Warbird Information Exchange

How many examples do you personally know of that happening? Turbine blade installation is done in manufacturers engine facilities, not by an A&P in an FBO. An A&P may pull the engine off the airframe and install a new engine but it's as a QEC unit bolted in ready to have the control cables and linkages hooked up etc. Everything is mostly factory set so adjustments are at a minimum, if it's on a turboprop then a basic prop install is done. With the airlines mechanics follow ATA codes that are very explicit in how any and all mx is performed, a mech just mainly has to follow the procedures step by step. Mechanics are usually sent to schools or other formal training on what they are working on. They are not just turned loose, that just doesn't go for the airlines but any shop.
I started out on recips then went to turbines and back to recips, no big problem moving between the two and no way is there a need to split a powerplant ticket into two separate divisions. It sounds like you have a personal axe to grind.

_________________
CraigQ

Engguy,
I'm tickled to death that you won't have anything to do as far as makiing a decision on whether or not to go on with this effort, as you would set A&P's back 50 years!

I've worked on all sorts of recips, (radials{P&W LYC CONTINENTAL WRIGHT JACOBS}, horizontally opposed {TCM LYC FRANKLIN}, Porche Mooney) turbo props (RR Dart, P&W PT6A, PW100, TPE-331)and jets, (RR AE 3007, GE J-85, P&W JT-12, J-60, JT-15) and have rec'd training on all of them, and feel confident that I can do whatever is necessary to keep a well maintained power plant using the maintenance manual.

If you don't feel comfortable working on some engines, then you have made a wise decision to limit yourself to your comfort zone, but don't speak for the entire maintainer group on self imposed limitations. There is nothing too complicated that a well eductated, motivated individual cannot accomplish with the applicable maintenance manuals and training, on any powerplant, or airframe.

_________________
If God had wanted man to fly behind a flat motor, Pratt Whitney would've built one.

The complaint is having to be tested on both subjects at once to get a P rating its enough just for one or the other.
A person with no rating and the right stuff, ie ablity and knowledge of the engine, should also be able to "do whatever is necessary to keep a well maintained power plant using the maintenance manual" , as well then.

[The complaint is having to be tested on both subjects at once to get a P rating its enough just for one or the other.
A person with no rating and the right stuff, ie ablity and knowledge of the engine, should also be able to "do whatever is necessary to keep a well maintained power plant using the maintenance manual" , as well then.[/quote]
And people without ratings are employed in the industry or are working on their own aircraft, ect already.
They have to be supervised by an A&P unless it is an owner doing maintenance that is already approved by the FARs for an owner to do. The work performed is signed off by an A&P or a Repair Station by someone who the FAA has given the authority to do so.
If it is the same as a few years ago, the Federal Government licenses the mechanics in 2 industries in the US. Those who work on aircraft and those who work on the equipment in Nuclear Powerplants.
Also, if those who only wish to work on Turbines can get some sort of a repairmans certificate from the FAA. I don't know much about those but it is restricted in what you can work on or signoff.
Many moons ago I got my A&P. I did a seminar/review class where I was with several AF guys who were getting their ticket. They didn't know the Firing Order of a 9 Cyl Radial. I blanked out on what an Ignitor was. In our review session we helped each other.
We all passed our written tests. This stuff isn't that hard.
I have had to deal with many challenging situations since I got my A&P. All of those situations were much more difficult than the tests I took to get the ticket. The A&P is not the destination. It is only a marker you pass on the journey.

_________________
Rich Palmer

Remember an Injured Youth
benstear.org
#64- Stay Strong and Keep the Faith

BOOM BOOM, ROUND ROUND, PROPELLER GO

Don't Be A Dilbert!

Yes
A&Ps can perform most tasks.
An IA is required to return a part or aircraft to service after a major repair or alteration, (which could be performed by the same guy or some one else) and an IA must inspect and sign off an annual inspection. Again the same IA can perform any other maintenance or work on the same aircraft.
The FARs specify what is required. There isn't any rule about signing off your own work in this way.
Let's say a T-6 ground loops on a landing as an example. The outer aileron attach fittings are ground down. The L/H wingtip is damaged. The outboard rib of the L/H wing is damaged where the aileron attach mounts. Both the upper skin and lower skin have some wrinkles and the aileron is bent.
You replace the aileron with a NOS unit. The same with the wing tip. You get an outboard aileron attach that is used and replace the bearing in it. The rib requires repair IAW the structural repair manual in which you add a reinforcement that is longer than 6 inches. The upper skin is replaced but the lower skin is reused after drilling apart and straightening several stringers.
The replacement of the wing tip, aileron installation, outboard aileron attach, rigging require the A/P. The sheet metal work requires an A&P to perform the work but an IA to sign off the Form 337. This signoff means you inspected the work and it was done IAW all approved instructions which consist of AC 4313-1B and the Structural Repair Manual.
(And I know any fabric installed under a STC will require an IA to sign off the 337, Just using the Ground loop repair as an illustration).
Please tell me where there is a problem with researching and performing the sheet metal work as an A&P and then the same person signing off the work as an IA?
Many shops are FAA approved Repair Stations and there is a whole different set of rules that apply to them. Also repair work can be done by the manufacturer and there are even different rules that apply there.
Your concern of the same person signing off their own work probably would not be allowed by a repair station or manufacturer. Those larger and more structured organizations would be a closer match for the CG than the A&P/IA.

_________________
Rich Palmer

Remember an Injured Youth
benstear.org
#64- Stay Strong and Keep the Faith

BOOM BOOM, ROUND ROUND, PROPELLER GO

Don't Be A Dilbert!

John, you may be thinking of the Required Inspection Items program that commercial operators use rather than the IA situation that we utilize in the general aviation world.

Scott

I can see what the FAA is driving at. You can't have a current IA unless you are a current A&P. Don't forget that for your A&P priveleges to be current you have to have worked actively maintaining aircraft for 6 of the last 24 months. So someone at the FAA understands that there are a fair number of IA's out there maintaining their priveleges as IA's through training without actually working on aircraft so to the FAA's mind if they aren't current as A&P's then thier IA isn't worth the paper its printed on.

Frankly this wouldn't be an issue if the ASI's got out of the office and actually met with their IA's at some point every other year or so. In the last 15 years working as a Part 91 A&P IA I have had the FAA actually look at my place of employment only once or twice and that only after coming there for some other reason. If you work for a 135 or 121 operator or a repair station you are tripping over ASI's every other month.

As with most FAA proposals this one is written poorly by someone who doesn't seem to understand how IA's work in the real world.

_________________
"I can't understand it, I cut it twice and it's still too short!" Robert F. Dupre' 1923-2010 Go With God.

I was entertained today for my 8 hour refresher training course to keep my IA in effect.
A small section of the course explained the response to the comment period that closed in January.
I believe they received approx 960+ individual responses via the web site during the comment period. This doesn't include organizations which responded. ie EAA, ect.
This is out of over 250,000 A & P mechanics licensed in the US. Out of these there are around 7000 IA's in the US IIRC.
So out of that 250.000 A & Ps, of which 7000 also hold an IA, only 960 left a comment on something that will affect all of us.
The final version of this has yet to come out so I wonder if it will be a radical change or be left alone.

_________________
Rich Palmer

Remember an Injured Youth
benstear.org
#64- Stay Strong and Keep the Faith

BOOM BOOM, ROUND ROUND, PROPELLER GO

Don't Be A Dilbert!

I remember the great FAR Part 66 fiasco from the 1990s. I think a similar ratio of replies was obtained and that went down. There was another proposal along about that time that had only one positive reply (from a major aviation magazine editor) and that went down. I'll give the FAA this, they generally understand the popularity of thier proposals despite the miniscule numbers received.

_________________
"I can't understand it, I cut it twice and it's still too short!" Robert F. Dupre' 1923-2010 Go With God.