NPRM process is too unweildly for ammending AMT curriculum :stirpot:

[airheadpenguin]

I got this today from FaaSafey.gov

FAA Issues NPRM on Modernizing AMT School Curriculum. Apparently they feel that the NPRM process is too unweildly for outlining curriculum for AMTs and are moving it into the OpSpec rather than the Part 43 appendices.

I'm intrigued by this since I would think training curriculum should be updated at most once yearly and uniform. This seems to be paving the way for wildly different opspecs depending on the FSDO involved. The NPRM with public comment process seems well adapted to that pace. Can someone with more insight shed some light on this?

On October 2, 2015, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes to amend the regulations governing the curriculum and operations of FAA-certificated Aviation Maintenance Technician Schools. These amendments would modernize and reorganize the required curriculum subjects in the appendices of the current regulations. They would also remove the course content items currently located in the appendices and require that they be placed in each school's operations specifications so they could more easily be amended when necessary. The amendments are needed because the existing curriculums are outdated, do not meet current industry needs, and can be changed only through notice and comment rulemaking. These amendments would ensure that AMT students receive up-to-date foundational training to meet the demanding and consistently changing needs of the aviation industry. To view the NPRM, go to www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/10/02/2015-24841/aviation-maintenance-technician-schools. The comment window closes on December 31, 2015.

 

[denverpilot]

Trying to figure out the cultural reasons why most agencies do just fine with the NPRM process and FAA feels that they're above it, is an exercise in futility.

 

[wsuffa]

Trying to figure out the cultural reasons why most agencies do just fine with the NPRM process and FAA feels that they're above it, is an exercise in futility.

I submit to you that the FCC's process is anything but responsive.

 

[flyingron]

Trying to figure out the cultural reasons why most agencies do just fine with the NPRM process and FAA feels that they're above it, is an exercise in futility.

The FAA doesn't believe in transparency. Much effort of late to avoid event he existing illusion of public process on rulemaking.

 

[yetti]

It is possible that they could be talking about specialization of training. Does an A need to know how to tie fabric to ribs or just enough to know that they should not try it and seek out someone that can do it properly.

 

[airheadpenguin]

One option is that it gives the opportunity going forward for specialty endorsements. You would still expect that an A has a baseline of skills that they can perform coming from school. After that they would obviously become more familiar with the tasks that they regularly do. I wouldn't have a 737 A work on my cub in most cases.

Would this lessen the training requirement eventually sot hat you could be a light aircraft A in less time.

 

[denverpilot]

I submit to you that the FCC's process is anything but responsive.

I submit that I was referring to when the agency themselves wants to do something they at least follow the process. And they do usually publish responses to the comments in those cases.

(Which is where FAA claims to be in this one. They started the change. As far as responding to changes others want, neither are very good at that without a nudge from a paid off politician or three. )