AME license ratings

[log sheet]

[quote="iflyforpie"]Remember that doing the actual work does not have to be done by the person signing it out. It simply has to be inspected to ensure all critical steps were done by an appropriately rated individual. After all, we all know that 90% of the work is done by apprentices anyways.

Yes very true! What I am saying is that to inspect and sign the Maintenance Release you need to have some sense of what you are looking for? Otherwise it's like having a plumber certify a sponge cake!

[jetdoc]

Jetdoc I don't agree with the -8-747 and M1,M2-E comparison. If I was to go get an 747 endorsement I could add it to my license next to the -8 one. But if I was to go back to school or do OJT for avionics and log it TC wouldn't issue me an E license.

If you've been trained how to do a correlation in accordance with company SOPs (there isn't a correlation endorsement) then do it. Ask the company to provide training records. The CARs spells it out pretty clear that you can exercise E privelages with an M1,M2 provided you know and are comfortable with signing.

I won't use the E and S privelages only because I don't have the skills...yet.

ifly, that is fair enough and i agree if a company was to provide some form of training than anyone could do just about anything... but since that training will be specific to that company your "authority" to do/sign for that work would only be valid at that company and would not be transferable.

The bottom line is still how a company justifies the authority they give a person to certify some work. TC is not necessarily going to accept in house company training or OJT as equivalent to either a "E" licenced person or at very least someone who has graduated from an approved training school and has documented experience.

This whole thing goes back to the CAMC discussion, and the push for the larger carriers to be able to train their own people in house, in various specialties, and give them the authority they need for their own needs. The problem with that is once you leave that company that "training" is not transferable to another company. The only training that TC recognizes is "TC approved training, either basic or type". All other training you may receive is then completly discretionary on whether another company )or country) is going to accept it.

This is actually true right now in any AMO, the decision to issue an ACA/SCA is completly up to the company. Just because you have say a approved type course on a -8 and held an ACA for that at a previous company, does not mean that you automatically "earn" an ACA for the same aircraft at a new company. Company B may decide that the course/experience you have recieved from Company A is not up to their standards and could require that you undergo some additional technical training before issueing you a ACA. This same standard exists within all AMO's and can be applied to all aircraft ratings and all specialized maintenance.

I realize that in reality this may not happen, but the AMO has to justify who it gives it's signing authority to. If the s@*% hits the fan their will be a long line of TC, TSB, and many lawyers wanting to know how you qualified an individual to perform/certify that task. Comes down to CYA, and if it is just easier to say an "E" licenced person will certify the work than come up with any other justification than unfortunalty that will probably be the way it will be.

[qa guy]

Comes down to CYA, and if it is just easier to say an "E" licenced person will certify the work than come up with any other justification than unfortunalty that will probably be the way it will be.[/quote]
There is no reference in the CARS that specialized maintnance needs to be signed by an E or an S. Only that it must me done by an appropraitely rated AMO and someone holding the appropriate rating. I am still waiting for someone to quote the section that states otherwise. I think that is an old school mentality. Anyone who did basic training 98 and up (maybe earlier) will know structures were beaten to death. In the mid-90's when there was a shoratage of S licensed guys they actually offered a weekend course to obtain this rating.....and thses guys now hold an S license! It is within our scope. Certainly proof of training is required. But it could simply be a 15 question test created by the QA department. Just for the record... I am referring to light aircraft, non pressurized.

[qa guy]

Riveting a skin....or a spar is not much different. Just follow the book.

Thats a pretty bold blanket statement. Its not all cut and dry like you seem to think stuctures is.

i did not mean downplay the skills of a structures guy by any means. Some of these guys are extremely skilled. I certainly would not tackle a very complex job....yet. All I'm saying is the standards are in black and white. And in this industry you will be faced with tasks you are unfamilier with. What is important is that we find the applicable data (approved or specified) and follow it.

[log sheet]

qa guy, your're right, you will most likely not be able to find in exact words ,"requires a S Licence Maintenance Release", or "requires a E Licence Maintenance Release", or "a balloon Rating to sign a Maintenance Release."

It does say that the person signing must have the appropiate rating. What Transport did when the stated that the combination of M1, M2 covers all other ratings for a maintenance release was it left the subject open to interperation. I had an E for over 12 years and now I have an M1, M2 and would be quite comfortable signing AND doing E Specialized Maintenance, which by the way is listed in CARs. Basically if you do an installation or mod which affects another System then as far as Avionics it is Specialized.
I don't know how it works for S because other than College I have no experience with S. Even though according to CARs I have the S rating now because of M1,M2 I would not sign an S Job simply because I don't know the work.
In the end, weather you work for an AMO or not, when you sign the Maintenance release, you'ed better be able to prove you know what you are talking about because you are responsible. Saying buddy over there did the work does not cut it, you certified it.
Just my opinion.
Good luck

[qa guy]

I think we can all agree on that one!