READERS SPEAK
UNQUALIFIED A&P TECHNICIANS Hi Joe, I am the DOM for a small bizjet operator in Seattle, WA.
I really enjoyed reading your editorial, “FOR SALE — AIR- FRAME AND POWERPLANT CERTIFICATES” that was printed in the May/June 2009 issue of D.O.M. Magazine. I have mixed feelings about the part 147 schools that are under fire for certificating unqualified A&P technicians. The part 147 schools along with the DMEs are already under the FAA umbrella just by virtue of the certificate or designation that they hold. I feel that the technicians that have success- fully completed an A&P course from these schools, but are under FAA scrutiny, should be allowed retest with a differ- ent DME. If the school or DME has done something wrong then the FAA should take action with the procedures that are already in place. Those of us that have been maintaining aircraft know that most A&P school graduates aren’t initially hired into positions where they’re making critical decisions on their own. The new media has made the general public believe that once a person graduates from A&P school that they’re signing off D-Checks on large aircraft. Just my two cents. Keep up the good work with the magazine.
Best regards, FRANK MADISON DIRECTOR OF MAINTENANCE CBAIR LLC
GENERATION DIFFERENCES Dear Sir, In reference to your May/June editorial “FOR SALE
— AIRFRAME AND POWERPLANT CERTIFI- CATES,” the students we are getting now do not play with guns, cars, helicopters, motorcycles, airplanes or boats like “we did,” (I just turned 60). They ride a cycle until it breaks then get another one rather than fixing that one. They have no interest in how things work or why they work. If it quits, they walk away from it or get dad to buy them another. The idea that a 147 school can teach it all is absurd. The basics are the same — from a DC3 to a 747. There
have really only been two advancements in aviation since the beginning — jets and composites. Everything else is just an evolution of a previous idea. Mechanical aptitude is on the wane in this time of
“throwaway” cars, motorcycles, cell phones etc. Aircraft maintenance is pretty much the same as car maintenance only you have to do it right the FIRST time and, you don’t just keep replacing parts until you fix it. That’s where troubleshooting comes in — and you can’t troubleshoot something unless you know how it works.
DREW LOFTHUS INSTRUCTOR, AVIATION MAINTENANCE TECHNOLOGY, TULSATECH
09.10 2009
6
We welcome your feedback. Send comments to
jescobar@DOMmagazine.com. Name will be withheld upon request. Comments may be edited for clarity and space considerations.
CHANGE THE REGULATIONS Joe, I liked your editorial on Maintenance Professionals of
the Future. The column clearly identified the difficultly of improving the knowledge and skills with the Part 147 stu- dents, an outdated curriculum and the ability to get regula- tory changes processed. As a DME, I see both school and OJT applicants. The school applicants for the oral and practical appear to have very little basic maintenance background and generally struggle through the broad-based exam except for the Gen- eral subjects. The prior OJT experience applicants are either aligned with heavy/turbine experience or light/reciprocat- ing experience. I rarely have an applicant with experience in both light and heavy categories, and during the exam its clear what subjects lack experience. I also find these applicants have very little to no desire to work in aviation outside their prior experience. So why do we continue with a broad-based Airframe
and Powerplant certificate? I was a fan of the broad-based certificate and glad I have it. My view of the broad-based certificate has changed based on my DME experience and I believe its now doing a disservice to our industry and specifically to the professionals of the future! My solution is simple but will require regulation changes to the certificate, schools and testing. This solution is to leave the General alone and break up
the Airframe and Powerplant ratings and add some specialty ratings as required. My new proposed Airframe ratings are Airframe pressurized, unpressurized or define by weight. The 12500 weight is a good separation. The new Power- plant ratings should be Powerplant Turbine, Reciprocating and Propeller. Possible specialty ratings should be NDI, welding, avionics etc. These more defined ratings will allow the applicant to seek and be examined only for the rating(s) desired. Plus, this will allow the schools to focus and modernize on the specific ratings and provided the needed experience in a more reasonable time frame.
Regards, PATRICK WEAVER
DOMmagazine
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
