Recently, I read that there was a survey being taken of maintenance technicians. In short, the survey asks the technicians to look at the experiences and education aviation maintenance instructors might have and how this relates to the mission of educating, (note – not "training") maintenance technicians. The person conducting the research is an A&P and IA and will employ the results as part of a thesis. Specifically, the researcher states he is looking for ways to make maintenance training more effective and his postulates define our current maintenance training as less than what it should and can be. He blames this on our failure to harmonize the training regs under Part 65 with EASA's Part 66. He is asking whether it makes sense to change our maintenance training regulations to be in line with EASA's Part 66.
According to the forward for the survey, the researcher cites individual maintenance technicians and the airlines, as a group, as being overwhelmingly against any change in maintenance training regulations under harmonization.
I understand why the airlines would be against this. Although they already have to comply with EASA regs to operate in Europe, the kicker is the "ratings" requirements under European maintenance training regs. As soon as the airlines hear the words "type rating" for a certified technician they translate it as additional cost in terms of higher salaries. Forget the added safety and operational efficiencies to be gained. Airlines will always resist technicians advancing their careers and salary potential through advanced and specialized certifications.
According to the researcher, when the Part 65 harmonization NPRM came out, it received more negative comments than any other of its kind. Many of these disapproving remarks came from individual technicians. Why would technicians be against a change in the way they are trained? Why would they be against training that includes more up-to-date and appropriate subject matter? Why would they be against "type ratings" that certify to a particular expertise? If you have answers to these questions, please share them with our readers and let us know what you think.
Frankly, the one answer I know to this question is that technicians tend to be loners and they do not like going against the status quo. As a group, they demand, and are entitled to, greater recognition and opportunity; however, they do little outside of the hangar to encourage a more significant status. Technicians must work hard, many times under difficult conditions. They must stay current in the face of rapidly advancing technologies that make up their workplace. Their employment is subject to the whims of changing economies and, in the order of things, they are not paid enough for the responsibilities they assume. So why is it that there is a perception, if not the reality, of poor treatment. The answer may lie in the personalities that dominate the profession.
I recall an article I read many years past in the early '80s by Giselle Richardson, founder of Richardson Management Associates. The article was titled Cinderella in the Flight Department. To quote from it: "What characterizes the mechanic? We have worked now for more than 10 years in aviation departments, and in our experience, these traits at least are found to predominate in the maintenance area: commitment to excellence, willingness to put in effort and hours, integrity, distrust of words, dependability, the tendency to be a loner, modesty (no desire to be in the spotlight), doesn’t like to ask for help, tends to be self-sufficient and to think things through on his own and not share his thoughts too frequently or thoroughly." I think that, basically, this is a correct assessment.
The result of these personality characteristics is a person who expects, but does not ask. A person who broods over misfortunes, rather than complains. A person that sees himself more often as a victim rather that a protagonist.
As Ms Richardson states, this attitude invites others to see the technician "as less important."
Generally, I assert that these traits may be at the core of what must change. All the rest will come naturally because the ethic, talent and skills are already in place. My hope is that someday technicians will start politicking for themselves. They can start by getting on board with the "type rating" initiative and taking advantage of all opportunities to learn and be educated along with being trained, such as the NBAA CAM program. Regardless, each technician must fight the fight because the system will work for you eventually.