PRM Exam & Interview Advice

[brownbear]

I most certainly do not condone giving up ame jobs. But my thoughts are the basic 185 operator who takes his planes into an AMO for his work. Maybe the thing only flie 250 hrs a year. Pretty hard to justify an AME PRM full time. Think maybe one isn't available part time.

But westjet.... I have hard time believing the guy could not be an AME. By the way the regulations do not say AME.. but they do say 6 years of progressive management of maintenance...

I still agree with you Bullet. But I am thinking of the extremely basic small operator. One plane/maybe two and not utilized a lot.

[torquey401]

Obviously Mr Bullet has an axe to grind.

I think allowing a PRM to be a non-AME position is more for the small operator, operating small, fairly simple aircraft. Once you start getting into twins and/or turbines or multiple aircraft, it'd be best for everyone for the PRM to be an AME. I know of a PRM or two for larger operators who are not AME's, not very many in the grand scheme of things.

One thing I found interesting is the bit about performance standards and how an AMO has no liability as to the serviceability of the aircraft they work on. Huh? If I took a plane into an AMO specifying ABC be fixed within the confines of the MCM and MPM and it came out with impeccable paperwork saying ABC was fixed and the maintenance certified, but the AME installed the part backwards and didn't lockwire it, who would be responsible for that?

I think I have an idea what the response will be, but I'll wait and see.

[624]

Here is a scenerio,
There is an amo on the field run by one ame. There's not an another ame around for 100 miles.There is an operator with one or two small aircraft. So what's the operator supposed to do? Hire a full time ame to be his prm?

Wow, you're a driver aren't ya!!
...blah,blah, blah

I don't really know how to respond to that. I could reply to each one of your insinuations, but I won't. I'll just say I respectfully disagree with you. I would also suggest you read the CAR's link I posted.

[Bullet Remington]

I most certainly do not condone giving up ame jobs. But my thoughts are the basic 185 operator who takes his planes into an AMO for his work. Maybe the thing only flie 250 hrs a year. Pretty hard to justify an AME PRM full time. Think maybe one isn't available part time.

But westjet.... I have hard time believing the guy could not be an AME. By the way the regulations do not say AME.. but they do say 6 years of progressive management of maintenance...

I still agree with you Bullet. But I am thinking of the extremely basic small operator. One plane/maybe two and not utilized a lot.

Brownbear:

Basically, WHEN the PRM section was enacted, the BASIC premise behind that section of CARs was primarily for just that reason. - Namely, a single plane single driver operation. UNFORTUNATELY, TCCA (despite indusrty advisor objections) felt that the CAR were explicit and that this section wouldn't be misused / abused. FOr example, define "Not utilized a lot"- That is open to intrepretation and as such, the industry has used this section of CARS to their own advantage. And have, over the years, slowly ( and with the cooperation of TCCA) pushed the LICENSED AME back into the "grease monkey" status that the majoriy of people percieve them to be.

And that is my point, we are NOT grease monkeys, we are not to be replaced by pilots, any more then pilots are to be replaced by us. There are specified laws and regulations as well as DOC's for operating aircraft for hire. Just as other equipment operators MUST hire licensed mechanics to maintaine their fleet and to ensure they are able to operate within the confines of the law. Aircraft operators so too must take the same actions.

Now I've worked in Fleet management as well, and I would love for you to show me just how many fleet operators (as in vehicles) let their drivers manage the fleet maintenance function. I can tell you, in my experience and I've dealt with 23 operators in Alberta ALONE, and Not ONE of these operators have a driver managing their fleet maintenance. That tell ya anything?? And I can tell you for a fact that the profit margin for vehicle fleet operators is , if not as tight, even tighter then aircraft operations. So I still maintain that if you can afford the money to obtain, set up an AOC and fly operate an aircraft for hire/income, you'd god damned well better figure the cost of havinga qualified ame as PRM.

As for the WestJet PRM, he has since been replaced by a very qualified and licensed ame. The previous PRM was turfed outa there. He's still working on Calgary if you PM me, I'll give you his name and where he is working.

Cheers

[Bullet Remington]

Obviously Mr Bullet has an axe to grind.

I think allowing a PRM to be a non-AME position is more for the small operator, operating small, fairly simple aircraft. Once you start getting into twins and/or turbines or multiple aircraft, it'd be best for everyone for the PRM to be an AME. I know of a PRM or two for larger operators who are not AME's, not very many in the grand scheme of things.

One thing I found interesting is the bit about performance standards and how an AMO has no liability as to the serviceability of the aircraft they work on. Huh? If I took a plane into an AMO specifying ABC be fixed within the confines of the MCM and MPM and it came out with impeccable paperwork saying ABC was fixed and the maintenance certified, but the AME installed the part backwards and didn't lockwire it, who would be responsible for that?

I think I have an idea what the response will be, but I'll wait and see.

Torque:
Nope, I don't have an axe to grind. Any that I had have been buried. You figure where.

Now as for for you post here's how I intrepret your musings:

Firstly you're making an observation on the QUALITY of the work, NOT the standards. the standards references the standards as listed BY THE OPERATOR in his MCM specifically as they relate to his aircraft type and his MSA. The AMO performs the work IAW with the standards as listed in the operators MCM and as approved by TCCA, NOT The standards listed in the AMO's approved MPM. The responsibility for the QUALITY of the work performed is that of the AMO performing it. Quality and Standard are two different things as they relae to the subject being debated.

What you are bringing up is a completely different subject and is irrelevant to what we are debating here, which is specifically the PRM postion AND the STANDARDS to which arcraft are to be mainatined. Incidently, a maintenance release doesn't signify that an aircraft is serviceable. rather it simply states that the maintenance carried out was carried out IAW the applicable standards of airworthiness. The responsibility for the serviceability of an aircraft is, a) the operator and B) the pilot flying and/or intending upon flying it.

And, having stated that, I'd be most happy to discuss / debate these intrepreations as well as provide you the CARs refernce stating just that in another thread, if you'd like.

Was that the response you wanted to see??

[Bullet Remington]

Here is a scenerio,
There is an amo on the field run by one ame. There's not an another ame around for 100 miles.There is an operator with one or two small aircraft. So what's the operator supposed to do? Hire a full time ame to be his prm?

Wow, you're a driver aren't ya!!
...blah,blah, blah

I don't really know how to respond to that. I could reply to each one of your insinuations, but I won't. I'll just say I respectfully disagree with you. I would also suggest you read the CAR's link I posted.

624:

There were no insinuations. I believe I was quite clear in my statements prior to my response to yours. And that was:, drivers should stick to driving, period. Maintenance and management of the Maintenance program schedule is / should be the responsiblity of a quaified AME, period. AND, IF an operator CAN'T afford to pay an AME to manage his maintenance program. he shouldn't be in the aviation business.( private single engine piston pounder owners aside)

You can disagree all you want and I can come back and spout the the numbers and statistics of accidents that have ocurred by companies that have a non -AME PRM managing the maintenance system for those specific companies. And they are numberous. In fact, in two of the referenced instances the PRM was also the PF of the aircraft when the incident ocurred. I'm more then certain that IF these drivers were around today, they'd tell you the same freakin thing I've been harping on here.

Thanks for your Cars reference. Just for future reference, you'll note in my reply to Brown bear's post, I referenced, "Industry Advisors". Well back when TCCA was transitioning FROM the E & I Manual TO CARs I was one of the Industry Advisors. I am therefore, very, very familiar with CARS, both as they were when they 'Came into Force"and as they stand now.

Now if you'd care to go back to standard 726 "Information Note,"you'll note that there is a statement that the PRM MUST be an employee of the Air operator. Nonetheless, it is NOT necessary that he/she be a full time employee. it also states that the PRM cannot be an employee of a contracting AMO. that's a wonky statement. I worked for a contract AMO AND was a Part - time employee and PRM of 5 AOC holders at the same time. All perfectly legal too!

IF an AOC holder wanted to have an AME as PRM it can be done quite easily. However, they (or the majority of them) feel that a driver with a Commercial drivers license and 200 - 300 hours knows as much about the maintenance of aircraft as a licensed AME.

While driver's seem to have trouble understanding my stance, I can assure you that they ( drivers/operators) would be militantly objecting IF it were reversed AND TCCA enacted a CAR tthat stated an AME could ( without being a licesed driver) become an operation manager/ training manager or Chief pilot.

And again, I stated, IF an operator wants to get involved in the aviation business in a "For profit"operation, budget for an AME to look after your maintenance! And that includes PRM. If they can't afford it, they have no feckin business starting an operation. period.

It's not a matter of IF TCCA changes the PRM required qualifications, its a matter of when. Now the next time you're in the ops room, take a look around and find the dumbest driver in there ( If you don;t see him/her, it's probably you!! )

Now ask yourself, Do you want to place the security of YOUR life in the hands of this highly experienced and knowledgeable 200 hour wonder??

Now go ahead and make your decision to fly in marginal weather!! And have a great flight!!

For future reference, if you want to respond to me, just go ahead and say what you feel, I have thick skin!! I'll probably get upset and stay awake at night, but I do have thick skin!!

[624]

First of all, Merry Christmas!!

One of the reasons I don't post much and try to keep them short is 'cause it takes me so long to write a response. One short paragraph can take me an hour!! Anyway....

In the last ten years or so I have dealt with small piston pounder type operators with 1-3 aircraft. As an amo, I have tried on many occasions to get TC to allow me to represent various operators as their prm. TC wanted to accommodate but the CAR's were pretty clear on this. So it didn't happen. The owner/operator in all cases ended up as prm. This won't change until the CAR's are amended.

So because you were an advisor, we can blame you for this problem? (JOKE)

The larger operators I have worked for had ame's on staff, and so it should be. I don't disagree with everything your saying, just the part about small operators. Personally, the way I see it, if they need help and it takes up my time, I generate a work order. End of story. If they don't like they can go somewhere else. I don't have a problem with that.

This is one seriously hijacked thread, LOL!

[Bullet Remington]

624:

Bah Humbug!! I getting tired of cleaning soot, slush, snow, ice, cookie crumbs, milk and reindeer crap off the floor!!

Here's how I dance around this stupid Car. 1) I set up my AMO 2) I set up a consulting company separte fronm the AMO 3) I set up a propritorship. All three have different tax numbers!

The I contact my consulting company to my AMO. I need workers so I contract myself to the AMO. For companies that want me to do the PRM stuff, I contract myself as a proprietor to the operator. I'm NOT a full time employeee of the AMO, I'm not a full time contractor and I'm not a full time employee of the operator.

TCCA told one of the operators that they couldn't do this, so my lawyer and the operator's lawyer sent a letter to the Regional Superintendent, and the problem went away. Essentially, in a round about method, I suppose I am violating the INTENT of the CAR BUt on the other hand both myself and the operator are both compling with the dictates of the CAR.

Trust me (or not) I fought this specific CAR so vigoriusly that I was turfed out of three meetings during the discussion of this. It doesn't give me much comfort, but,.... the state of the Canadian aviation indistry , as it applies to airworthiness is pretty well where I said it would be eons ago when we started this silly exercise. So is it my fault, I'll take some of the blame, maybe I didn't fight it enough. But I did fight it!

While I understand your stance, as well as others who have posted here, what I have trouble understanding and possibly defining is, What is a small operator? Is it one aircraft/ two? Up to 5? Single engine or twin?? Is a single plane Cheyenne operator a small operator?? ( Dictates of CAR 604 aside!)

Like me other folks have the same position and here in lies the problem. At what point does it end?? IF we let things go as they are, the moral and the number of AMEs will continually decline - as it already have!

It is my intent to do now as I did back then and fight this and anybody condoning this , supporting this and or supplying information that enables others to comply with this. That maybe a while or may be not! Nonetherless, I maintain my stance that any AME supporting the pilot / operator PRM has no feckin right to ever complain about the low wages AMEs are paid, the lack of jobs and job security for AMEs. Always remember folks, while you may never get what ya want, you eventually get what you deserve.

Gash, gas, or cash, ain't nobody riding for free!!

[Cat Driver]

Anyone of you who have been in maintenance for any length of time ever tried to understand a snag on an airplane written by a pilot?

If they don't understand how a piece of machinery works how can they be PRM?

Generally speaking pilots are great for breaking machinery but I wouldn't want some of them responsible for fixing anything I am flying.

[SeptRepair]

Hey Bullet, I must give you credit. Until now i never really gave it much thought about the whole PRM thing. You bring up alot of very valuable points that other engineers should take note of.

[Bullet Remington]

Sept Repair;

Thanks, I wish more engineers got it!! Life in this business would be a lot better if people wren't so narrow minded / visioned!!

I do believe çat driver's last post stated clearly and most emphaticly my view, overall, on driver PRMs!

[Bullet Remington]

cat;

here's one of my favorite snags, recieved froma citation med evac driver at 01:30 AM. i tried contacting him for further info, but despite several phone messages he didn't call me back for clarifications, So...

Snag: Auto pilot altitude hold ape shit!

My fix; - One bottle of spray nine, and two wiper rags. Snag signed off as; Ape shit removed from auto pilot. Rag and cleaner installed in cockpit to enable pilot to clean hands BEFORE selecting auto pilot function!

Dumb snag write up by one dumb driver= dumb fix

[Cat Driver]

Reading a lot of the snags written by pilots is enough to scare any thinking person from ever getting in an airplane.

[hoptwoit]

One of my most memorable snags was. “ADF U/S” whenever we checked it worked fine. The crew was determined to “make” the dumb monkey who couldn’t fix anything look like idiots. Three days in a row “ADF U/S” Three days “ADF tested no defects found”. On day four I was waiting for the plane to return to hear it all over again. While goofing around on the computer I was looking at weather and came across a Notam for the destination airport that stated “ABC NDB is non operational”. And had been down for the last 3 days. 19 seat aircraft 2 crew filed IFR no one checked the notams? By the way when I wrote the fix in the logbook to clear the snag after they entered it again I got shit on by the CP and the Ops manager.

The PRM thing goes to perspective. Pilots do not have the same perspective as an AME when it comes to maintenance.
There are so many things wrong with aviation I don’t think it will ever get fixed. I love airplanes but I refuse to work in an industry that treats people like crap.

[Cat Driver]

That tells you all you need to know about the intelligence of the CP and the Ops manager you were dealing with.

Frightening isn't, to realize just how low the bar is set to hold those positions.

I hope you guys in maintenance realize that some of us who have a license to fly aircraft managed to slip into the system despite the fact we can think.

[hz2p]

.

[flyingwrenches]

Brown bear: OK essentially we're on the same page. BUT I do have to disagree with you on a couple of points:

1 - referencing AMOs you stated: "and the standards it is performed to."- Sorry, I have to disagree with you there. having owned several AMO's when an Operator comes into my shop, my maintenance POLICY manual is an anchor. HOWEVER, the standards listed in the OPERATOR'S maintenance CONTROL manual become CARs. That's the standard the work is completed to. So the Operator is STILL responsible for the STANDARD the work is completed to, NOT The AMO. UNLESS OF COURSE there is a legally signed contract specifing otherwise.

2 - As for the size of the operator, I don't agree. Lookit, there are operator's all over the place that have been set up by pilots and for pilots AND a shit load of them feel that an AME is not required. They feel a pilot's license is all they need. Basically the AME is being pushed intio the back ground because of these operators.

Just why do you think that TCCA changed the requirements and qualifications that a PRM need not be an AME?? Because they were lobbied and browbeaten by the Operators.

An operator needs an aircraft, a driver and an AME. PERIOD. IF he /she feels otherwise and assigns an AME job to a pilot, f* him/her. I won't support nor assist any driver trying to get information on assuming a job that SHOULD be assigned ONLY to licensed AME's. And I USUALLY don't offer free advise to driver's trying to have their aircraft repaired on the cheap by themselves. You buy a plane, you hire an ame to fix it, it's part of the ownership class! You can't afford it, don't buy a plane! You can afford to pay an AME to look after your aircraft serviceability, don't get into the business!

Ya think a feckin driver would tolerate an AME being responsible for Flight Ops?

Of course not! Driver's should be driving, period![/quote]
The PRM is not DOING the maintenance. He is the one who is assigned (delegated) the duty of ensuring that the maintenance is accomplished in time and as per the MPD or Chapter 5 of the MM. We are not telling you anything. We are not trying to do your jobs for less money. Once a person is trained on what to look for and how to do it there really isn't that much to it.As long as the individual can count the hours flown and can do basic math to know when it is due next...what is the issue??? Maybe I am not seeing what the issue is here.

[Bullet Remington]

The PRM is not DOING the maintenance. He is the one who is assigned (delegated) the duty of ensuring that the maintenance is accomplished in time and as per the MPD or Chapter 5 of the MM. Here's a prime example of why a driver shouldn't be responsible for maintenance! The maintenanc is NOT only carried out IAW with a MPD and a MCM There are OTHER legasl dictates that the maintenance MUST be carried out to! Further, an MPD ( Maintenance planning Document) is provided by a manufacturer to assist the operator in establishing a MSA, It is NOT a dictate for maintenance, rather a reference! An Engineer would know that, a driver hasn't a freakin clue! AND the maintenance is NOT carried out IAW with a MPD nor Chapter 5 ( Airworthiness Limitations) of a manufacturer's Maintenance manual! Again, an engineer would know that, and again a driver don't have a clue! We are not telling you anything. We are not trying to do your jobs for less money. Really. You ( the delegated PRM is dictating to the maintenance dept ( or AMO) what will be done and the standards to which the maintenance is done on a company aircraft That soundfs like and looks like and IS doing a maintenance job, and you 9as in the PRM) is doing it with out any idea of the ramifications on neither the company, the aircraft nor the AMO and AME!Once a person is trained on what to look for and how to do it there really isn't that much to it.Really?? So how does one get "trained "to be a PRM? Care to expand on that statement? And just what is it that YOU think you should be loking for? And I beg to differ, there really IS that much to it! if you don't believe me, miss something...again!! Rhen leyt us all know who becomes responsible 9in fact) for it ; as well as the ramifications on the company, both personnel and finanicallyAs long as the individual can count the hours flown and can do basic math to know when it is due next...what is the issue??? Show me a pile-it who can add, and I'll show you a pile-it who was smart enough to get the AME to to the log books for him!! I have seen brand new 737 that flew 4oo hours in one day, and it was entered into the computer by flight ops without being noted! This is NOT one ocurrence, I'm talking multi times! And there is much more to being a PRM then just adding the hours to find out what's due next! NORMALLY, by the time the PRM gets to the point of adding the hours, to find outr whats due next, the time has already been expired on the component/ inspection item!Maybe I am not seeing what the issue is here. You're correct, You are NOT seeing the issue here at all! I'm most certain that you and a myrade ofother drivers would be greatly enlightened, were you informed that you would follow the dictates of the Operations manager, who would be writing and following an Ops manual, This same Ops manager would be totalling your accumulators and dictating when you would fly, how often you fly and what you fly. AND, the new ops Manager can be contacted down on the hangar floor. he;s the new guy the Chief Engineer just hired! Oh, don't get yer knickers in a knot, the new guy was in the air cadets years ago! Ops manager's job isn't that hard, once he's trained, he just gotta total up a couple of hours andstuff l;ike that, Nothing to it! It's not like he's dictating thing sto you or taking a job away from a driver, or anything!!

You're right! FEW, you don't get it because it's not a driver's job being taken by an unqualified engineer/mechanic. You would readily get it if it was. You'll never get it if it doesn't affect your employment statistics! you WOULD get it if it was otherwise. then again, i don't expect drivers to understand much about engineers nor what they actuallu do nor are responsible for. So,m I'll repeat - Next time you are in Ops room, take a look around and see the newest licensed, dumbest driver in the company(If you don't see them,it probably you) Now ask yourself, do I want to do an IFR run, loaded to the nuts, with borderline minimums, putting my ass on the line, with the aircraft maintained on the instruction from this person??

So essentially you ARE doing our job for less money, you ARE telling us what you think should be done and you ARE taking a Maintenance job. And the fact that you don't see the big deal, is one of the major concerns amongst engineers and is one of the major causes of the low moral, low pay and low esyeem engineers are held in! AND as a result one f the major reasons people like WNA are having trouble finding experienced and licensed AMEs. BUT your stan ce isn't new nor unexpected. Most companies and their drivers don't see waht is wrong, and those that dom refuse to acknowledge that anything is their problem. yet they will continue to look for engineers with the same attitude, bewildered with the lack of response to theri ads! Yeah, you don't get it, and I have serious doubts you will, until you and /or the company finds themselves in front of a civil tribunal. At this point, who is going to be the expert maintenance witness for you and your company??

Good Luck with that!!

[Bullet Remington]

The above reference ( in the previous post) referencing WNA's attempt to obtain the services of an expereinced AME is NOT meant as a reflection of the company nor the company's compensation package for their employees, their working conditions/benefits nor any other condition positive nor negative with respect to WNA.

In this case , WNA was used as a reference only. In that I don't work for, nor have ever worked for WNA, nor do I know anybody personally who works for WNA, I cannot make an honest negative nor positive comment on the company, their managers, directors nor owners.

No threat nor any action nor contact of any kind was made to nor against me by WNA. It wouldn't have mattered to me had it been otherwise. WNA might be agreat company, OR they may be the shitz to work for. I don't know. In my case, I am just naturally suspicious of any aviation company. More so after a post stating they aren;'t getting any applicants for an advertised position.

But hey, that's me! I am naturally old and suspicious!!

[SeptRepair]

Dont forget jaded.

[Bullet Remington]

Dont forget jaded.

Well, Yeah! You say that like its a bad thing!!

[Bede]

Bullet,

Careful where you go with the pilot slagging. Most of us pilots consider AME's to be on par with pilots and have considerable respect for your profession.

Just like you mentioned some examples of pilot errors with respect to maintenance stuff, believe me, I have seen some bad maintenance screw up (fuel selector incorrectly installed-engine failure, trim cables reversed - luckily caught on the ICC by the pilot)

Having said that, there are AME's who are ops managers, just like pilots who are PRM's. Perhaps a 200h wonder doing PRM is not a great idea, but having someone with a bit of experience in the industry with good clerical skills is not really an issue.