Talk:Aircraft maintenance engineer (Canada)

Recent edits

This article has recently been massively expanded. That by itself is not a bad thing, but the new text is mostly unsourced or has been shoehorned under existing refs that do not support the text. Much of it is irrelevant or at least far out of scope for an encyclopedia article and much, like the "The 3 Sided Coin" and "Historical Background" are just unsourced personal opinion or rants. As well the article is no longer formatted as an encyclopedia article, but has been turned into an unformatted mess. I have assessed editing it back into an encyclopedic state, but find this is impossible. I propose that the article be reverted to the last version that is properly sourced. - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Those edits are definitely not encyclopedic, you are quite right to revert them. But I think you'd be safer laying off for a bit while we establish a consensus here, in case you get stung for edit warring. The same applies to CanadianAME (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. That is why I only reverted twice, tagged the article and brought it here to gain consensus for a revert. I left CanadianAME (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a warning for edit-warring. - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yea, they should be reverted. Not encyclopedic, horribly formatted and a mess. Bgwhite (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Historical Background

I think that some of the historical material may be worth keeping and improving, but it is not really about Canada and I'm not even sure it belongs at Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. Any ideas where this could go? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 04:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It is mostly unsourced and I am not at all sure most of it is even correct. It is mostly way-off topic for this article. The text is odd, it reads like it was lifted from a book, but it is full of spelling errors. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree only in that no publishable book would betray so many errors in both research and writing. But there seems the germ of a topic here none the less. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The origins of today's Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (AME) in the Commonwealth countries go back even before the arrival of the aeroplane. The first significant operator of aircraft in the UK and the Commonwealth was the British Army. During the second Boer War the Balloon Corps of the Royal Engineers used observation balloons for artillery spotting. These were later supplemented by manned kites (becoming the Air Battalion). The Royal Engineers developed some of the earliest training necessary to provide the skills for the safe operation and maintenance of their craft. Inspection and approval of maintenance work was carried out by an appropriately qualified officer of the Royal Engineers. (See Walker, P.; Early Aviation at Farnborough, Vol. 1.)

Training for persons performing work as "trades people" in the engineers developed into a three-year program with an additional term of apprenticeship prior to sitting "Trades Board Examinations" in order to gain "Trades Person / Journeyman" status. Training for the Officers of the Royal Engineers, who oversaw the work in an Administrative role, required that the candidate be an experienced "Journey person" in their trade in order to be accepted to the two year officer program at the Royal Engineers college in the UK where they were taught higher level engineering discipline, legal issues and other military officer courses. Upon completion, the newly graduated officer was then required to complete a two-year term of apprenticeship under a superior engineering officer.

When the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) was formed from the combined Army Air Corps and Naval aeronautical section, Sir Hugh Trenchard set up a training program at Cranwell, for the airmen of the RFC to learn the trade of aircraft maintenance.

The Royal Engineers of the Air Battalion were also the original RFC Pilot Officers - they were required to obtain a license from the Royal Flying Club in order to fly their aircraft and as such were the first into the fray when the United Kingdom sent them to the aid of France. Attrition rates were extremely high during the war and unless one of these engineers was promoted or reassigned to duties away from active combat few of these highly trained and knowledgeable men would have survived - especially when one considers that the average life expectancy of a pilot at the front during WW1 was only 3 weeks.

Early in the war, King George V issued an order to transfer "the Officers and men of the Royal Engineers involved in aeroplane repair to the RFC" and that they would also be known collectively as "Engineers". Naturally, by the time the Great War ended, anyone involved in the maintenance, repair and servicing of aeroplanes be they an enlisted man or an officer was collectively known as an "Engineer" by the general public. The men of the "Engineers" were also trained as gunners and observers and often flew with the pilots of the RFC - many giving their lives as "Air-men" instead of staying safely on the ground. The term "Ground Engineer" has been used as a term for people involved in maintaining aircraft and aeronautical products since before the 1920s.

Great Britain sent the Royal Engineers and the RFC to war with roughly 40 aeroplanes and about 250 men in 1914, by the end of the war in 1918 the RAF had almost 23,000 operational aircraft and nearly 300,000 members. Canada had some 23,000 officers and men involved in the RFC-RAF who returned home with "Aviation Experience" after the war.

A military Aeronautical Inspection Department was created as part of the hugely-expanding supply chain to ensure that "every single piece of aeronautical material and all assembled appliances used during the manufacture, repair and modification of aeroplanes was of sufficient quality" and made massive strides in solving numerous technical issues and developing high standards for everything used in aviation.

After the war, training was moved to Halton No. 1 School of Technical Training RAF in order to pass on the knowledge gained during WW1. Many of the 16-19 year old "Halton Brats" became officers in the RAF in WW2, many as "Air Engineers" - a position created in order for bomber command in WW2 to have qualified technical personnel on board the aircraft in order to get the highly complex machines home and deal with any issues that could crop up in the air. In addition to the Brats' education at Halton, many went further to obtain much higher credentials, including a few PhD's. Every AME who has had to file a block of metal into a cube as a part of their basic skills project owes this experience to the Brass Cube test which was part of the apprentice program to ultimately train 40,000 aviation trades people between 1919 and 1993. The gate guardian at RAF Halton is known as "Jock's Block" and is a large rendition of the Halton apprentice "Brass Cube" test. http://www.51stentry.co.uk/TRIB.HTM

For a time the British Military continued to oversee all things related to the certification and licensing of aircraft in Britain and the Commonwealth. The Minister of Defence for Air in the UK was the person responsible for both "Service" and "Civil" aviation. From 1919 onwards, the UK War Ministry published the Kings Regulations for the Air Force and Air Council Instructions as well as many Air Publications which delivered orders and information to the officers and men of the Air Force and the Air Council - including the civilian AMEs in the UK and the Commonwealth.

While today's AME are no longer under direct military control, the Army and the Royal Navy each had their own ideas on the use of aircraft and these ideas bear upon the modern AME. The two armed forces did things differently due to tradition of the service and organisation of their ranks. In the Royal Navy, you had to be "rated" to be able to accomplish a job (even a person trained to be a pilot had to be rated). It is due to the joining of the RFC and the Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS) to form the RAF that that the AME of today uses the term "Rating" and why Balloons are a unique endorsement upon the AME license.

This material is now in a new home and partially cleaned up at Draft:Aircraft maintenance personnel in Britain — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

AME discussion

There is a discussion at Talk:Aircraft maintenance engineer about capitalising the article title. Also, the sources I have been finding suggest that the threat to the AME or LAME is/was worldwide and not just restricted to Canada. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Material from Aircraft maintenance

The following was moved here from the lead of the article on Aircraft maintenance, where it did not belong. Maybe some of it can be used here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

In Canada, maintenance includes the installation or removal of a component from an aircraft or aircraft subassembly, but does not include:

• Elementary work, such as removing and replacing tires, inspection plates, spark plugs, checking cylinder compression etc., on small privately operated aircraft ; or removal and replacement of fuses, light bulbs etc., on transport category aircraft .
• Servicing, such as refueling, washing windows.
• Any work done on an aircraft or aircraft component as part of the manufacturing process, prior to issue of a certificate of airworthiness or other certification document.

Source documents - Royal Engineers background re AME of Today and the 3 sided coin

The following is support information with reference to the hsitory of the Canadian AME of today as originating from the British Military's Aviation Arm pre-dating 1900, this specific reference is about who controlled military aviation in England, the Empire and the Commonwealth.

""The Royal Aircraft Factory (Farnborough) [.....] began in a very humble and modest way. Years ago it was the depôt of the ballooning section of the Royal Engineers, who were at that time in charge of all the ballooning and aeronautics in the (British) Army. They (the Royal Engineers) found that they needed a factory, and eventually they established a depôt at Farnborough.

From 1909, when military aviation in this country (England, the UK and the Commonwealth) may be said to have begun as regards aeroplanes, the Royal Engineers [.....] had charge of that factory, and until 1911 they practically superintended the experiments of all kinds. [.....]

Towards the end of 1911 the Royal Flying Corps was established as a separate unit, and the control of the Royal Engineers over this service vanished [.....] About that time, or a little later, Mr. De Havilland, whose name is well known in connection with aviation, joined Colonel O'Gorman there, and brought into that establishment all the knowledge he had gained of aviation in civil life (First inspector of aircraft for the A.I.D).

In July, 1911, the first R.A.F. aeroplane was produced; but, unfortunately, it killed its pilot, Mr. Ridge, on August 18, 1911 [.....] It was understood during the years 1911 to 1914, from every person in authority, that the Royal Aircraft Factory was an establishment for testing inventions, for research, and for experiments, and that it was not intended to be the great manufacturing establishment which it grew into.

reference: [1]House of Lords debate 01 August 1916 - HANSARD record vol 22 cc1005-29

The Royal Engineers however remain as the technical branch of the RFC, and the RAF. Today known as the REME.

2001:569:7241:F100:55E6:CCFB:22FC:7E8B (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

CanadianAME (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

Re: the officers and men of the Royal Engineers who were the fore-runners of today's "Civiian Aviation" AME in the UK and Canada[edit] "I would like to know whether this new flying Corps is to be an entirely separate organisation, or will it be to a certain extent under the Royal Engineers? [.....] largely under the management of the Royal Engineers [.....] understand that after to-day, the Air Battalion ceases to exist.

The Air Battalion, I believe, only consisted of five officers, twenty-five, non-commissioned officers and men, and five modern machines suitable for Army purposes [.....]

One other point is with regard to the mechanics. The right hon. Gentleman did say something about the mechanics and the necessity of getting a larger number of highly trained mechanics for this particular service. I hope he will do so, and I do not think he will have so much difficulty as some people expect may be the case, because you can get a reasonable number of skilled men for this work. At the present time I believe there are only twenty-one men available as mechanics who are all members of the Royal Engineers. It is not quite evident how many more will be required, and it may be difficult to get them in a hurry. [.....]

It is absolutely essential that these men should receive an adequate rate of pay.

At present some of the men who are doing this arduous work, which entails getting up at all hours of the morning, and is of a very responsible character, because the lives of these aviators depend on the efficiency with which these mechanics do their work, are only being paid at the same rate as men who are engaged in digging trenches.

That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and I hope the right hon. Gentleman in his new scheme will provide for proper pay for these men who occupy a very responsible position indeed and upon whose integrity the safely of men's lives depend."

Source reference: comments made by Captain George Sandys - MP (later served with the B.E.F during WW1) on the officers and men of the Royal Engineers who were the fore-runners of today's AME during debates on the GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE)

[2] [3]

154.20.161.29 (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

Today's AME was borne out of an “originating event” and evolved through the “shared history” of an "organization"... the Royal Engineers[edit] The information below is in support of the AME in Canada evolving from the United Kingdom - Great Britain Army, by way of the Baloon Btn and the Air Btn - of the Corps of Royal Engineers, a seperate branch of the Roal military which provides technical support and numerous other services to the British Military.

Today's AME was borne out of an “originating event” and evolved through the “shared history” of an "organization".

That originating "organisation" was the Corps of Royal Engineers of the British Army. [4]

The RE's involvement in aviation and "Flying Machines" dates back to the early 1800's with the "Balloon Battalion > Air Battalion" and who in fact were the original "Military Officers and staff involved in "Flying". The evolution of aviation engineering subsequently greatly influenced by various Royal Orders, Edicts and Parliamentary Acts.

Similar to Todays' Military REME, the Civilian AME "Culture" as "Trades persons" performing maintenance, "Inspectors and Certifiers" of the maintenance performed, and persons involved in Engineering design specification for modification / major repair share a unique history evolved from a direct military linneage and centred on the “competency of engineering”. [5]

Aviation Engineering competencies are inter-related and are comprised of 3 distinct areas which apply equally to "Service" as well as "Civilian" aviation engineering activities: [6]

1) Accomplishing "aircraft maintenance activities" - i.e servicing / elementary work and maintenance - undertaken on aircraft / aircraft components by "Trades people" known as Technicians / Mechanics who are trained to "Perform maintenance activities" and who are certified under regulation / legislation as being competent to "accomplish the maintenance activities performed" (AME without License to certify release to service)

2) the Inspection by a "Licensed AME" trained and certified under regulation as being competent to "accomplish the inspection of aircraft maintenance activities" that was undertaken by Technicians / Mechanics and to subsequently issue the Certificate of Release to Service (Maintenance Release) of the aircraft / component that was "Maintained". (AME with License to certify release to service)

and 3) Engineering support provided by Aerospace Engineering staff (either CAA or under a CAA issued design organisation license) for support of the aircraft being maintained. (P.Eng with CAA authority to develop or authorise structural design changes, which must subsequently be certified by an AME upon embodyment).

2001:569:7241:F100:55E6:CCFB:22FC:7E8B (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

Jump up ^ Jump up ^ Jump up ^ United Kingdom House of Commons debate of 04 March 1912 - HANSARD record vol 35 cc81-150 Jump up ^ Canadian DND RCAF historical Society report # D12-16-3-1-eng.pdf. Jump up ^ Canadian DND reference C-05-005-P11 / AM-001 "A Quality Standard for Aerospace Engineering and Maintenance" 1999. Jump up ^ Canadian Forces College JCSP 34 article "The Aerospace Engineering Community - A Study in Culture and Leadership"

2001:569:7241:F100:55E6:CCFB:22FC:7E8B (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

by Major R.A. Evans.

Thank you. The absolutely key point which is still missing is; when, why and how did qualified engineers who maintained aircraft stop titling themselves RE or whatever the civilian equivalent was, and start titling themselves AME? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not at all opposed to a "history" section in this article, but it needs to be relevant (about Canadian AMEs), written in neutral encyclopedic language, properly referenced and not full of wild made up stuff like that "three sided coin" blather. Where did that come from? - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Crown Servants / Tort Lar / Evolution of AMEs in Canada and the UK / Commonwealth

A duplicate of this post, with inappropriate material subsequently redacted, may be found here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Canadian Colleges teaching AMEs

Once the list - even a partial list - was introduced, then it should be be improved upon to reflect ALL of the colleges teaching the courses. Currently it looks like there is favoritism to only a few institutions yet all deserve equal status and representation - either createa a section that will reflect all or remove the current college identities so that the reader is driven to source their own references seperately for these institutes.

CanadianAME (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The article specifically notes that these are examples only and not an exhaustive list. - Ahunt (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Licensed AME

This post is copied and cleaned up from postings by User:CanadianAME at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/A.I.R Engineer. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Substantial changes in the scope of the duties and licensing for AIR Engineers came to be introduced by the Canadian Government post the 1988 Air Ontario - Dryden inquiry. These have had a significant impact on the how AME's are viewed, trained and regulated in Canada today.

The AIR Engineer was not a mechanics' licence - it was a specialist course of education that a person who may or may not be a mechanic undertook in order to be granted delegated authority from the Minister of Defence between 1919 to 1968/70 as a "Private" inspection representative of the Canadian Minister of Transport. Removal of those educational requirements and the awareness of the "Licenced AME" as being a Minister's Delegate was and still is a part of the "dismantling" of the Canadian Airworthiness Inspection system.

Beginning in 1970, changes were made to the structure of Transport Canada. This was the partial adoption of the US-FAA regulations which was a ″1981 recommendation of the Dubin Inquiry for the adoption by Canada of the United States design and operating rules as a model for the Canadian regulatory framework.″ identified in pages 859 and 1000 of Moshansky Commission report Vol.3 during the initial attempt to harmonize the FAA / JAA / UK-CAA and TCCA regulations. This resulted in the substantial removal of a great part of this delegated authority.

I had uploaded a table that helped to set the terminology straight, but it was deleted.

The roles of "AME" and "Licenced AME" have distinctive levels of training and areas of accomplishment (even when the person may hold both types of training and these persons collectively call themselves "AME's - with no distinction of the role being indicated).

The two roles, and in many instances the 2 separate licence types are:

Role 1 - AME as a trades person:

• Aircraft Maintenance Mechanic/Technician (Unlicensed AME) : This is an ICAO Type II Licence to "Perform Maintenance” : The equivalent of the FAA “A&P" mechanic
• technicien d'entretien d'aéronef (sans permis I.S.E.A ou “T.E.A non Breveté”) : Ce est un licence OACI type II à "Effectuer la Maintenance” : L’équivalent de la FAA "A & P” mécanicien

Role 2 - Licenced AME" in the seperate role of "Private" civil aviation safety inspector:

• This is an ICAO Type I Licence to "Inspect and Certify maintenance” for return to serive as well as inspect and certify as "Air-worthy" when needed for flight permits/flight authority, Major Modification and repair embodiment : This person is the equivalent of the FAA "A&P mechanic with an FAA I.A Certificate"
• Ce est une licence OACI type I "inspecter et certifier la maintenance” : Cette personne possède l'équivalent de la FAA "A & P mécanicien avec un certificat FAA IA”

For a general idea of the merging of the roles and terms of reference, see Termium.

CanadianAME (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you able to post here the table that was deleted, or can you say on which page and when you posted it so that it can be recovered from the page History? (For example if you click the |View History| tab just above this page's title, you will see listed all the posts we have been making to this page.)— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

table and candidate handbook

Hello Steelpillow,

sadly I am not able to find the link or any reference to the table... it is buried somewhere in the revision and talk history.. but where.. I had also uploaded a pdf copy of the candidate handbook issued by the ARB in the UK circa 1938 (1 year after the ARB came into being) that was concise in it's description of the role and origin of the UK Aircraft Ground Engineer - the equivalent of the A.I.R Engineer in Canada (Canada accepted this licence at face value back then because of the direct relationship and there are references to Ground Engineers in Transport Canada Literature, albiet incorrectly considered to be a "Mechanic" by the author of the article), however this too was deleted, even though of fair use due date of publication..

The Candidate handbook i uploaded, (which I believe is ARB document #2 - not identified on the cover as the Air Ministry pubs' were formerly an Air Ministry - A.I.D originated publication) had excellent descriptions of the "A" "B" "C" "D" and "X" ctegory licences and interstlngly, states back then on page 2 of the introduction's lasr paragraph what John Charles Clifford identified in his research into the "Issue of Divided Loyalties of Inspectors" identified in his 1988 Law Reform Comissionof Canada report on "Inspection". """Inspection : a case study and selected references by John Charles Clifford,; Law Reform Commission of Canada; Commission de réforme du droit du Canada Published 1988 Topics Administrative law, Administrative agencies""" pages Notable are his comments on p.38 - "seven categories of Licences are issued to among 6300 AMEs ....AMEs are the only class of private inspectors delegated by the department thru a licencing system , and p. 51 - "The AME performs an Inspection function that is pivitol for implementation of Canada's Aviation Safety Policy",

Mr. Clifford also noted that "as with other classes of private delegates (10 in total), there was no clear statutory basis for delegation of Ministerial powers to AMEs before the Aeronautics Act was ammended"" .. he then goes on to define the other classes of delegates..

The referenced link I have included takes one directly to the document and you can search it for key-terms. "Divided Loyalty" and "AME" bring up the highlights, however the entire report should be read.. Clifford's information ties in directly with Justice Moshansky's recommendations on Airworthiness Inspection Representatives in Vol III of the report into the Dryden Inquiry. (if you paste the following into your web browser it will pull Vol III of Justice Moshanky's report as a .pdf in a download to your computer " lessonslearned.faa.gov/Fokker/001301.pdf " )

I believe, that with the documentation I have available to me, that I can sufficiently define and substantiate the timeline of the AME from evolution as a result of WW1 thru to today and tie together the missing links to "Clarify the Statutory Basis" for the AME having been delegated "Ministerial powers in the first instance.

The nature of the problem however can be likened to shredding the Birth Certificate for AME's in general, loading the resultant confetti into a shotgun, flying to the heaven's on high and shooting that confetti to the four corners of the earth... in order to get a clear picture it has taken over 4 years of reading, hundereds of emails and discussions with people around the globe and some - but not all of this research - which is NOT actually research, but a review and recalling of previously documented data that the majority of people have "forgotten" and which is being retrieved, - will soon be published as reference by a number of my peers.

If you - or anyone - provide me an email address, I can and will deliver a copy of documents I hold for anyone's purview.. however other than copies I hold of some of the now rare Air Ministry publications, the bulk of the information is all freely available.. all I did was to "Frame my questions correctly" and then go looking for answers.

Cheers, I am off to bed, CanadianAME (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

CanadianAME (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

References

AME Ratings

There's a small error in the scope of work allowed for M1-rated AMEs. The article says, "M1: Non-turbojet aircraft, under 12,566 lb (5,700 kg) max takeoff weight." According to the CARs (AWM 566.03(8)(a)), an AME with M1 rating may certify the following: "Non-turbojet aircraft approved to Chapter CAR 522, 523, 523-VLA, 527, and 549 of the Airworthiness Manual and equivalent standards (includes all airframe, engines, propellers, components, structures, and systems of those aircraft), and the aircraft listed in paragraph 566.03(8)(b)." CAR 523 includes commuter-category aircraft, which have a "maximum certificated take-off weight of 8618 kg (19,000 lbs.) or less" (AWM 523.3(d)). JGE74 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)JGE74

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", so feel free to fix it! - Ahunt (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The 12,566 lb max takeoff weight is accurate as far as my AME college program is concerned. I will further investigate. Denis17.ranque (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Article name change

Hi, I'm a new wikipedian. I suggest that the main title be changed to "Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (Canada)". I am not aware of how this change can be done, if at all. Any help would be highly appreciated

Cheers Denis17.ranque (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The question here is really whether the job is a proper noun and thus capitalized, or a common noun and not capitalized. Let's see what the authoritative references say:

• The CARs use lower case throughout.
• The CAR standards use lower case throughout.
• The Aeronautics Act doesn't mention the term at all.

This usage is actually consistent as other jobs, like "pilot" and "flight engineer" are also always spelled in lower case in all three publications and thus treated as common nouns. This all seems to indicate that Wikipedia's non-capitalization is in accordance with the most authoritative refs on the subject. - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by this. We have a parent article for the generic Aircraft Maintenance Engineer licensed qualification, which is capitalised. This article is a sub-topic of that one, yet it has been renamed in lower-case. Yet in this article, the lead definition has remained capitalised since the move, creating a longstanding anomaly (the article on the US equivalent, the aircraft maintenance technician does likewise). Should we not be treating the Canadian case in the same way as all the other AMEs? If not, then: a) why not?, and b) should the lead definition not also be lower-case? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

That is a good question. I think the evidence above shows we have this article right for capitalization. Perhaps the question need to be asked at Talk:Aircraft Maintenance Engineer why that article is capitalized. - Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, see Talk:Aircraft maintenance engineer/Archives/2021#Title. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Air Engineers - Ground Engineers - What the layman does not know and Canadian, British and American terminology re "The Original AME's"

Found this little gem while pouring thru some old articles in the U.S trade magazine "Aviation Weekly" from 13 June 1921. (This magazine is still published as "Aviation Week and Space Technology")

The article I noted deals with "Airworthiness Notices" from the Canadian Air Board to Air Board Air Engineers with Authority for the Notice coming from the "Air Ministry " in England

The first Notice to Air Engineers, No. 1 of 1921 is a reprint of the British "Air Ministry Notice to Ground Engineers : Notice of 1921 dealing with Strut Rot in Lower Sockets published in Flight - The Aircraft Engineer & Airships No. 8, Vol XIII pg 129. 24 February 1921.

Followed by Air Ministry Notice to Ground Engineers no. 18 of 1921 re-produced as (Canadian Air Board) Notice to Air Engineers No. 3 - 1921. "Laminated and Built-Up Spars"

The 2 "Notices to Air Engineers" are followed by a "note from the Editor". in which he says Canadians call Ground Engineers “Air Engineers"

CanadianAME (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Validity period

We seem to have Transport Canada in disagreement with itself over the AME licence validity period. The ref cited says: 566.04 Validity Period - Unless surrendered, suspended or canceled, an AME licence remains valid until the date indicated on the licence. Upon issue or renewal, the "valid to" date will be set at six years calculated after the applicant’s last birthday, i.e. the birthday immediately preceding licence issue or renewal. While a non-regulatory guidance document says ...a 10-year validity period. I think until this conflict is solved by TC we have to quote the regulation, since it is governing. - Ahunt (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The regulation may not have been updated but Advisory Circular 566-003 effective 2019-04-10 States that as of February 15, 2018 licences issued will have a validity period of 10 years. This supersedes the regulation. I can verify upon renewal, my licence expiry was for 10 years on my birthday. Jedimatr397 (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I have amended the para to at least explain the conflict in the refs. It seems to me that for the guidance material to be used and the CARs to be ignored there must be an exemption published somewhere. - Ahunt (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Is a professional association "spammy"?

I added a short section about the professional association. It was deleted as "spammy". I know of no other article about a profession at national level, which treats its professional association in this way. For example the British Airline Pilots' Association has an article all to itself. If my restoration of a revised section is still thought " spammy", please could we have a more nuanced discussion as to what would be needed to make it stick. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Professional status

There has ben a long-running saga over the professional status of the AME in Canada. Most of the time it has been fairly mundane and low-key, but it flares up occasionally and it seems to me that some small mention of it is warranted, if we can find suitable sources. I have been able to cite its existence from 1988, but I do not know how it has developed since. For example I seem to recall a US-inspired challenge, to impose their own qualifications above it - at least when flying across the border. Any help with sources would be much appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is an interesting link my attention has been drawn to. While the remarks made in the presentation itself need some care in judging their reliability or otherwise, it contains supporting snippets from some interesting source documents: Steve Chamberlain; "Origin and Purpose of the AME License", WAMEA 2022 Spring Symposium, March 2022. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

AMO certification

Rant, closed by Ahunt (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

"In the case of aircraft parts maintained on the bench (i.e. while removed from the aircraft) persons authorized by an Approved Maintenance Organization (AMO) may also sign the release, whether they hold an AME licence or not"   This is NOT the intent of  the licensing of "AMOs'  - in fact the person who signs the "Release" must be trained to accomplish the same work of inspection as an AME and Transport Canada has dropped the ball not only on this, but on other aspects .. There are statements in TC literature that say the "Person employed by an AMO must be trained, and granted a company approval" - thus placing liability on the company, however the person signing is also - when the part is being exported - required to trained as an AIR - Airworthiness Inspection Representative  - of the Minister . AMEs  - or persons trained to accomplish the same role within an authorised company - accomplish "Condition and Conformance Inspections" to ensure the aircraft remains in compliance with the original type design or approved "Altered" condition both during and after completion of the work. An "Approved altered  condition" would be an STC, installation of PMA parts, application of an "MEL" upgrading ETOPS / Downgrading ETOPS etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7205:3C00:E1EC:F512:F4A4:2182 (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Aircraft Maintenance Engineer which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Canadian Aviation Regulations

The Aircraft Maintenance Engineers qualification and license were instituted in 1920 when the Canadian Air Regulations introduced Air Engineers and Air Engineer certificates into Canadian Aeronautics law <ref>Air Regulations 1920; "[https://archive.org/details/AirRegulationsCanada1920/page/n9/mode/1up]",''Air Regulations 1920'', January 1920. (retrieved 03 October 2022)</ref>. 50.99.209.171 (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)