Becoming an AMT (A&P) through OJT

[CherokeeGirl]

The original thread is too old so I'll start a new one...

Changed just a few months ago. Tightened up the requirements. http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=8900.1,Vol.5,Ch5,Sec2

I came here to ask a question about the timeframes for taking the two tests when going the OJT route. I had previously been told that I should wait until my 30 months are up before taking the tests—at which point I should take both test—because If I take one after 18 months I then would have to wait another 18 months to take the other, thereby increasing my total time to be an A&P to 36 months.

According to new information I've recently been told and the wording in the link supplied by Doc Holliday's link, I can take the first test after 18 months and then the second after 30 months (12 months later) providing I've been working concurrently in a shop that is gearing me toward this goal.

Anyone disagree with this this assessment? If so, how would you interpret it and why?

 

[Bell206]

Anyone disagree with this this assessment? If so, how would you interpret it and why?

FYI: there have been more recent threads on this but were combined with obtaining an A&P via a 147 school. But as to the OJT route it is more than just a time frame as you need to meet the experience requirements within that 18 month or 30 month time frame. The quickest and most direct answer you will get is to contact a maintenance ASI at your local FSDO and see what their specific requirements are to obtain your authorizations to take the A&P tests. In my experience each FSDO and at times each ASI can have differing requirements. Good luck.

 

[Magman]

Getting the ok separately would likely entail 18 months of A/F and 18 months of P/P.
Going the 30 month route you may qualify with 20 months A/F and 10 months P/P experience. Or it might be 15 of each. As Bell said; the FSDOs and different personnel have quite varying discretion in determining compliance. It won’t hurt to get what is needed in writing. That person may not be there when you return.

Don’t take a knife to a gunfight. Prepare ahead of time and don’t pass judgement on what they will accept. Let them make the call. Troubleshooting, AD/SB research, ordering parts are all part of the job. Log it!

 

[unsafervguy]

and by the way, there are three test to take. general, powerplant, and airframe

 

[pfarber]

There is an hour requirement,not specifically a number of days. Basically 8 hours a day 5 days a week means you meet experience.

In a school its 1900 hours total IIRC. Some schools have a time clock, some just take attendance... It all depends on how the FAA licensed the curriculum.

Good luck staying employed for 30 months at a local GA shop. It happens, but not as common as most think. Most people that did the OJT were from 20-30 years ago.

 

[Tools]

The OJT route is still very viable. If you’re working in the shop of a 121 carrier, it’s practically a rubber stamp.

Part 145 repair shops get their guy’s 8610s signed off pretty handily.

We just put a doc through our test prep school who was purely part time with local A&Ps, but had tracked FORTY years of doing so combined with aircraft ownership.

So as mentioned, it’s really a combo of how well you log your experience and track your time, the context of your experience, and the disposition of your local FSDO.

 

[Magman]

“ How well “ = correct in my book.
I find the biggest issue is having folks consistently update their log for me to sign.
Excuses such as ; “ I’m going to do later on the computer “ are all too common. Then the weeks stretch into months and years. A simple spiral wound notebook will suffice .

HOW. It is written is also significant. An entry of “ Archer Annual - 22 hrs” is not as effective as “ compression check- 1.1, check mag timing .6, inspect and grease wheel bearings 2.5 , etc etc “.

it should should be noted that you don’t have to do the tasks in Flat rate time.
Research into specifics into as to HOW and WITH WHAT oils a normal part of the task. What you really are trying to do is show FAA what you have accomplished.

 

[unsafervguy]

“ How well “ = correct in my book.
I find the biggest issue is having folks consistently update their log for me to sign.
Excuses such as ; “ I’m going to do later on the computer “ are all too common. Then the weeks stretch into months and years. A simple spiral wound notebook will suffice .

HOW. It is written is also significant. An entry of “ Archer Annual - 22 hrs” is not as effective as “ compression check- 1.1, check mag timing .6, inspect and grease wheel bearings 2.5 , etc etc “.

it should should be noted that you don’t have to do the tasks in Flat rate time.
Research into specifics into as to HOW and WITH WHAT oils a normal part of the task. What you really are trying to do is show FAA what you have accomplished.

magman hit it. going the OJT route requires you to prove to the FAA that you have the required time, but also have the experience to test for the certificate. the more complete and detailed you documentation is, the better your application looks.

in this day and age, a computer based document with photos and video is a great addition to the written logs of work.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

“ How well “ = correct in my book.
I find the biggest issue is having folks consistently update their log for me to sign.
Excuses such as ; “ I’m going to do later on the computer “ are all too common. Then the weeks stretch into months and years. A simple spiral wound notebook will suffice .

HOW. It is written is also significant. An entry of “ Archer Annual - 22 hrs” is not as effective as “ compression check- 1.1, check mag timing .6, inspect and grease wheel bearings 2.5 , etc etc “.

it should should be noted that you don’t have to do the tasks in Flat rate time.
Research into specifics into as to HOW and WITH WHAT oils a normal part of the task. What you really are trying to do is show FAA what you have accomplished.

Logs meet the requirements of the reg but are not a requirement.

edit:

to better state my point. Logs are not the only acceptable means of meeting the regulatory requirements for documentation of experience.

 

[Magman]

A Log is not a requirement; but anyone that does not keep an updated signed Log is a fool. I’ve seen people work for YEARS to assemble enough time to sit for the exam only to have the overseeing A&P refuse to sign or provide a letter. Some died but others are just despicable.

A signed Log is portable evidence of complying with FAR 65.77. Photos and vids are excellent as long as you DO IT.

IIRC the key is” satisfactory to the Administrator”; which is rather subjective.
Better to over prepare than under.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

A Log is not a requirement; but anyone that does not keep an updated signed Log is a fool. I’ve seen people work for YEARS to assemble enough time to sit for the exam only to have the overseeing A&P refuse to sign or provide a letter. Some died but others are just despicable.

A signed Log is portable evidence of complying with FAR 65.77. Photos and vids are excellent as long as you DO IT.

IIRC the key is” satisfactory to the Administrator”; which is rather subjective.
Better to over prepare than under.

I experienced the situation you’re describing. Had someone else in management at the repair station sign my letter that wasn’t even a mechanic. They did however manage payroll. Rather easy to document exactly how many hours I worked. As you said the FAA issues testing authorization based on their determination of eligibility. My only advice is don’t work under a one man band. Then you could be screwed just as you warned. While not required there’s nothing wrong with logs but I have to say all this take pictures and videos stuff is kinda paranoid.

 

[Skymac]

Does someone have an example of a useable log that documents your time?

 

[Bell206]

but anyone that does not keep an updated signed Log is a fool.

I disagree. Everyone’s situation is different in obtaining a signed 8610 to take their A&P tests. Some people should make a log and some do not need to make a log. The majority of people I know who became APs via experience had no log nor did the local FSDOs require one. So it depends. However, I guess if you move around a lot or are on the 10-20 year plan to get an AP, a log may be appropriate. But its no guarantee 20 year old experience will be accepted by an ASI either given how the 8610 guidance is written. Knowing how the local FSDO interprets that 8610 guidance is the key before simply logging your mx experience. And the place to start is reading that guidance in Order 8900.1 Ch 5.

 

[schmookeeg]

I did not have a log and did this route 2.5 years ago.

I totaled my hours against the Part 147 Appendix B/C/D curriculum listing and had to provide the hours grouped by each subject item there. Then I had my supervising IA sign off that I did those hours. I think I had to show 80% coverage, but no minimum hours in any given area. My hours were very heavily weighted in the administrative side of the house, so log reviews, AD research, etc.

I brought the work order for every single plane I touched in my tenure and it was not even looked at. In fact, they blanched at the size of my paper crate and tabbed reams of documentation I was prepared to heap upon them. Game, recognize game.

The 147 BCD guidance came from my FSDO. I wouldn't have conjured that on my own.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

I did not have a log and did this route 2.5 years ago.

I totaled my hours against the Part 147 Appendix B/C/D curriculum listing and had to provide the hours grouped by each subject item there. Then I had my supervising IA sign off that I did those hours. I think I had to show 80% coverage, but no minimum hours in any given area. My hours were very heavily weighted in the administrative side of the house, so log reviews, AD research, etc.

I brought the work order for every single plane I touched in my tenure and it was not even looked at. In fact, they blanched at the size of my paper crate and tabbed reams of documentation I was prepared to heap upon them. Game, recognize game.

The 147 BCD guidance came from my FSDO. I wouldn't have conjured that on my own.

This. Yes. I talked to my fsdo and the inspector told me exactly what they needed. Letters signed by someone that could reasonably be expected to verify my experience. Brought three letters and left with a testing authorization. Nothing crazy.

 

[Magman]

Schmookeeg. Suppose that IA would have declined to sign off those hours? You brought in WO copies as a back up. My point is you don’t want to rely on other folks to assemble your qualifying evidence. I agree it may not be needed but why take the chance. A person brought the Log he had used to certify to an airline interview. He got the job.

I agree with Bell re contacting the FSDO also. It’s not a bad idea to meet under good terms and they know your name.

The Log is also for my benefit. My suggestion to anyone getting involved in aviation is to log the time. You never know where life will take you. Does someone want ME to remember all the tasks they accomplished? If they do not log tasks of our time together there will be no letter from me.

Could you imagine putting thousands of hours into restoring a Waco UPF-7 then later having to deal with a newer Tech that can’t tell it from a YKZ-6 ? These long term projects are best documented with photos or vids as well. Anyone that has put in the required time should pursue the A & P to avoid an unpleasant situation.

 

[mondtster]

I did not have a log and did this route 2.5 years ago.

I totaled my hours against the Part 147 Appendix B/C/D curriculum listing and had to provide the hours grouped by each subject item there. Then I had my supervising IA sign off that I did those hours. I think I had to show 80% coverage, but no minimum hours in any given area.

That’s essentially what I did as well.

At the time I got signed off to test my local FSDO had a fairly reasonable group of maintenance guys. They didn’t give me any guidance on what they wanted to see; at that time I likely could have showed up with a one page written letter stating that I had worked under the supervision of the signing mechanic for the requisite hours and they would have accepted it. I wanted to go better prepared than that because I didn’t want to leave empty handed so I created a document that broke out my time based on the 147 curriculum. The ASI looked at the paperwork for 5 minutes while talking with me and I had my signed 8610 forms. I’ve spoken to a few ASIs and guys who have gotten 8610 sign offs recently and that appears to be the standard that they want to see now, although I know one individual who got signed off last month with only a thorough oral interview discussing work history.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

That’s essentially what I did as well.

At the time I got signed off to test my local FSDO had a fairly reasonable group of maintenance guys. They didn’t give me any guidance on what they wanted to see; at that time I likely could have showed up with a one page written letter stating that I had worked under the supervision of the signing mechanic for the requisite hours and they would have accepted it. I wanted to go better prepared than that because I didn’t want to leave empty handed so I created a document that broke out my time based on the 147 curriculum. The ASI looked at the paperwork for 5 minutes while talking with me and I had my signed 8610 forms. I’ve spoken to a few ASIs and guys who have gotten 8610 sign offs recently and that appears to be the standard that they want to see now, although I know one individual who got signed off last month with only a thorough oral interview discussing work history.

Yep. No inspector ever wanted to see pictures or videos… Chicken little syndrome.

bottom line. Document your experience in a reasonable manner and no worries. It’s not like trying to get a medical after taking ADD meds in third grade.

 

[schmookeeg]

Schmookeeg. Suppose that IA would have declined to sign off those hours? You brought in WO copies as a back up. My point is you don’t want to rely on other folks to assemble your qualifying evidence. I agree it may not be needed but why take the chance. A person brought the Log he had used to certify to an airline interview. He got the job.

Your advice is very good for anyone going this route and whose future career depends on getting credit for those hours. I'd almost favor a large shop for that reason alone if I was in that situation.

In my case, I owned the shop and had 3 "backup" IAs to attest for me -- but if I had been training under a single IA, yeah, I'd be very careful about protecting that all-important signature and make sure he would be with me through the end of the process, however many years it took.

 

[SkyDog58]

The original thread is too old so I'll start a new one...

I came here to ask a question about the timeframes for taking the two tests when going the OJT route. I had previously been told that I should wait until my 30 months are up before taking the tests—at which point I should take both test—because If I take one after 18 months I then would have to wait another 18 months to take the other, thereby increasing my total time to be an A&P to 36 months.

According to new information I've recently been told and the wording in the link supplied by Doc Holliday's link, I can take the first test after 18 months and then the second after 30 months (12 months later) providing I've been working concurrently in a shop that is gearing me toward this goal.

Anyone disagree with this this assessment? If so, how would you interpret it and why?

Yes. I disagree. If you do not get signed off for both the Airframe and Powerplant ratings at the same time at the 30 month mark, you will need to wait until the 36 month mark for the second one. Basically, it is either both at 30 months or one at 18 and the other at 36. And remember these are equivalency months. What I mean by that is that it is only 18, 30, or 36 consecutive calendar months if you are working continuously full time. If you are working half time (20 hour weeks) or less then it will take twice as long or longer.

So the question is, should you wait until you meet the 30 month requirement and do both at once or do one at 18 months and the second at 36? If you are working at a shop that pays certificated mechanics more than non certificated, which pretty much is all places, and pays per rating, which is pretty common; you will very likely come out ahead financially if you go ahead and do the 18/36 route. Having the ability to sign off all airframe tasks yourself while continuing to work on the powerplant rating is of value to your employer. You will just need to do the math yourself and talk to your employer to fully understand the benefits for you.

As far as documentation is concerned, the more the better. If all you have is a letter from a mechanic stating that you meet the requirements and nothing else to substantiate it, it is unlikely that a competent and conscientious ASI will sign you off. Having some form of log or having copies/pictures of maintenance entries showing that you did the work, ref 43.9(a)(3), will add tons of value. About the only time a standalone letter would work is if the person signing it is an IA who is well known to the ASI and the ASI is aware of the applicant working in the IA’s shop.

Whatever you decide, good luck.

 

[Magman]

If you do 18 mo.for A/F you need another 18 months of POWERPLANT experience to be eligible for P/P.

Local FSDO interprets :

22 months A/F. ( 75% of required 30 months) you only need another 8 months P/P time
( 25% of required 30 ) as long as you qualify under BOTH. ( rough figures)

IMHO A/F time is easier to accumulate with time consuming tasks such as paint & fabric work.

Of the 3 folks that I recall being burnt; one was from a large shop and 2 were independent IAs. One guy gave up. 2 others are now IAs. If you saw an exceptional Waco at Oshkosh that is one of them.

Folks seems to be focusing on their 1 time event. Nobody has painted a picture of problems with too much documentation.

As SkyDog said; good luck.

 

[Silvaire]

Yea for me, I was in my twenties, I didn't keep a log or anything but it was just different back then. You just walked into the FSDO, no air locks, metal detectors or bulletproof glass, you just walked right in off the street without an appointment. I guess it was more of a who knows who endorsement type of thing. Of course that has nothing to do with the realities of today, just thought I'd post it.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Yes. I disagree. If you do not get signed off for both the Airframe and Powerplant ratings at the same time at the 30 month mark, you will need to wait until the 36 month mark for the second one. Basically, it is either both at 30 months or one at 18 and the other at 36. And remember these are equivalency months. What I mean by that is that it is only 18, 30, or 36 consecutive calendar months if you are working continuously full time. If you are working half time (20 hour weeks) or less then it will take twice as long or longer.

So the question is, should you wait until you meet the 30 month requirement and do both at once or do one at 18 months and the second at 36? If you are working at a shop that pays certificated mechanics more than non certificated, which pretty much is all places, and pays per rating, which is pretty common; you will very likely come out ahead financially if you go ahead and do the 18/36 route. Having the ability to sign off all airframe tasks yourself while continuing to work on the powerplant rating is of value to your employer. You will just need to do the math yourself and talk to your employer to fully understand the benefits for you.

As far as documentation is concerned, the more the better. If all you have is a letter from a mechanic stating that you meet the requirements and nothing else to substantiate it, it is unlikely that a competent and conscientious ASI will sign you off. Having some form of log or having copies/pictures of maintenance entries showing that you did the work, ref 43.9(a)(3), will add tons of value. About the only time a standalone letter would work is if the person signing it is an IA who is well known to the ASI and the ASI is aware of the applicant working in the IA’s shop.

Whatever you decide, good luck.

This is just flat not true. I swear people just like making stuff up.

The regulations specify what is required.

anyone desiring to apprentice should read the regulations and if you have questions call the FSDO and speak with an inspector. There is a lot of made up BS in this thread.

 

[pfarber]

This is just flat not true. I swear people just like making stuff up.

The regulations specify what is required.

anyone desiring to apprentice should read the regulations and if you have questions call the FSDO and speak with an inspector. There is a lot of made up BS in this thread.

What exactly is wrong with parents post? What FAR are you looking at?

 

[Olda&pjon]

My apprentice just tested out for his a&p, In my opinion he is a far better tech then someone just out of school. I'm not saying the school isn't a good path, but just like me, my apprentice had to be able to earn a paycheck as he learned, now, with all that said,,,the sob quit and went corporate lol.

 

[martym]

Anyone disagree with this this assessment? If so, how would you interpret it and why?

Yes, I disagree. The regs say 18 months for each rating sought. Not 18 for the first one and 12 for the second one. The exception is to combine the training and simultaneously apply for both certificates. In that case, 30 months of concurrent experience is required.

I'd do them concurrently and be more concerned with showing I had 4800 hrs of experience in the required subject areas.

 

[Brad Smith]

My apprentice just tested out for his a&p, In my opinion he is a far better tech then someone just out of school. I'm not saying the school isn't a good path, but just like me, my apprentice had to be able to earn a paycheck as he learned, now, with all that said,,,the sob quit and went corporate lol.

I worked a different job while going to A&P school. A lot of us already had mechanical backgrounds, so some students coming out of A&P schools were excellent mechanics from the getgo. School covered just about everything including electrical, jets, helicopters, dope and fabric, structural repairs…..some things you would never be exposed to working in a single shop. The examiner can ask you any question and you’d better know what you’re talking about. I almost failed because of my weakness in electrical. I really enjoyed the school approach and worked on everything from radials, helicopters to an A4 Skyhawk.

 

[Tools]

A4? Did you say A4?

 

[pfarber]

My apprentice just tested out for his a&p, In my opinion he is a far better tech then someone just out of school. I'm not saying the school isn't a good path, but just like me, my apprentice had to be able to earn a paycheck as he learned, now, with all that said,,,the sob quit and went corporate lol.

So you have radials, fabric, composites, turbines and copters as well as all the other subject areas in your shop? You sir, have the best equipped A&P hangar EVAR!

OJT is way more limited.... I don't believe you have the same depth of training as a professionally run school/University.

 

[Fracpilot]

So you have radials, fabric, composites, turbines and copters as well as all the other subject areas in your shop? You sir, have the best equipped A&P hangar EVAR!

OJT is way more limited.... I don't believe you have the same depth of training as a professionally run school/University.

Having seen the products from a 147 school vs seeing an apprentice from a busy shop or military, I completely disagree with this.

These 147 schools aren’t as in depth as you may believe. At least the major AMT school I’ve worked with near me isn’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bell206]

So you have radials, fabric, composites, turbines and copters as well as all the other subject areas in your shop?

FYI: not all schools teach some of those topics as well. Besides a person only needs to show experience in 50% of the Part 147 subject areas for the OJT route. Bottom line it falls to the ASI issuing the form 8610 what they want to accept as to an applicants experience documentation.

 

[Magman]

This is where what I call a “65.77 School” works out well. Non -certified of course.

Students qualify via ojt/65.77 wherever they find the opportunity. The school does not issue any Certificate of Completion.

What the school does do is provide instruction in many areas that the ojt trainee would not normally be exposed to. Thus military folks may learn mags and fabric. The GA guys would become familiar with turbine engines and helicopters.

None of this would result in “Level 3- Return to Service “ but would be primarily
Introductory. As with most fields the students would still have to study in order to pass FAA exams. I see no problem with this.

“Semesters” can be days, weeks or months in length depending on the particular circumstances.

A suggested schedule of semesters would differ slightly from Part 147.

1- General 2- Electrical-All- including Ignition and a Charging Systems
3- Airframe 4 - Powerplant

 

[Tools]

Does the classroom time count towards experience if taught by an A&P?

 

[Kristin]

I went through Riddle's program in the 80's. I learned how to safety wire, but didn't learn how to cut open a filter and assess what I saw inside. I learned how to do a compression check by the book, but never did one and never learned to listen for leakage. I learned about radial engines and have never worked on one. I learned all about wood and wood repairs, which I only use when picking out 2x4's at Home Depot. But I did get a very good grounding in theory and am glad I spend the five semesters. However, the 147 route isn't the end all be all. It very much depends on the OJT training and the person being trained and their motivation. If the A&P supervising actually takes the time to teach the reasons behind what they are doing, OJT can be a great way to learn. If not, and if the trainee is not motivated to read and learn on their own, it will be way substandard.

 

[Doc Holliday]

So you have radials, fabric, composites, turbines and copters as well as all the other subject areas in your shop? You sir, have the best equipped A&P hangar EVAR!

OJT is way more limited.... I don't believe you have the same depth of training as a professionally run school/University.

So tell us the route you took to get your training.

 

[Brad Smith]

I went through Riddle's program in the 80's. I learned how to safety wire, but didn't learn how to cut open a filter and assess what I saw inside. I learned how to do a compression check by the book, but never did one and never learned to listen for leakage. I learned about radial engines and have never worked on one. I learned all about wood and wood repairs, which I only use when picking out 2x4's at Home Depot. But I did get a very good grounding in theory and am glad I spend the five semesters. However, the 147 route isn't the end all be all. It very much depends on the OJT training and the person being trained and their motivation. If the A&P supervising actually takes the time to teach the reasons behind what they are doing, OJT can be a great way to learn. If not, and if the trainee is not motivated to read and learn on their own, it will be way substandard.

I also went through the A&P program in the 80’s and had exceptionally talented instructors that had a lot of real-world experience. I left the school with a knowledge base that allowed me to approach a job with an understanding because I already read about, performed and was tested on the particular task. I still use those skills today when doing work on autos, motorcycles and tasks around the home. Carbs, electrical, lines and fittings, lubrication, woodworking, soldering, etc. can all be approached with confidence since there is a lot of overlap. The A&P school will expose you to a lot of things you’ll never use, but it does add to your general base of knowledge which may be useful in understanding related tasks. Either way you go, earning an A&P license will prove useful, especially so if you own your own aircraft.

 

[Kristin]

I also went through the A&P program in the 80’s and had exceptionally talented instructors that had a lot of real-world experience. I left the school with a knowledge base that allowed me to approach a job with an understanding because I already read about, performed and was tested on the particular task. I still use those skills today when doing work on autos, motorcycles and tasks around the home. Carbs, electrical, lines and fittings, lubrication, woodworking, soldering, etc. can all be approached with confidence since there is a lot of overlap. The A&P school will expose you to a lot of things you’ll never use, but it does add to your general base of knowledge which may be useful in understanding related tasks. Either way you go, earning an A&P license will prove useful, especially so if you own your own aircraft.

A&P school was a great program for demystifying how all sorts of stuff works. It does prepare you to learn in the field, but there is an OJT period, even for Part 147 grads. My overall point is that good mechanics can come out of the OJT route and Part 147 isn't a guarantee that the mechanic is up to spec.

 

[Bell206]

And the one thing not mentioned often enough is that an A&P can get you into a number of non-aviation jobs that ironically pay a lot better than aviation jobs.

 

[Kristin]

And the one thing not mentioned often enough is that an A&P can get you into a number of non-aviation jobs that ironically pay a lot better than aviation jobs.

I haven't check lately, but it used to be that about half the bus mechanics for our Metropolitan Transit District were A&P grads.

 

[Gary Ward]

I haven't check lately, but it used to be that about half the bus mechanics for our Metropolitan Transit District were A&P grads.

I bought my books from a student who quit AP school and went to work at the City bus garage.
I have 35 years experience owning and maintaining a small fleet of trucks, 20 years experience racing and the last 5 years working with 2 AP/IA from time to time.
I have been logging my work with APs.
I applied for the fall semester at the State college that owns our airport. I am in it for the long haul hopefully and plan to finish to be able to test for a AP certificate. I will be pretty old when I get done but still think it will be worth it? Not planning on making a living at it, probably be retired by then? Maybe someone may need me part time, pay for my AVfuel?

My ap/IA thinks the school will be somewhat redundant and thinks he could write a letter to the local FSDO office and then I could go to Bakers for 2 weeks? I feel the school would teach me more? Am I on the right track going to the local college? TIA