is an IA advantageous for Part 91 flight departments?

[pilotmec]

It's pretty common for different FSDOs to not agree on how things are done. It's also common for FSDOs to disagree with how the feds in OKC say things should be done. They operate like fiefdoms.

I agree with that statement but the FSDO's do not determine IA testing. To my limited knowledge of the process now, an ASI determines if the applicant qualifies to take the knowledge test, and once the applicant passes the test they issue the Authorization.

 

[Roger Roger]

I agree with that statement but the FSDO's do not determine IA testing. To my limited knowledge of the process now, an ASI determines if the applicant qualifies to take the knowledge test, and once the applicant passes the test they issue the Authorization.

The issue isn't with the IA test. It is with the real world application of the subject matter tested for the IA which is for the most part paperwork stuff. Major alterations are a good example. Some FSDOs go more or less by the book definition when determining if you need approved data and a 337, while some seem to want a 337 if you put in a 1/16" longer screw in an access panel.

 

[pilotmec]

The issue isn't with the IA test. It is with the real world application of the subject matter tested for the IA which is for the most part paperwork stuff. Major alterations are a good example. Some FSDOs go more or less by the book definition when determining if you need approved data and a 337, while some seem to want a 337 if you put in a 1/16" longer screw in an access panel.

I know what you mean. (Sorta) I was an Ops ASI but I have my A&P/IA.
I have to say the only thing more frustrating than dealing with the FSDO was working at the FSDO. I enjoyed the work and dealing with my operators but politics in the office drove me nuts.
Flight Standards is not standard by any means. Consistency did not even exist within the office and was a major reason for me leaving.
When I was in industry I had problems with Airworthiness ASI's who were in a GA office but had only a military background. I escorted two of them out of my office for major stupidity. Both are no longer with the FAA.
Remember, FAA ASI's have jobs because you are in industry, not the other way around!

 

[Roger Roger]

I know what you mean. (Sorta) I was an Ops ASI but I have my A&P/IA.
I have to say the only thing more frustrating than dealing with the FSDO was working at the FSDO. I enjoyed the work and dealing with my operators but politics in the office drove me nuts.
Flight Standards is not standard by any means. Consistency did not even exist within the office and was a major reason for me leaving.
When I was in industry I had problems with Airworthiness ASI's who were in a GA office but had only a military background. I escorted two of them out of my office for major stupidity. Both are no longer with the FAA.
Remember, FAA ASI's have jobs because you are in industry, not the other way around!

I think we are largely on the same page with this. It's unfortunate that things are that way but bureaucratic inertia is pretty powerful. I was perhaps a little overboard in what I said about the IA test but I did not feel that the actual written material was all that educational. Then again, since I went to a pretty good A&P school I already knew a lot of the more general IA stuff. I find that many even experienced A&Ps don't really know when or how to do a 337, how to use a TCDS, what an MEL is, how to determine airworthiness per 91.213, how to do a good weight and balance, or a myriad of other things more complicated than bending a wrench. So for guys like that the IA stuff would be very educational. For me the only really new stuff was some of the more in depth MEL material and repair station/8130 stuff (which quite honestly your garden variety IA won't have to deal with, or if they do will be trained on it by the repair station).

 

[Phil Schuyler]

Trust me, this doesn't belong in the A&P forum.

Currently I'm working for a part 91 flight department as a pilot and mechanic. We fly about 30% and wrench the rest, the company is fantastic and the owner is a straight up good ole boy who actually cares about his people. My only issue is there is no where to go, I'll always be a FO. Obviously I'd love to be in the left set but it's more than that. I'd like to be the manager of a fleet too.

I'm typed in a pair of jets and IA eligible looking forward to the future so my question is since I want to stay in the corporate world; Is having my IA something that will make me more attractive as a candidate or will most departments only care about my time in type?

I think one should never pass up an opportunity to acquire a credential and learn something new. I feel confident in saying that having an IA won't harm you. As others have said, your current employer is likely to want to leverage those skills, so make sure you get something for them.

 

[ppragman]

Hey man, you need to go fly medevac. All you do is fly, the mission is awesome, and the money can be decent. I'd highly recommend it for a guy with a family. Just my $.02