A couple things:
The conversion training thing (type courses) is already causing some issues as the fleets wrestle with how to type qualify someone who is not an AVN or AVS Tech. The simple solution is couple week course to show them how the tech manuals and record keeping works (all fleets have differences, depending on OEM) and then turn them loose under supervision to earn their authorizations, across the entire airframe. The old school folks don’t like this, because that is not what they grew up with.
There in lays the problem, it is not an easy situation.
You should not be type certified until you are an AVN/AVS Tech QL5. That is when you are Journeyman Qualified then you get your authorizations.
To be signing for a process and procedures prior to that is asking for trouble.
We use to train as a general Mechanic who could go onto a fleet elsewhere and then get type qualified.
Once you came out of Borden you did your type training and then got your authorizations.
It will be interesting as this goes forward to see if they are expecting a person to walk out of this new to the Military program as a QL5 AVN/AVS Tech. Then send them to the lines to work. Then figure out the their Type/ authorization afterwards.
I also wonder if they will set it up as you get the diploma, give you the amount of hours needed for your Journeyman while you work under a Master Tech ie B or C level until they will sign you off to perform the work. With out doing the type course.
Military Airworthiness is not a “voluntary compliance system”. It is a legally delegated authority from the Minister of Transport to the MND. The CAF needs its own system of airworthiness because we have operational imperatives that the civilian world does not. We deal with battle damage repair- civilians do not. Unserviceable aircraft can be rendered serviceable if a situation is dire enough- civilians cannot. We deliver weapons- civilians do not. It has nothing to do with “being sued”.
It actually does not fall under the Minister of Transport at all.
The same as Military Vehicles and equipment do not fall under the DOT specs either. It is a voluntary system to which the Military has become party too. In which as caused the Military a lot of headaches trying to Make AF9000 work in a compliance situation to civilian standards. I am not sure what they call the program now.
But I know when I was in kept asking why are we trying to meet TC standards when we do not fly or maintain within those standards. (not to say the aircraft were not Flight Worthy and or safe) We had different standards and tolerances for what was serviceable and not serviceable. Some of those standards were more strict and and some were not.
A Military aircraft could fly with a fuel leak,(seal itself in flight lol) and leaking hydraulic fluid in certain areas. Where a civilian aircraft was allowed no fuel leaks at all and minimal if at all hydraulic leaks depending on the platform.
We took really good care of the aircraft, I never launched one that I thought was unsafe or that I would not fly in myself. (I never wanted to fly in a fighter jet anyways) Had I of been asked I would have hopped in the back set with no concerns.
DND is Voluntary Compliance where they can be within reason. They have spent millions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of man hours trying to get into compliance with TC rules. When I do not think we can be in compliance outside of operating Specific Civilian model aircraft within civilian specs.
