PLANE TALK
CHALLENGES IN OFF-AIRCRAFT SPECIALIZED WORK
BACKGROUND It appears that Transport Canada has nationwide concerns that some persons certifying off-aircraft work conducted in Approved Maintenance Organizations (AMO) were not, in its opinion, sufficiently educated or trained. I assume this meant the formal technical training needed to form a suitable background to be able to absorb the technology and successfully carry out the function. This certification of the work would occur after hands-on apprenticeship under the supervision of qualified persons. Unfortunately, this all became a
public event as some regional people acted to remove long-standing approvals after an on-site review. They felt that the individuals were not qualified even though the approvals were issued years ago by fully qualified Transport personnel. Since the standards had not changed this action was difficult to understand by people outside Transport Canada. After much to and froing, and several discussions between the parties, the situation seems to be that Transport Canada sees a national problem. It is proposing an advisory circular or other information in the future. This should be of great interest to all AMEs and AMOs and even training institutions across Canada and maybe even out of Canada. We have
54
DOMmagazine.com | oct 2019
long sought to safeguard, for good technical and safety reasons as well as professional reasons, the role of the AME in certification of aviation maintenance work. However, the work performance
certifying role of the AME is limited to aircraft work. Specialized off- aircraft work is to be conducted and certified in AMOs. The rumours that Transport Canada was going to require, for off-aircraft specialized work AMOs, AME licences such as the category E, Avionics, or S, Structures, are said to be false. That is good news, if true. The question of having aircraft AMOs and specialized AMOs was a matter of great debate and discussion during the latter part of the past century. If there are any fundamental philosophical regulatory issues, careful analysis and much deliberation needs to be accomplished before any changes are made to the system. Furthermore, current operators should not be penalized in any way. If there are any major changes they need to be grandfathered into the changed system.
SOME HISTORY It quickly developed that in Canada the Air Engineers were doing most of the work maintaining aircraft, while being supported by other trades. What were originally known
BY ROGER BEEBE AND WILL CHABUN
I RECENTLY BECAME INVOLVED IN AN INTERESTING CHALLENGE REGARDING SUBJECT CANADIAN APPROVED MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS (AMO) OFF-AIRCRAFT SPECIALIZED WORK. THIS INVOLVED THE SCOPE OF OFF- AIRCRAFT WORK AND THE FORMAL TECHNICAL TRAINING NECESSARY TO DO IT. THIS ALSO QUESTIONED THE TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE NEEDED TO HOLD SHOP CERTIFICATION AUTHORITY IN THE AMO TO CERTIFY THE WORK PERFORMED.
as licensed Air Engineers became known by 1946 as licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (AMEs). At this time, AMEs were still seen as both technicians and as inspectors although legally it was their certification authority directly from the Crown which made them key in aviation maintenance. Later, it became evident that the
AME’s work was supported by many personnel with very specific trade qualifications. By default, the AME licence had become the trade standard in civil aviation and most technicians worked towards that goal. The Canadian military continued to opt for a multi-trade approach, based partly on military needs and partly on its complex rank structure. In the 1980s, the military began to look at the civil aviation model more closely. The Air Force of the 1960s had approximately 14 different aircraft maintenance trades. There were others doing very important tasks, such as upholstery, painting, welding, etc. but they were not at the center of the hangar and flightline action. They were then generally known as ancillary or support trades and usually worked in shops which were not located on the flight line. The Air Force stayed for many years with a complex trade structure for on aircraft work, as it suits their needs. However, lately due to both technical
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 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92
