EASA vs FAA aircraft maintenance regulations

[whyliecoyotez]

Hello everyone, my name is matt and im currently studying for a degree in aircraft maintenance. I am about to start writing a paper on the differences in regulations between the EASA and the FAA regarding aircraft maintenance and thought i would get a heads up from some experienced engineers first.

I have briefly studied the EASA part M + 145 + 66 + 147 regulations and also combed through FAR 43 + 145 + 67 + 147 and to be honoust i cant spot any major difference between the two except of course for the difference in engineering personnel licences . Anyone with any experience or knowledge in this field that could point me in the right direction or shed some light on major differences between the two authorities?

Any advice would be much appreciated

 

[thruthefence]

Please don't confuse the common term for aircraft mechanics in Europe (engineer) for the term as defined on this forum. I mean no disrespect for Aircraft Mechanics (they get enough of that already) as I Have been one for nearly 40 years, but maybe an Aviation Maintenance forum may have better answers as for as certs go. There was a major move by the Feds a few years ago under part 66, to redefine the roll of mechanics, into "large Aircraft" and "small aircraft" groupings, but it met with much resistance.

And 14 cfr 67 is "medical standards"

did you mean part 65, which is the certification of Airmen other then Flight Crew?

 

[whyliecoyotez]

Well thanks for pointing that out Thruthefence, I did indeed mean FAR part 65. I am well aware of the delicate issue of the difference between an engineer and mechanic in the aviation industry, although it never has bothered me im sure some chap out there would take offence.

However that aside i would hope that someone working in the field of Aircraft Engineering would most likely have a good understanding of the regulations and be able to point me to any helpfull material or share any experience on it.

 

[thruthefence]

Just for curiosity's sake I did a bit of searching, and at first glance here is what I judge as the difference in certification.

In the USA, an A&P mechanic, once certified, can work on ANY aircraft, engine, or accessory that he has received training on. (propellers are another thing)This training can be formal factory schools, or on-the-job instruction. Once instructed, that's it. No recurency training is mandated. This covers everything from the smallest Piper Cub to the largest B747. Even though the inspection and maintenance requirements are different between Part 23, & part 25 aircraft, the rules are the same.

This of course is a minimum standard, and companies can, and do provide training on a regular basis for their maintenance staff.

There is another level,the "Inspection Authorization" that requires a minimum time working as an A&P,detailed knowledge testing on the FAR's, and recurrency training (under certain circumstances).

What's odd about the system, is that an Inspection Authorization, (or "IA"), is required to release Cessna 150 after it's annual inspection, but an A&P can perform & release a part 25 Lear 60, under it's continuous factory inspection program.

Apparently EASA's certification of technicians has many levels of expertise and responsibility. Here is a wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Aviation_Safety_Agency

anecdotally, I have heard that the Canadian, English, and Australian systems require mechanic certification by aircraft type, with factory schools the only training allowed.