A&P currency

[RyanB]

We now have signature sellers and the "$200 annuals" which equals a lot of unairworthy airplanes flying around. So even in areas of as you describe are deprived of IA's, how is it admitting someone with little to no knowledge helping them?

You’re right. I’ve been in on a tenants annual with our IA - a real IA. Last year this tenant had his son who holds an IA do the “annual”. We’ve found cyl #4 at 58/80, they claim it was at a 60 last year. No seat belts, the tail cone wasn’t inspected, lots of deferred squawks etc. It’s very unfortunate these rubber stamp IA’s are allowed to operate.

 

[RyanB]

I always chuckle when folks come on here and brag about how cheap their annual was and how much money they saved by doing an owner assist. Where else did they “save money”?

 

[Gary Ward]

Your posts are always enjoyed.

I have a professional racing background similar to yours except in American open wheel and Bonneville LSR efforts. It's not a big deal for me to do just about anything on a 172 with appropriate supervision.

Thanks, nice of you to say.
Not in a bad way, I have compared working on a 172 like working on a 69 chevy but with many differences.
Now when I look at my friends 182 and my other friend pa28r-200 I am intimidated when I look their engines and the rest of the airframe. Whole lot more going on there.

 

[Magman]

There are IA’s that only want to inspect that would like to mentor a new A & P.

I think OP should talk with whomever is doing his Annuals.

IA’s must keep a record of their activities.

Really good idea for others as well.

Otherwise; how can he prove or disprove previous involvement of any task?

Plus; it would be useful to fulfill the “Actively Engaged “ requirement to acquire the IA credential.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

It’s not if one is competent. That seems to be the part you’re having comprehension problems with.

Thanks pal.....

 

[Magman]

No comment on #28 re interviews to sit for IA testing?

 

[Bell206]

No comment on #28 re interviews to sit for IA testing?

It would be no different than the interview you went through to get your IA. As I recall the interview was at the discretion of the ASI which was no different than how they issue A&P test authorization cards. Were some ASIs harder than others? Sure. But thats how it rolls for most things at a FSDO. But I felt if the person had the proper foundation and knowledge they would succeed at either one. Its the people who aren't ready or prepared or simply not capable are the ones who fail and in most cases the ones who whine the most about the process being too hard.

 

[Magman]

I am referring to the pre-test interview to determine if you are qualified to

actually get the IA.

So Bell seems to favor discretion of an individual ASI rather than one

federal policy?

Hence no variation by FSDO?

 

[Bell206]

I am referring to the pre-test interview to determine if you are qualified to actually get the IA.

Same interview I referred to above. So I take it you got your IA under the newer method?

Regardless, there was established FAA policy back then just as there is today for evaluating IA applicants. The current policy is in Order 8900.1 with the old policy in Order 8300.10. Both versions called for an ASI interview to determine if the individual qualified.

The difference now is in how the policy is administered with “rubber stamp” approvals, multiple choice tests, and online recurrency. And the results of such a policy change have become quite noticeable over the years since that shift if you know what to look for.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

What's the safety problem you're trying to fix with more regulation....and subjectivity? Show me in the NALL data....

 

[Bell206]

What's the safety problem you're trying to fix with more regulation....and subjectivity? Show me in the NALL data....

That’s what you and others fail to comprehend as this has zero to do with increased accident rates. In reality, these aircraft are very tolerant to pencil-whipped inspections, hangar fairies, and ignorance.

However, there’s a lot that can catch an owner off guard from an airworthy standpoint before it causes the aircraft to “fall from the sky.” Its these IA induced issues/failures that have been increasing in numbers and increasing costs ten-fold especially to the unsuspecting owner. Unfortunately, there are some owners who are equally at fault as the IA.

Perhaps get out of your cubicle and exercise your privileges a bit more in the real world and you might see it yourself? Regardless, never said more regulation needed to fix it. Simply return back to requiring applicants for an IA have the proper experience, knowledge, and oversight and the problems will self-correct themselves.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Thanks…. You failed to demonstrate the safety risk needing mitigation. Because there isn’t one.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Thanks…. You failed to demonstrate the safety risk needing mitigation. Because there isn’t one.

But he has. Of course, one would need to understand the basics of ADM, SMS and Risk Assessment and Mitigation. I think you'll find those in your eLMS directory, I'd highly suggest watching and try to understand the concepts of each.

 

[Bell206]

Thanks…. You failed to demonstrate the safety risk needing mitigation. Because there isn’t one.

Ha. Well if its only “safety risk mitigation” that’s important to define airworthy as you state, I guess we don’t need the FAA, FARs, or even your job anymore… now would we? And I’ll bet you also think conformity has nothing to do with an annual inspection either? Too much.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

COS bro….COS.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I am referring to the pre-test interview to determine if you are qualified to

actually get the IA.

So Bell seems to favor discretion of an individual ASI rather than one

federal policy?

Hence no variation by FSDO?

So how would one establish a federal policy to determine qualification with no variation?

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

I am referring to the pre-test interview to determine if you are qualified to

actually get the IA.

So Bell seems to favor discretion of an individual ASI rather than one

federal policy?

Hence no variation by FSDO?

There is no "pre-test" interview....either you meet the requirements or you don't.....then "An applicant who meets the requirements of this section is entitled to an inspection authorization."

 

[Magman]

My getting the IA and taking the test were somewhat unusual.

First I’ll answer Bell.

I don’t believe there were any multiple choice questions on the test.

To my knowledge there were no Test Guides available either.

AC 65.95-2 was about the only reference I could find.

Acquiring materials to test is another story.

First section pertained to FAR 65 and was closed book.

Second and third addressed Inspection and Repairs and Alterations respectively and

were open book. They did allow references and discussion or answers during the Review and Grading.

Pretty much an all day thing.


I had my A&P for 7 years when I took the test. During that time I had worked on Cubs, Barons,

Otters on floats, Bell 47’s , C-46’s, Argosies etc, So my exposure included many types of aircraft.

Since I was doing a lot of 100 Hour Inspections I thought getting the IA was the next move.


This began with asking the IA I worked with about the process. He stated that it was appointed and

the GADO only allowed a certain number in the area. This was true of the DAMI system.


Undeterred , my next stop was with the GADO. My current job was Civil Service working on Military aircraft.

Even though I still did a LOT on GA work they said I was not eligible.


Six months later I was at Bergstrom AFB / Austin Tx. on active duty with USAF.

While in uniform and filing prop nicks on a Cherokee I was tapped on the shoulder by a “ suit”.

The Fed was from San Antonio and we had a nice discussion. When the conversation turned to the IA

he said he could see I was Actively Engaged and to drop in for testing.


This is what prompts my concern with determining how applicants will be screened

as to suitability to acquire the rating. There should be some consistency regarding

how policies are applied.

 

[Bell206]

This is what prompts my concern with determining how applicants will be screened as to suitability to acquire the rating. There should be some consistency regarding how policies are applied.

I think most FAA policies have a level of consistency that keeps things at a certain level but still gives the ASI enough flexibility to deal with each individual. Its no different than the "flexibility" given to a mechanic when determining what's airworthy or not.
And the current IA qualification policy below is no different. The only difference now, then in the past, is in how its administered which you highlighted in your post above. More was put on a person's abilities than a simple check in a box.

 

[Silvaire]

65.91 (c)(3) and (4) were the two parts that maybe gave me a little bit of concern when I went for my IA. "Have a fixed base of operation" and "Have the equipment and facilities" seemed to be potential areas of differing interpretation by an agent but I didn't have any problems with it. Prior to the internet having an IA was kind of a PITA because you had to either have a Microfiche reader or half a wall filled with books that you had to manually update once a month. Of course when things went paperless well, that's when AD's started getting to be 20 pages long rather than 3 paragraphs.

 

[flyingron]

My A&P wants his currency in tens and twenties.

 

[MauleSkinner]

My A&P wants his currency in tens and twenties.

Unmarked and non-sequential?