More Training Needed Say US Airline Technicia

[CD]

More Training Needed Say Airline Technicians

Sep 9, 2003

Airline technicians in the United States are calling for better standards of training in the wake of three recent accidents where maintenance on aircraft has been called into question.

The Professional Maintenance Association says that specific training programs are needed, similar to those required by the Federal Aviation Administration for pilots, flight engineers, flight attendants and dispatchers.

The association is urging that a review of commercial aviation, being conducted by the industry and government, should put maintenance training firmly on the agenda.

PAMA refers to three recent aviation accidents: Alaska Airlines Flight 261, Swissair Flight 111 and Air Midwest Flight 5481. In each of these tragedies, the National Transportation Safety Board pointed to specific problems with maintenance.

In Flight 261, improper maintenance left a critical jackscrew without proper lubrication. The NTSB said that poor training contributed. On Flight 111, wire bundles were clamped improperly. The Flight 5481 crash in Charlotte earlier this year appears to be the result of improper on-the-job training, says PAMA.

The organization's President, Brian Finnegan said: "It is clear that the time is right for FAA to apply standardized training requirements to ensure the airworthiness of our fleet and the safety of our passengers."

In its statement, the association said that Federal Aviation Regulations are quite specific in training requirements for pilots, flight engineers, flight attendants, and dispatchers. Professionals in those positions must receive approved training at the time of their employment and regular recurrent training thereafter. These universally accepted standards of professionalism are appropriate, but missing for maintenance technicians.

Calling for the completion of the circle of aviation safety, Finnegan said: "It is necessary to equally apply these standards to aviation maintenance professionals as well."

http://news.airwise.com/stories/2003/09/1063109094.html

http://www.pama.org/info/pr082503.cfm

[Guest AME]

After spending a little time at a US MRO I'm not that suprised, The structure of the maintenance training in Canada is quite different than in the US, Here you must do 2 years in a certified tech school, then complete an apprenticeship, before you obtain a licence, then if you work on A/C over 12,500lbs (5,700kgs?) y6ou're required to do an individual type rating course (they range from 4 to 10 weeks depending on type).

it's my understanding that in the US you receive your certification authority when you graduate from tech school, and a simple "Gen Fam" course is all you need to do limited releases.

So while I'll no say additional training is a bad thing, the article would pertain primarily to US operations.

Brett

[Guest R64L977]

I could open up a can of worms here and say "Do you feel the quality of the majority of immigrating aviation workers is comparable to Canadian standards? - (That is, excluding American technicians.)" My opinion is they are not for the most part,and if you are a licensed AME with ACA status you are usually the one who has to deal with signing off their work.

[conehead]

Got news for ya buddy. I am proud to work with some of the "immigrants" on my crew. They put some of the locals to shame.

[Guest wirepuller]

They are no different from anyone else. You learn to trust them as you go along, the bad ones get weeded out as in time they'll have no one to work with.