Weekend Annuals.

[NeverBlue]

There are 3 types of data with respect to "repair" - none of witch an AME has anything to do with.
Specified Data
Approved Data
Acceptable Data

That's just not true at all...

AME's produce STC's all the time...MCM's, MPM's OM's...amoung other things.

[PilotDAR]

AME's produce STC's all the time...MCM's, MPM's OM's

MCM, MPM, or OM are not relevant to "data" in the context of AME work repairing aircraft.

Using an STC for repair is uncommon, but in some cases, possible. STC's are Transport Canada approved documents. Within an AME's privileges, how would an AME produce an STC?

An RDA is used for a repair, but is not a product of an AME, within the scope of AME privileges.

[NeverBlue]

how would an AME produce an STC?

Well that explains a lot...

[PilotDAR]

Quote:
how would an AME produce an STC?


Well that explains a lot...

Indeed.

For others perhaps not so familiar, the AME privilege to release an aircraft to service, is a license from Transport Canada. That license describes a scope of privilege. The privilege to approve and issue an STC or an RDA, is a delegation from the Minister of Transport - which is not the same thing. (Type Certificates (TC's) and PDA's are approved differently by ministerial delegation).

Without a TC, and possibly thereafter an STC, RDA, or PDA, there would be no approved data for the AME to sign "in accordance with", for a maintenance release for a whole aircraft. Specified or accepted data can only be produced in accordance with Transport Canada/FAA acceptance, so also not an AME task.

[GyvAir]

Quote:
how would an AME produce an STC?


Well that explains a lot...

Indeed.

Brevity is indeed the soul of wit!

[NeverBlue]

You do not understand fixing a snag on a live aircraft at all.

A "real" AME does not find a problem in accordance with anything.....that's all "engineered" in their heads, as someone put it earlier.
When the AME discovers what the problem is they repair it in accordance with............

That's how it's done....

Vector Aerospace's helicopter mod center in Langley BC has an engineering department ( where all the STC's are done) full of apprenticing PEng's....they use a certain DAR all the time who's an AME E as well.
The department is run by AME E's...the VP of Business Development and Airframe/Avionics is an AME E.......

[PilotDAR]

That's how it's done....

Thanks for your perspective. It's not the way I was taught.

A "real" AME does not find a problem in accordance with anything.....that's all "engineered" in their heads

I'll leave it to a P Eng to comment upon an "in the head" home made troubleshooting practice to be an "engineering exercise.

But, if I took my aircraft to a new AMO, and was told that the snag I was presenting for rectification would be sought out "not in accordance with anything", I think I'd turn around, and taxi further along the apron. Experience counts for a lot, but following the manufacturer's recommended practices is a good idea too! (Doing so can prevent collateral damage!) 'Ever watched a mechanic take an oleo or wheel apart for maintenance, without depressurizing it first?! Following procedures, can prevent injury and damage.

My experience has been that DAR's who also have lots of aircraft maintenance experience, produce very practical and easy to use approvals. It will be these DAR's who create the most effective ICA's associated with their approvals, as production of an ICA, or at least the review of the applicability, is a requirement of STC's. Some DAR's (with lots of aircraft maintenance experience) are also delegated to accept ICA's on behalf of the Maintenance and Manufacturing side of TC, as ICA acceptance is not customarily considered an Aircraft Certification exercise. Crossover between disciplines is very useful.

[Strega]

apprenticing PEng's.

That is an oxymoron...

I wonder if all of the AME-Es that sit in the electronics lab "engineer" the solution to U/S avionics in their heads?

[NeverBlue]

Yes....yes they do!

You really have no idea how it's done...at all...and yet here you are telling me that I don't...it's quite funny actually.

Why don't you TELL me how it's done then...

[photofly]

I think my decades of experience at getting dressed in the morning qualifies me as an underpants engineer. It's a work of engineering genius to get them on every day.

[PilotDAR]

It's a work of engineering genius to get them on every day

Perhaps I can help you with an STC, and approved Installation Instructions for that

(However, I'm not so sure I want any involvement in the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness for those!)

[photofly]

...I might need an STC for the STOL kit... wait till you see my approved data.

[AirFrame]

apprenticing PEng's.

That is an oxymoron...

It's not the official name, but it fits the situation. The official name is an Engineer-in-Training, or EIT. But the EIT process works a lot like being an Apprentice AME. I think the only reason they don't call them Apprentice P.Eng's is that "Apprentice" was a term associated with the trades, and the people who wrote all these rules didn't want to be confused with tradesmen.

[Strega]

A P Eng is exactly that.. an EIT is exactly that.. you cannot have a P Eng "in training"

"But the EIT process works a lot like being an Apprentice AME"

No, it doesnt... An AME is a tradesman, not an Engineer, you can be an AME without ever having set foot in a classroom.

apprenticing PEng's.

That is an oxymoron...

It's not the official name, but it fits the situation. The official name is an Engineer-in-Training, or EIT. But the EIT process works a lot like being an Apprentice AME. I think the only reason they don't call them Apprentice P.Eng's is that "Apprentice" was a term associated with the trades, and the people who wrote all these rules didn't want to be confused with tradesmen.

[Angusnofangus]

An AME is a tradesman, not an Engineer, you can be an AME without ever having set foot in a classroom.

You obviously have no idea of the process to become an AME if you think you never have to set foot in a classroom.

[AirFrame]

A P Eng is exactly that.. an EIT is exactly that.. you cannot have a P Eng "in training"

An EIT *is* a P.Eng in training. If you don't understand the distinction, you probably shouldn't be supervising any EIT's.

[CID]

The amount of misinformation in this thread is startling. Do we really have so many engineering and maintenance professionals in our industry that don't have a clue? It was nice to see a post from twotter if for no other reason that it shows he's alive and kicking and continuing to add nothing important to discussions.

1. You don't need to be a P. Eng to be a DAR so don't bother to continue to push that distinction. A DAR doesn't necessarily do engineering, (by definition) he/she makes findings of compliance with airworthiness standards. Ultimately, a DAR can issue an serialized STC or submit "approved" data to TCCA and have them issue it. Believe it or not, DARs often do not prepare the engineering that they approve. The vast majority of P. Engs employed in Aerospace in Canada do not have delegated power to approve their designs. Imagine if Bombardier depended on their DARs (they call them DADs) to prepare all of the design and compliance data for the aircraft they design and manufacture. That would be a VERY busy group of individuals. Having said that, its also common for DARs in smaller companies to prepare all the drawings and reports required in the STC process. The point here is that "P. Eng" is not interchangeable with "DAR".

2. An AME (again by definition) really has nothing to do with the STC process or engineering (by the definition by the various chartered engineering groups) and retains the AME moniker in some provinces by way of a grandfather clause. An AME does however (again by definition) bear responsibility to perform "repairs" and "modifications" with the appropriate data. (See 571.06)

3. The three types of data (by definition) are "approved", "specified" and "acceptable" and these terms have very specific meaning so be careful not to take them out of context. If someone says you need "acceptable" data, this has very specific meaning. AC 43.13 is "acceptable" data for any aircraft for mods or repairs that are not "major" but can be used under certain circumstances as "specified" data for major mods or repairs on small aircraft.

4. "Specified" data has the same legal authority as "approved" data for modifications and repairs.

5. An "approved repair" under the RDA process, in the context of CAR 571.06 has very specific meaning so don't say "approved repair" to describe maintenance in accordance with an AMM. It's not the same thing. An approved repair "restores" the aircraft after damage. If you have an unwanted hole in your fuselage, an approved repair scheme would allow you to fix it without "modifying" any of the structural qualities of the air-frame. An approved repair is very similar to an SRM repair and is typically used when an SRM repair isn't available or if the operator wants to use an alternate repair scheme. An RDA can be issued by a DAR.

6. There is no magic absolute in most aspects of aviation so don't ever try to state what an AME or a DAR "can" and "can't do on an individual level. It just doesn't matter. Refer to the CARS and discuss things in terms of what the CARS "authorize" a licensed AME to do or "delegates" a DAR (or an MDM for that matter) to do. I'm sure some AMEs can play the banjo but how is that relevant to any discussion? And stop comparing. AMEs especially really need to get over this weird sense of inferiority to DARs that they seem to constantly defend themselves over. A DAR is not a grown-up AME. A DAR is not necessarily smarter, better looking or better paid. A DAR is not a "super-AME". Both (again by definition) have very different roles with some overlapping knowledge. DARs are bound to certain standards and processes that are prescribed by the regulations so don't give them a hard time because your "common sense" detector can't figure out why it costs so much to drill a hole in a pressure bulkhead or why you need three relays and switch to turn on a light or why you need to make 200 rivet holes to fix one hole. If you knew why, you'd be a DAR. AMEs have specific skill sets, many of which aren't interchangeable with a DAR.

7. Speaking of absolutes, there is no overriding requirement to troubleshoot a snag in accordance with any specific procedure but many aircraft manufacturers provide troubleshooting guides. Larger and/or more complex aircraft have troubleshooting guidance within the AMM or in specific documents (like a FIM) that contain guidance and in some cases mandatory steps in troubleshooting, repairing and testing systems. In some cases, not following the instructions is dangerous and just plain stupid. Especially in modern airlines with CAIMS or on systems that can kill you if you're not careful.

8. Swinging a compass in the air on aircraft that are anything other VFR only is just dumb. Swinging a compass using GPS regardless if you are on the ground or in the air in anything other than single engine non-commercial low performance aircraft is just dumb. Thinking that the compass manufacturer's instructions counts as an approved maintenance practice is....well you get the picture.

9. An EIT is not an apprentice P.Eng or an apprentice DAR. Professional development is not the same as cutting your teeth on-the-job. Comparing an "apprenticeship" to the professional development of an EIT or a P. Eng is apples and oranges. In fact, an EIT can be a DAR. I for one think there should be an apprentice program for EITs similar to how they did it "back in the day" when a prospective P. Eng actually had to make a few things before he was allowed to design them. But I digress....

10. If you want to know "how things are done" for the sake of Frank and Orville, read the CARs and the corresponding guidance material. STC? Check 521. Maintenance? 571. Delegations? 505. Why on earth are you relying on some anonymous doofus on the internets? (Me included) Find out for yourselves from authoritative sources.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... s/menu.htm
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/o ... nu-455.htm

[Strega]

Thanks CID...

Its clear you have a lot more patience than I do...

"You obviously have no idea of the process to become an AME if you think you never have to set foot in a classroom."
Its clear to me you dont... you can be an AME in Canada without ever setting foot in a classroom. I know several examples of this.

[Angusnofangus]

Thanks CID...

Its clear you have a lot more patience than I do...

"You obviously have no idea of the process to become an AME if you think you never have to set foot in a classroom."
Its clear to me you dont... you can be an AME in Canada without ever setting foot in a classroom. I know several examples of this.

In the past, yes. In fact I am one of them.but not anymore. You must complete a course at an ATO.

[Strega]

In the past, yes. In fact I am one of them.but not anymore. You must complete a course at an ATO.

Yes.. go look up the list of ATOs... There is one that doesn't involve a classroom... (unless its been changed recently)

[Angusnofangus]

In the past, yes. In fact I am one of them.but not anymore. You must complete a course at an ATO.

Yes.. go look up the list of ATOs... There is one that doesn't involve a classroom... (unless its been changed recently)

If there is indeed such a place, which I doubt, provide a link.

[Strega]

http://www.icslearn.ca/aircraft/

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... rWIl6XmesQ

[Troubleshot]

http://www.icslearn.ca/aircraft/

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... rWIl6XmesQ

So you are saying that no university courses are offered online? Just Aircraft maintenance programs? Also as a note this course is listed as basic training with no accreditation from TC.

[Angusnofangus]

http://www.icslearn.ca/aircraft/

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... rWIl6XmesQ

As Troubleshot said, this is a basic course and there is no credit given for it. So no, you cannot become an AME without stepping into a classroom.

[Strega]

As Troubleshot said, this is a basic course and there is no credit given for it. So no, you cannot become an AME without stepping into a classroom.

Wanna bet?