On 10 Oct 2004 00:56:15 GMT, (Steelgtr62) wrote:

If they can pass the test then they have no problem...and a crash school can
teach you to pass the test in two weeks.

I happen to agree with that and my mentioning of the fact that I have
been to school probably just distracts from the issue that most of the
people who tested with the DE in question sought him out for a reason;
they wanted an easy test. I mentioned school to make the point that
as somebody who didn't try to cut any corners I can't feel sorry for
those who did.

A&P vocational education in the USA is an unmitigated joke. Many of these
schools are utterly useless , but they do certify you to test. Eighteen months
of attendance and in some cases tens of thousands of dollars for very little
learned skill is what I have seen.

Well, all I can say to that is that like any other education, you get
out of it exactly what you put into it. If the ONLY objective is the
piece of paper from the feds that says you are a mechanic, you can sit
in class and do only what is necessary to score 70% on everything. My
approach was that if I had to sit there in order to get the stupid
piece of paper, then I was going to get the most out of my investment.
I asked a lot of questions and often took projects a lot farther than
was completely necessary, and my grades reflected that.

They should get rid of the 18 month school or 30 month experience requirement
and let you test up front for a provisional license, on which an IA has to
inspect all jobs you do for the first three times you sign off that job.

I agree that if you have the skill and the knowledge, then the
government shouldn't have be able to make you do busy work to fulfill
some arbitrary experience requirement. I disagree on the need for a
provisional license, however. The existing A&P certificate is already
provisional enough in that you need an IA to approve any major repairs
or alterations. I don't need to get IA approval on knowing how to
pack wheel bearings or time a mag once I have passed the tests that
prove I have a basic level of mechanical knowledge and understand how
to read a manual. Regardless of any of that, whatever the system is
the bar should be the same for everybody getting their certificate
which is why all those people had to re-test.

They
should also split up turbine and recip engines, and composite, sheetmetal, and
wood/tube/fabric structure into separate ratings. The full AMT rating should
only be given after you have worked on aircraft , and only for relevant work on
the appropriate type. Airline personnel are only annoyed by talk of Ceconite
and museum piece Lycomings.

They tried that, and it received the most negative comments of any
NPRM in FAA history if I was told correctly. Regardless of your
opinion of rag and tube or old engines, some of us do like them.
Personally my eyes start to gloss over when people are talking about
the air conditioning or blue water systems on a modern jetliner. And
it is silly that some of that stuff is taught in A&P school, because
under the regs most airline mechanics are not required to hold an A&P
(although the airlines like to use that as an employment screening
tool).

Maybe some of the community college programs where you get an Associate degree
are not a scam but the commercial programs largely are. We interviewed two
people from one of the commercial schools in Virginia recently and I can tell
you that if I had my car oil changed at Jiffy Lube, if either one of them
worked there, I'd find another location!

Well, you are going to find idiots in any occupation. I know because
I had some of those people as classmates, whether it was in management
classes for my business degree or in fuel systems class getting my
A&P. And they now have the same supposed qualifications as I do.


================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply