PAMA/SAE Institute is Seeking Subject Matter Experts for Composite Repair Certification Efforts

Following successful meetings in Amsterdam and Wichita last year, the SAE International Standards Commercial Aircraft Composite Repair Committee (CACRC) and PAMA/SAE Institute have agreed to take the next step toward certification development. That step is a Program Design Workshop whereby industry stakeholders gather to develop and organize a series of certification tracks around specific bodies of knowledge.

PAMA/SAE Institute has reviewed the four CACRC-developed standards and has developed a “strawman” composite track matrix draft from which to begin our discussions. This matrix draft is not intended to be a recommended program, but rather a point from which to begin our discussions. Download composite_track_matrix_draft_022108.doc

The program development process will take place with a series of two-hour Webex telecons during the last two weeks of March and the first two weeks of April and will include two to four Webex telecons, depending on what the team feels is necessary. Following these Webex telecons, there will be a facilitated one-day live Workshop during the next CACRC meeting on Tuesday, April 15, 2008, in Athens, Greece.

The certification team will then present an extended to brief the full CACRC during their general meeting on Wednesday or Thursday in Athens, and then everyone will be invited to meet one final time during a follow-up Webex telecon once everyone returns from Athens. The Webex telecons and the Athens workshop will be facilitated by professionals from Kryterion, Inc., a certification and psychometric services company. The Program Design process will be contracted and paid for by PAMA/SAE Institute.

Following our Program Design efforts, and the achievement of consensus on the foundation of the certification track matrix, we will ensure proper corporate support for the effort before we embark on the actual certification development process.

This effort will have international industry visibility and we must ensure our certification standards have the greatest consensus possible. If you are a Senior Stakeholder and/or an interested Subject Matter Expert, I encourage you to participate in the Program Design Workshop, or subsequently during the actual certification development process. Please feel free to forward this message to others. To volunteer, email Angela Springel with your contact information.

Thank you for you interest in advancing aviation maintenance and production processes and education.

Best regards,

Brian Finnegan, A&P, AME
Director, Professional Certification
PAMA/SAE Institute

Comments

[Cindy Foreman]

Gee, it seems like this effort has been done before. Was it the late 1990s that the FAA was actually going to vote on whether there should be a license for repair men, those who didn't have an A&P? It seems to me that PAMA encouraged it's members to vote against it, and it didn't pass. Yes, because of outsourcing of maintenance by airlines, we need to have some sort of reasurance that the people performing the work actually know what they are doing. I'm glad to see PAMA coming to it's senses.
This work was pretty much completed, and I'm afraid you are spinning your wheels again by using what the CACRC has already developed. You can have numerous meetings, and hash over the same stuff, but if you don't involve more of the airlines, repair stations, and FAA into the process, it will go the same place it did in the 90's. Nowhere.

[Brian Finnegan]

Cindy - you are right about the 1990s and the ill-fated Part 66. However, its demise in the United States was because it imposed onerous regulation on the safest aviation community in the world. While it is not required in other countries, cost-benefit analysis and the safety issues being addressed are keystones for new American regulation. Our system does not permit new regulation capriciously. So, while we at PAMA have always supported advancing safety through continuous education, it was a tough case to make (at that time) in trying to regulate that training.

What a difference 10 years makes. The performance of maintenance by third-party contractors, as you mentioned, and a radical increase in the use of non-certificated technicians, coupled with an unstable job market and the greying of our maintenance workforce, has put great pressure on our technical braintrust to stay current with advancing technology. It really is a merging of worst case scenarios.

Our approach now is to do exactly what you suggest by involving as many manufacturers, operators, and repair facilities as possible from the outset. You seem familiar with CACRC, so you may know each of those groups are represented there. It is not an exhaustive memebrship, though , and my job is to expand industry involvement and include as many as possible. I have begun that task now and would welcome any assistance you might provide in achieving that essential industry consensus. Please continue to weigh in and offer suggestions. Thanks very much.

[Steve Hoy]

I'm a technical instructor with Lufthansa Resource Technical Training (Aircraft Structures) and have been reading with interest the developments of the CACRC. I too am of the firm beleif that composite repair capability needs some form of standardisation and oversight, especially when we are seeing an ever increasing percentage of these materials in aircraft structure.
The certification track matrix looks like a good start. I'm not aware of what was discussed during the recent meeting in Athens - however, the way I see repair certification working from this point is by having a "Technician 1" trained and authorised to carry out repairs to minor damage on secondary / tertiary structure under the supervision of "Technician II". Defining the limits in which a TechI and TechII can operate will provide clarity. Is this the CACRC proposal?
The composite skills association (CoSkA), which is an industry led forum for the training and development of aircraft composite design and manufacture skills for the north west region of England, is looking now at launching their next phase which is - yes - development of a standardised repair capability. I've recently become involved with this initiative and would be keen to see this follow the lead provided by CACRC.

[Brian Finnegan]

Hello Steve -

It would be great to have CoSkA involved with the CACRC effort. Please contact me directly at bfinnegan@sae.org to provide any insight about the best wat way to involve them.

The Tech I, II, and III certifications are really two levels of technician with a strong knowledge foundation established at the Tech I level (soon to be renamed). This could change to 3 distinct levels of Technician certification, but there is strong feelings that repair technicians need to be pretty capable. There has been a reluctance to to have a technician certification that is too basic.

I'll be happy to include you in future CACRC discussions and I look forwrd to hearing from you soon.

Brian Finnegan

[CP]

what is the full form of SAE institute