Talk:Aircraft maintenance engineer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

This article

After a large scale clean-up of unsourced and largely irrelevant or incoherent text this article has had much of that text restored and is now disorganized and contains a fair amount of incorrect and badly sourced information. One of the problems is that a fair number of UK refs have been used, citing UK regs, standards and procedures when this article specifically does not deal with UK practices, as that is covered in Aircraft Maintenance Technician and not here. First, since the same term is used in Canada, India and Australia, where the regs and practices are notably different, I think this has to be divided up into national sections and each country dealt with separately. Second the incorrect text and off-topic refs need removing and third a complete rewrite is in order. I will embark upon this as soon as I can collect some refs, at least for the Canadian section, with which I am most familiar. - Ahunt (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I could comment on this english wikipedia article. The english speaking world is not sonfined to the western hemisphere. The article consisted of a dozen lines after I discovered it had been "trimmed" in appropriately because nobody could find any references. So, I found some that contained most of what was written previously. As an accredited Enginner I am allowed to train technicians to follow my instructions with regard to the techniques used to follow flow diagrams prepared by engineers. Unforunately, in industry we do not let the technicians write the training manuals due to their limited qualifications. Perhaps more research is needed by editiors to find out how extensive the topic really is, and how much more it entails. I have a simple rule on Wikipedia, research the topic first, then edit. Doing it the other way round is so confusing for some editors to cope with. Breaking articles into sections is stanadard practise, that`s why we have paragraphs in books. Most technical manuals do not have a reference at the end of every sentence either. Francis E Williams (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental problem though is that the article is now full of UK refs and UK text on a subject that specifically excludes UK aircraft maintainers and is, instead about Australian, Canadian and Indian AMEs. It is off topic. - Ahunt (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Could I just make the point that reference in the lead to Europe should be removed then, as when I woke up this morning the U.K. was still in Europe. Francis E Williams (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The lead para says "It is the qualification required in Canada, India, and Australia which is equivalent to a United States FAA Aircraft Maintenance Technician and a European EASA Aircraft Maintenance Technician." How is that not clear that the subject of this article is the Australian, Canadian and Indian AME and that those other linked articles deal with those other nation's similar but different trades? - Ahunt (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The crux of the matter is the word "equivalent", it means "equal to", "the same as" , how can it be "similar but different"?. The Wikipedian assumption is that the reader will not click on the links, but will literally accept the text that is written. This is exactly what I did when if was inferred "equvialent". Why nor replace "equivalent" to clarify what you just described? I saw an article with one ref and only a few lines of text, and a whole lot in the "recycle bin", I thought it might be worth saving, how wrong I was, it would be better off merged with "aircraft technician".Francis E Williams (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that I have the refs I need I will fix it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Article title

This article describes a professional qualification like, say, Chartered Accountant. Therefore the title should be capitalised, as Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. It did once have, but was changed without discussion. Does anybody have any objection to getting it moved back there? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. - Ahunt (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. There are some articles (e.g. Aircraft maintenance technician) that should be capitalized (as they are about people holding a specific license), but we don't capitalise flight engineer, first officer etc. It strikes me as being rather anglo-centric to assume that anyone who is an aircraft maintenance engineer (anywhere in the world in any year) has a licence that describes them as an "Aircraft Maintenance Engineer". DexDor ^(talk) 14:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC) DexDor ^(talk) 18:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, even the AMT article includes "Aircraft maintenance technicians in Europe ...". DexDor ^(talk) 14:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, although the Chartered Accountant article is titled using a capital "A", the text of the article uses the term "chartered accountant" without any capitalization so it may be the title of that article that's the anomaly. DexDor ^(talk) 14:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

edit conflict...Comment: Before changing the capitalization, is it really appropriate to have this article plus Aircraft maintenance technician? I think they could be merged as a generalized topic with perhaps a section detailing the official titles worldwide. In that case, the capitalized name would simply be a redirect. I'm editing on a phone and somewhat busy, so I will have to look up the relevant guidelines, but representing a worldwide view seems to be one relevant guideline. AHeneen (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have highlighted several issues:

1. The current article content concerns the professional qualification of AME and not the general description of an engineer who maintains aircraft. Frankly, I do not see the general topic of an engineer who maintains aircraft to pass WP:NOTABILITY - much as the practice of chartered accounting is not notable in its own right, while say the qualification of Chartered Accountant is. If this article is to stand, it can only be to cover the professional qualification.
2. Is the professional qualification of AME capitalised in normal usage? A quick google suggests a mixture of capitalisations in use, so we'd need to look out the more reliable sources to guide us. As I have already pointed out, other professional qualifications such as Chartered Accountant tend to be capitalised. Google also reveals that in informal use such capitals are often dropped.[1] Nevertheless we capitalise such articles here, because they are about the professional qualification. In this context we may note that for example First officer (aeronautics) is a position and not a professional qualification. So I believe the burden of proof is on those who claim that the capitalisation of aeronautical professional qualifications differs from the mainstream.
3. Does the AME qualification deserves its own article in the way that say the Chartered Accountant qualification does? According to Aircraft maintenance engineer (Canada), there is an important distinction between the AME and the US aircraft maintenance technician, in that the AME is qualified to inspect work as well as to carry it out. There also appears to be some notability in an ongoing dispute about recognition of these roles in Canada. Taken together with the quite distinct history of the AME, I believe these issues do justify a standalone article. It may prove useful to merge the Canadian article in with this one, but that is a different issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Re Point 1. How could the qualification necessary to be an aircraft maintenance engineer in certain countries be notable, but the general topic (aircraft maintenance engineers) not be notable?

Re Point 2. Did you see my note above about Chartered Accountant?

Re Point 3. I would expect an article to either (1) be about the role (e.g. an article titled "Aircraft maintenance engineer", like Flight engineer etc) or (2) be about licencing (e.g. an article titled "Licencing of aircraft maintenance engineers") - either way it doesn't need the capitals in the title but it may be appropriate to use titles in the text when referring to a specific licence. DexDor ^(talk) 18:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

1. WP:NOTABILITY is all down to sourcing. All sorts of people can be engineers who maintain aircraft. Some will be qualified AMEs, some will have other equivalent or higher qualifications, others may have none. Notability depends on the attention paid to the topic in reliable sources. When one considers maintenance technicians, inspectors and similar, reliable sources seem to divide into those which discuss aircraft maintenance generally and those which define and discuss the qualified AME. Feel free to find reliable sources which take a different angle, but until then, that's the way it is.
2. Yes. One reason I chose that example is because the Institute of Chartered Accountants used to be (and I assume still is) very particular that the qualification should be capitalised but the profession itself need not be. You might like to check out the redirect at Chartered accountant and note the link to WP:NCCAPS, which makes it clear that this issue has been done to death there. Essentially, "Chartered Accountant" as a professional qualification is therefore a proper name and is capitalised. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
3. Um. My point 3 is about justifying a standalone article. I think your point 3 is more of a 1b. The article on Chartered Accountants is basically about the professional qualification and says next to nothing about the wider role. Nor is it titled Licensing of chartered accountants. So let's accept that as a counter-example to your expectations. Googling on flight engineers, there appears to be a difference in locale, with USA practice being lower case and UK practice being capitalised. Since the AME is essentially a British-originated qualification with no domestic recognition in the USA, I would expect USA practice to be irrelevant here: an article on the AME qualification/licence/whatever should follow British practice. So no, your line of logic fails to stack up twice over. And even if it didn't, we could go back to WP:NCCAPS and note that "It is acceptable to create two articles (on different topics) with titles that differ only in capitalization." If you really think the profession as such is notable, then by all means say so and we can run both articles alongside. — Cheers,Steelpillow (Talk) 20:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be saying that we can have an article about a specific qualification (i.e. with each word capitalized) but not an article about the role that the qualification is (in certain countries, as of 2015) needed for. That would "bake in" a Western-English-speaking-21st-century view of the world - e.g. any facts about that role in (for example) the Obscuristani Air Force can't be placed in the article (and it would be harder to find sufficient material for a stand-alone article for a non-Western country).

(IMO) we should start with articles titled for the role (i.e. without each word capitalized) with paras/subsections for separate countries (e.g. "In the US since <year> the FAA has required that anyone doing <role> on civilian aircraft has <qualification> ..."). That way info about other countries (and time periods) can be added to the article. If there's sufficient material about any one country (e.g. the US) then it can be split off (and possibly be named after the qualification). DexDor ^(talk) 07:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I am saying that the decision for any article topic is based on WP:NOTABILITY, irrespective of any related topic - right down to topics so closely related they differ only in capitalisation. And I say that because Wikipedia says that. Your comment assumes that there is enough reliable material about the role of aircraft maintenance engineer (as opposed to any other aircraft maintenance roles) in the Obscuristani Air Force and others like it, to make the topic notable. Well, I don't believe that until I see your reliable sources. This should not be settled based on the hypothetical opinions of one editor.

If you really have some citable factoids for a general article, then Aircraft maintenance would be a good place to start. If you find more stuff, you might then split off Aircraft maintenance roles. And if you find yet more stuff still you can finally repopulate the article under the present uncapitalised title. What a lot of "ifs". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

So, turning back to hard evidence, here are some links:

• The UK based Association of Licensed Aircraft Engineers has a page which uses the lower-case "licensed engineer" informally but capitalises the Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer in the same paragraph and elsewhere: [2] It also shows that the attempt to reduce the role of the AME is international.
• This blog shows that Australia is/was involved in the same controversy over downgrading the LAME: [3]
• The Canadian Government refer to licensing the AME, not to the LAME: [4]
• This Australian company offers "L/AME" training: [5]

All these sites capitalise the qualified professional, whether as Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer or plain Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. I am content to leave DexDor to prove me wrong about the non-notability of the uncapitalised aircraft maintenance engineering role because the question now is, should the present content of this article be better homed at Aircraft Maintenance Engineer or Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like AME and LAME are locale based variants of the same qualification. I propose to simply repopulate the existing Aircraft Maintenance Engineer page and to update the existing Licensed aircraft maintenance engineer redirect page accordingly. Are there any genuinely evidence-based objections to that? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Combining aircraft maintenance staff articles

While you can argue about the notability of the individual articles, WP:PAGEDECIDE needs to be considered. The articles Aircraft maintenance engineer, Aircraft maintenance technician, and Aircraft maintenance engineer (Canada) (are there any more?) all cover people who perform the same job. There no sufficient reason that these can't be combined into one article, which discusses the people who maintain aircraft. The combined article can then have a section on qualifications by region/country. The only difficulty is choosing the appropriate title: Aircraft maintenance technician or Aircraft maintenance engineer. Alternatively, the content of these articles can be added to section about staff on the article Aircraft maintenance (which isn't a long article). AHeneen (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I guess the question is, would it actually be enough if the essence of this were included as a section in the higher-level article on Aircraft maintenance, with the individual qualifications keeping their sub-pages? I'd suggest starting out down that road, as it needs no moves, merges, etc. If it unbalances the article, then we can think again.

Meanwhile, from what I have been finding out (see main discussion above), much of the Canada-specific article is not so Canada-specific after all (ICAO had a global stab at the AME qualification) and there is a case for merging it into the AME article. The ICAO controversy over AMEs is certainly notable. By the time you add that to the unique history of the AME, I suspect that would unbalance any article it was merged into. Hence my suggestion above that the AME qualification have its original article back. I'm not so sure about the AMT article, though it certainly has some content about other qualifications that ought to be in a higher-level article.

So my suggestion would be to follow these two separate paths for a while and see how they interact when they have shaken themselves down a bit.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the "historical background" is original research and may be a copyvio (person who added it to AME (Canada) article claims they'd add references later but never did). I also think that it's overly broad (talking about maintenance on balloons) and does not represent a worldwide view. It was added by an IP 2001:569:7241:F100:CC6E:C658:278F:E0FE (edit). I don't think it would be too overwhelming on the aircraft maintenance article, because that article is not well developed. AHeneen (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

OR and coyvio at the same time? That takes some doing. It is too riddled with errors to go far down the copyvio route, OTOH there must be a fair amount of OR in there - witness some of the clangers I have already put right. But the bones of the topic stand up as notable so it is worth pursuing. Working as Royal Engineers on the balloons and kites at Farnborough was indeed the professional root of the AME - going back well before the Royal Navy got involved. One can hardly expect a "worldwide view" on something that originated in Britain and only ever expanded to the Commonwealth countries. But yes, the tale of that expansion is missing (that'll just swell the content and make it harder to avoid a standalone article). My biggest problem in knocking it into shape is that, like most folk interested in air history, I know more about the machines themselves than how they were kept flyable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

So, I found that ICAO define "technician", "engineer" and "mechanic" as meaning the same thing, with the choice of terminology down to national and regional preference. That makes a nonsense of having separate articles for each (lower case). Adding the sensible bit to the Aircraft maintenance article (where you will find my sources cited) allowed the natural resurrection of the Aircraft Maintenance Technician (capitalised) to detail that particular set of nationally licensed qualifications, which I also did. This present article thus became obsolete so I turned it into a diambig page for the capitalisation. Phew! Pause for breath. The same needs doing for the Aircraft maintenance technician/Aircraft Maintenance Technician. which appears to be primarily a US terminology, although in at least some documents the FAA talk of the Aviation Maintenance Technician (as opposed to "Aircraft" - go figure). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

RE: AME and LAME are locale based variants of the same qualification..

in fact they are not "Locale" based. the two terms are unique and intended to represent 2 things: 1) the AME as a trades person certified as competent to perform maintenance (originally "certification for competence to accomplish the job" was the UK TRADES BOARD area of responsibilty for "trades people", but was incorporated into the 1919 ANR as a function of the Sec'y of State for War / Air in the UK) - BUT WITHOUT a license to sign a certificate of Maintenance release, and 2) the Licensed AME as a representative of the state who is specifically trained / educated and then "licensed" by the state to accomplish Inspection and certification of Aircraft / aircraft parts / materials etc. for Public Safety. This duty was originally a part of the UK Ministry of War - Aeronautical Inspection Department, however the 1919 ANR included the AID inspectors function in the Civilian "Engineer's" scope for aircraft "Airworthiness requirements". The wording for the Engineer - is directly related to the Engineer defined in the Merchant Shipping Act because the Merchant Shipping Act was a reference document used to create the 1919 ANR...

"We are advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that we have not the power in the Air Ministry to make Regulations for civilian flying without legislation. Therefore, I commend this Bill to the House as being necessary in order to enable the science of flying to be pursued other than by the military.[....]But, of course, it is necessary to have power to secure the safety of the public, and this we shall obtain by the provisions of the Bill. The reason why this is only a temporary measure, and why it is proposed only to take power to act under it until the first day of next year, is that it will be necessary later in the Session, by permission of the House, to introduce a larger Act regularising flying in accordance with the provisions of a Convention, which we hope will be agreed to by the Allied Powers, at a Convention which will shortly meet in Paris [....] As my right hon. Friend knows, prior to the War, no licence was required. The old Acts of 1911 and 1913, whose rights are carefully preserved, were merely Acts enabling the Secretary of State to prescribe certain areas over which flying should not take place, one being, of course, London itself. I do not know whether the House is aware that there has been sitting a very strong Committee, which has drawn up a model Bill. Probably my right hon. Friend has that Bill and knows the contents of it. The House, however, does not know it. It was the strongest Committee—although I was a humble member myself—I ever sat upon. Representatives of the War Office, Navy, Air, Foreign Office, Treasury, Home Office, Board of Trade and His Majesty's Customs, were upon it. In addition, there were some flying men and some lawyers. The whole question of the regulation of flying in this country was gone into, and a most elaborate Bill was drawn up [....] What steps is he going to take by his regulations, or otherwise, in regard to the question of damage by aeroplane accident? Suppose, for instance, an aeroplane comes into collision with another aeroplane and both men are killed, there is no possibility of finding out who is at fault. The machine drops and kills someone on the King's highway, or does damage to one of His Majesty's subjects. At the present moment everybody knows that if damage occurs on the highway from a motor car or ordinary vehicle, the injured person has to prove there was negligence. I do not know whether that is going to be the case in regard to aircraft. It is a very serious question indeed. That Committee, to which I have referred, reported that, in their opinion, an aeroplane should be treated as liable for all damage it creates"

67.69.36.201 (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

Interesting stuff but I don't see what you are proposing be added to this article as a result. - Ahunt (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Update to the article

The article has been updated with definitive information sources from LAW and Legislative documents.

The terminology must be retained with the 2 unique definitions to work performers and work certifiers as they are cojoined and share the same root.

CanadianAME (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Canadian AME

I have reverted the whole mess again. Most of this is the same text that was rejected above, plus formatting that does not meet meet WP:MOS, unsourced and semi-sourced text, etc. It can't be edited or fixed, it is too much of a mess. As noted above please propose your changes here on the talk page one paragraph at a time, so they can be discussed and a consensus reached. Sorry if that is going to be slow, but ramming though a bunch of promotional stuff over and over again is not going to fly. - Ahunt (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

A Hoax is being perpetuated here - The information added must be allowed to remain.

The editor of this Wikipedia article who continues to delete and the substantial and sourced addition of facts that are being plced within it are to note that they are going to be identified as the source of a hoax if they continue to delete information re AMEs .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadianAME (talk • contribs) 00:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You can note that threats are not permitted on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You can also note that an admin recently assessed your changes and reverted them as vandalism. If you revert that again you risk being blocked as a persistent vandal. - Ahunt (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You can further note that an admin has assessed the situation here and has locked the page from editing to allow discussion and consensus. That means you need to make a case here for all the changes you want to carry out and gain consensus for them. - Ahunt (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Fore-runner of the modern Licensed AME

Candidate handbook for persons aspiring to the profession were sent this handbook of guidance manterial upon their appliocation to the Air Registration Board.

Once they received the guidance material it was up to the candidate to obtain the required training materials and attend a course of study in order to learn the scope and nature of their suties as delegated by the Secretary of State for Air.

The Aircraft Ground Engineer Candidate guidance booklet can be found here

CanadianAME (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The significance of this is what? - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Category - Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineers = Airworthiness Inspection (as a delegated representative of the Secretary of State / Minister of Transport)

AIR Engineer / Air Engineer / air engineer

in Canada this was an Airworthiness Inspection Representative of the Canadian Air Board - Department of Militia, 1919.

By 1922, under the provisions of the National Defence Act, 1922, the powers, duties and functions given the Air Board under the Air Board Act of 1919 are vested in the Minister of National Defence. The executive duties previously carried out by the Air Board are now performed by the Canadian Air Force. The Air Force includes a directorate in the Chief of Staff's Branch of the Department of National Defence, headquarters at Ottawa. Headquarters branch is charged with:

1) the inspection and licensing of aircraft for airworthiness; 2) the examination of Pilots for competency, 3) the examination of AIR Engineers for competency, 4) the examination of Air Navigators for competency Commonly spelt "Air Engineer" or air engineer.

The breadth of the scope of Canadian military law is reflected in the fact that the Judge Advocate General is a legal advisor to both the Department and the Canadian Armed Forces.

Designation of person to execute Minister’s functions : The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Defense, may designate any other person in addition to the Minister of Defense to exercise any power or perform any duty or function that is vested in or that may be exercised or performed by the Minister under this Act.

Distinct from the "Flight Engineer" - a position and role created by RAF Bomber command in 1943.

05 January 1952 : Canada Gazette : Department of Transport vacancy, Edmonton, Alta. $214-9242 per month. Open to qualified male residents of the Edmonton Air Services District (which consists of the Province of Alberta, the Northwest Territories west of the 110th meridian, Yukon Territory and that part of British Columbia north and east of a line ten miles west of the Alaska Highway). Qualifications required included:

1) Possesion of an Air Engineer's Certificate endorsed in categories “A " and "C" or 2) Possesion of the new Aircraft Maintenance Engineers " M " licence under Category “A” for at least one of the following aircraft; Douglas DC-3; Lockhead 1848. 10-A or 12-A; Beechcraft C-18-VS or D-17-S; Avro Anson V ; DeHaviland DHC-2.

AIR Engineers are the Canadian equivalent of the British Aircraft Ground Engineer - their training and licencing follows the British format and guidance materials.

The power of delegation of authority and responsibility is a long accepted principle of British public law that, within the administration of government in the United Kingdom ( and Canada), the functions which are given to Ministers (be they Civil or Military Ministers) are functions so multifarious that no Minister could ever attend to them

It cannot be supposed that this regulation meant that, in each case, the Minister in person should direct his mind to the matter.

The duties imposed on Ministers and the powers given to Ministers are normally exercised under the authority of the Minister by responsible "officials" - The 1919 Air Regulations created the Ground Engineer as such an official.

Public business could not be carried on if that were not the case.

Constitutionally, under UK law, a decision of such an official is, of course, the decision of the Minister.

The Minister is responsible.

It is The Minister who must answer for anything that his officials have done under their authority, and, if for an important matter the Minister selected an official of such junior standing that such junior officer could not be expected competently to perform the work, the Minister would have to answer.

The legal principle which permits delegation in this way is predicated on the proposition that the Minister is responsible for things done under his or her authority.

Therefore, the exercise of the delegation is dependant on two things: the conferment of power must be permitted under legislation; and the existence of a person to whom the can delegate, without parting with their ultimate responsibility.

Parliament has conferred powers directly on the Minister because of the personal qualifications of the Minister but allows the Minister to delegate those other functions for which qualifications are not required in their position at the apex of the hierarchical structure put in place to support him or her.

Those delegated functions relying on “personal qualifications” can only be delegated to equivalently trained and competent persons.

Whilst members of the Minister’s internal and external staff may be described in “an instrument of delegation” as a proper and appropriate agent; that person does not become “the proper and appropriate person” as their actions under a delegation are those of the Minister.

Delegations must be identified and updated with each new Minister.

Delegated members of a Minister’s staff cannot exercise delegated functions unless the individual has been : specifically trained to accomplish the specific delegated functions - Inspection of Civil Aircraft to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements for airworthiness specifically authorised in writing by the Minister - A delagation document commonly known as an AME Licence, specifically authorised by the Minister only to the extent indicated by the Minister’s instrument of delegation - Category and Type ratings — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadianAME (talk • contribs) 23:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

So what is your point?

Incidentally, your ref cited above has been deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Origin and status of the AME

Origin of the "AME" and the events behind it - some background history on Certificates of Competence for Engineers

Research of The London Gazette, the Hansard record for the British Parliament reflect that a great deal of information was existant pre 1900 with regard to "the TRADE of ENGINEERING" in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.

It is no small point of fact that orders issued to and within the British Military groups (Army / Navy Engineers) received "Judicial Notice" and Judicial Review.. in fact the Manual of Military Law (England) specifies this..

The British Lords who sat (and still sit) in the upper house and the members of Parliament who sit in the lower house debated ALL matters of importance to the Crown, be they matters of Military (Service) or public (Civilian) concern except when confined explicitly to the privy council..

The HANSARD journal of the minutes of the meetings of the House of Commons, the House of Lords, Parliamentary debates etc are well documented and freely available - and public knowledge

PLEASE NOTE THAT NO specific reference will be included to here as the ACTs and ORDERs, once published in "The London Gazette" this information became "Public Knowledge" and were henceforh known / referred to as "Common Knowledge" by the Crown, the Lords, all Members of Parliament and the Judiciary (AND all other persons / parties who so choose to avail themselves of that knowledge)

What some people do not realise is that, for aviation matters there was an Aerial Navigation Act gazetted in 1911 which had received Royal Assent in Westminster on June 2, 1911. "This day the Lords being met a message was sent to the Honourable House of Commons by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Eod, acquainting them, that The Lords authorized by virtue of a Commission under the Great Seal, signed by His Majesty, for declaring His Royal Assent to the Acts agreed upon by both Houses, do desire the immediate attendance of the Honourable House in the House of Peers to hear the Commission read; and the Commons being come thither, the said Commission, empowering the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and several other Lords therein named, to declare and notify the Royal Assent to the said Acts, was read accordingly, and the Royal Assent given"

This fact was known in the Canadian Parliament and as an Act of Parliament it was therefore known also to the Canadian Judicial system as printed on the covering page of the Gazette was the following: "The Gazette is registered at the General Post Office for transmission by Inland Post as newspaper. The postage rate to places within the United Kingdom is one halfpenny for each copy. For places abroad the rate is a halfpenny for every 2 ounces, except in the case of Canada, to which the rate, by Canadian Magazine Post, is a penny for every pound or fraction of a pound".

This Act of Parliament was later ammended in 1913 at the outset of WW1 and during WW1 all aviation activities (Service and Civilian) were placed directly under the control of the Ministry of Defense.

On the 29th of April 1919, the very first United Kingdom "Air Navigation Regulations" were "published by Authority" by ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE UNDER THE AIR NAVIGATION ACTS, 1911 TO 1919 on the under of one of "His Majesty's Principle Secretaries" Winston Spencer Churchill . The Air Navigation Regulation 1919 came into effect on 30 April 1919 and on the 1st May 1919, "Civilian" aviation was officially re-enabled in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.

it is no small matter that the man who issued the "Order" - which was a MILITARY document, but which carried the same weight as an Act of Parliament and was equally recognised was non other than Winston Spencer Churchill who was the 1st Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air and a Member of Parliament who had been involved in debates concerning the Merchant Shipping Act (Which requires "Certificates of Competence" for Engineers) and numerous other issues concerning "Public Safety".....

The 1919 ANR Section 2 "LICENSING OP PERSONNEL" specifically defined the "Licensing Authority" for Pilots, Navigators, Engineers and "Others" as "Licences shall 'be granted by the -Secretary of State. Applications therefor shall be made to the 'Secretary, Air Ministry.

The wording pertaining to the requirements for engineers is not unique, in fact it is almost a direct copy from that specified within the "Merchant Shipping Act" for persons employed as 'engineer on passenger or goods carrying craft / ships.

The Aerial Navigation Regulation 1919 requirement for Engineers: A person applying for a licence to be engaged as engineer on passenger or goods aircraft will ibe required to— (a) pass a medical examination carried under the control of the Secretary of State; (b) submit proof of sufficient knowledge and experience in the management of aircraft engines; and to (c) undergo, if necessary, practical and theoretical tests.

This requirement defined the requirement for determining that the applicant for the certificate of "Engineer" posessed knowledge, experience and that they could be tested for their capability in practice and in theory..(Oral, Practical and / or written examination)

the Aerial Navigation Regulation 1919 also stipified the requirement for Certificates of Air-worthiness under Schedule 3, "A certificate of airworthiness in respect of one aircraft of any type (herein-after referred to as "a type aircraft") will be issued by the Secretary of State in accordance with the conditions set out in this schedule, which also specified the requirement for:

1) Certification of Type:

        (a) The-design has been approved by the Secretary of State in-regard to safety;
        (b) The construction has been so approved in regard to workmanship and material used; and
        (c) A satisfactory demonstration in accordance with the directions of the Secretary of State has been made in flying trials that the aircrait is safe for the purpose for which it is intended.

2) PERIODICAL OVERHAUL:

        (a) All passenger aircraft must be inspected / overhauled and certified as airworthy by:
                               1 - competent persons appointed by the owners or users of them, and  
                               2 -  licensed for the purpose under this shnedule.
        (b)  All passenger aircraft must be inspected / overhauled and certified at such times as the Secretary of State may direct, and 
        ( C ) such certificate or certificates must be produced to the Secretary of State on demand.
        (d)   Aircraft inspected, overhauled, or certified as provided in the foregoing paragraph may be inspected by authorised representatives of the Secretary of State.
        (e)  The Secretary of State is entitled under these regulations to cancel or suspend the certificate of airworthiness of any aircraft deemed to be unsafe as a result of such inspection.

3) EXAMINATION (inspection) OF SUCH AIRCRAFT (prior to Flight and also post "Maintenance"):

   (a) Passenger aircraft carrying passengers shall NOT on any day proceed on any journey (Shall not Fly) unless it has previously been inspected at least once on that day by a competent person       licensed for the purpose under this schedule, who shall not be the pilot of the particular machine,
   (b)  If such competent person is satisfied that the aircraft is fit in every way for the flight or flights proposed, he shall sign in duplicate a certificate to that effect (CRS), which certificate shall be countersigned by another person in the employment of the owner, giving the time and date of such certification. For this purpose the countersiguature' of the pilot may be accepted.
   ( c)  One copy of each certificate will be retained by the owner of the aircraft, and the duplicate copy must be carried in the aircraft.
   (d)  The pilot will be responsible for seeing that the aircraft, before commencing any flight, is, in his opinion, in a "satisfactory condition" (to make the intended flight), and does not carry more than the load specified in the certificate of airworthiness, and must sign a certificate to that effect.

4) The Aircraft shall be in conformance in all essential respects with the type aircraft (Design) by way of,

        (a) satisfactory workmanship, 
        (b) satisfactory materials,

5) After the issue of a "certificate of airworthiness" to a "type aircraft", that any further aircraft of that type will be inspected for air-worthiness 6) the Secretary of State may:

         a) take steps to test the inspection made by the employees of a constructor, 
         b)  order a further inspection to be carried out by any person or persons duly authorised by him ( the Secretary of State), and 
         c) to issue or refuse a certificate, as he may decide, after such inspection,or 
         d) to refuse to issue certificates of airworthiness in respect of further aircraft of the same type

7) Licences to competent persons for the purposes of this schedule shall be granted by the Secretary of State on compliance with such conditions as he may direct.

CanadianAME (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

Okay so I read all of that and I still don't know what you are proposing needs to be added to this encyclopedia article. How about you post here a proposed text with refs, so it can be reviewed? - Ahunt (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Background History on AMEs / Tort Law and P.Eng issues in Canada and a link to the RE

Crown Servants TCCA inspectors are "servants of the Crown." The word "servant" is defined so as to include agents of the Crown, that is, “persons who represent and act on behalf of the Crown, in accordance with directions from the Crown, to achieve certain Crown purposes”. TCCA External delegates (DARs, DEs & AMEs) need to be regarded as “Crown agents” to the extent that they act on behalf of “the Crown” as defined in the Aeronautics Act and other government references. Quite often the fact that AME’s are “Crown Servants gets overlooked. Instead it should be stressed! Transport Canada may have decided that AMEs were not "Crown Servants", [redacted — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)]

[redacted — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)]

The evolution of the Canadian Laws applicable here are directly taken from UK Law and the root source for aviation legislation in the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Nations is the United Kingdom Air Navigation Act (first issued 1911) and the Air Navigation Regulation (first issued 1919)

Certain statutory powers, duties and functions are expressly delegated to "TCCA inspectors" and are contained in the various schedules. Other administrative functions are carried out in the Minister's name without an express delegation.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) "External Delegates" who are not employees of the government, also exercise powers, duties or functions on behalf of the Minister of Transport. The acts of external delegates (this list of delegates includes DE’s, DAR’s & AMEs) are, like the acts of employees committed within the scope of their employment, the acts of the Minister. The external delegates also receive their authority to exercise powers on behalf of the Minister from a delegation of authority document. For the AME this is their "AME license".

[redacted — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)]

the Anns Test

in the evolution of the world Aviation law and aviation law as it applies to both in Canada and abroad, the Anns analysis is best understood as follows: At the first stage of the Anns test, two questions arise: (1) was the harm that occurred the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's act? and (2) are there reasons, notwithstanding the proximity between the parties established in the first part of this test, that tort liability should not be recognized here?

The proximity analysis involved at the first stage of the Anns test focuses on factors arising from the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. These factors include questions of policy, in the broad sense of that word.

If foreseeability and proximity are established at the first stage, a prima facie duty of care arises.

At the second stage of the Anns test, the question still remains whether there are residual "policy considerations: outside the relationship of the parties that may negative the imposition of a duty of care

____________________________

Federal Employee (Paid or non paid - Public or provate) Occupational certification. Unless otherwise provided for by the “federal Employer” in these standards or in amendments to these standards, Occupational Certification refers to the possession of, or eligibility for, credentials such as a license, certificate, registration, letter, paper(s) or other documents that constitute acceptable evidence of occupational competence. Certain standards with respect to Occupational Certification exist for specific groups.

These credentials are granted by an organisation legally established by 1)Federal 2) Provincial or 3) Territorial law as a certifying or licensing body in Canada having the authority to regulate the practice of a profession, trade or act. -Something the P.Eng associations in Canada either 1) do not understand or2) tend to ignore is that the AME is licensed and regulated at the FEDERAL level while they are regulated by Provincial Associations..

Part of the reason why the AME who is Federally licensed is not recognised by the P.Eng in Canada is the result of the Provincial Associations not recognising the Federal Licensee.. The 1986 era suit by the P.Eng assoc of Quebec tried to remove the word Engineer from the AME... the Court rejected the suit, citing a pre-existing precedent for AMEs to be known as Engineers.. and that is because of the direct relationship of the AME to the Military and the Corps of Royal Engineers by whay of the Air Navigation Regulation 1919 which specifies "Engineers".. This is important, because the terminology and definitions of the word Engineer are also found in other UK Acts of Parliament well PRIOR TO 1900. In Canada, we follow United Kingdom Law as our "Root" source... and as such the "Engineer" in todays' AME pre-dates the establishment of the provincial P.Eng Associations in Canada because he AME evolved directly from the R.E of the British Military by way of the Air Navigation Regulation 1919 which was a Military Order which applied to ALL aviation activities in the UK and Commonwealth.

The "Royal Engineers", while formally organised in 1716 and recognised in 1717, trace their origins back to the military engineers brought to England by William the Conqueror in 1066. The Corps of Royal Engineers received their "Royal Charter" in 1787.

in Canada, the "Civil Engineers of Canada" first appeared in 1887.

In 1918, the" Civil Engineers of Canada" was succeeded by the "Canadian Engineering Institute".

February 14, 1920 - the first direct ancestor of today's Order - the Quebec Corporation of Professional - was born. in 1924, the Corporation produced its first code of ethics and assigned a committee to study the unlawful practice of the profession.

Established on June 14, 1922, Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) is the licensing and regulating body for engineering in the province. It fulfills the same role for engineers as the College of Physicians and Surgeons for doctors or the Law Society of Upper Canada for lawyers. Through the Professional Engineers Act , Professional Engineers Ontario governs licence and certificate holders and regulates professional engineering in Ontario to serve and protect the public.

the Professional Engineers Act of Ontario already enables those without university engineering degrees to become "professional engineers" by passing assigned technical examinations. A three year technology diploma or an honours science degree are the minimum educational requirements to be eligible for licensing via the examination route, which can take up to eight years and involve over a dozen examinations.

"The public would be better served if specific activities where there is a demon- strable public interest in holding licensed professionals responsible were identified, and the necessary qualifications for over- seeing these activities were defined, he feels. A right to practise in any of these areas could then be granted to anyone who meets the qualifications"

In the UK and EU, the AME is Recognised as a "Professional" and seen as an equal to the P.Eng and other professions in the UK and EU. [redacted — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)]

in 2007, the EU PArliament gazetted Statutory Instrument # 2781 "The European Communities (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2007. This is an EU Parliamentary Regulation, recognised under the European Communities Act 1972 and issued under the order of an EU Secretary of State "in relation to recognition of higher education diplomas, formal qualifications, or experience in the occupation, required for the pursuit of professions or occupations".

The EU Regulation formally allows the "AME" the right to equal recognition and the right to use a professional title or designatory letters... [redacted — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)] Canadian AMEs are also allowed to perform maintenance on . inspect and Certify EU registered aircraft under a "Bi-Lateral Agreement" with the EU Parliament. [redacted — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)]

Criminalisation of air accidents

[redacted — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)] Article 44 of the Chicago Convention of 1944 which stipulates that "the overall objective of International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is to ‘ensure the safe and orderly growth of international civil aviation throughout the world’" [redacted — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)]

The Institut de Droit International (Institute of International Law), included "aviation" on the agenda of its convention held in Oxford, England in In 1880. Subsequently The Comité juridique international de l’aviation, was established in Paris in 1909 by a conglomerate of nations and they prepared a "draft" of an International "Code of the Air"..

The 1910 Paris International Air Navigation Conference represented the first diplomatic effort to formulate the principles of international law relating to air navigation and the United Kingdom "Air Navigation Act (1911)" resulted from these meetings and conferences.

At the 18 January 1919 Peace Conference (at which the Treaty of Versailles that officially ended the first world war was drawn up) a meeting was held on "What to do about Civilian Aviation?". A document applicable to regulation of "Aerial Navigation" by all "United Nations" parties present (or otherwise aname and included) was drafted that would be later be signed at Paris 13 October 1919 and which would come into force 1 June 1922.

What is important for The British Empire and Canada is that, the 1919 Air Navigation Regulations (issued by order of the Secretary of State for War and Air) were immediately applicable for the United Kingdom and Commonwealth -aka the "British Empire" and were Gazetted in London on April 29, 1919, PRIOR to the signing of the document entitled" Conference on international Aerial Navigation - October 13, 1919" Source reference is the "League of Nations" Treaty #297.

Article 40 of the "1919 Paris convention" stipulated "The British Dominions and India shall be deemed to be "States" for the purposes of the present Convention" , giving Canada formal recognition as a nation with aviation regulatory requirements as identified by the convention.. Canada didn't join ICAO, but Canada was MANDATED to COMPLY in October 1919.

Canada, by virtue of being part of the Empire, was required to comply with the 1911 Act and the 1919 Regulations.. and under these regulations, the United Kingdom Dept. of Defense held the reigns on everything pertaining to aviation in the Kingdom and Commonwealth..

See for ICAO and the early years of Internatinal Aviation Regulation for ICAO history pre 1944.

[redacted — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)]

As stated by Mildred Trogeler "Just Culture is to strike the right balance between the need to improve aviation safety and the recognition of the judicial system’s legitimacy to investigate and prosecute committed crimes. Aviation is no longer a "Nation by Nation" regulatory issue, it is a "World Issue" [redacted — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)]

CanadianAME (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

Not Anglo- Centric... but English Derived!

For the proper and formal reference to be used for the capitalization of "Aircraft Maintenance Engineer" i direct you all to read The European Communities (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2007 (EU Statutory Instrument No.2781) "SCHEDULE 1 Regulations" 4 and 6 "REGULATED PROFESSIONS" PART 1 - "PROFESSIONS REGULATED BY LAW OR PUBLIC AUTHORITY" whrein the chart of recognized Professions (“profession” includes occupation or trade) you will find: "Aircraft Maintenance Engineer"

Not to be rude, however I highly suggest that some of you do some homework and read the Air Navigation Regulations 1919 - which is the root for the "Engineer" in civilian aviation to be capitolised.. and the UK "English" in the ANR 1919 (published April 29, 1919) CanadianAME (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC) pre-dates the signing of the October 13, 1919 Paris conference on Civilian Aviation... and resulted in the British Standards for Airworthiness CanadianAME (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The Ground Engineer is well identified in the Royal Aeronautical Society journals.

In Canada, on October 3rd, 1938 the department of Applied Science and Engineering at the University of Toronto in 1938 presented "Aeronautic Training" a two-year diploma course in Aerial Navigation. . TR. Loudon Professor of Applied Mechanics, Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering 206.116.166.9 (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)CanadianAME

Prior to this date "Engineering" and "Engineers" were used in UK parliamentary documents and Acts... going back some 350 years in the London Gazette and the Hansard record you will find the capitalization of "Engineers"... you will also find that it was defined as a "TRADE" in government documents (UK Board of Trade held the standard for their TRADES training as a department of the UK government) before it became a "Professional Association of..."

The term and word "Engineer" "Engineers" "Corps of ROYAL Engineers", "RE", the modern British (and Canadian) "REME" as well as the Civilian "AME" in the English vocabulary (for the kingdom and Commonwealth) all come from one derivative, and that is NOT the P.Eng of today, nor is it by way of any "common person's" decision. The "Corps of Royal Engineers" received its' royal charters in 1787.,

As a result of the Royal Charter to the RE, the terminology for "Engineers" in the UK - and subsequently the Commonwealth - all comes from the "Declaration of an English Monarch", the King! However, these terms have been a part of England and the English language since well prior to when they received their charter in the 1787.

In fact, Engineers and Engineering in England originated well before 1066 and are tied into the Roman Military Engineers [1] who came to the lands that we now call England as a part of the Roman Legions. Even Parliamentarians recognize "Engineers were not to be made in a day, or by an act of parliament" [2]

From the Military Engineers of Rome, evolved every single one of the Engineering terms and disciplines of today.. the Roman Engineers were the first that we see in England and that we know of by way of recorded and verifiable history.

Subsequently, in 1803 / 1804 the British Military "Royal Staff Corps" evolved from the Royal Engineers. "The Royal Staff Corps [3] was neither more nor less than a branch growing out of the Engineers, and formed for the purpose of patronage" [4]

The AMT is an "American" magazine.. and contains articles and text written by the common "American English" speaker.. Americans tend to not speak the "Queen's English".. and have polluted the language.

Today, the words people use sometimes do not reflect their origin or their original meaning - however, the AME is a British held and originated word with regard to miitary and civilian aviation and its root can be found in published documents so numerous that you haven't enough space here to hold them all, however I can and will see if I can add every single reference for the "Engineer" and Engineers" in British legislative and Crown documents from 1715 onwards if that is what it takes..

Be prepared, the documented history will floor you.

The London Gazette "The Gazette - the UK's official public record since 1665" [5] records at least 781,751 instances and the Hansard 109,985 instances of potential reference.

Between 1700 and 1930 there are 102894 recorded instances of "Engine" and similarities in the London Gazette [6]

For the period 1800 thru 1900 in the Hansard record there are 10,670 instances of instances of "Engine" and similarities......

CanadianAME (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

The "Institution of Royal Engineers" was established in 1875 and in 1923 it was granted its Royal Charter by King George V. The Institution is co-located with the Royal Engineers Museum at Chatham, Kent

67.69.36.201 (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

Reply

The first thing to make clear is that Wikipedia is not a soap box for promoting anything. Exhortations to change or reinterpret Canadian law have no place even on our talk pages, so I have redacted those bits.

What we can do is to document those aspects of the past and present which have attracted independent and reliable comment. Here there is some interesting historical material to be gleaned from the above, although little is relevant to the present article. Provenance of the status of engineers is not in dispute, nor it really relevant to the AME title.

What is more important here is:

• When and how was the capitalised title of Aircraft Maintenance Engineer created? (You have cited its use in the EU since 2007 but that is all you have cited)
• What did it signify in terms of status and responsibilities? What was the relation of the AME to any other aircraft maintenance engineer who was qualified as equally competent via some other route?
• How has it evolved since, in title (e.g. the L-AME variations around the world), in the authorising bodies, and in responsibilities? Here, aspects of the Canadian challenge may be relevant, but they do need to be short and factual: What exactly was this challenge, what was its motivation, and how did it fare in the courts? Did it reflect an international challenge that I have seen mentioned?
• What is the situation today? Are any of these challenges still open and under formal process?

In all this please remember that context is all. Few Wikipedians will have a clue why you mentioned The AMT magazine - has it been campaigning against AMEs or what? Hope this helps to focus your thought on Wikipedia's role as an encyclopedia. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I have only just noticed that some aspects of these questions are answered in your posts on my talk page - see link in my sig: — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree here, having read all this verbiage, this all looks like WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COI too. I am not seeing anything here that belongs in an encyclopedia article, just a lot of attempts to fluff up the social position of one profession. If you think any of this needs to be included then by all means do propose some text and refs here and let's look at what you have in mind. Endless diatribes and appeals to ancient history isn't adding up to anything coherent here. Please also see WP:TLDR, and please try to be a bit more concise in your proposals. To lead the way, let me explain that the more blather that has to be read through before getting to the "pith and substance", the less support you will get for any changes. It may be worth keeping in mind that the reason that "subject matter experts" do not get free reign to trample over other editors here is precisely because this is an academic endeavour and because in most cases expert = axe to grind. - Ahunt (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The US-FAA reference (shown below) be removed from the page until fthe AME and all related terms are fully understood and clarified....and the reasons for it

" FAA Aviation Maintenance Technician Handbook - General, Chapter 12: Publications, Forms, and Records, Page 12-20, CFR Part 43 — Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding, and Alteration, §43.17 Maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations performed on U.S. aeronautical products by certain Canadian persons: "This section was significantly revised in 2005 as the result of a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA) between the United States and Canada. The two countries have enjoyed a long and professional relationship with respect to reciprocal aviation maintenance activity. This section of part 43 both defines some terms and gives specific limitations as to what an Aviation Maintenance Engineer (AME is the Canadian equivalent to the U.S. A&P) may do to maintain U.S.-registered aircraft located in Canada. It also provides similar limitations for an Approved Maintenance Organization. (AMO is the Canadian equivalent to the U.S.-certified repair stations.)"

is taken from a source which does not actually define the origin of the "AME".. and it definitely does not properly explain the differences as to what level of work is being accomplished and to how that work is being certified. I would suggest that this reference be removed until proper clarification of terms and a comprehension of the differences between United States A&P rated ONLY, and those persons who are also I.A holders is clearly understood by the common person.. because when taken out of context the language is being used by non subject matter experts and the result is a dumbing-down of the general public as to what the different regulatory agencies and licensing terms actually mean.

To that end, a chart of terms and definitions, as well as the required hours of training, apprenticeship etc must be compiled and placed on the webpage (Talk page initially, and subsequently the general page) that clearly identifies these differences. To do otherwise discredits every person in the world performing and certifying maintenance of aircraft within their nation's regulatory capacity, and can (HAS) result(ed) in numerous instances to their degredation in "the public eye" to that of simpletons in television programs and literature to the point that even the people doing the job readily accept that demeaning mentality which while humourus, goes a long way to make a statement to the general public. An example of that "public" concept of the aircraft maintenance world can be found on Pinterest references by persons such as "Joshua Armanious" who saved a photo to his file folder "Work & stupid people". What is worde, is that the commercial marketing industry also capitalises on the idea of "Stupid" Aircraft Mechanics, as in this blog by DME Marketing. There are even those who would like to get into the industry who state they are "Stupid" and then ask how to become an aircraft mechanic in web-blogs.

The public concept of "Aircraft Maintenance" has been degraded, the regulatory bodies mis-conception (remember, politicians are "Joe Average" persons that the public elect to represent them.. where do they get their information) that numerous businesses are having difficulties recruiting staff to come and work for them and this issue is winding up in publicly available documents and some scientific reports indicate that the the decrease in "IQ observed" in some people may instead be linked to the "lower socioeconomic status" given to the aircraft mechanic - Is this a possible direct result of everything I speak of here?

IN fact, the issue is so widespread that aviation safety and international regulatory agencies are using and accepting derogatory wording when describing aircraft maintenance technicians and Licensed aircraft maintenance inspectors (AME, L-AME, A&P and AME with I.A) such as the 18th issue of "Ground Effects" which boldly announced that "A new training video was being shot by System Safety Services' with the title of “'Careless, Stupid, Dumb and Lazy" which was to be presented at the 15th Symposium in Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance in March, 2001,

The world wide web even reflects that "Scholars" are writing articles on the subject of aircraft maintenance, but how well versed and knowledgeable are those said scholars if they general media available to them and the official view casts the aircraft maintenance professional as "Careless, Stupid, Dumb and Lazy"...

CanadianAME (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

All I am getting from all that is that you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but here to promote yourself, your profession and place yourself above others who have not been bestowed with the glorious title you are so egregiously defending. This page is here to make suggestions about how to improve the article, discuss and come up with a consensus. You are invited to quit the grievously wounded speeches like above and do just that.

Despite your obvious disdain for having to work with other editors here on this page, that is reality and, in fact, what makes Wikipedia of so much value, precisely because otherwise it would just be a collection of advertisements for people, products and professions. The rest of us are here to make sure the publication stays neutral and is not used for promotional purposes. Basically this is not the place to pursue the sort of content you have written above. Why don't you start a blog?

Now then if you would like to point out where the article says AMEs are "Careless, Stupid, Dumb and Lazy" than I would be happy to remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

In comment to the last changes .. this is about education and awareness..

Not trying to defend.. but trying to point out that the information that is posted in wikipedia is read by people who have no knowledge or understanding of the evolution of the trade or the profession.. and that the information posted is to raise awareness in an effort to educate persons such as Ahunt who apparently are more concerned with a narrow point of view than to read and understand the background and how we came to be where we are today..

re AHunt' scomment " All I am getting from all that is that you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but here to promote yourself, your profession and place yourself above others who have not been bestowed with the glorious title you are so egregiously defending. "

I would really appreciate if you would state your credentials as an aircraft maintainer / AME to the rest of the AMEs of the World... What is your AME # and thru which regulatory body was it issued?

Because in order to have an encyclopedia, it must reflect everything - and at the moment your "point of view" is rather degrading and demeaning to all the AMEs in the world while others of us would seek to enrichen the encyclopedia by adding as much data as possible and providing a complete picture...

154.20.161.29 (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

There is no requirement for only AMEs to work on this page and in fact it is critical that editors who are not in a conflict of interest work on the page to prevent it being used for promotional purposes. I have not written anything "degrading and demeaning to all the AMEs in the world", so you need to read what I have actually written and WP:AGF. You stated "in order to have an encyclopedia, it must reflect everything". That is incorrect. Wikipedia is not here to "reflect everything", it is here to present neutral, unbiased and verifiable information, nothing more. If the article currently contains information that is incorrect then please point it out, with refs, so it can be fixed. If there is text that you think should be added than please present it here, with refs, so it can be discussed with a view to inclusion. - Ahunt (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Ahunt is quite right. though he speaks more bluntly than I have been doing. Wikipedia has its ways of doing things, enshrined in its policies and guidelines, the most relevant of which I have been linking for you. Ignoring them is doing you more harm than good: we cannot help you if you stubbornly refuse to help yourselves. If we are to fathom the truth about the AME, you must for your part learn how to build an encyclopedia, it cuts both ways. Since you are so impressed by the authority of SMEs, you might like to reflect on the fact that we are the SMEs here on how to build this encyclopedia. No more rhetoric, just straight answers to our straight questions. Deal? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The AME is professional training for Regulatory Compliance and carries weighty responsibilities. Persons with University Degree's, whether Masters or PhD, still require 2+ years of additional additional training, testing and licensing to act in the capacity of the AME in civil aviation.

There can be no Certificate of Conformance, Certificate of Mainenance Release, Certificate of Release to Service, Fitness to fly or Airworthiness statementthat can be signed except by AMEs. The AME license is a legal document used to maintain, overhaul, modify, replace, sign and certify any aircraft as fit to fly.

Aviation is divided into three distinct areas of engineering, even the oldest body of recognised Aeronautical Engineering persons includes us within it's organisation .:

1) The Aircraft design - on paper projections and calculatiosn by persons working as Aeronautical Engineers (not just Professional university educated Aeronautical Engineers either) but thousands of people who work on design prototypes in paper before even getting into the wind tunnels and simulator.

2) Assembly work: the engine, airframe, electrical, avionics, pressurization, control surface installation.. Everything mathematically positioned to get an aircraft ready for test flight. Well before before an aircraft “Type” ever sees the air as a flying machine.Putting these bits and pieces together are done by highly experienced mechanics (A&P and A&P with I.A inAmerica) commonly called Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (UK and Commonwealth Nations plus others) no matter if they are "Licensed on Type" or Licensed to inspect and certify.

3) The Aircraft Flying off the assembly line and recorded on an nation's aircraft register , this is the stage where “civil aviation” comes into play. By International design and standard (ICAO), personnel who are required for work on an aircraft at this stage, the AMEs, pilots and indirectly the Air traffic controllers, must ALL be licensed by their "State" to accompish their function in the aviation industry. These three classes of personnel at this stage are recognized by International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

Aeronautical engineers and other engineers; be it a PhD holder needs to obtain a license in addition to their P.Eng in order to be able to work in this third stage, However many University educated Engineers and others who could not obtain an AME license (Because it is hard WORK) and who do not understand it's role in PUBLIC SAFETY have, thru the years since the 1940's, degraded the AME license in an apparent effort to justify their belief that Universityeducated "Aeronautical Engineers" are the only "Engineers" that count.. subsequently reducing the license issued by the State to the AME as a certificate of competence and finely honed skill achieved thru a MINIMUM 2 year apprenticeship followed by a series of Oral, Practical and written exams (which were the initial requirements for the issuance of an AME License) to what is now little more than a "Here's your Lolly" for passing some 2 pages of multiple choice questions with NO Oral, Practical or written - long form examination - which would attest to the applicants skill and compeence AFTER their term of apprenticeship... All this to try and downplay and degrade the AME in an effort for someone else to justify his position. Usually that person knows nothing about performing aircraft maintenance, aircraft maintenance safety standards and about the profession of AME they frequently claim to be "supervising".

You can disagree with me, and other people who are subject matter experts and you can continually refute historically accurate and readily avail. information which substantiates what is being said to you and refuse to even look into the documents.

History doesn't lie, but editors can and do.. or just neglect to take note of certain facts.

There is a lot of "Misinformation" out there about AMEs, and the information I am posting is in effort to get that thru people's heads and I am posting historic fact - from the archives, Sure I can reflect on the fact that YOU SteelPillow, are one the SMEs here on "how to build this encyclopedia" in Wikipedia. BUT YOU are probably NOT an SME on being an AME, and in that rgard YOU have to realise that a lot of the content that exists in it's current form about AMEs here on Wikipedia definitely misleads readers, and that may be causing them to make errors with real consequences, hurt feelings, definite public embarrassment, causing prospective students to apply to the wrong schools, and reducing the status of the Holders of AME Licenses in the public eye. and other issues. In that regard, make the entry MORE accurate, MORE precise and better documented, include background history, include sections on private, corporate and airline maintenance .. all of that makes it better..

But for god's sake, listen to the Subject Matter Experts who actually hold the licenses and who hve spent years of their lives dedicted to their trade and their profession, but who are only just learning how to use wikipedia.. if we knew how and had your skills, then believe me, we would be doing it ourselves..but many of us work graveyard shifts, 12-16 hour days and have families who also demand our time.. we can put the refernces in and the bacground - but please do not delete it out of hand.

otherwise the entire thing is a hoax..and the general public will ultimately be the people who suffer in the end

CanadianAME (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

@CanadianAME: THIS IS A FORMAL WARNING: You are not listening. YOUR STYLE OF ENGAGEMENT IS UNACCEPTABLE AND UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU GET PAST THAT WE CANNOT HELP YOU. This is Wikipedia and we work according to its policies and guidelines. In particular, you have been told over and over that subject matter experts have no special status as information sources. If you really cannot grasp that you have to engage Wikipedia its way and not your way, then it is no place for you. If you continue to make no effort to engage according to OUR rules, you maye be reported as a nuisance and you then risk sanctions being taken against your ability to edit Wikipedia or engage in discussions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)