3 ms·
> 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 go
by 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...)?