place. His was not an isolated case.
When I did my A&P, I presented a number of years experience. I studied for a year for each of the writtens, and prepped a year for the practical, and then took a 16 hour practical test given by an examiner at a state college. It was thorough.
While it is true that in repair stations, a number of uncertificated mechanics often work under the repair station certificate (as opposed to their own), but those mechanics are under supervision and are still beholden to the same standards.
It's entirely untrue, in fact a bald-faced lie, that most maintenance is done by uncertified mechanics, or that most maintenance is done outside the US (as kevbo has stated on numerous occasions). The notion that repair stations and shops are seeking less-qualified individuals, or that these changes have been made for that purpose, is without foundation and utterly ridiculous.
It's axiomatic that a pilot certificate is little more than a "license to learn," and the same may be said of the mechanic certificate with A or P ratings. That's exactly what it is, and given the scope of the industry, such learning is a life-long process. Simply because one has a pilot certificate does not mean he or she is ready or able or capable or legal to fly anything. Likewise, possession of an A&P doesn't mean one is ready to do any maintenance, and the regulation has applicable provisions.
I'm a pilot and mechanic, and have been both for a long time now. It's often said that the ATP is the "PhD of aviation," but this isn't really true. It's a glorified commercial pilot certificate with emphasis on instrument work. Aircraft maintenance has a much broader and extensive knowledge and skill base, which requires years of on the job experience beyond the classroom. As students emerge to a widely divergent market that might include extensive composite work advanced electronic work, or other types of work that's not presently a focus of the basic training scheme, it makes sense to update the training in general, and in focus for particular markets, technologies, and newer practices, techniques, and concepts. The re-write focuses on training to the standards, vs. training to an outdated curriculum.
Were kevbo here, he would tell you about the worthlessness of the FAA Mechanic certificate, the FAA certificated mechanic, and the job, in any of it's iterations or forms, as he has preached for years. He's the missionary of mechanic denigration, with a very clear negative agenda.
The upcoming changes are part of the mandates pushed through with Covid legislation at the end of last year; those mandates have given the impetus to force changes that have been in the works since 1990. Expect the adaption to modern times to be an ongoing evolutionary process, rather than a one-time fix.
02-19-2021, 10:42 PM
#9
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2020
Posts: 32
Originally Posted by PLohr
What was the final outcome of this? Was the 1800 hour minimum removed?
