The European Aviation Safety Agency -Federal Aviation Administration Argument - Report Example

EASA-FAA Argument Created in 2002, The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is a European Union (EU) agency that performs regulatory tasks for civilian aviation safety (EASA 2012). EASA implements and maintains changes in safety regulations; make suggestions to the EU for changes in legislation; approves design and maintenance of aeronautical products; and analyses safety of aircraft components. The Aircraft Maintenance Certifying Personnel is supposed to follow the part-66 Certifying Staff of EASA. The training level, which follows the ATA 104 system, has three levels: category A (Line Maintenance Mechanic), category B (Line Maintenance Technician), and category C (Base Maintenance Engineer). This paper tends to argue that the EASA maintenance training requirements are comprehensive yet not excessive, and do not place an unnecessary additional burden on EU operators competing against those operating under FAA regulations. If we compare the maintenance human factors training requirements of FAA and EASA, we understand that the comprehensiveness of EASA counts towards its efficiency in equipping the trainees with enough knowledge and expertise that may assist them in their profession. “The US FAA does not have mandates on initial or recurrent human factors training” (Federal Aviation Administration 2008). FAA has no regulations; while EASA has part 66, part 145, and part 147. FAA has no required training hours; while, EASA maintenance training is based on approval of the individual training course. CAP716 proposes that maintenance training should last 3 days for initial training and 1 day for continuation training. There is no continuation training in FAA; while EASA maintenance trainees must undergo continuation training before 24 months elapse, which must be of enough duration and should be based on a program satisfactory to Authority. Guidance documents for FAA include Ops Manuals HF Guide AC120-72 8300.10 HBAW 05-04; while those for EASA include CAP 716, AMC 145.A.30 (e), GM 145.A.30 (e), and ICAO HF Digests and Training Manual. This comparison shows that EASA maintenance training requirements are quite comprehensive which train the individuals in a way that they, through their competency, decrease additional burden on EU operators competing against those operating under FAA regulations. Moreover, EASA maintenance training is an essential part of aviation safety and maintenance. Kritsis (2010: 893) writes in his book that, “Maintenance training has been acknowledged as of critical importance for industry to be able to effectively apply adequate practices in maintenance”. However, to deliver maintenance management training, EASA must consider that traditional ways of training are often impractical and therefore prove to be excessive burden for EU operators. Suggestions include implementation of e-learning modules, electronic techniques and tools, and giving the trainees options to choose for themselves which area of training they fit in. Doing so can help the EASA authorities to facilitate the streamlining of competence assessment procedure “by providing a uniform and standardized way to access maintenance management knowledge and skills” (Kritsis 2010: 892). Also, in today’s global aviation environment, organizations prefer to pursue the strictest of the pertinent regulations. Federal Aviation Administration (2008, para.4) states that: “… a large portion of the world, including about 30% of US maintenance organizations, usually comply with the rules of EASA. As a result, the large organizations throughout the world are essentially working under the EASA regulations. Of course, the same regulations may evolve to international harmonization over time.” Now, let’s discuss the counter arguments. EASA maintenance training requirements for general aviation have been “universally condemned as too prescriptive, too bureaucratic, too costly and difficult to understand” (IAOPA 2012). Hobbs (2008: 2) writes that, “Maintenance technicians work in an environment that is more hazardous than most other jobs in the labor force.” It is thought that EASA maintenance training requires excessive work that is not only strenuous but also requires a lot of attention to little details. It also requires excellent communication skills that are hard to achieve in high noise levels and hearing protection aids. Since aircraft maintenance training highly depends on documentation, the aviation maintenance personnel are given training to spend 25 to 40 percent (Hobbs, 2008: 17) of their time in preparing and implementing the documentation. However, this excessiveness of EASA maintenance training programs only prove their worth and efficiency, rather than being over burdening for EU operators. Hence, EASA maintenance training requirements should not be considered as excessive, but should be considered as efficient and comprehensive, because EASA maintenance training programs importance to every little detail and requirement of training. Another counter argument is that EASA maintenance training requirements are quite excessive due to the prerequisites required for training. In all types of aircraft maintenance training, the individual has to have prior knowledge of mathematics, physics, electrical fundamentals, electronic fundamentals, propellers, engines, aircraft systems, digital techniques, electronic instrument systems, aviation legislation, human factors, materials and hardware, maintenance practices, and basic aerodynamics. Besides these academic modules, one also has to have prior knowledge of work-based modules “that provide you with hands-on experience of aircraft component and equipment replacement, inspection, condition monitoring, and fault diagnosis and rectification” (Kingston University 2012, para.2). People think that the requirement of so many prerequisites makes the training programs comprehensive; when it is not so. We must understand that prior knowledge is crucial for such sophisticated programs, and trainees tend to benefit from this prior knowledge when they go into the field. Hence, this counter argument is entirely illogical. Summing it up together, although EASA training maintenance requirements are comprehensive, yet they are not so excessive to put an additional burden on EU operators. Trainees are supposed to have a lot of prior knowledge about many prerequisite subjects regarding aviation, and the training process is long enough to train the individuals so much so that they help authorities remove burden on EU operators competing against those operating under FAA regulations. EU operators competing under FAA regulations have to go through too simple training process, which may not train the individuals adequately. This inadequacy of training, in turn, increases burden on EU operators. EASA training documentation is comprehensive which leads to efficient training. Since maintenance training is an important part of aviation safety, organizations follow EASA maintenance training programs despite its lengthy and costly procedures. However, to decrease the strictness of EASA maintenance training requirements and programs, it is suggested that EASA should train individuals through e-learning processes and technological equipment. The trainees should also be given the option to choose their field of training, so that they may be able to show their best when they go on the field. References EASA 2012, Citizens and General Information, viewed 23 March 2012, Federal Aviation Administration 2008, Regulatory Requirements, viewed 24 March 2012, Hobbs, A 2008, ‘Unique human factors issues in aviation maintenance’, An Overview of Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance, viewed 23 March 2012, IAOPA 2012, IAOPA (Europe) e-Newsletter, viewed 23 March 2012, Kingston University 2012, Aircraft Engineering Introductory Year, Foundation Degree FdEng and Top-up Year BSc(Hons), viewed 23 March 2012, Kritsis, D 2010, ‘Maintenance training’, Engineering Asset Lifecycle Management, Springer, USA. Read More