PLANE TALK NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS BY ROGER BEEBE
I FOUND AN INTERESTING NEWS ITEM IN AN AVIATION MAGAZINE ABOUT A WELL KNOWN CANADIAN AME WHO WANTS TO IMPROVE THE NATION-WIDE ORGANIZATION OF AMES. THE AIM OF THE ENHANCED ORGANIZATION WOULD BE TO PROTECT AND FOSTER EXCELLENCE AMONG AMES ACROSS CANADA. I BELIEVE ONE SUCH AN ORGANIZATION EXISTS IN THE USA — THE PROFESSIONAL AVIATION MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION (PAMA).
BACKGROUND In the past, I saw a marked diff erence in maintenance organizations where I worked that used the AME system for aircraft inspection and certifi cation than those that did not. I worked for one large outfi t that did not use federal licenses — it used company issued release certifi cates that were allowed by the regulator at that time in Canada. To me there seemed to be more discussion around keeping one’s company-issued document rather than making sure one was complying with regulations. Because worker mobility was somewhat restricted, the tendency, understandably, was to go along to get along. I am not saying things were unsafe just, that one had to depend on the union for protection more than on the regulator if there was any dispute concerning a maintenance action. Licensed AMEs tended to be more careful to remain in compliance with the regulations and not to fall afoul of the regulator rather than their immediate employer. Portability of the license gives one more confi dence to do the right thing no matter how diffi cult. One thing governments generally
do well is ensuring that basic regulatory standards are applied across all approved companies. Standard curricula can also be set up across a country’s technical training system, and in fact, worldwide through
40
DOMmagazine.com | may 2019
ICAO. By having governmental certifi cation of licensed personnel, the public and industry knows that a common standard has been applied. Government licensed technicians are required to know and pass air law and regulation exams early in their career which give them a better understanding of their responsibilities including responsibilities to the public beyond their current employer. Unions also know that government licensed personnel meet a basic standard. Unions have been good supporters of certifi ed and licensed technicians by aviation authorities.
DEALING WITH
NON-COMPLIANCE ISSUES Back between the late nineteen fi fties and early nineteen eighties, when Canadian aviation organizations could use non federally licensed personnel for aircraft certifi cation after maintenance work, personnel discipline issues regarding regulatory compliance could be a problem. This was because of the union’s need to protect their members through grievance procedures. As a former union president in my younger years, I know how that works when you must defend a poorly-functioning person on a safety-related issue. Once licensed personnel were required for aircraft work, certifi cation this fell to the regulators who were not infl uenced by the union legal needs.
For clarifi cation only three outfi ts had been granted that privilege of issuing personnel authority to release aircraft work to individuals that did not hold an AME licence. They lost that privilege during the nineteen eighties and since then the AME licence forms the basis of any release authority for all approved companies. Another point relating to law
enforcement was that it was very diffi cult to ground an entire airline due to one individual not complying with regulatory material. When government licenced personnel are certifying maintenance, the enforcement can be directed at one individual. This method is much more eff ective than trying to shut down a major air carrier for one individual’s failures. Finally, the government license is portable and that gives technicians personal certifi cation, pride and the ability to walk away if they see something improper happening. When you hold only a company certifi cate then it is much more diffi cult to do, as the next company probably won’t recognize it. You may have remembered some of this as I have written about the subject in previous issues — why we have technician certifi cation in civil aviation.
THE CURRENT SITUATION The professional lobbying eff orts of AMTs and AMEs are somewhat
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
