Aircraft Maintenance Officers

[scooter]

CAP has about 500 aircraft which means there are about 500 Aircraft Maintenance Officers. CAP aircraft are probably the most expensive assets in the inventory so you would think CAP would want well trained AMOs taking care of them. Yet, there is no specialty track or SQTR (training) for a squadron AMO, the person responsible for makeing sure the airplane is airworthy. There is no job description other than a few words in the Logistics world that counts airplanes, but doesn't fix them. The IG or an SUI inspector shows up and wants to make sure the squadron AMO is doing his job.  A Wing AMO is always inspected by CIs and there is no specialty track.  Even the AF recognizes the importance of a Chief of Maintenance by makeing them answer directly to Wing commanders. CAPR 66-1 is the operative regulation but does not give any criteria for an AMO, squadron or wing.

Seems to me CAP is missing the boat here by not haveing a specialty track for the people watching over the most expensive pieces of equipment we use, airplanes. Why is there no SQTR for AMOs? Do any wings out there have a training program for AMOs?

[Eclipse]

All maintenance is now performed at consolidated maintenance facilities, in each state, respectively, by professional FBOs or
similar maintenance facilities. 

Wing maintenance officers are simply managers of the process and budgets, etc., they do not wrench turn themselves, nor
are they allowed to.  There is no need for a member specialty specific to aircraft maintenance.

Even the AF recognizes the importance of a Chief of Maintenance by makeing them answer directly to Wing commanders. CAPR 66-1 is the operative regulation but does not give any criteria for an AMO, squadron or wing.

The USAF does internal maintenance, CAP does not.

[Brad]

Eclipse beat me to it. We take ours to Anderson FSS when it needs fixing.

[JeffDG]

We kind of prefer to have AMOs who own, or have owned, aircraft themselves...they know what needs to be done to maintain an aircraft.

That's not a hard and fast rule, but it's a decent spot to start.

[Eclipse]

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/R066_001_8067887A28C8C.pdf

66-1 specifically assigns maintenance responsibilities at the wing level (or Region when assigned), only suggesting it could be
assigned at a lower level for wings with more then 20 aircraft (which is very few), and even those
will still be sending them to CMX.

For the most part, anyone still assigned as an AMO at the unit level is doing so in name only,
and/or is really just an aircraft POC.

The CI and SUI questions in this regard are related to record keeping, not the actual maintenance.

There also isn't necessarily a 1-1 relationship of planes to POCs.  In places with multiple planes assigned,
there's no reason one person can't be assigned as POC for all of them.

[Bayareaflyer 44]

I have been our unit's AMO for 4.5 years.  It really is as Eclipse describes, and that is being the POC for aircraft issues, making sure the plane gets to its 50hr/100hr/annual, and records are being accurately kept.  Now, as a pilot and aircraft owner, it does give me a certain advantage in helping out to ask the right questions to the FBO with regards to aircraft issues – but to be sure, all maintenance performed is being done by an approved (and insured) FBO.

BTW – not all maintenance is under consolidated.  50hr can be done locally, and if the aircraft is under warranty, you are permitted to go to an authorized Cessna service center.

[BHartman007]

The only thing we do to ours is add oil. The rest happens at a facility on the other side of town.
Incidentally, it spent 6 months of the last year there for one thing or another.

[scooter]

The AMO is prohibited from working on the aircraft and all the real work is done at the CAP approved shop. I was talking about training the guy on CAP procedures and paperwork. Anyone can be an AMO, don't even need to know what an airplane looks like if you can do paperwork. Not a good idea however. Still, whomever is the AMO needs to be trained to do the job by someone, right? The guy should get credit for what he/she does. The AMO must: Schedule maintenance, coordinate maintenance, make sure all discrepancies are logged/cleared, write up work orders for maintenance, make sure all the required stuff is in the airplane, make sure the ORMS forms agree with what is actually in the airplane, make sure required documents are in the airplane, make sure the AIF is current, make sure the airplane is inspected/clean/sheltered/tied down, keys secured, etc. Next time you see your AMO, thank him/her for the nice airplane you fly. Would not be that way if all the stuff above was not done as a matter of routine. I thank mine every time I see him at a meeting.

[BHartman007]

Seems like a sub-set of logistics or operations. It doesn't seem different enough for it's own track.

[Storm Chaser]

I agree with most of the comments here. I can't see a valid reason to have an AMO SQTR. That said, I wouldn't see a problem with an AMO specific specialty track. After all, both Emergency Services and Stan/Eval are functions of Operations (I know CAPR 20-1 provides for ES to be a separate function) and yet have separate specialty tracks. CAPR 20-1 allows for Maintenance to be under Ops, yet AMOs are enrolled in the Logistics specialty track. There doesn't seem to be much consistency with this.

[Eclipse]

AMOs are in Logistics because at the core it's just about managing an asset.

ES is one of the core missions, OPS is actually supposed to be a resource for ES, CP, and AE, not a driver,
but due to the nature of the organization and the membership, a lot of wings dont' do it that way.

[c172drv]

I can see the need to have a Specialty Track for it.  CAP misses a lot of opportunity to save money and keep airplanes in the air.  We have poor documentation of our program, we could utilize techniques such as continuing airworthiness/phase inspection program and Minimum Equipment List to keep aircraft moving and leave little to chance with the operation.  Paperwork can be a total mess or ok depending on who has managed the books and what the experience level is with logbooks.  I've often seen multiple parts thrown at the same problem.  Often the work was done at different locations so no dealing with the original person to get it done as warranty work.  All of this takes a well documented program defined in the manuals and some training to administer it both from the maintenance side and from the pilot side. 

In a perfect world for me we would have trained mechanics at NHQ to call and report the issue, documenting the issue in WMIRS plus the logbook and aid in determining the status of the aircraft, disposition of deferring the broken item or aiding in setting up the repairs.  That would be great step forward in standardizing maintenance.  They would work with the local maintenance officers and local repair or central maintenance to keep the airplane up as much as possible.

The biggest thing I'd like to see is to start treating the aircraft as a fleet.  If we track issues as a fleet I'm sure we will learn things that could surprise us and allow us to change.  New technology in the G1000 system could allow us to do FOQA (Flight Operations Quality Assurance) giving us insight into how the aircraft are being operated and condition of systems.  This type of data is used to change proceedures and maximize operational performance in the airline world while improving safety.  Some of it would be a pain but once it is learn the benefits are great.

Off the soap box. 

John