Jump to content

M2 Maint Requirements


Recommended Posts

Iceman,

 

The scope of maintenance release privileges can be assessed generically as follows:

 

M1

 

■Aircraft built to CAR 522, 523, 523-VLA, 527, 549, and equivalent standards, but excluding turbojet aircraft.

 

■Includes gliders, small piston powered, and small turboprop aircraft.

 

M2

 

■All aircraft (excluding balloons) not included in M1, which include (but is not limited to), aircraft built to CAR 525, 529, and equivalent standards.

 

■Includes all turbojet aircraft.

 

Note - Jetstream 31 (M2) and DHC 6 (M1) (Can send you the type references)

 

In addition to the previous CARs references also consider looking into the following:

 

■ ACA / SCA and Supporting Training Standards - MPL 31 (Maintenance Policy Letters)

 

■ Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (AME) Licensing Procedures - MSI 18 (Maint. Staffing Inst Instructions)

 

■ AWN – C011, Ediiton 4-18 Julu 2006 – General Information AME License

(Airworthiness Notice)

 

In regards to the HF training refer to the AMO's MPM and Procedures for training, they may have developed and had TC approval (MPM), Procedures Manual (incorporated MPM document) for in-house HF training. I have written manuals to encompass other companies approved recurrent HF, in-house HF recurrent but also in-house initial were commerical HF was not available (all approved). If your license has been expired for more than one year you will have to re-write CARs exam as well.

 

AMOs would have to show training, skill and knowledge before issuing an authority to perform or certify the work.

 

Note:

 

In 14 CFR part 27 (Normal Category Rotorcraft), requirement 27.1 "Applicability", the maximum weight for a Normal Category rotorcraft was changed at amendment 27-37, dated 10/18/1999, from 6000 lbs to 7000 lbs.

 

Canadian Aviation Regulation 101.01(1) "Interpretations" defines a small aircraft to include a helicopter having a permissible take-off weight of 2730 Kg (6018 lbs) or less. When AWM 571 refers to a small aircraft, it is with respect to the definition in CAR 101, and it is based on weight rather that basis of certification.

 

Send me a PM and I will send you the links and reference information if need be. Hope this helps and not to confusing, the MSI's and MPL's I mentioned are a good reference as they are the documents that TC uses. What region are you in? I can put you in touch with TC people that can help in either PNR or Pacific with your endeavours.

 

Either way good luck.

 

HBD

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 21
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Iceman,

 

Forgot to mention...

 

Have a look at MSI 62 - Restricted Certifying Authority (RCA) to allow qualified individuals who do not hold an appropriately rated Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (AME) licence, and/or may not have completed an approved course of training on the type, to sign a maintenance release on Canadian registered aircraft.

 

In accordance with STD 566.02, in certain circumstances persons who are not the holders of an appropriately rated AME licence may be permitted to issue a maintenance release as provided in CAR 571.11. Issue of an RCA is intended to prevent hardship directly caused by a lack of available qualified AMEs. However such approval will only be granted when clear justification has been demonstrated.

 

However, the period for which the RCA is issued will be limited to the time period necessary to accommodate the certification, which will not normally exceed 90 days. Under exceptional circumstances, this 90-day period may be extended.

 

Just throwing that out for info only.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great info guys. I would like to add, that the AMO's MCM can affect the requirements as well. A well known Alberta operator specified in their MCM that only M2 can certify their 212's.... Not a CAR, but company policy. I got bit on that last summer. How does one differentiate tasks on a 212 from a 205 for use towards getting an M2 in the AME logbook?

 

Evidently, the 'type' column in the log book makes a difference according to my local TC inspector.

Remove and replace M/R head on a 212 is 'somehow' a legitimate M2 task. Go figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...

As is typical with Transport Canada, every inspector has their own interpretation of the rules.

 

According to the individual I dealt with, after the amendment in 2003 defining that any turbine heli (206 thru chinook) can be signed out by either an M1 or M2. Any experience on ANY turbine heli is good for either M1 or M2. So, It just comes down to time spent on Helis.

 

Example: Apprentice works on 206/407 for the required time, gets his M1, If he stays in the same job on the same aircraft for the required time for rating addition, and fills out the same tasks again in a new log, he can get his M2.

 

This is the way it was explained to me by one particular TC inspector.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You do. 'THEY' made the yellow companys 212 engineers obtain an M2. Bit of a scramble for a while.

 

 

I was there when that came about, Splitpin, but as some have mentioned above, it seemed to be at the whim of the local Airworthiness inspector.. It was then that I asked them to explain how M/R removal/installation on 212 was different than task on 205... he of course looked around and mumbled about CAR's ect. As usual, TC is not much use for anything.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe you should have taken a hard copy of CAR's and gave him a good smack with it. It states in black and white that with a M1 OR M2 you can sign a Maintenance Release for ANY turbine powered helicopter.

As has been stated in the thread previously, it would seem that some individuals at Transport do not even know how to interpret there own rules and regulations. I am in the process of getting my M2 done as a few employers require it. why is there such a discrepancy even between regions of the governing body. Does not really make one confident in how we are being watched and regulated. too funny.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...