Jump to content

Becoming a A+P mechanic


redbaron1982

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I got my permission to test based on my Military MOS as an OH-58 helicopter mechanic.

‘Ref the written tests, I’ve taken many and the best way in my opinion is to take the study guides and ideally have someone else mark out the incorrect answers so they can’t be read. That way on test day the answer you remember seeing is the correct one, if you have seen the incorrect ones you may go for one.

That’s basically how Sheppard air works. Gotten some 100%’s with them. Just memorizing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I would say the way to go for the OJT route would be to talk to the FSDO to get the requirements based on your experience.  If you have already been turning wrenches for a fairly significant amount of time and you are good at setting aside time to study the theory behind stuff on your own.  It is definitely a viable option.  There are  also multiple facilities that offer an A&P prep course (not a full 147 course) that will guarantee pass on the testing assuming you are at a level to allow testing.   If you are a more seasoned individual and only wanting to work on your own plane with the ability to sign off RTS, your local FSDO may or may not be more flexible on it's requirements for testing purposes.  However the testing requirements do not separate the requirements between turbine and reciprocating Power Plant.  Meaning if you are taking your Power Plant O&P and the testing generates a test for ... let's say "Demonstrate the proper procedure for trimming a turbine engine" and you have never done it.   Good chance you will fail.   That is an expensive uh oh.  I'm not trying to dissuade you from doing the experience route only pointing out what I said earlier about the FAA having requirements for the experience route and some of them are subject to interpretation by the local FSDO personnel.  If they give you a sign off to take the tests and then you get some off the wall O&P testing criteria then things can get hairy.  

Going the 147 route is also a tough road to hoe.  I decided to go that route.  When I started my journey, I was in a class with 20 total students ranging in age from 17 to 56.  Me being 56.  One other student was 52.  Everyone else was late teens to mid 20's.  It was definitely an adjustment.  I made a kid cry during the first 2 weeks of class.  You also have a very structured environment.  You have certain tasks that must be completed.  Even if you have done it before, you still have to do it.  You spend a lot of time in the books.  You also will probably work in groups on most projects.  If your experience level is well above everyone else in your group, it can be frustrating.  I can definitely tell you stories that basically end up with me saying   "the older you get the less a life sentence is a deterrent."   I'm not against teaching and/or working with people with less experience than I have but when you are working with an individual that doesn't know the difference between vise grips and channel locks you definitely have to take a step back.  Especially when you are several months into the course.

It also put a definite crimp on the working situation.  I drive 85 miles one way every day to attend class.  It's a fulltime job for me. 

My point behind telling you all of this is to point out this.... If you want to get your A&P, you must go into it with eyes wide open.  If you just want to work on your own plane then you must weigh the cost benefit.  It is a commitment.  A large commitment.  Both in time and money.  Not all mechanics are created equal.  It's your A&& on the line every time you get in the plane.  If you don't trust your mechanic then you need to find one you do trust.  Sometimes that is easier said than done.  Also remember your mechanic is human.  He is going to make a mistake.  I guarantee you he will.  There is nothing wrong with wanting to do a very thorough pre-flight after maintenance including looking over what your mechanic has done.  If he has a problem with that.  You probably need a new mechanic.  I personally want to do a maintenance flight with the owner after every repair. That may or may not be possible but it is certainly a preference.   A&P mechanics are in short supply right now.  The wait times are long to get things done.  Sometimes they get rushed, either by owners of shops or owners of planes.  That is when mistakes happen.  Things get overlooked.  Sometimes things go wrong when you did everything right.  Educate yourself.  You don't have to be an A&P to have enough knowledge to do a QA check on your plane.  

I know some of this is somewhat rambling so I'll stop.  Hopefully this will help someone.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The intent of the OJT route is “in my opinion” to allow those with Military experience and those who have worked full time for a few years under the supervision of a Certified mechanic to become Certified. It’s a progression very similar to other trades in becoming a Journeyman Pipefitter, Welder, Machinist etc. I think it’s going to be tough to go that route if your experience is working on your own aircraft and your intent is to do your own Annuals.

I would suggest if that’s your intent that you don’t state that at the interview.

FSDO’s at least in theory have surveillance on each IA and A&P and they don’t want large numbers of IA’s and A&P’s who aren’t Professionals as in do the job daily for a living. The Regulation plainly states that you can renew your IA if you attend 8 hours of approved and documented training per year, but I’ve had one at least refuse to renew me on the basis that if I didn’t do x number of major alterations or repairs or four Annuals or one Progressive per year that I wasn’t actively engaged, because they don’t want part time IA’s or A&P’s for that matter, although an A&P is like a pilots certificate in that you hold it forever.

Have an A&P for two years I believe and you can apply for your IA and of course IA is the logical progression for someone wanting to do their own work, because then they can do their own Annuals and approve Major repairs and Major Alterations.

For most Aircraft Maintenance is a Profession and many Professionals take a dim view of anyone trying to certify in their Profession as a hobby.

Having said that, every inspector is different and they all have different opinions. If you can become friends with one it’s not uncommon for them to assist you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

just wanted to add ...

I went the Part 147 route and it took me almost 5 yeaars on a part time / evening classes basis

met fantastic people from very different backgrounds and objectives: from the one who had no idea why and how he/she ended up here to the student focus on joining a major airline to the pilot focused on doing his/her own maintenance 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

 

Have an A&P for two years I believe and you can apply for your IA and of course IA is the logical progression for someone wanting to do their own work, because then they can do their own Annuals and approve Major repairs and Major Alterations.

 

3 years active airframe and powerplant certs to apply with last 2 years active engagement if memory serves me correctly.   And you said all of that much, much better than I did

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

I’d love to see the a&p program reworked. No need to learn about jet engines to time the mags on a Mooney. No need to study pressurization and deicing systems to change a fuel drain valve. 

Won’t disagree with you but …. Do you replace the A&P program with a « Mooney only A&P » ? Or « Mooney non-turbo A&P «  ? Or « M20J with no STC applied to only A&P «  ? « Fuel drain valve mechanic «  ? The possibilities are infinite … other option is experimental 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OR75 said:

Won’t disagree with you but …. Do you replace the A&P program with a « Mooney only A&P » ? Or « Mooney non-turbo A&P «  ? Or « M20J with no STC applied to only A&P «  ? « Fuel drain valve mechanic «  ? The possibilities are infinite … other option is experimental 

 

Basic vs advanced. Or even private vs commercial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the current scheme doesn't make sense at all.

Something that mimics how pilots certification work make more sense.

Private vs Commercial would be a first classification.

Piston vs Turbine could be a type rating.

Each type of aircraft could have a type rating above certain empty weight, same as pilots.

Really, asking the same qualifications to someone who signs a return to service of a Cessna 152 or a 747-8 makes no sense at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

I think the current scheme doesn't make sense at all.

Something that mimics how pilots certification work make more sense.

Private vs Commercial would be a first classification.

Piston vs Turbine could be a type rating.

Each type of aircraft could have a type rating above certain empty weight, same as pilots.

Really, asking the same qualifications to someone who signs a return to service of a Cessna 152 or a 747-8 makes no sense at all.

When I started 40 years ago we had six different classes of fixed wing licenses, depending on size, complexity, powerplant etc.  There were rotary licences, engine overhaul licenses, propeller overhaul licenses, avionic licenses and structural repair licences, each with sub categories.  Over the years Transport Canada has narrowed airframe maintenance down to two major groups, basically with propellers and without, (plus a few exemptions). Some of the other categories still exist, but not all.  In my opinion the older system worked better as it recognized your increased experience in the different groups with pay differences easier to justify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Years ago I read in AOPA about the light sport route to an A&P.  Here's a link to the article: 

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/november/pilot/maintenance-training-career-gateway

15 day class to obtain the LSRM certificate (Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance) and here's how the article lays out the path from there:  "But one of the secrets of the LSRM certificate is the power of its portability. Unlike a standard repairman certificate which is connected to employment with an FAA-certificated repair station, commercial operator, or air carrier, the LSRM is tied directly to the certificate holder. This means that, after working in the field for 30 months under his or her own supervision, an LSRM holder is qualified to take the A&P testing and add that certificate as a rating without ever attending an A&P school."

 

Sounds like it might be a fit given your career and experience going in.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

I’d love to see the a&p program reworked. No need to learn about jet engines to time the mags on a Mooney. No need to study pressurization and deicing systems to change a fuel drain valve. 

We have the flip side around here. There are quite a few retired jet mechanics at the field. I'm training them how to time mags and do other work on piston engines.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AJ_inNC said:

Years ago I read in AOPA about the light sport route to an A&P.  Here's a link to the article: 

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/november/pilot/maintenance-training-career-gateway

15 day class to obtain the LSRM certificate (Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance) and here's how the article lays out the path from there:  "But one of the secrets of the LSRM certificate is the power of its portability. Unlike a standard repairman certificate which is connected to employment with an FAA-certificated repair station, commercial operator, or air carrier, the LSRM is tied directly to the certificate holder. This means that, after working in the field for 30 months under his or her own supervision, an LSRM holder is qualified to take the A&P testing and add that certificate as a rating without ever attending an A&P school."

 

Sounds like it might be a fit given your career and experience going in.

 

I stood up a Repair Station. I asked my Inspector why we issued Repairman Certificates, they weren’t good for anything, couldn’t be used outside of the Repair Station etc. and we didn’t do anything like that for the factory, of course the FSDO had zero authority over the factory, factory was MIDO’s concern.

He gave me an honest answer, without the Cert he, meaning the FAA had no jurisdiction over them, so we issued Certs so that the FAA could if needed enforce their rules on the individual.

Same person working in the factory, the FAA had no jurisdiction on them personally, they did the factory of course, but not the individual.

All of my Repairmen also worked in the factory and I brought them ove to the Repair Station as needed.

He went on to further explain that if he found a person flying an aircraft that had never as a min gotten their Student Pilot cert, that he couldn’t do anything, and if that ever happened they were told to call the local Sheriff who could he guessed write a ticket for operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner.

I didn’t ask but assumed that maybe that had happened with Ultralights?

But whether or not they had a Repairman’s Cert or not the FAA wanted a job book kept if a person wanted to test for A&P, a sort of mechanics logbook with tasks and dates, that would show experience. Being able to show a book that had many tasks of both engine and airframe is a compelling argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went the local community college route. I didn't start the program because I wanted to be an A&P though, I just enrolled in the "General" class, the first semester of the A&P program because I wanted to further my understanding of aircraft as a flight instructor; just on the principal the more you know the better you can handle the unexpected and know if it was an emergency or not. I did my engineering job by day, rushing from work at 4pm every day to start the evening classes at 4:30 daily. I found that first semester hugely educational and the learning very entertaining. The big sacrifice for me was having school Friday nights since most labs ended right at about 10PM. So it really made a dent in our typical weekend get aways such as flying up to Mammoth Mtn Friday after work for a weekend of skiing. Suddenly we couldn't go anywhere till Saturday morning and had to back the next day. But at least on the pro side, the class and labs hours give you everything needed without any study time required outside of school time- at least not for an overly educated mature student. But even with graduate degrees I still had to take everything except for the basic electrical class that covers essentially only Ohm law. I was able to use college calculus based physics to petition skipping that but still had to take both airframe electrical and powerplant electrical because of their practical nature.
It wasn't till I completed the General class that I was even thinking of continuing on. I had to get my wife's permission of course and luckily it was just the two of us and it was especially helpful that she was a full time professor at the college, so we actually saw each other for 5-10 min at dinner - we got a 20 min break every evening to get some food so I would go visit her and pick up the sandwich she made for me every day. I was very lucky she was so supportive!
So I continued because I found the classes thoroughly entertaining and loved all the knowledge I was sucking up. Still I wish A&P covered more. [mention=15539]EricJ[/mention] is spot on how broad and diverse the education is. I couldn't imagine learning anything about jet engines, magnetic particle testing, wood & fabric and many other topics if I was trying to get it on hours of experience. But i was just very lucky to have the community college program available to me. There was still a lot we didn't get too such as the science of combustion, avionics and in depth composites that I would have included if I had the choice. 
[mention=20790]A64Pilot[/mention] is right on about the need to be actively engaged and there are definitely some in the FAA that want to clear out at least the IA's renewing based on annuals and major mods, but this has been going on for many years and the law is the law and still allows an IA to renew based on 8 hrs of training each year. Based on the shortage of mechanics and IA's I doubt that will change. 
Obviously I don't have any experience trying to test out based on the hours experience, but as mentioned before that is really intended for x-military; not the aircraft owner. In fact I would discourage any one admitting to an inspector that that was there true goal. But I enjoyed my school experience. I also did what I needed to do so it didn't drag out beyond the 2.5 years (5 semesters - 1 semester General, 2 semesters Airframe, 2 semesters Powerplant). Something I also promised my wife. It was a long haul but so glad I did it. I waited much more than three years before getting my IA which truly was the hardest FAA exam I ever took, simply because of its breath,  which did require some serious study time on my part but also well worth it.
Now I teach at the community college as well, but only part time to pilots rather than mechanics (advanced IFR). And as a Lead FAASTeam rep I've gotten to know at least all the lead inspectors on both the airworthiness and operations side of my FSDO. They can be great assets when you know them. 
BTW, one clarification on a US mechanic privileges. The FARs don't allow us to do anything we haven't already been trained in. Luckily the school covers everything imaginable for maintaining GA piston aircraft but if I went to work on airliners I am sure I would be getting a lot of training on many tasks before I could do them on my own. Surprisingly this isn't required for owners doing preventative maintenance, nor are owners required to have access to the proper documentation (maintenance manual and illustrated parts catalog) before doing maintenance; and the list goes on...

Edited by kortopates
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, carusoam said:

We could use a new Basic Mech… a rating that comes with a few limitations…

I was thinking about this today too, and I agree.  Why in the world make someone learn how to repair a helicopter if they don't want/need to?   We have limitations on our certificates.  Why can't A&P's have limitations?   Sorry, I can't work on ... (turbines, helicopters, fabric, &c...).  I'm a PPSEL.  I ain't gonna get in a twin and pretend to know how to fly it.   I'd never try to fly a float plane...

Given the shortage, it seems that allowing incremental certification for mechanics would make a lot of sense.  I suppose the counter argument to this is "you never know what's going to land at your FBO and need repairing".  True, but not my problem.   Many FBO's have _no_ mechanic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

I’d love to see the a&p program reworked. No need to learn about jet engines to time the mags on a Mooney. No need to study pressurization and deicing systems to change a fuel drain valve. 

This what I was thinking.

For pilot certificates we have levels (Private, Commercial, ATP) and Category and Class.  So why not A&P sub categories.  Like A&P limited to Metal Aircraft and Piston Engines.  Or Composite and Turbine, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, OR75 said:

Won’t disagree with you but …. Do you replace the A&P program with a « Mooney only A&P » ? Or « Mooney non-turbo A&P «  ? Or « M20J with no STC applied to only A&P «  ? « Fuel drain valve mechanic «  ? The possibilities are infinite … other option is experimental 

 

Piston or turbine.

Tube/fabric or Wood or Metal or Composite

Common to all would be basic systems training, such as fuel delivery, electrical, etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mechanics ARE limited, you are only allowed to work on what you have been trained for, and an A&P should self limit.

I doubt many schools teach helicopters, or sadly wood and fabric anymore, and trust me modern composites are an entirely new “science” if you will, it’s a completely different animal that most older A&P’s should stay away from. Being ex Military I was exposed to composites, enough to realize how much I don’t know anyway.

Mechanics are also only very lightly taught NDI, I was NDI level 3 at one point and can attest to that.

Think about it, an A&P is HUGELY broad, it’s almost as if your PPL gave you the privilege to fly any existing aircraft, from a 1920,s wood and fabric tail dragger to a modern plastic pressurized turbine. So it is the A&P’s responsibility to know when to not work on an aircraft, for instance I’m allowed to do fabric, but don’t, I push that to the experts, same in all honestly with sheet metal. Last job I had an absolute sheet metal artist, he had no Certification, but with him around, why would I do sheet metal?

So whether they realize it or not, but A&P’s self specialize, most of us of course see and know one that specialize in piston single engine land, but there are helicopter A&P’s and others that mostly do engine work etc.

Way more than any other FAA license I’m familiar with the A&P is a license to learn, it doesn’t indicate an expert, that comes or not after years of experience. Way more often than not there are many un-certified people that are experts in one field that A&P’s should lean on and use. Welders for example, sure an A&P can legally weld, but compared to someone who Tigs every day for a living the average A&P is a hack at best. Saw a engine mount that had been reinforced IAW an STC the other day that I wouldn’t put on a airplane for example. I briefly worked as a contract oil field welder before the Army so I at least know what a good weld is supposed to look like.

A good A&P knows their limitations, so when one says I can’t do this or that, be glad you have one that understands that maybe they are not a mechanics God, but they should be able to point you to an expert in that field.

A&P’s are limited, for example except for minor things we aren’t allowed to touch a prop and it takes an IA to overhaul a supercharged or geared engine.

In all honestly Turbines are simple things, a 100 yr old supercharged, geared Radial is not.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2023 at 8:01 AM, A64Pilot said:

A good A&P knows their limitations, so when one says I can’t do this or that, be glad you have one that understands that maybe they are not a mechanics God, but they should be able to point you to an expert in that field.

I agree completely but having worked a number of mx professionals of the last 3 decades, I see a paradigm shift in general skills as well as the breadth of scope of work in which A&Ps are willing to engage. I have known A&Ps (and IAs for that matter) that are uncomfortable with basic welding, cylinder removal, engine installation and more. Ex military are most conservative in my experience. The attitude is similar to a general contractor subbing work out rather than repairing in house. There may be a few “cowboys” out there, but in my experience the maintenance challenges of the future will not be mx pros that work outside their area of expertise but maintenance pros that are uncomfortable treading outside a very narrow spectrum of maintenance operations.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

Mechanics ARE limited, you are only allowed to work on what you have been trained for, and an A&P should self limit.

I doubt many schools teach helicopters, or sadly wood and fabric anymore, and trust me modern composites are an entirely new “science” if you will, it’s a completely different animal that most older A&P’s should stay away from. Being ex Military I was exposed to composites, enough to realize how much I don’t know anyway.

Mechanics are also only very lightly taught NDI, I was NDI level 3 at one point and can attest to that.

Think about it, an A&P is HUGELY broad, it’s almost as if your PPL gave you the privilege to fly any existing aircraft, from a 1920,s wood and fabric tail dragger to a modern plastic pressurized turbine. So it is the A&P’s responsibility to know when to not work on an aircraft, for instance I’m allowed to do fabric, but don’t, I push that to the experts, same in all honestly with sheet metal. Last job I had an absolute sheet metal artist, he had no Certification, but with him around, why would I do sheet metal?

So whether they realize it or not, but A&P’s self specialize, most of us of course see and know one that specialize in piston single engine land, but there are helicopter A&P’s and others that mostly do engine work etc.

Way more than any other FAA license I’m familiar with the A&P is a license to learn, it doesn’t indicate an expert, that comes or not after years of experience. Way more often than not there are many un-certified people that are experts in one field that A&P’s should lean on and use. Welders for example, sure an A&P can legally weld, but compared to someone who Tigs every day for a living the average A&P is a hack at best. Saw a engine mount that had been reinforced IAW an STC the other day that I wouldn’t put on a airplane for example. I briefly worked as a contract oil field welder before the Army so I at least know what a good weld is supposed to look like.

A good A&P knows their limitations, so when one says I can’t do this or that, be glad you have one that understands that maybe they are not a mechanics God, but they should be able to point you to an expert in that field.

A&P’s are limited, for example except for minor things we aren’t allowed to touch a prop and it takes an IA to overhaul a supercharged or geared engine.

In all honestly Turbines are simple things, a 100 yr old supercharged, geared Radial is not.

 

The school that @EricJ attended does teach wood and fabric and helicopters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

I agree completely but having worked a number of mx professionals of the last 3 decades, I see a paradigm shift in general skills as well as the breadth of scope of work in which A&Ps are willing to engage. I have known A&Ps (and IAs for that matter) that are uncomfortable with basic welding, cylinder removal, engine installation and more. Ex military are most conservative in my experience. Attitude similar to a general contractor subbing work out rather than repairing in house. There may be a few cowboys out there, but in my experience the maintenance challenges of the future will not be mx pros that work outside their area of expertise but maintenance pros that are uncomfortable treading outside a very narrow spectrum of maintenance operations.  

Sounds like modern medicine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mechanics can't actually work on "anything".  A 20yr old kid who just finished a Part 147 school cannot just overhaul your engine.

CFR 65.81 ".. However, he may not supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration of, or approve and return to service, any aircraft or appliance, or part thereof, for which he is rated unless he has satisfactorily performed the work concerned at an earlier date. If he has not so performed that work at an earlier date, he may show his ability to do it by performing it to the satisfaction of the Administrator or under the direct supervision of a certificated and appropriately rated mechanic, or a certificated repairman, who has had previous experience in the specific operation concerned..."

So you can do something IF you've previously done it under someone's supervision first or have it approved by the Admin.

That said, there are many mechanics out there who cannot weld, who don't like to do sheet metal work, who don't want to seal Mooney tanks, who don't like to crack open engine case, who don't want to mess with the stop nut on a prop, who don't like to assemble fittings on rubber hoses using mandrels, who don't like to bend and flare aluminum lines (tubes), who are "uncomfortable" IRAN'ing magnetos (OK, overhauling requires special equipment, but IRAN with the standard Kelly kit?)...  I mean, dude, what do you actually do, other than swapping out parts, checking compressions, and signing logbooks?

The good thing about standardized schools is that they follow a rigid curriculum so you know what the students know.  Someone showing up through apprenticehip program is a wild guess.  I am pursuing that and I called the FSDO to ask what they are looking for.  He said the following in a politically correct manner: "if you puff up your hours by washing and moving planes, and updating GPS databases, don't bother drive down here." He did say, though, that someone going through apprenticeship is not expected to know about turbines, because probably they'll never touch them.  He said 60% of the materials listed on the curriculum need to be mastered via experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, FlyingDude said:

Mechanics can't actually work on "anything".  A 20yr old kid who just finished a Part 147 school cannot just overhaul your engine.

CFR 65.81 ".. However, he may not supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration of, or approve and return to service, any aircraft or appliance, or part thereof, for which he is rated unless he has satisfactorily performed the work concerned at an earlier date. If he has not so performed that work at an earlier date, he may show his ability to do it by performing it to the satisfaction of the Administrator or under the direct supervision of a certificated and appropriately rated mechanic, or a certificated repairman, who has had previous experience in the specific operation concerned..."

So you can do something IF you've previously done it under someone's supervision first.

So a 20 yr old kid straight out of a Part 147 school can, in fact, overhaul your engine.    There's an entire class on engine overhaul where you essentially tear down and rebuild an engine (a Lycoming O-320 in my case).

Our instructors pointed out to us that by the time we got out of school we'd have touched an example of pretty much everything, so it would be rare that 65.81 would be an issue.   So far I've found that to be true and I think it's one of the advantages of going to a school.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I run a part 145 repair shop and we have an A&P apprentice program. We hire off the street and interview the applicants looking for mechanical aptitude. It takes the 30 months of experience which we document in logbooks for each apprentice. In addition to working at the part 145 on Cessnas, Piper, Mooneys, Cirrus, Diamond, etc. the apprentices will work at a part 121 airline on transport category aircraft. After the 30 months we pay for them to attend a 5 week prep class at a local A&P school. They then take their written tests and oral/practical. From the feedback we get from the Designated Mechanic Examiner (DME) that conducts the tests, the apprentices I send to them are more prepared than the A&P students.

Honestly, it is a great program. The students get more practical hands-on experience than they would in a school setting and we pay them (with benefits) to do it. If you want to know what the FAA looks for in practical experience, the attached section from the FAA 8900.1 will provide that guidance. 

05_005_002rev1.pdf  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.