An A&P is an “all purpose†aircraft maintenance license to return an aircraft to service after maintenance, except for major repairs and alterations and annual inspections. This is true when it comes to avionics parts and systems repairs, despite the fact that these systems are much more complex and integral to aircraft operations and safety than those airplanes brought out just a few years past.
An A&P with the proper documentation, knowledge, and test equipment to verify a repair complies with the manufacturer’s standards for an avionics part or system, can effect repairs to such and subsequently return an aircraft to service. The question is ... is today’s training adequate for a technician to return an aircraft to service? An aircraft has just fixed by replacing a LRU based on byte info from a CMC. Is the BITE check sufficient to truly satisfy operational and functional requirements? Does the training provided by the manufacturer, training organization, or some other entities provide the necessary knowledge of the system to enable a technician to do the job when it comes to avionics systems problems on an aircraft?
Just where does avionics stop and airframe (or engine) begin?
Can this training be better? If so, how? Can the manufacturer be more supportive? Can the documentation be improved? Who should determine the technician “need to know� Are there any difficulties with the government inspectors relative to interpretation of who can do what?