Feedback

Reader views on outsourcing and the real customer of maintenance schools.

Outstanding Oversight

Having read your reply to the letter from Chris Legrange (Aug 2004), I have to take issue with some points. The government regulatory body in the U.K. is the CAA, and believe me they spend a great deal of time in overseeing the operation of both independent MROs and airline MROs, despite the probability that they are understaffed. And long may they do so.

Regulations in the U.K. now have to include those from Brussels and when combined make up the JARs. The U.K. and European MRO industries are probably some of the most tightly regulated in the world and while it may be a pain sometimes, the effectiveness of these regulations is in the U.K./European accident records, which are amongst the lowest in the world.

Aerospace engineers world-wide usually take pride in their job and in the U.K. and Europe we are particularly proud to say that their pride results in high quality work.

Philip Acreman
Monarch Technical Support
London Luton Airport, U.K.

Outsourcing: Some More Equal Than Others

Peter Rohrbach's article on outsourcing of maintenance by the airlines (September 2004, page 10) brought to the fore an interesting point. Namely that, for those that can find time for only the facts "presented" to them, almost any subject can be adapted to most any cause. Mr. Rohrbach's assertion, that in an election year it's all too easy to allude to "outsourcing" as a "jobs-gone-overseas" issue by simply omitting the fact that many of the third-party repair stations to which the work has been sent are indeed in the United States, is most germane. How many other issues--elections notwithstanding--are similarly foisted upon us supported by only partial information?

I doubt we'd have to look very far. No farther, say, than Mr. Rohrbach's assertion that Continental Airlines's oversight of it's own repairs performed in Hong Kong is an adequate replacement for FAA oversight.

With pressure on third-party maintenance shops to keep business on the books and an incentive to save money influencing the airline, how can this possibly pass for an acceptable level of assurance?

In "oversight" I'm including the process of establishing the minimums right through to the ends of assuring compliance. These are inarguably the responsibility of the FAA. Through its processes of certification, the FAA--rightly, I think all would agree--shares the day-to-day burdens of this responsibility with airlines, repair stations, mechanics, et al. Ultimately, however, responsibility rests with those who possess power. Who, aside from the FAA, has the authority to dispossess one of their certificates. Remember Emery Airlines?

(The reader, who used to work at a large third-party MRO facility, added that) my point is that each customer had their own approach to dealing with maintenance, and the repair station environment was an excellent one in which to contrast them. Some were more palatable than others.

William T. Schwandt
Plainfield, Indiana

Schools Are Trying

I read with interest your "Editor's Notebook" in the October issue. I currently serve as the Dean of Academic Affairs for Pittsburgh Institute of Aeronautics (PIA). Many of your points were addressed in our 2000 study: "The Aerospace Industry's Shortage of Aviation Maintenance Technicians: Solutions." Allow me to speak to your statements in the order in which they were made.

First, those who run the schools are not as disconnected from reality as one might believe. The fact that Part 147 institutions have not abandoned the rule of federal regulations for the wishes of industry is no more difficult to understand than the reason Part 145 operators do not disregard FAA regulations to please their customers--it's survival. We at PIA have 600 hours of training above and beyond FAA mandates, but not all schools have the wherewithal to do so. An additional 600 hours of schooling is a very expensive endeavor for the institution and is not always viewed favorably by prospective students.

Second, we, like nearly all other aviation maintenance technician (AMT) schools, meet twice each year with members of our industry advisory committee to receive input from airlines, manufacturers, fixed-base operators, corporate aviation, and a number of others to find out exactly what they are looking for in their entry-level employees. Understandably, each sector of the industry wants something different.

Third, you point out the need for rule changes. The Aviation Technician Edu-cation Council (ATEC) and a number of individuals within the FAA have been trying to make that happen for well over a decade. Resistance to revisions in Part 65 and Part 147 from the varying segments of government and industry has been disabling.

Next, let me address the idea of teaching classes on specific aircraft based upon the aviation industry situated within 50 (or even 150) miles of the AMT school. The great majority of our graduates are hired by companies located well outside this radius. Even if this were not true, very few of our students profess that they are interested in a specific facet of the aviation industry. Most tell us that they want to work on airplanes, and they want to do so for the company that makes them the best offer, both in salary and in benefits. They don't know who that will be until the job offer is tendered.

Finally, I'm afraid that, at least for the time being, Alteon, FlightSafety Inter-national, and CAE SimuFlite will need to continue providing specialized training for their industry customers. Unlike these fine organizations, the AMT schools must serve two clients: the college-age students who are paying us to help prepare them for a career (passing the FAA exams is requisite to that) and the aviation maintenance industry that will take their core-level skills and mold them into the specialized technicians they need them to be. One should make no mistake, however, that our primary accountability is, and will continue to be, to the students who are in our charge. Anything less is a betrayal of their trust.

James M. Mader, Ph.D
PIA School of Specialized Technology
Dean of Academic Affairs
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

I agree with all your points, but I still think there is a disconnect in that industry is not fully engaged with the organizations that provide the future workers (schools like PIA). No doubt, some schools and industry companies do work together, but is that the case with all of the schools, especially some of the smaller ones?

But, here is a more concrete example. Has anyone from PIA contacted the folks at the companies that are building new very light jets to find out what these manufacturers' plans are to service what is predicted to be a sizable fleet? Who will train the mechanics? Where will the work get done? How many mechanics will be needed? Who will help these companies set up appropriate training programs? Is there an opportunity here for forward-looking schools like PIA? -- Matt Thurber, Editor

Another Maintenance School Has Their Say

I was reading your editorial, "Maintenance Schools: Look for the Customer," and found a few misconceptions that bothered me. First, you state that the schools are disconnected from reality. When in fact the schools do what is required by the curriculum that is set by 14CFR147. Our reality is what the FAA tells us is reality. What is reality anyway? When I left A&P School in the `80s, most new mechanics left for the airlines. Now most students head to third-party facilities or the corporate world in the bigger shops. So where is the reality, it changes with the industry very rapidly. Yes, we must teach the basics of recip engines and fabric, but if you look at the new Light Sport Aircraft rules, the A&P is very useful, so maybe in five years; the jobs will be in that area. So if I would teach a specific aircraft type, my students that wish to be employed in another area of aviation, would not be ready for that area. So in essence we are walking a very thin line. The line between what one person wants and what the FAA deems the mechanic needs.

As a full time instructor in a 14CFR147 school and a contract mechanic for several flight departments, what is taught at the schools is not just test preparation. What is taught and what the FAA requires to be taught and tested on is the basic minimum standards for receiving a mechanic certificate. Just like the pilots; a minimum standard to be able to function in the aviation world. Yes, the system could be better, but then it would require several more years of training. I vaguely remember the NPRM for Part 66. It would have required another year of instruction for 14CFR25 aircraft. What a waste of time that would have been when the student could have been in the industry training on the equipment that they were maintaining. Those in the industry that I have spoken with understand this dilemma and adapt to it. I have the utmost respect for FlightSafety and Simuflite (having taken several classes from both facilities) and they play a very important function. But aircraft are getting so complex that two years of training is not enough to master being a mechanic. It has taken me 18 years and I still wind up with at least 20 hours of additional training every year just to feel like I am current.

One big reason that aviation maintenance is not a sought-after career by younger people is the amount of training that is required; 1,900 hours of fairly intensive schooling is intimidating. And then finding out that your certificate is just a start to the learning in aviation. Another reason that I have discovered is the general attitude of the younger crowd. A career in aviation is more than a career; it is a lifestyle. Working nights, weekends, and holidays is one of the biggest turn-offs to younger people than anything else. The third biggest reason is the lack of proper compensation in the terms of a salary. The last reason is that being an aircraft mechanic is looked at as a substandard position. When in fact some mechanics need to be able to determine budgets, speak in front of a corporate board of directors, and do many other functions that may or may not be done with a wrench in their hand. So do we teach all that in addition to turbine engine theory?

Lumping the AMTs with an automotive training system is degrading. We are not auto mechanics; we are the maintainers of million dollar pieces of highly sophisticated equipment, a very big difference. So your suggestion of surveying a 50-mile radius of my school and teaching only those aircraft is ludicrous. I have students that want to build their own aircraft, students who work at NetJets, and some who work for the airlines. How do I teach all that to your idea of a perfect school? It is impossible without singling out each type and teaching to that specific. It cannot be done.

You suggest having schools teach short programs on specific programs, but at a state funded school, I don't have the money to buy the fancy equipment. No one will donate it either. So what do I do now? I do the best I can with what I have. And by the way, we do talk with those in the industry, but we are stuck in our little world with the FAA holding the reins.

I invite you to come see my world and stop generalizing the problem. The fix will take more than just a few grandiose ideas. Those of us who do this full time try to make it better. We try to show how the real world and the academic world can coexist. And remember you cannot please everyone all of the time.

Jeff Gruber, A&P, IA, DME, ASC
Columbus State Community College
Columbus, Ohio

Send letters to: Editor, Aviation Maintenance, 1201 Seven Locks Road, Suite 300, Potomac MD 20854. Fax: 301-340-8741. E-mail: am@accessintel.com. Include name, address, and phone number. We will withhold contact information if desired. Aviation Maintenance reserves the right to edit letters.