Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/A.I.R Engineer

Should Not be deleted
the information is valid and should be identified as a precursor - at the very least - to the current AME - Canada.

As a wikipedia editor of his what appears to be his own article on the AME I would like to request that AHunt not be alowed to arbitrarily delete any information or influence others on the subject and that a higher wikipedia editor or administrator be brought in to over see the discussion as well as review the material.

the Subject and topic of the AME is one that is very involved and a complete picture must be understood of the evolution of their role and responsibility as a representative of the State to inspect and certify aircraft. Principle to the terminology is that the subject matter is evolved from Government Administrative Law.. First in the Military, and subsequently into the civilian realm.

A fundamental rule is to "lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner"... having an Editor - who appears from the histoical edits on the pages relating to the AME as having a vested interest in providing as little information as possible, unless it meets with his viewpoint  -  arbitrarily deleting or redirecting articles he takes umbrage with and which results in visible talk / discussion, being curtailed should not be allowed.

"editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved.

This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about."

The entire point of putting the information into the view of the majority is that every person can see and comment on it.

An encyclopedia's sole point and purpose is to identify and define a subject.. without having an y of the historical development of the subject presented a skewed view of the current ideology therefore results.

I would request that the articles on the AME (non-licenced as well as licenced) be required to either have links to the original term / subject - where that subject is completely identified, or that the time line and developmental roles be included as required substantiating material for the current term.

I am in no way trying to "further my own ends" however I am trying to get as much information into the view of all so that a full and complete comprehension of the AME is able to be undertaken.

CanadianAME (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC) CanadianAME

re: The refs are all inaccessible and so subject cannot be verified and the article cannot be turned into an encyclopedia article by normal editing.
The issues are many...

One of the significant ones is that the material from the Canada Gazette is available, however from there the researcher must delve deeper into the archive using keyword searches and then sorth thru the items identified by that search - a very labourious task. The resulting information reference is buried within an archival retrieval system that will not pull other than the front page of the archive if I try and use it as a source reference. The Canada Gazette references are valid and these are from the "Official Record of the Government of Canada".

I have been able to pull them as PDF files - selerate PDF files but which then have no link to the original database...

When this information in PDF format has been identified and tried to be uploaded it gets deleted.

Similarly, the same occurs with the UK archive records, notwithstanding the BOTS that are loose in the system that optically review the cown publications and then remove / delete them even though the documents are older than 50 years - and were also issued for the refernece of all - and are considered "Fair Use" materials...

Numerous sources of reference for the AME from it's infancy to today are also identified as being from "Flight Global" and that source's historical archive "FLIGHT & the Aircraft Engineer" or simply "Flight".. again there are rarely direct links available to the specific page. On 02 January 1909 Stanley Spooner started publishing "FLIGHT" as “A Journal devoted to the Interests, Practice; and Progress of Aerial Locomotion and Transport”,

FLIGHT was originaly registered at the G.P.O as a “Newspaper” (hence the material is "in the public view") and FLIGHT was the 1st Weekly aircraft news publication in the World. The founder and editor of FLIGHT from 1909-1934 was Mr.Stanley Spooner - aeronautical journalist (dob:1855- dod:1940)

This newspaper still exists and is a world recognised source of aviation information both in digital and print format from 1909 onwards..

FLIGHT has chronicled and indexed numerous significant as well as what some deem "minor" events in British and international aeronautics:
 * records,
 * races,
 * aero meets and displays,
 * trade shows,
 * new aircraft,
 * technical developments;
 * Photographs
 * 3-view drawings, cut-away drawings & detailed views of cockpits and components
 * Royal Aeronautical Society lectures;
 * private flight
 * flying clubs ,
 * airports ,
 * military aviation
 * commercial aviation
 * Personalities and Key figures
 * British and Commonwealth Government regulatory information
 * Royal Aeronautical Society meeting minutes

CanadianAME (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC) CanadianAME (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The topic may be notable.....
Re: The topic itself may be notable but appears to be covered already at Aircraft maintenance engineer (Canada). Rebbing 21:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

What Rebbing probably does not understand is that substantial changes in the scope of the duties and licencing for AIR Engineers that came to be introduced by the Canadian Government post the 1988 Air Ontario - Dryden inquiry by the Honourable Virgil P. Moshansky's Commission (Vol 3) have had a significant impact on the how AME's are viewed, trained and regulated in Canada today.

The AIR Engineer was not a mechanics' licence - it was a specialst course of education that a person who MAY have been a mechanic undertook in order to be granted delegated authority from the Minister of Defence between 1919 to 1968/70 as a "Private" inspection representative of the Canadian Minsiter of Transport. Removal of those educational requirements and the awareness of the "Licenced AME" as being a Minister's Delegate was and still is a part of the "dismantling" of the Canadian Airworthiness Inspection system.

Beginning in 1970, changes were made to the structure of Transport Canada (namely the partial adoption of the US-FAA regulations which was a ″1981 recommendation of the Dubin Inquiry for the adoption by Canada of the United States design and operating rules as a model for the Canadian regulatory framework.″ identified in pages 859 and 1000 of Vol.3 of the Moshansky Commission report during the initial attempt to harmonize the FAA / JAA / UK-CAA and TCCA regulations) which resulted in the substantial removal of a great part of this delegated authority.

CanadianAME (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC) CanadianAME (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Re : a bit of a disaster..

with reference to the comment : Aircraft Maintenance Engineer but as that article is a bit of a disaster it might be hard to add anything that makes sense. MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC).

This is a very important point... The entire concept and understanding of the "AME" as a trades person and the "Licenced AME" in the role of civil aviation safety inspector is a disaster... and the seeds of destruction go a long way back..

It is with this very realisation in mind that people need to do as much as possible to completely and accurately define and document these 2 concepts from their initial conceptualisation to where they are today.

I had in fact uploaded a table that helped to set the terminology straight - and .. it was deleted....

It is frustrating that information which is pertinent and crucial to the understanding of these 2 roles (1 - "AME" and 2 - the "Licenced AME") and their distinctive levels of training and required awareness of what they accomplish (even when the person may hold both trypes of training and these persons collectively call themselves "AME's -with no distinction of the role being indicated) is continually marginalised, ignored, sidelined, deleted...

This issue is further compounded by the use of the terms in conjunction to one another by persons who do not know of or fully comprehend what the "AME" is without clearly identifying their unique purposes within the scope of maintaining the technical airworthiness of an aircraft.

The two roles, and in many instances the 2 seperate licence types are:

Role 1 - AME as a trades person:
 * Aircraft Maintenance Mechanic/Technician (Unlicensed AME) : This is an ICAO Type II Licence to "Perform Maintenance” : The equivalent of the FAA “A&P" mechanic
 * technicien d'entretien d'aéronef (sans permis I.S.E.A ou “T.E.A non Breveté”) : Ce est un licence OACI type II à "Effectuer la Maintenance” : L’équivalent de la FAA "A & P” mécanicien

Role 2 - Licenced AME" in the seperate role of "Private" civil aviation safety inspector:
 * This is an ICAO Type I Licence to "Inspect and Certify maintenance” for return to serive as well as inspect and certify as "Air-worthy" when needed for flight permits/flight authority, Major Modification and repair embodiment : This person is the equivalent of the FAA "A&P mechanic with an FAA I.A Certificate"
 * Ce est une licence OACI type I "inspecter et certifier la maintenance” : Cette personne possède l'équivalent de la FAA "A & P mécanicien avec un certificat FAA IA”

as a general idea of the merging of the roles and terms of reference pls see Termium - Aircraft Maintenance Engineer

CanadianAME (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC) CanadianAME (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Ref to the (Canadian) Air Board (and the AIR Engineer in Canada)
re Properly referenced some information could be added to Air Board (Canada). by Samf4u (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

If this can be done, along with the different departments and authorities of the air board it would helo to substantially improve the comprehension of the AME of today as compare to the AIR Engineer from the Air Board days..

If you are willing to read my data, please let me know - I have substantial information on the Air Board and it's structure from 1919 onwards.

Email me pls! CanadianAME (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

re : Original research - delete by Kudpung
Re Original research. by Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

this is NOT original research .. instead it is bringing what was once COMMON knowledge of our forebears to the eyesight of those who have lost sight of the information today.

Those of our elders who recorded this information deserve to have their information remembered and not forgotten. If we forget the memory of our ancestpors we are doomed to repeat it again.

Do not call for delete out of hand - read and understand the scope and breadth of the issue.

CanadianAME (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)