5 ms·
"At Aeroman’s El Salvador facility, only one mechanic out of eight is F.A.A.-certified. At a major overhaul base used by United Airlines in China, the ratio is
by mondoshawan22 11y ago
"At Aeroman’s El Salvador facility, only one mechanic out of eight is F.A.A.-certified. At a major overhaul base used by United Airlines in China, the ratio is one F.A.A.-certified mechanic for every 31 non-certified mechanics. In contrast, back when U.S. airlines performed heavy maintenance at their own, domestic facilities, F.A.A.-certified mechanics far outnumbered everyone else. At American Airlines’ mammoth heavy-maintenance facility in Tulsa, certified mechanics outnumber the uncertified four to one"
They also explain that to be FAA certified, you must be able to read and comprehend English. This is because the maintenance books are all in English. Also of note, Southwest is one of the airlines that do this, and they are purely a domestic service.
This is less about xenophobia than FAA oversight. This is a real problem.
- cperciva 11y agoThey also explain that to be FAA certified, you must be able to read and comprehend English. This does not, however, mean that anyone who is not FAA certified is unable to read and comprehend English.
- mondoshawan 11y agoOf course. But that's the rub: outsourced maintenance does not have FAA scrutiny because its not being done in FAA jurisdiction.
- notahacker 11y agoExcept that the technicians used at the major overhaul base in China - by which I presume they mean the AMECO Beijing venture co-owned by Lufthansa Technik, a division of the well known major airline - are relatively unlikely to have FAA certifications not because they're incredibly lax, but because they're substantially more likely to have been certified by EASA (the European standards body) instead. Which has absolutely nothing to with language standards and absolutely everything to do with European companies not considering the FAA standards to be any more exacting or relevant than their own, and their US clients generally agreeing.
- danmaz74 11y ago> because they're substantially more likely to have been certified by EASA (the European standards body) instead This is an interesting point, but, have you got any data to sustain it?
- notahacker 11y agoTheir affiliated training centre presently has a capacity for 550 people - equivalent to 10% of their workforce - at any one time on EASA (not FAA) accredited Part 66 training courses, plus a further 400 people on type-specific training. They've been training their own staff based on an EASA approved German-designed training scheme since 1996, so its not like the desire for certified engineers or their adherence to European training standards is a new thing either. http://www.lufthansa-technik.com/ameco-beijing http://www.lufthansa-technik.com/ameco-beijing
- mondoshawan 11y agoDoes the FAA have an equivalency rule in place for certifications? The crux of this article is not whether or not the EASA is just as good as FAA certification. Its about how the FAA has little to no oversight over maintenance in other countries.
- yarper 11y agoFAA rules and EASA rules are largely the same. The crux of the article is not EASA vs FAA it's more about places outside of both FAA and EASA jurisdiction.
- danmaz74 11y agoThanks
- JshWright 11y agoWhat, you mean like all the data the article supplied (in theory...)?
- 11y ago
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]