CEDAR CITY, Utah — Aviation schools around the country are mandated by law to adhere to the curriculum drafted by the FAA. This curriculum cannot be changed or modified by schools by any means, even though requirements for what is taught have not been adequately updated since 1962, officials with Southern Utah University note.
That means today’s technicians are being taught curriculum that was created more than 56 years ago, before the invention of cell phones, GPS, personal computers, or the Internet. That also means aviation students are not prepared for real world jobs because they have been learning outdated curriculum that hasn’t been relevant in years.
Southern Utah University officials want to change all of that.
SUU’s Aviation’s Director of Maintenance Jared Britt was recently appointed chairman of the Legislative Committee for the Aviation Technician Education Council (ATEC). In addition to working with current aviation students at SUU, Britt’s goal is to get an exemption from the current curriculum from the U.S. Department of Transportation in Washington, D.C., that will allow SUU’s aviation department to teach its own, updated curriculum to coincide with future airman certification standards and better prepare students for industry jobs.
With this exemption, SUU aviation hopes to graduate better trained technicians that can be job ready upon completion of the program, officials noted.
Schools that continue to teach outdated curriculum are sending students into jobs where companies are spending substantial amounts of time and money training and teaching new graduates proper techniques and current regulations.
Companies like Boeing are left to retrain new graduates on basic tasks required to maintain a modern, sophisticated airplane. Boeing has been frustrated with this process and has stated, “As personnel demand increases over the next two decades, the aviation industry will need to find innovative solutions to keep pace with training requirements.”
Professionals in the aviation industry, government legislators, and especially instructors at various aviation schools all agree that the outdated requirements inhibit aviation schools from keeping up with vital changes in aircraft technology.
“Outdated training mandates are more than an impediment; they hinder the aviation maintenance industry’s economic growth,” said Crystal Maguire, the executive director of ATEC. “As the global aviation sector expands, economic forecasts predict that U.S. maintenance companies will be unable to meet increased demand because of a significant skilled worker shortage. To meet the need, training organization must produce better prepared aviation mechanics.”
If granted the exception, SUU will be allowed to utilize the method of credit hours in lieu of seat time requirements, will be able to teach with modern, advanced technology, and will encourage workforce development so the transition from graduation to career will be smooth and efficient, officials say.
The SUU exemption letter states:
Aviation maintenance technician schools with curriculums that emulate industry realities and adequately prepare students for much needed positions will be better equipped to attract students to careers in aircraft maintenance, create job growth, and enhance an industry that already greatly benefits the public.”
Britt is passionate about his work and wants to see SUU be the force of good that will improve the aviation community as a whole.
“My passion comes from the consistent need to drive change,” said Britt. “The curriculum has barely changed in years. Why shouldn’t it be SUU trying to make the world of aviation a safer place by providing better training? There is a need, and we have the ability to meet that need in a way no one else ever has. I am excited to see our aviation program grow and I am proud to be a part of a university that can see the value and necessity for offering technical training along with a degree path.”
The 2018 ATEC Annual Conference is taking place March 17-20, 2018, in Washington, D.C. SUU aviation, as well as the political science department, will be contributing to the conference and speaking about the curriculum issue.
SUU hopes to see the exemption granted before the 2018 fall semester so the aviation department can implement its new curriculum with the next round of freshmen, officials added.
Pilots have all sorts of ratings and licenses depending on what they are operating so maybe the Mechanics need something similar.
Is it time to bring up “Apprenticeship Programs” again?
Electricians, plumbers, doctors, lawyers and many other professions require a freshly educated person to work under an experienced person.
The “Apprenticeship Programs” is already part of the requirements of exercising the privileges of an Aviation Maintenance certificate, Airframe or Powerplant, in the U.S at least. Please note this from 14CFR65.81
§ 65.81 General privileges and limitations.
(a) A certificated mechanic may perform or supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance or alteration of an aircraft or appliance, or a part thereof, for which he is rated (but excluding major repairs to, and major alterations of, propellers, and any repair to, or alteration of, instruments), and may perform additional duties in accordance with §§ 65.85, 65.87, and 65.95. However, he may not supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration of, or approve and return to service, any aircraft or appliance, or part thereof, for which he is rated unless he has satisfactorily performed the work concerned at an earlier date. If he has not so performed that work at an earlier date, he may show his ability to do it by performing it to the satisfaction of the Administrator or under the direct supervision of a certificated and appropriately rated mechanic, or a certificated repairman, who has had previous experience in the specific operation concerned.
(b) A certificated mechanic may not exercise the privileges of his certificate and rating unless he understands the current instructions of the manufacturer, and the maintenance manuals, for the specific operation concerned.
So as you so rightly point out working under an experienced individual is a good idea,in the case of aircraft mechanics, it is also the law.
There was a inspector here in the North Texas FSDO that actually told a school they were over teaching their students and brought an action against them… thats right he fined them for overteaching and not following the curriculum. There are meatballs like this all over the system, he’s not here anymore but its an example of mindset of some of the inspectors.
You know that if a Career Tech High school wants to teach the General course and collaborate with a college they can’t do it without going through the same process and be certified as a 147 school itself. What sense does that make, I’ve looked at the FAA curriculum for the general and there is nothing in there that a good Career school can’t teach as well as a college can and give a student a leg up on there college courses.
I agree that the curriculum for the A&P needs to be updated, and I applaud SUU for leading the way with this task. However in order for the A&P candidate to pass the certification exam the SUU will still have to keep elements of the older curriculum in place, because until the FAA changes their test questions the old data will be in there. And as the other MIke said earlier there are things within this industry that do not change like an MS20470AD rivet.
I agree with Sarah that it may be time for the A&P certificate to have a basic qualification with specialized ratings added based upon the persons area of interest after becoming a basic A&P. But even targeted training will only go so far. There is no classroom training that replaces the experience provided by doing the job.
Unfortunately Aviation technology has surpassed the FAA’s ability to manage and regulate its application within our industry.
I have taught at a part 147 school in the past and there is absolutely no limits, from the FAA, on what can be taught. The basics are still needed and relevant as Mike pointed out. A program my be expanded as much as the school would like the Minimum is what is required. To point out the FAA position on this,this is straight from the Advisory Circular for maintenance schools, AC 147-3B, ” Exceed FAA Minimums. AMTS applicants are encouraged to exceed the FAA
minimum standards for facilities, curriculum, and teaching levels. AMTS applicants are
encouraged to teach subjects beyond those required by the regulations; for example, make
enhancements in composite material repair, solid-state electronics, nondestructive
inspection (NDI) techniques, and built-in test equipment, and add courses in human factors and
inspection principles. (See Appendix 6 for additional course material recommendations.)
Whenever an AMTS desires to change location, facilities, or ratings, it must first notify the FAA
to ensure recertification procedures are followed.”
The idea of not being “allowed” to teach new material is completely false, and likely a ploy to advertise SUU as a “modern,Progressive” school.
Sorry to inform you fella’s but many of these skillsets are still applicable today. As an example, an MS20470AD rivet is still an MS20470AD rivet and is used in ALL new aircraft in some form. Not to mention that the aircraft these curriculum were designed for are still in operation and will be for years to come. I work daily on aircraft that were designed in the 60’s as well as aircraft that were designed yesterday. I also meet so called A&P’s all the time who don’t even know what an MS20470AD rivet is, how to identify it or how to install/replace one, so the system in it’s current form is broken anyway. The basic fundamentals are missing from the A&P field as a whole.
Plain and simple is that it is now a 4 year degree program not a 2 year program and needs to be upgraded as such to include the new information these guys will need to maintain the new equipment while maintaining the current information.
In the body of this article the following statement was made, “That means today’s technicians are being taught curriculum that was created more than 56 years ago, before the invention of cell phones, GPS, personal computers, or the Internet. That also means aviation students are not prepared for real world jobs because they have been learning outdated curriculum that hasn’t been relevant in years”. The still flying DC-3s, one of which I owned and worked on, are proof of how ridiculous that statement is. The current crop of young newcomers have wasted a big part of their lives on video games , so I’m sure they can push buttons when they need to. Lets concentrate on teaching them old school practices while adding in the new technologies and forget about the button pushing.
If it broke don’t fix it!
So the FAA will have different exams and O&P’s for this school?
Its about time!!!! Current instruction in most of aviation is so dated as to be opposite of what is being done currently in aviation. This makes pilots, mechanics, technicians, machinists, and even aviation business majors working with the newly emerging “new” aviation industries at a tremendous disadvantage coming out of schools and universities. So much so that some may have to be retrained afterwards. Most of the skills and knowledge needed are actually a blending of skills. The A&P, A&I, might mean something if you are working on C172’s with paper manuals from 40 years ago, but really are marginal skills on a Phenom 100 and more importantly ANY of the flying cars coming out this year and next. They will require whole new skill sets taught in new ways that will demand new certification standards and descriptions. I am not saying to completely forget about the past, but I am saying industry will demand changes because technology is forcing it.
Ignore this at our peril.
Bob Martilla
Brovo SUU DM J. Britt! Thanks for your efforts to work hand-in-hand with government to move American forward. Ed Yost
Bob, I’m glad somebody finally pointed out that the “flying UBER mobile” is nothing like existing aviation technology.
These new concept VTOLs are using technology never imagined. FAA AC 43.13 is written totally around physics, aerodynamics and standard practices. Standardizing assembly practices is just crazy when it comes to Pegasus and Santa’s reindeer power.
Pilots have all sorts of ratings and licenses depending on what they are operating so maybe the Mechanics need something similar. Maybe a basic mechanics certification (like a Private Pilot) and then add on’s for say Turbine Aircraft or Piston Engine Major Repair (Overhaul). The point is that there is a lot of specialized knowledge one would need to successfully (and safely) perform that work. This current concept of the one license to do everything started to fail when the first turbine engines came out. How many A&Ps are really qualified to work with the new Diesel engines or the composite airframes? Their license says they are and that is ridiculous.
An A&P Mechanic is REQUIRED to have experience with the aircraft or system that they are working on before they may work unsupervised on that aircraft/engine or subsystem.
§ 65.81 General privileges and limitations.
(a) A certificated mechanic may perform or supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance or alteration of an aircraft or appliance, or a part thereof, for which he is rated (but excluding major repairs to, and major alterations of, propellers, and any repair to, or alteration of, instruments), and may perform additional duties in accordance with §§ 65.85, 65.87, and 65.95. However, he may not supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration of, or approve and return to service, any aircraft or appliance, or part thereof, for which he is rated unless he has satisfactorily performed the work concerned at an earlier date. If he has not so performed that work at an earlier date, he may show his ability to do it by performing it to the satisfaction of the Administrator or under the direct supervision of a certificated and appropriately rated mechanic, or a certificated repairman, who has had previous experience in the specific operation concerned.
(b) A certificated mechanic may not exercise the privileges of his certificate and rating unless he understands the current instructions of the manufacturer, and the maintenance manuals, for the specific operation concerned.
The FAA allows us great privileges and bestows great responsibility on us to follow manufacturer and government guidelines. The formal training is intended to bestow the basic knowledge and most of all the ability to find the proper data for the task at hand, regardless of where that information is to be found.
The pilot certificate is much more generous in that a private pilot with a high performance/complex/tailwheel endorsement may operate anything from a J-3 to a P-40,anything piston powered up to 12,500lb gross. The insurance company will not like it but the FAA will allow it.