A curious question

In all aircraft manufactures and engine manufactures or rebuilders there are many non FAA licensed workers assembling and installing parts. And unless a licensed person is there watching every step of the process, they have no way of knowing how well the job was done.
And with all the latest Boeing max 8 stuff, having A&P inspectors there adds little improvement to the quality of the job or jobs performed.
Also I am curious why a licensed technician that does not know a thing pretty much about say the engine being worked on can really have the authority? It is something that does not make sense to me. And brings me back to the you can build planes and use that experience to gain your AP, but have no experience on say a Jet or turbine engine, then said person can be the authority on the guy with years of jet overhaul experience that has no license?

FAR 65.81 (edit)
A mechanic cannot work on turbines (or anything) without prior experience under supervision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Berson

FAR 65.85
A mechanic cannot work on turbines (or anything) without prior experience under supervision.

---

I think you meant 65.81, not 65.85...

Yeah, I searched all through 43 and couldn't find it, then tried 65. Looked directly at the number and typed it wrong....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enginesrus

In all aircraft manufactures and engine manufactures or rebuilders there are many non FAA licensed workers assembling and installing parts. And unless a licensed person is there watching every step of the process, they have no way of knowing how well the job was done.

---

IIRC, the aircraft manufacturer establishes the qualifications of the personnel and inspection procedures to be used on assembly of the airplane...A&Ps aren't necessary. Part 43 isn't applicable until the plane has its airworthiness certificate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enginesrus

And with all the latest Boeing max 8 stuff, having A&P inspectors there adds little improvement to the quality of the job or jobs performed.

---

The inspectors at Boeing don't have to have A&Ps. Certainly helps, for some jobs, of course. The inspection issues associated with the Max issues appears to be Boeing's deliberate circumvention of traditional inspection processes. "Enhancing Shareholder Value" became paramount, and, of course, inspections and quality control processes hurt the bottom line (in the short term, at least).

For instance the Seattle Times had an interview with a Boeing engineer who was an FAA Authorized Representative (basically a DER/DAR). Boeing wanted to short-cut some testing, the AR refused to authorize it, so Boeing reassigned the AR to a different program and brought in someone more amenable.

Ron "Don't get me started" Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

IIRC, the aircraft manufacturer establishes the qualifications of the personnel and inspection procedures to be used on assembly of the airplane...A&Ps aren't necessary. Part 43 isn't applicable until the plane has its airworthiness certificate.

The inspectors at Boeing don't have to have A&Ps. Certainly helps, for some jobs, of course. The inspection issues associated with the Max issues appears to be Boeing's deliberate circumvention of traditional inspection processes. "Enhancing Shareholder Value" became paramount, and, of course, inspections and quality control processes hurt the bottom line (in the short term, at least).

For instance the Seattle Times had an interview with a Boeing engineer who was an FAA Authorized Representative (basically a DER/DAR). Boeing wanted to short-cut some testing, the AR refused to authorize it, so Boeing reassigned the AR to a different program and brought in someone more amenable.

Ron "Don't get me started" Wanttaja

---

So yeah lots of proof of working on aircraft related with no credentials. Then there are the airlines sending alot of the maintenance work out of the country for cheaper labor as well. Just makes me think not everyone in the industry is held to the same standards.

The person that signs the logbooks or other records has credentials and that's how the system created an almost perfect U.S. airline safety record for past few years. Of course everyone has different standards and credentials
Starts with a Student pilot credential,which allows supervised solo flight and no unsupervised maintenance is allowed. Next step is Private Pilot and the Owner credential that allows unsupervised flight and unsupervised preventive maintenance.
Next is A&P credential for more maintenance and for hire and some inspections. Next is I.A. for more advanced inspections and so on...
FAR 103 are not aircraft and require no credentials.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enginesrus

So yeah lots of proof of working on aircraft related with no credentials. Then there are the airlines sending alot of the maintenance work out of the country for cheaper labor as well. Just makes me think not everyone in the industry is held to the same standards.

---

Got news for you, most big manufacturers have certification processes and requirements for their workers. I work for one and I carry about 200 certifications right now. Last time I looked at my full training sheet, there were 325+ classes listed on it for what I've attended and passed. I'm even required to have a safety certification to simply enter the cockpit on the jet. If the customer rep finds me doing something that requires a cert and I don't have it, we are in a world of hurt and they can make us completely redo a process, under their direct supervision. Not a good situation, as now a VP had to provide a written answer to the customer over why it happened and how the company is going to prevent it from happening again.

Of the certs that I carry, about half are permanent ones, and the others require me to recertify every 1, 2, 3 or 5 years, depending on what it is. On top of that I have to routinely recertify on Fire Control and Prevention, HazMat, Confined Space Operations, fall protection and several others every year, no matter where I work in the facility. All combined, in my 29 years with the company, I've got at least a year locked up in direct training at this facility. When I walked in the door on my first day, I already had close to 6 years of working on aircraft under several IA's, and still had to do all the basic training of all new factory people.

Come to work for us and you have to attend and pass a 3 week basic school before you even get into the facility. Once you get past that, you have dozens of process certifications that you must go to class for and then pass both written and lab tests. For example, just to be able to solder a wire to a component, it's a three day class, with about 15 in-process tests that you take, and all must meet the applicable standard. Wash out of more than a couple of classes or miss a few before your probationary period is over and you are gone. We've had people that worked for other manufacturers in the same business that couldn't get through the classes and some of these people had more than 10 years experience in the field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enginesrus

In all aircraft manufactures and engine manufactures or rebuilders there are many non FAA licensed workers assembling and installing parts. And unless a licensed person is there watching every step of the process, they have no way of knowing how well the job was done.
And with all the latest Boeing max 8 stuff, having A&P inspectors there adds little improvement to the quality of the job or jobs performed.
Also I am curious why a licensed technician that does not know a thing pretty much about say the engine being worked on can really have the authority? It is something that does not make sense to me. And brings me back to the you can build planes and use that experience to gain your AP, but have no experience on say a Jet or turbine engine, then said person can be the authority on the guy with years of jet overhaul experience that has no license?

---

First of all the Max 8 problem was a management decision. As far as a A&P working on equipment they are not familiar with, they must be supervised by someone that is qualified. If a A&P has experience with a procedure but hasn’t done it within the last 90 days, they require qualified supervision.
A company DAR or DER is a ODER or ODAR O being organization and the rating is only valid while with that company. As a aside my dad was the second person in the SW district to be given a DAR for transport category aircraft. He was retired FAA and it was much more difficult to obtain a DAR when they first were started. He was the FAA Principal Inspector assigned to AA in Tulsa when he retired.
As far as the FAA and company’s go, I was at Eclipse Jet when they were inspected for a Production Certificate and it didn’t go well, to say the least. Apparently someone had friends in high places and a different MIDO was brought in the next week and magically they were given their PC.

I have worked in the office for 4 companies and have seen that they don't seem to put any effort into recruiting or educating the office personnel regarding aviation knowledge or experience.