B

bkthomps

Well Known Member
Why not just call the person a mechanic? If they are not you, and they are working on your plane, it is assumed they have the appropriate credentials

Just wondering why everyone likes to refer to A&P's rather than just "mechanic"
 
Well, my take on this is the "A&P" has the appropriate certifications from the FAA to perform specific work on an aircraft. A "mechanic" may or may not have that certification. Quite a big difference when dealing with "legal" FAA rules associated with maintenance and repair.
 
Respect for qualifications achieved

I think that while an A&P is a mechanic, he worked hard for the privilege to be called by that title.

While I certainly AM just a flying monkey, I am proud of the fact that I earned the privilege to call myself an aviator.
 
Actually Brian is correct.

The A&P's certificate is for "MECHANIC".
He may be rated for Airframe and/or Powerplant.

However, I don't expect the practice of calling him/her an A&P will change anytime soon. The term has been in practice for many decades.
 
Last edited:
Mel said:
Actually Brian is correct.

The A&P's certificate is for "MECHANIC".
He may be rated for Airframe and/or Powerplant.
Click to expand...
This may be, but I have a great "mechanic" that I use for my automobile repairs. He is a great mechanic. Considering, as an experimental aircraft owner, I could have him work on my airplane whenever I wanted to, I think it would do a disservice to any conversation to lump the work that he would do as my "mechanic" in with the same context as I would when discussing what my "A&P" did while working on my aircraft.
 
bkthomps said:
Why not just call the person a mechanic? If they are not you, and they are working on your plane, it is assumed they have the appropriate credentials

Just wondering why everyone likes to refer to A&P's rather than just "mechanic"
Click to expand...

This is just one reason I got out of A&P work in 1997 and have been doing HVAC TECH work ever since. We were "just" mechanics, a dime a dozen and paid accordingly. I went to HVAC tech school for two years in Atlanta and make 50% more working on your home air conditioning system.
 
A Title Earned

I believe a mechanic who has gone through the schooling and testing has earned the right to be called an Airframe and Powerplant Technician.
An accountant who has not passed the Certified Public Accountant exams is just an accountant, not a CPA.
My daughter graduated with a Bachelors Degree in Speech Therapy. After two full years of graduate school, many hours of internship with clients, a state exam and after 900 hours of supervised work she can call herself a Licensed Speech and Language Pathologist.
My point is certain titles are earned by a combination of formal education, testing and/or experience. IMHO an A and P is certainly one of them.
 
Wayne Gillispie said:
This is just one reason I got out of A&P work in 1997 and have been doing HVAC TECH work ever since. We were "just" mechanics, a dime a dozen and paid accordingly. I went to HVAC tech school for two years in Atlanta and make 50% more working on your home air conditioning system.
Click to expand...

Crazy.... and nobody dies if a nut goes missing. Smart man....
I have a lot of respect for the A&P's I occasionally use and will call them whatever they want me too.
I hold the repairmans certificate on my 6, but I am no A&P.....
 
Respect, clarity and efficiency. Respect for the work involved in earning it, clarity to differentiate from IA or Repairman certificates and efficiency because it's fewer letters:D
 
Mel said:
Actually Brian is correct.

The A&P's certificate is for "MECHANIC".
He may be rated for Airframe and/or Powerplant.

However, I don't expect the practice of calling him/her an A&P will change anytime soon. The term has been in practice for many decades.
Click to expand...

What Mel said. :D

IX. Has been found to be properly qualified to exercise the privileges of
II. Mechanic
XII. Ratings - Mechanic Airframe; Powerplant

Let's remember though; just like doctors and lawyers, not all mechanics are the same. There is a BIG difference between a mechanic working at the local airport FBO, the docks at the airlines, a posh corporate hangar, or any one of thousands of other types of operations. One is not "better" than the other....just "different".
 
A&P - Just a Mechanic
Constant speed Hartzel - Just a prop
Lycoming IO-360 - Just an engine

Where do we draw the line in what we call something?
 
Like I said in my post, there is nothing wrong with calling an aircraft mechanic an A&P if he/she is rated for both. It has been that way for decades and is not likely to change. A&P is not a "nasty" term.

I was simply stating that technically he/she is a mechanic.
Would you call a mechanic rated for airframe only an "A"?
Example; "My P did a fantastic job rebuilding my engine!"
 
it's just a pet peeve of mine, i also get annoyed when people put "my CFII"

just say instructor, you don't have to explain all of his accolades and credentials

I work with technology, and I have the same pet peeves when people try to use their certifications as new adjectives or pronouns to describe themselves
 
Back in the 80's, there was an attempt to change the aircraft "mechanic" title to Aviation Maintenance Technician. I graduated with degree in Aviation Maintenance Technology. I still have a hard time spelling "Maintenance" and "Technician". Pretty sure lot's of others have the same trouble. Anyhow, we were considered AMT's and it sounded better than "Mechanic". At some point, at my previous employer, we rose up as a group and demanded representation as a "skilled" craft. After succeeding in our efforts the company outsourced most of our jobs to foreign "laborers". Another big U.S. employer just axed a whole bunch more AMT's for discounted "laborers". Seems there are many who consider the AMT a simple "mechanic" or less, a "laborer".

For a few years, a large group of A&P mechanics enjoyed the proud title AMT. Since I no longer earn a living as an A&P, I don't hold to either names. However, I consider A&P's worthy of a higher title than simply "mechanic". I respect their craft, and skill they possess. Most don't care to be called AMT's, but I don't know any who don't mind the title A&P. So A&P it is.

Just My $.01 worth!
 
In New Zealand and Australia, and probably other countries, the title is Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. The short title is "Engineer". Unfortunately, the abbreviation is L.A.M.E.
 
PCHunt said:
In New Zealand and Australia, and probably other countries, the title is Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. The short title is "Engineer". Unfortunately, the abbreviation is L.A.M.E.
Click to expand...

L.A.M.E. Now that was funny!

So what exactly would you call an engineer? (That's rhetorical)
 
Old Timers

My Grandfather, Art Brink was an A & E

He was also a pilot and his licence was signed by one of the Wright brothers!

Whatever proficiency you have, be proud, you had to earn it.:cool:
 
Get back to the message...

I guess I believe folks use the term A&P deliberately, meaning:

1. "My Pilot buddy said I should use that in the fuel system."
2. "My Mechanic says it is OK to use that in a fuel system."
3. "My A&P said never use that in a fuel system."

So, do you use it or not? :cool:

Dkb
 
comfortcat said:
I guess I believe folks use the term A&P deliberately, meaning:

1. "My Pilot buddy said I should use that in the fuel system."
2. "My Mechanic says it is OK to use that in a fuel system."
3. "My A&P said never use that in a fuel system."

So, do you use it or not? :cool:

Dkb
Click to expand...

Case closed. :D
 
okay, maybe i'm missing something, do people use mechanics that aren't a&p rated?

that's a foreign concept to me
 
You'd probably be surprised how many aircraft (small GA) are "owner" maintained by non-mechanics and "friends".

"Owner assisted" annuals are pretty common for these "tinkerers", and the reason I won't do them is that they never document what they do.

If something happens the last guy that worked on it (the guy whose name is in the log) will be left holding the bag during the investigation.
 
bkthomps said:
okay, maybe i'm missing something, do people use mechanics that aren't a&p rated?

that's a foreign concept to me
Click to expand...
Well, if you are referring to experimental aircraft the answer can be yes. It is not a requirement that one have an A&P certificate to be able to legally work on an experimental. Anyone can do so. On the other hand, getting an airworthiness sign off in the logbook after the work is completed requires either a signature from an A&P or an owner/builder who holds a repairman certificate for that aircraft.
 
RVbySDI said:
On the other hand, getting an airworthiness sign off in the logbook after the work is completed requires either a signature from an A&P or an owner/builder who holds a repairman certificate for that aircraft.
Click to expand...

Oh dear....once again, we have a misconception. There is only one thing that is required to be in an Experimental Aircraft's maintenance records (it doesn't need to be a logbook) - that is the annual "I Certify that this aircraft has been inspected......and is found to be in a condition for safe operation" sign-off - and that must be by the person holding the Repairman's Certificate for that airplane, or a licensed A&P. No other records are required (although as an engineer, I certainly do much more), and no "sign-offs" are required by anyone. If you DO keep detailed records along the way, of things that you do (good for you!), anyone can sign them off, since the signature dosen't really mean anything.

This stuff drives A&P's nuts BTW (and rightfully so) - the rules for Experimentals are totally different than the certified birds that they have been tried to maintain "by the book".

Paul
 
Ironflight said:
Oh dear....once again, we have a misconception. There is only one thing that is required to be in an Experimental Aircraft's maintenance records (it doesn't need to be a logbook) - that is the annual "I Certify that this aircraft has been inspected......and is found to be in a condition for safe operation" sign-off - and that must be by the person holding the Repairman's Certificate for that airplane, or a licensed A&P. No other records are required (although as an engineer, I certainly do much more), and no "sign-offs" are required by anyone. If you DO keep detailed records along the way, of things that you do (good for you!), anyone can sign them off, since the signature dosen't really mean anything.

This stuff drives A&P's nuts BTW (and rightfully so) - the rules for Experimentals are totally different than the certified birds that they have been tried to maintain "by the book".

Paul
Click to expand...
Ok, Paul, I stand corrected. Airworthiness is only signed off during the Conditional Inspection. Although, having the repairman certificate, I do sign the "maintenance records" in a logbook after any maintenance work I perform. As Walt eluded to, I feel it important that the record be preserved for future reference if needed. A prime example is the recent directive from Vans that we check for missing spar bolts at the wing attachment. I have made an entry in the records to reflect that the plane has been inspected and the bolts were installed. Signed and dated with my repairman certificate information in the record. That way if Walt, or anyone else, has to deal with the airplane he can see the history. Now whether Walt would want to trust the information is surely his call to make. But it is there none the less.
 
PET PEAVE ALERT!

RVbySDI said:
Ok, Paul, I stand corrected. Airworthiness is only signed off during the Conditional Inspection.
Click to expand...

Uh-Oh Steve. Don't quote Paul and then in the same sentence call it a Conditional Inspection.
He will be the first to tell you that there's nothing conditional about it. It is a Condition Inspection!
 
Old days=A&E

Heard these same type comments back in the 50-s-60's when the FAA mechanic was called an A&E Airframe and Engine), not an A&P.

Deja vue. all over again, as Yogi Berra once said
 
Mel said:
Uh-Oh Steve. Don't quote Paul and then in the same sentence call it a Conditional Inspection.
He will be the first to tell you that there's nothing conditional about it. It is a Condition Inspection!
Click to expand...
Ok, Mel and Paul. I will refrain from commenting on issues that rely heavily on using the correct syntax in order to be accurate. My syntax has never been known to be very good no matter what the topic may be. :D
 
Knowing what to look for

Turned a wrench most of my life on everything from lawn mowers and tractors to sports cars. After two years of A&P school I can tell you they deserve their title. Can't think of any automotive school that covers hydraulics, oxygen systems, fuel vaporization, avionics or a host of other items you would never see in a car. When is the last time you mechanic did a weight and balance ;)


No disrespect for auto mechanics, I have had the privilege of working with some good ones, just a different skill set in some very important areas.
 
Depending on the circumstance, a many colorful words have been used for some A&P's "Mechanics" out there in the field... I guess just like in any other field. :D
 
Ironflight said:
Oh dear....once again, we have a misconception. There is only one thing that is required to be in an Experimental Aircraft's maintenance records (it doesn't need to be a logbook) - that is the annual "I Certify that this aircraft has been inspected......and is found to be in a condition for safe operation" sign-off - and that must be by the person holding the Repairman's Certificate for that airplane, or a licensed A&P. No other records are required (although as an engineer, I certainly do much more), and no "sign-offs" are required by anyone. If you DO keep detailed records along the way, of things that you do (good for you!), anyone can sign them off, since the signature dosen't really mean anything.

This stuff drives A&P's nuts BTW (and rightfully so) - the rules for Experimentals are totally different than the certified birds that they have been tried to maintain "by the book".

Paul
Click to expand...

Paul,
I'm not so sure about this, what is your reference for not having to record maintenance? They may be experimental but they still have airworthiness certificates.

According to 43.9

? 43.9 Content, form, and disposition of maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration records (except inspections performed in accordance with part 91, part 125, ?135.411(a)(1), and ?135.419 of this chapter).
(a) Maintenance record entries. Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, each person who maintains, performs preventive maintenance, rebuilds, or alters an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information:

(1) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of work performed.

(2) The date of completion of the work performed.

(3) The name of the person performing the work if other than the person specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.

(4) If the work performed on the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part has been performed satisfactorily, the signature, certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person approving the work. The signature constitutes the approval for return to service only for the work performed.
 
Walt said:
Paul,
I'm not so sure about this, what is your reference for not having to record maintenance? They may be experimental but they still have airworthiness certificates.

According to 43.9

? 43.9 Content, form, and disposition of maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration records (except inspections performed in accordance with part 91, part 125, ?135.411(a)(1), and ?135.419 of this chapter).
(a) Maintenance record entries. Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, each person who maintains, performs preventive maintenance, rebuilds, or alters an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following information:

(1) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of work performed.

(2) The date of completion of the work performed.

(3) The name of the person performing the work if other than the person specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.

(4) If the work performed on the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part has been performed satisfactorily, the signature, certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person approving the work. The signature constitutes the approval for return to service only for the work performed.
Click to expand...

FAR 43.1 Applicability

(b) This part does not apply to?

(1) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft; or

(2) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate under the provisions of ?21.191 (i)(3) of this chapter, and the aircraft was previously issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under the provisions of ?21.190 of this chapter.
 
Walt said:
Paul,
I'm not so sure about this, what is your reference for not having to record maintenance? They may be experimental but they still have airworthiness certificates.
Click to expand...

Well Walt, first, let me assure that I LIKE to keep records, and beleive that we SHOULD keep records. Heck, I logged all the gas and oil that went through my CARS until just a few years ago when I gave that up....but this is the reference I always see to the question of the "legal" REQUIREMENT for experimentals:

FAR Part 43.1 (b) states, "This part does not apply to any aircraft for which an experimental airworthiness certificate has been issued, unless a different kind of airworthiness certificate had previously been issued for that aircraft."

So except for the part of our Ops Lims (which I don't have handy right now) that states that we have to do our annual condition inspections "in accordance with the scope and content of part 43 blah, blah blah....we don't actually live by the Part for anything else (unless the Ops Lims specifically say so.

That's how I have always understood it, and of course, I can be wrong...I cite Mel as my educational mentor. ;)
 
Oh yea, I guess it's just so ingrained in my aviation psyche that all work be documented, I overlooked this exclusion.
 
Walt said:
Oh yea, I guess it's just so ingrained in my aviation psyche that all work be documented, I overlooked this exclusion.
Click to expand...

That is because you are a heck of a good and meticulous mechanic Walt...uh, make that A&P! :D
 
Attn: Moderators

There is some good info in here that should be archived. Should this thread be moved out of the Temp/Test/Misc to another place?

[Agreed. Thread moved. S. Buchanan]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
my taxes at work! hooray!

LAMPSguy said:
While I certainly AM just a flying monkey, I am proud of the fact that I earned the privilege to call myself an aviator.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Sir.

All my adult life, 15 April has been... a necessary evil. I now have a positive outlook; when I next write that IRS check, I will smile when I think of the "flying monkeys" my taxes pay for. Hooah!

(You may now return to the original topic.)
 
Valentine said:
mine is a certified aircraft.
Click to expand...

That one will open a can of worms. Let's get into the Certified vs Certificated discussion.

As much as I don't like using titles, I did earn my A&P and IA. If you want to call me a mechanic, I won't correct you. If you want to call me one of the others, that's fine too. Just like some doctors ask you to just call them by their first name.

I liked the comment on Accountant vs CPA. That's really the perfect analogy. I'm the former, but never took the time to get the latter. Those that did really earned it.

Am I right in saying that there is never an airworthiness signiff on an experimental AB plane except the original FAA or DAR inspection, which is more of a paperwork issue than an inspection? Condition for safe operation and in an airworthy condition depends on the type of certificate held, right?
 
Jesse said:
...
I liked the comment on Accountant vs CPA. That's really the perfect analogy. I'm the former, but never took the time to get the latter. Those that did really earned it. ...
Click to expand...
And with engineers. Take an 8 week IT technical seminar - and you're an "engineer".
 
I will use the phrase "my A&P" specifically when it relates to my condition inspection and associated artifacts. (Of course, on my last condition inspection, it was "my A&Ps" - it was great having an extra set of eyes and related discussion)
 
Last edited:
Low Pass said:
And with engineers. Take an 8 week IT technical seminar - and you're an "engineer".
Click to expand...

I agree, engineer doesn't always mean much. You don't very often hear people referring to their PE, which means a lot more.

As in most of these cases, there are exceptions. I've known engineers who had no formal education in engineering, but we're fantastic engineers. I've known mechanics with no A&P who were great mechanics. I've known A&P's who I'd never let close to my airplane if there were tools around.
 
If an A&P didn't want to be called a A&P, we wouldn't have trained to be an A&P!:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.