FAA proposal IA's need to read and comment on!

trafficinsight

trafficinsight

Well-Known Member
From http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-27834.pdf

Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend FAA Order 8900.1,
Volume 5, Chapter 5 as follows:

1. Amend Section 7, Paragraph 5–1279 by adding a Note after subparagraph A to read: 5–1279 ELIGIBILITY. The ASI must establish the applicant’s eligibility before allowing the applicant to test. None of the requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 65, § 65.91 can be waived by the ASI.

A. The applicant must hold a current mechanic’s certificate, with both airframe and powerplant ratings, that has been in effect for at least 3 years. The applicant must have been actively engaged in maintaining certificated aircraft for at least the 2-year period before applying.

Note: Actively engaged means exercising the privileges of an airframe and powerplant mechanic certificate in the maintenance of civil aircraft. Applicants who are employed full-time in inspecting, overhauling, repairing, preserving, or replacing parts on aircraft are considered to be actively engaged. Applicants who are employed or participate in inspecting, overhauling, repairing, preserving, or replacing parts on aircraft on a part-time or occasional basis will be evaluated by the ASI to determine whether the applicant is actively engaged. The ASI will evaluate the scope of part-time or occasional activity based on the type of maintenance activity, including any special expertise required, and the quantity of maintenance activity performed. To evaluate the scope of the part-time or occasional maintenance activity, the ASI will use evidence or documentation provided by the applicant showing inspection, overhauling, repairing, preserving, or replacing parts on aircraft.
Click to expand...


Basically they're saying that unless you're employed full-time as an IA the inspector gets to determine whether or not you get to keep your authorization.

Oh and by the way, inspectors are exempt.
 
I've done probably 20 annuals, 40 337's and 24 hours of refresher... but I'm not employed full time as an IA, so I guess I'd better stay on the ASI's good side.
 
Yeah. Retarded. BTW, I plan on taking my IA test next summer. Any tips beyond "buy the book and study"?
 
Roger said:
Yeah. Retarded. BTW, I plan on taking my IA test next summer. Any tips beyond "buy the book and study"?
Click to expand...

I failed my first time through by one lousy question, what a pain that was! The test itself is very straightforward and if you're used to researching things before you jump into working on them the questions wont surprise you at all. There's a lot of type certificate data sheet questions, and AD comprehension of course. The one thing that I had discounted was MEL's and that was a stupid mistake on my part. There are some MEL questions on there and I glossed over them while studying because nothing I worked on even had an MEL and I failed to keep reminding myself that the test was for all situations, not just mine.

Once I waited the requisite 90 days and got up to speed on the stuff I had stupidly ignored I passed easily. It's not a difficult test, and like most tests the more you study the less you will have to rely on the supplemental data. The other problem that I had was that the FAA had changed it's knowledge code scheme recently and there was no way to correlate between the new scheme, which was on the test report, and the old scheme, which was in my study material. So I kinda sorta knew what I needed work on, but not the exact areas. So if you have outdated study material it's probably a good idea to get some fresh stuff.

Two other things to keep in mind that I can think of off the top of my head:

1.) The IA question pool is not public. The questions in the study materials out there are a close approximation of what you'll see on the test, to be sure, but the questions on the test will be essentially different, so it's not a "memorize the answers beforehand" kind of test like some people treat the other FAA writtens. My philosophy has always been that it's better to understand the material than put all that effort into memorizing the answers. That attitude will serve you well as an IA, which I'm sure you know ;)

2.) You don't get all of AC 43.13 during the test, only certain sections, so when you're taking practice tests make sure that you only use the supplement to look things up to answer questions. Whatever isn't in the supplement had better be in your head.
 
Thanks for the gouge! I'm looking forward to adding another set of initials to my qualifications.
 
So why did this come about? I know a handful of IAs that dont do it full time anymore but know more about airplanes than probaly everyone on this website. All the sudden they aren't qualified because its not a full time job anymore? These seems really dumb. I always wanted to get my A&P and IA just so that I could do some stuff on the side. Looks like this will kill that dream.
 
The only reason I can see for this is that the FAA is trying to reduce the number of IAs.
 
For what purpose though? To raise the price of a annual? Cost every airplane owner more money? This seems ridicolous.
 
Inverted25 said:
For what purpose though? To raise the price of a annual? Cost every airplane owner more money? This seems ridicolous.
Click to expand...
Probably to cut down on the workload FSDOs have to do with overseeing IAs and their activities. Things are really moving away from the IA having authority to approve stuff based on AC43.13 and other sources and more toward approved manuals repair stations doing the work. Pricing the little guys with the little simple planes out of the system.
 
Things are really moving away from the IA having authority to approve stuff based on AC43.13 and other sources and more toward approved manuals repair stations doing the work.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how this would accomplish that. The proposal doesnt effect IA who do it full time. So I'm not sure that it would price the little guys out of business because every GA maintence facility I know usually the head A&P is also a IA so with him doing it full time he wouldnt be affected by this. Its going to affect the guys who have a IA simply to do their annuals and their buddies annuals. Or I am reading this wrong?
 
The basic aim, I think, isn't necessarily a problem. They want to make sure that IA's are keeping up with current methods and practices better than they have in the past. They want the IA to be more involved in the career and more willing to participate in personal advancement.

There are those of us out here that do that anyway even though we're not employed as IA's. The proposal is that we would have to convince an ASI that we are serious about the privileges we've earned. If an inspector were impartial all the time I would say that's fine.

It's unfortunate, but there are inspectors out there that act less than professionally on occasion. Don't get me wrong, the majority of them are dedicated and professional, but this method is just begging to be abused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top