Canadian AME releasing American machines

[Troubleshot]

I know this has been kicked around here before but I would like some thoughts on this as I do not have a lot of experience in this situation, and the "search" only turned up bits and pieces.

Ok so you have a American carrier fly into a Canadian airport and they break down, they need a engineer to have a look. The engineer works for an AMO that has a maintenance agreement with the said carrier BUT he does not have that aircraft type endorsement on his canadian M2 licence....how far does his authorization go? Can he release the aircraft in any way? (ie. Ferry permit, componet change, MEL, etc...) or do you need the proper endorsment?

A CARS reference would also be helpful...Thanks guys

TS

[wrenchturner]

I could be wrong, but as far as I know, if you are signing it out under a Canadian AMO with a Canadian AME license, you can't sign anything out with an endorsement. Sorry, no CAR's reference for that though. If you have an A&P, you can do it though, however, it is on your license and not the AMO.

[rigger]

In the past I've done some emergency line for N registered aircraft. I was endorsed on type and could release the aircraft through our company AMO. I can also remember releasing a crj 900 witch I wasn't endorsed on, through the air carrier maintance controller who allowed me to carry out bird strike insp and included his authorization emp# and name to clear the defect.

[624]

Yes, you can sign out certain things without a type course.
See CAR 571.11(5)

[Grease Nipple]

Yes, you can sigh out certain things without a type course.
See CAR 571.11(5)

This is correct. Here are the things you sign for without an endorsement course http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regse ... a57103.htm

[c170b53]

This is a great question as it illustrates how the playing field may not be as even as everyone would think and points to a large hole that exists in the "safety" system. I'm sure many may argue that no carrier will subject themselves to risk from maintenance practices procured in a foreign land but I don't believe that's the case. In a recent lightning strike to a foreign carrier, the contracted ground services company requested assistance from another company to carryout repairs. Their guidance was to only look and repair certain areas when it was obvious that repairs where required elsewhere. Those that undertook the repairs did not sign anything but I'm not sure that would clear them if something had subsequently gone wrong. In other words if they ask you to do something think about whether you want to do it first, then ensure you have documentation for the tasks and their instructions, useful should you need to clear yourself from anything.
Most companies in a contract situation will have an agreement recognizing the personnel requirements with respect to the tasks they are carrying out. The AME license is equal to a FAA license for general tasks, an endorsement on a type is a bonus but not for sign out purposes. A carrier might have a procedure to give instructions by the carrier's operations centre to the mechanic doing the work with the crew doing the R.I.I. oversight. From my experiences, its also obvious that the operations centres frequently utilize third parties for repairs with the expectation of dealing with low experience and ability.
In my work I sign out a foreign carrier using my AMO, I do not have the type on my license because TC has not approved the course I attended but the course is approved in Europe which satisfies the foreign operator.

[sprayrail]

Troubleshot, Wrenchturner is correct about having an endorsement/type rating for the aircraft you might sign a release on. An area you may want to look at for additional guidance is the Bi-lateral Agreement between Canada and the US, there is a section on MIPs which speaks to the requirements for a Canadian AME releasing an "N" registered aircraft and of course an A&P signout for Canadian registered aircraft.

[Troubleshot]

Great!, now I have a starting point for research. I am more concerned over the legal aspects of it as this situation has come up more than once and I have stayed clear of it, at least till I find out were I stand. I have a E-mail sent to my local TC office as well.


Thanks guys.

[c170b53]

I'm not sure that's a true statement. First of all no one gains an endorsement on their license, only on the historical TC document does it list the types that were on your AME license. The AMO that you work for will give you or get you an endorsement course for their machines. That course would be approved by TC specifically for that operator which allows you to sign a release for your AMO. You may have acquired training some where else that satisfies the requirement of your present AMO to sign off their aircraft but that would be a AMO decision with guidance from TC. The requirements of personnel to sign off an aircraft would be a part of the AO CM. Your AMO may enter into agreements to service other AO aircraft but anything entered into would be fully scrutinized by the legal departments of both companies. Seldom do you have a situation where two operators operate an aircraft in the same configuration, thus in TC's eyes you need to have specific training on the aircraft you're going to service. That's why generally speaking if your involved in providing maintenance, you'll be under the guidance of the AO MOC probably doing general maintenance utilizing your M2, anything exotic and they'll be sending in their own troops.