SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,601
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
In regards to the amount of months or hours needed to get the A&P based on experience, it might be best to consult FSIMS which is what the FAA will go by in determining one's qualification for the certificate. It states:
E. Part-Time Practical Experience. During the evaluation of part-time practical aviation maintenance experience, the applicant must document an equivalent of 18 months for each rating individually, or 30 months of experience for both ratings. This is based on a standard work-week that has 8 hours per day for 5 days per week, or a 40 hour work-week, or a total of approximately 160 hours per month. The time is cumulative, but the days, weeks, and months are not required to be consecutive. The practical experience must be documented.
So, yes part time work qualifies but it must be documented and I imagine the FAA ASI doing the evaluation must be willing to accept the experience as being suitable to fully qualifying the candidate. In other words and this is just my opinion but would working in a small shop working only on single engine, non-complex, non-high power recips be fully qualifying? My thought is that it would not. If in a Part 147 school, you learn about the full range of aircraft and engine types in order to become an A&P, would not the same requirement be made of someone gaining the A&P through practical experience? I would think so but I know of several cases where this more stringent standard was not applied. Heck, working on just one model of aircraft in the military seems to qualify one for the A&P so obviously overall knowledge is not too big of a concern with the FAA. That is unless you go to a 147, then it is.
Also we need to ask what qualifies as "practical experience"? I could not find a definition in the FARs or FSIMS of the word practical. However, as we have written exams, oral exams and practical exams, we might have a de facto definition. My assumption (yeah I know) would be that practical would be deemed to be hands-on and not sitting around reading unless the reading is specific to the maintenance task at hand. Other reading is in preparation for taking the written, not for acquiring the required practical experience.
Want a better or more accurate answer? Go to the FSDO and ask an Airworthiness ASI. They are the ones with the real knowledge and the ones who have to make the final determination as to what or who qualifies.
E. Part-Time Practical Experience. During the evaluation of part-time practical aviation maintenance experience, the applicant must document an equivalent of 18 months for each rating individually, or 30 months of experience for both ratings. This is based on a standard work-week that has 8 hours per day for 5 days per week, or a 40 hour work-week, or a total of approximately 160 hours per month. The time is cumulative, but the days, weeks, and months are not required to be consecutive. The practical experience must be documented.
So, yes part time work qualifies but it must be documented and I imagine the FAA ASI doing the evaluation must be willing to accept the experience as being suitable to fully qualifying the candidate. In other words and this is just my opinion but would working in a small shop working only on single engine, non-complex, non-high power recips be fully qualifying? My thought is that it would not. If in a Part 147 school, you learn about the full range of aircraft and engine types in order to become an A&P, would not the same requirement be made of someone gaining the A&P through practical experience? I would think so but I know of several cases where this more stringent standard was not applied. Heck, working on just one model of aircraft in the military seems to qualify one for the A&P so obviously overall knowledge is not too big of a concern with the FAA. That is unless you go to a 147, then it is.
Also we need to ask what qualifies as "practical experience"? I could not find a definition in the FARs or FSIMS of the word practical. However, as we have written exams, oral exams and practical exams, we might have a de facto definition. My assumption (yeah I know) would be that practical would be deemed to be hands-on and not sitting around reading unless the reading is specific to the maintenance task at hand. Other reading is in preparation for taking the written, not for acquiring the required practical experience.
Want a better or more accurate answer? Go to the FSDO and ask an Airworthiness ASI. They are the ones with the real knowledge and the ones who have to make the final determination as to what or who qualifies.