AME Distance Learning - Thomson Ed. Direct?

[flynfiddle]

Anybody know anything about this? Is it recognized by T.C.? I know some guys who took the ICS course but I heard rumour that correspondence type courses for AME are being phased out by T.C. in favor of formal classroom programs.

[Horseman]

Transport Canada has a list of approved basic education schools, and thompson is listed in 2002, so is ICS, but gives no time towards your 48 months. Take a look at TC web site.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/maint ... /basic.htm

Horseman

[otterman]

• I have taken the Ed Direct course, and found it to be quite informative. The majority of the course is based on the Jeppesen A&P Tech textbooks. It is TC approved, but, as earlier stated, gives you no credit towards hands on time. It worked well for me because I couldn't afford taking 2 years off work and going to school. I did manage to land a job at a maintenance shop while I was working on the course, and am now a 2nd year apprentice (or is it "un-licensed AME"?) I know a few people who have gone the formal route and they quite enjoyed it (probably because of the campus keg parties and the girls), but as far as practical experience goes, they didn't think it was as good as on-the-job training. If you go through a tech school, you have only 2 years of practical experience, whereas the correspondence course requires a full 4 years. The overall time requirement is the same. Having not gone through the tech school course, I cannot say if it is better or not, but it is certainly more expensive in both time and money. I would highly recommend the correspondence course to anyone who has any interest in aviation maintenance, especially the homebuilders and OM guys. There is a pile of stuff that needs to be known before you take a wrench to an airplane. It is unlike any other vehicle maintenance.
  Anyway, it worked for me. Hope this helps.

[gimmywrench!]

I took the ISC course, and like Otterman, I could not get away from work for that long. It was great as far as Information, but some hands on direction that is taught in the classroom would have definately bettered me as an apprentice. If you work with good guys willing to show you how to buck rivets and such without hacking you too badly, go ICS. Beware, you could get left to the sharks if you do not keep an open learning mind. It isn't what you know that gets you. A piece of paper doesn't suddenly make you smart mo matter where you went.

[Theman]

As long as TC has not published anything about phasing out correspondence these are still quite good.

I find that employers like apprentices with a solid minimum of four years hands on experience prior to their licence.

Don't get me wrong, the guys coming out of school theoretically only need about two years of practical before they can get their licence, but the guys who go the ICS way can start accumulating tasks in their log book so that after 4 years they should have enough to satisfy TC, whereas the guys who go through formal institutions may need more than 2 years to get enough tasks to qualify.

Everyone has different ideas, for a guy(or gal) with a family the ICS/Thompson method is undeniably more attractive since it allows them to bring in income while gaining valuable experience and generally making them very marketable.

Another plus for the ICS/Thompson route is that you can do it at your own pace as long as you complete it within 2 years. Most people do this within 9-12 months, one guy finished in 2 months.

Hope this helps!