That's a lot of reading. What I got out of it was that some professional engineers are idiots and some AMEs are idiots but some aren't. I can agree with that.
As far as egotistical pinky ring engineers go, most that take issue with the AME term are just pointing out the facts. Engineers have to go through several years of schooling and professional development before they can use their stamp. In order to practice legally in the province of their choice, they also need to be a member of the corresponding engineering association and abide by their code of ethics.
It's a bit of a slap in the face to these folks when the term engineer is used so loosely. Just as I'm sure it would be a slap in the face of AMEs if aerospace engineers were given AME licenses based on their professional engineering credentials.
It has nothing to do with one trade/profession being better than the other. This AME vs. Engineer debate however always starts up the "we're a profession too" and "we do engineering too" back and forth that is derived from a great deal of misinformation and lack of understanding of what an AME and P. Eng does and is responsible for. I don't get it. Aerospace P. Engs for the most part understand that they need production people like AMEs in partnership to develop designs and build them. There are several comments on this thread that imply that AMEs do it all and professional engineers aren't required.
This is as silly as a plumber and a fire fighter having the same argument. Fire fighters do plumbing don't they?
Granted there have been a few "Professional Engineering Societies in Canada that have attempted to have Transport/ the Federal government dispense with the term ENGINEER when referring to AMEs, however to date all these attempts have proven futile.
Futile to a point. Engineering societies are provincially regulated and they've had difficulty in proving jurisdiction over the federally regulated transportation department. However, if an AME starts a business and names it something like "Joe's Maintenance and Engineering" there just might be a problem if the engineering society chooses to pursue it.
If you'd like to see an example of what Pinky Engineers can do to an aircraft, have a drive around the Winnipeg airport. There you'll find a Bomdarier Challenger on a pedestal. That aircraft has, if I recall correctly, approximately 250 hours on the airframe.
That Challenger is on a pedestal because it couldn't be sold to the civilian market. It was an oddball that was used by Bombardier originally for type certification trials and then for fleet trials. That airplane was more of a special project than a production machine.
An example of what can happen when the Aircraft Maintenance Engineer doesn't question the Pinky Engineer.
That's 100% true for the most part. Design and production are a partnership and communication is key. But it works both ways. I've seen an AME destroy a rear pressure bulkhead by blasting a hole in it and applying for the penetration approval AFTER the fact. There's also an AME who was installing interior panels and decided that he could drill screw holes in the caps of all the frames. Even the nice big machined ones on either side of the wings.
Just to calrify, CARs states that an individual granted DAR authority does NOT have to be a Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, NOR a degreed Pinky Engineer. One simply has to be employed by an organization/company that has Transport Canada DAR approval. The employee can then design a repair/modification/installation under the company DAR approval.
505.409 Personnel
(a) With respect to each person nominated pursuant to subsection 505.405(e) the applicant shall make available to the Minister a description of the individual's work experience including his current job functions and copies of any other documents that attest to the qualifications and experience of the individual.
(b) At least one person nominated pursuant to subsection 505.405(e) in each speciality must satisfy the following criteria with respect to the functions the organization is authorized to perform:
(1) Subject to 505.409(b)(2)
(i) Be a graduate in an engineering discipline from a recognized University;
(ii) Be certified or eligible for certification by a Provincial Association as a professional engineer in Canada; or,
(iii) Have knowledge and experience which, in the opinion of the Minister, is equivalent to subparagraph 505.409(b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii).
(2) Where the speciality is test pilot, be a graduate of a recognized test pilot school or have, in the opinion of the Minister, an equivalent qualification gained through engineering test flying;
(3) Have, in the opinion of the Minister, a thorough knowledge gained by working experience of the applicable Canadian airworthiness and operational requirements;
(4) Have a position on the applicant's staff with the authority to ensure that designs meet the applicable airworthiness requirements;
(5) Have not less than a one year working relationship, satisfactory to the Minister, with the Department of Transport Airworthiness Branch Staff in processing engineering information for the approval of an aeronautical product type design, modification design or repair design; and
(6) Have not less than six years of progressively more responsible related aeronautical engineering experience.
(c) Other personnel participating in the activities of the design approval organization shall be selected using criteria established by the applicant and included in the design approval procedures manual.
One would do well to remember, the ass you kick today may very well be the one you have to kiss tomorrow.
One of the unfortunate things about this thread is some people's insistence that statements made are mean spirited or in some way meant to put AMEs in their place. I can't speak for everyone here but for my statements that's just not true.
Sorry airplane mechanics, but it takes 4-6 + years of university education to become a real engineer. Ourkid has less than 2 years experience as an airplane mechanic and now he thinks he's an engineer! 
You're all cracking me up!! 
When I get asked by someone what do I do for a living.....I say I am an Aircraft Mechanic. That is only to give the general public an idea of what I do, so they can relate better than the term Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. However I am a licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. As in MCRS's post a licensed practical engineer in aircraft maintenance. This title "Aircraft Maintenance Engineer" is given to me by the Government of Canada, which in my eyes holds a bit more authority than someone on this forum with an overbearing complex. For Strega, CID, and all of you who dont think the term is appropriate, my suggestion to you all is to get a job in the government where you have the authority to change the term Aircraft Maintenance Engineer and get the name changed. And if you dont want to do that there is always therapy. 
And around the wing it doesnt take 8-12 months to become an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. It took me 2 yrs college and 2.5 practical experience as an apprentice minimum for me to be eligable to be a licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, the same amount as the "Real Engineers" as you put it.
