AME Job Description

[jetdoc]

Agree or disagree?

The Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer


Why the Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer is important:
The licensed engineer is the sole arbitrator of safety whilst the aircraft is on the ground. The Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer will only supply their signature to a Certificate of Release to Service (CRS) when he/she are 100% certain that the aircraft is safe to fly. The CRS is a legal statement clearing an aircraft, as far as engineering is concerned, to fly. In effect, the engineer has taken full responsibility for the quality of any maintenance performed while the aircraft was on the ground.

Why maintenance matters:
There is a close link between standards of maintenance and safety. The
International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has established minimum standards of airworthiness and operational safety for operating aircraft. The Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer has studied long and hard to obtain his qualification in accordance with ICAO requirements.

Why aviation is different from other sectors of industry:
The key feature making aviation different from other sectors of industry is
safety criticality. It is true that safety is also important for other transport sectors,
but the failure of a key system during aircraft operation is more likely to lead to
catastrophic results. The Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer is a key figure in ensuring that your flight was completed not only safely but also without event.

[nine sixteenths]

I Disagree

The sole arbitrator of safety when an aircraft is on the ground: someone should be reporting defects to the AME, therefor the pilot has some responsibility there, if the AME doesn't know about the snag they can't fix it

Certificate of Return to Service: I disagree with this statement because an AME's signed maintenance release is "the maintenance was performed in accordance with the applicable standards of airworthiness"
That is not a return to service statement as there may be outstanding defects or work remaining that are not being cleared by that release.

Also I'm not entirely sure what role ICAO plays in AME certification, I know there is some connection but I'm not clear on what, exactly

[Gos]

Mostly disagree...

Even in your opinion, you think that you give a perfectly serviceable a/c to a pilot if he is not happy or confident about it, you have to do something.

I don't know where CRS comes from but in canadian aviation, we just talk about maintenance release. nine sixteenths statement is right on that.


Also you could sign a maintenance release on a plane and clear all the snag in the book. There is absolutely nothing that can predict if your plane gonna run into trouble the next day. This is why a/c has back-up systems.
Even you have a time between failure of 10000 hours on a part, it has been seen before that a part failed after 50 hours of use.

[Bent wrench]

gos:

Even in your opinion, you think that you give a perfectly serviceable a/c to a pilot if he is not happy or confident about it, you have to do something.

In my own experience whenever I have made a maintenance release the pilot has never chosen to not fly the aircraft. If he isn't confident about flying an aircraft that has been released serviceable then he should choose another career. In all honesty I do not want to fly with a pilot who has confidence issues.

[dashx]

a pilot who has confidence issues

I don't think i have ever met one of those..........

[Troubleshot]

I knew this thread would be turned in to " a pilot has more responsibility" ...this thread stinks of lack of respect. It gets worse every year I think. OK we get it... you guys are "commanders of the aircraft" (your words not mine).

I think the last straw for me was about about two years ago when I was called "hey you!" (in a condescending tone) to get my attention on more than one occasion. I love coming to avcanada, it has made my decision to leave aviation a warm and fuzzy one.

[Gos]

I knew this thread would be turned in to " a pilot has more responsibility" ...this thread stinks of lack of respect. It gets worse every year I think. OK we get it... you guys are "commanders of the aircraft" (your words not mine).

I think the last straw for me was about about two years ago when I was called "hey you!" (in a condescending tone) to get my attention on more than one occasion. I love coming to avcanada, it has made my decision to leave aviation a warm and fuzzy one.

....I can't find where is the "lack of respect". You have a big problem if you think that someone saying "hey you" is a idiot. A condescending tone was how it sounded in your ears.

Just remember that conflict are inevitable in any job and for sure someday one gonna come right in your face.

The only way to solve all to potentiel problem or conflict is to speak your mind. Thing that most people don't do and this is what we are trying to do.

[jetdoc]

The sole arbitrator of safety when an aircraft is on the ground: someone should be reporting defects to the AME, therefor the pilot has some responsibility there, if the AME doesn't know about the snag they can't fix it

The CAR's clearly state: ANYONE who finds a defect shall report it ....., it is not the sole responsibility of the pilot, and the AME can't fix it if he doesnt know, agreed... but the AME is not responsible for snags he does not, or could not, know anything about.

Certificate of Return to Service: I disagree with this statement because an AME's signed maintenance release is "the maintenance was performed in accordance with the applicable standards of airworthiness"
That is not a return to service statement as there may be outstanding defects or work remaining that are not being cleared by that release.

It is a return to service statement for the maintenance task for which you are signing, whether or not there is oustanding work or not, makes no difference, you are only signing for a task or group of tasks, granted the "return to service" phrase is not the best, but "maintenance release" can be construed as ALL maintenance has been certifed...???

ICAO plays in AME certification, I know there is some connection but I'm not clear on what, exactly

Please look an the back of your licence, it give you the privileges that conform to ICAO annex 1, breifly Canada has subscribed to ICAO standards and uses that a basis to enter into bilatteral agreements with other countries so that the standards by which we regulate our industry have international recognition.

[nine sixteenths]

The sole arbitrator of safety when an aircraft is on the ground: someone should be reporting defects to the AME, therefor the pilot has some responsibility there, if the AME doesn't know about the snag they can't fix it

The CAR's clearly state: ANYONE who finds a defect shall report it ....., it is not the sole responsibility of the pilot, and the AME can't fix it if he doesnt know, agreed... but the AME is not responsible for snags he does not, or could not, know anything about.

Yes, everyone that finds a defect shall report it, but in your original post you stated:

The licensed engineer is the sole arbitrator of safety whilst the aircraft is on the ground

I still believe that the AME is not the sole arbitrator of safety while the aircraft is on the ground. What about the pilot that does a walk around, sees a defect (for an example, a low tire) and decides to fly anyways. Or the manager that tells him/her to fly it now, report it to maintenance later. Or the ground handler that hits the plane, and doesn't way anything. Or the fueller who puts the wrong fuel in? As far as I'm concerned, this makes the safety of the aircraft not only the AME's responsibility, Safety is everyone's responsibility.

As to Return to Service:

I misquoted the CAR's regulation regarding maintenance releases, Per CARS 571.10:

(2) Except as provided in subsection (4), a maintenance release shall include the following, or a similarly worded, statement:

“The described maintenance has been performed in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements.”

This is not the AME signing that the aircraft is 100% safe to fly. There could be outstanding defects that are yet to be cleared and released. Yes, the AME signing the release is stating the work they sign for is done correctly, but that isn't a blanket statement that the aircraft is 100% safe. Look at the Alaska Airline MD80 that crashed due to the jackscrew failure. An AME (A&P/A&I) might have just signed a maintenance release for changing a tire an hour before the fatal flight. That doesn't mean the aircraft is 100% safe to fly, just that the tire was changed, and the described maintenance has been performed in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements. The fact that there wasn't a back up system for that jack screw, and the lubrication didn't happen enough combined with the wear being too much caused that accident. If the last maintenance release for that aircraft was a tire change, is that person at fault for the jackscrew failure too because he signed the book last?

Disclaimer: I use that as an example because it was fresh in my mind, I do not know that the last release for that aircraft was a tire change. Also, as an American FAA regulated aircraft, I realize the maintenance release might be a little different than a Canadian maintenance release.

Also, I think GOS has an excellent point:

"Also you could sign a maintenance release on a plane and clear all the snag in the book. There is absolutely nothing that can predict if your plane gonna run into trouble the next day. This is why a/c has back-up systems.
Even you have a time between failure of 10000 hours on a part, it has been seen before that a part failed after 50 hours of use."

No one can predict with 100% accuracy that the aircraft is 100% safe to fly, too many other things play a part, like poor design, random undetectable failures, other peoples actions after the aircraft leaves your control.

I do agree with the final line in the original post though:

"The Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer is a key figure in ensuring that your flight was completed not only safely but also without event"

[The Weasel]

It is a return to service statement for the maintenance task for which you are signing, whether or not there is oustanding work or not, makes no difference, you are only signing for a task or group of tasks, granted the "return to service" phrase is not the best, but "maintenance release" can be construed as ALL maintenance has been certifed...???

Don't know where your Certificate for Return to Service comes into play. Nothing like that is used in Canada, at least not as a regulatory requirement. A maintenance release is simply a certification for the maintenance carried out. It doesn't attest to the airworthiness or serviceability of the aircraft as a whole. Technical Dispatch determines serviceability, and is usually the responsibility of the PIC. Airworthiness is determined by Transport Canada (Certificate of Airworthiness).

A maintenance release must be clear as to what is being certified as well as any outstanding work. It can apply to a large number of tasks but it doesn't have to if some tasks were not carried out and the release statement makes that clear.

AMEs used to "return to service" in the past but not since the introduction of CARs (1996) changed the responsibility to maintenance release (certification of maintenance) only.

The licensed engineer is the sole arbitrator of safety whilst the aircraft is on the ground.

Also don't know where this comes from. There's a lot of factors involved in safety when an aircraft is on the ground. An AME isn't responsible if the rampie punches a hole in the belly. Not responsible if the PIC taxis into the hangar doors. Not responsible if teenage punks break into the hanger at 3am. Not responsible if Al Qaeda makes a dash through airport security. Ultimate responsibility for the 'custody and control' of the aircraft lies with the owner or Accountable Executive.

AME responsibility for the aircraft on the ground is an unwritten old-school way of things: When flying the aircraft belongs to the pilot. On the ground it's the engineer's. In the bush or small hangar environment that might work well enough, but I can't see that working outside of those environments.

[The Weasel]

gos:
In my own experience whenever I have made a maintenance release the pilot has never chosen to not fly the aircraft. If he isn't confident about flying an aircraft that has been released serviceable then he should choose another career. In all honesty I do not want to fly with a pilot who has confidence issues.

Could be that the pilot isn't confident in the AME carrying out the work, or that the owner hasn't kept the aircraft well maintained. It is the pilot's choice to go flying or not. Generally it's their butt/life that's on the line, not the engineer's.

[Gos]

Could be that the pilot isn't confident in the AME carrying out the work, or that the owner hasn't kept the aircraft well maintained. It is the pilot's choice to go flying or not. Generally it's their butt/life that's on the line, not the engineer's.

I trust the pilot 100% when they have to fly me somewhere else, so why it would be so difficult for pilots to trust engineer

From my experience, pilots that are really interested on how the planes really works, ask question to engineer and study about it all the time are less likely to not take a a/c because they know what is a real tread to the safety of their a/c.

As oppose to pilot that never ask question.

[flatface]

Deleted

[flatface]

Deleted