Many years ago, I attended the aeronautical program at Utah State University. At the end of one year, we were able to take the test for our Airframe license. I missed passing it by two points. As I had every intention of being an Airline pilot, and no thought of being a mechanic, I never retook the test. That was 28 years ago. Today I'd love to have the license. As everything was documented by the University, I wonder if I could bone up and take the test and get that license.
Larry John Cooper wrote: > > > > 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 __________________________________________________________________________ ______ 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>>
