> > > They should educate themselves about A&Ps and the roughly 600 hours > > >general, and 700 for each rating they spent getting a license.
> >Don't I wish! I'd have an IA by now!
> John, I am not sure what you are getting at. That is roughly how long
it
> takes. Glen Ward
The quickest way is to take an approved training course from an A&P
school.
The requirements to take the test for the certificate are:
(b) The curriculum must offer at least the following number of hours
of
instruction for the rating shown, and the instruction unit hour shall
not be
less than 50 minutes in length--
(1) Airframe--1,150 hours (400 general plus 750 airframe).
(2) Powerplant--1,150 hours (400 general plus 750 powerplant).
(3) Combined airframe and powerplant--1,900 hours (400 general plus
750
airframe and 750 powerplant).
These are pretty close to the numbers you quoted.
You can do it without attending an approved training facility, but IIRC,
the
number of hours of documented experience required is more like 3000 for
the
combined rating.
I have 180 hours of classroom training and probably 400 hours of mostly
undocumented work experience doing everything from wing recovering and
engine
overhauls to annual inspections and the associated punch lists. The one
thing that remains constant is that I don't know it all. Things that seem
unimportant can be far from it. Aircraft are assembled with little
margin,
mostly to save weight. If a structure has 4 bolts and one falls out, the
plane will no longer be able to meet its designed load limits. That tight
turn from yesterday could be a disaster today.
A wrinkle in the skin could be due to a failed structural member
underneath.
Wrinkled metal does not have the same strength as straight metal. Try
balancing your weight on a pair of unwrinkled bud cans. Amazingly string
for
such thin metal. Then touch the sides of the can while it's under that
load.
It'll collapse in a heartbeat.
"Better" parts can actually cause trouble under certain conditions. For
example, Brackett air filters: certified, cheaper, and more effective,
right? Well, put one on a fuel injected plane, and it can cause a dead
stick
landing. Why? Well, the original paper filter would not pass water, so
if
you got in icing conditions, the filter would ice up and the alternate air
door would open and the engine would run fine. Put a Brackett on there
under
the same circumstances and the water passes through the filter and freezes
on
the throttle plate. Guess what? No carb heat on a FI engine!
I fly as much as I can. I do ALL the work on my planes, and enjoy
(almost)
every minute of it. I will continue to ask before I do anything that's
not
covered in Appendix A. I intend to live to a ripe old age.
If I don't talk myself to death.
John
__________________________________________________________________________
______
To unsubscribe from this list please send
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
