Talk:Aircraft maintenance engineer/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Origin of the AME - Aeronautical Ground Engineer - British Empire 1919

The Modern AME arose from the the British Aerial Navigation Act of 1919 and the Regulations issued by its authority - regulations and orders which preceded the signing of the International Convention on Aerial Navigation.[1]

The British Aerial Navigation Act of 1920: 1) asserted absolute sovereignty over all parts of His Majesty's dominions and adjacent waters, 2) provided for the application of the International Convention by Order in Council to internal flying, 3) provided for the regulation of civil flying and the supplementing of the Convention, as necessary, by general safety regulations.

Both the British Aerial Navigation Acts of 1919 and 1920 detailed the requirements for the Airworthiness of Aircraft registered within the British Empireas follows: "In order that an aircraft may receive a certificate of airworthiness: its design, including the design of its components, must be approved as satisfying the requirements of safety in regard to both strength and stability; it must be constructed of approved materials and by workmanship of approved quality, and its engine must be approved.

In order that such certificate of airworthiness may be valid on any particular occasion, the aircraft must: be examined before flight and be periodically overhauled by a competent person duly licensed; be so loaded that its total weight does not exceed a given maximum, and its centre of gravity must be situated within certain given limits.

If the application for a certificate of airworthiness is in respect of a type aircraft, the inspection was carried out by representatives of the Aeronautical Inspection Directorate, and, in addition, drawings and particulars were required to be furnished to the Director of Research, as will enable him to approve the design.

In the case of subsequent aircraft constructed by a firm whose inspection is approved, sole responsibility lies with the Aeronautical Research Directorate, the constructor insuring that the conditions governing the inspection of type aircraft are applied to subsequent aircraft.

A certificate of airworthiness of an aircraft registered within the British Empireis not valid unless the aircraft concerned was regularly inspected by a licensed "aeronautical ground engineer"[2]

CanadianAME (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabri30chisrich#page/46/mode/2up
  2. ^ https://archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabri30chisrich#page/46/mode/2up/search/Ground+Engineer

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Title

Should the article title be capitalised? That is to say, is it normally capitalised in running text? (See WP:TITLEFORMAT). I have not checked every country involved, but the Canadian regulator does not capitalise it and the UK regulator uses the term more or less descriptively. On the other hand, the Irish regulator does capitalise it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

So it seems official sources disagree. I guess we could ask how we deal with similar career titles? - Ahunt (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 26 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

– Per MOS:JOBTITLES and MOS:DOCTCAPS (and WP:NCCAPS more generally), and to be WP:CONSISTENT with around 99% of occupational article titles. This is not a proper name, it's an occupational descriptive phrase. N-grams show that the lower-case form dominates in source material [1] . This is most often capitalized in marketing materials for training programs, in governmentese documents, on business cards, and in other situations in which over-capitalization runs rampant. There are a number of other occupational articles like this that need down-casing, but experience tends to show these topics should be taken in clumps not a huge mass-move).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment. There is a related discussion at Talk:Aircraft maintenance technician#Merge with Aircraft Maintenance Engineer? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. There is a distinction between a job description and a professional qualification or title. This is made very clear in the style guides referred to; please read them properly before invoking them here. One example given is the distinction between the office of president of the US and the incumbent's title as President of the US. Another is the use of republican to denote a political creed but Republican to denote a particular political party of that name. As an article-based example here, we have one on the military rank of sergeant major and also many specific articles, typically nationality-based, on capitalised Sergeant Major of the Army, etc. Turning to the present proposal, it is internationally recognised by the ICAO that the aircraft maintenance technician, engineer and mechanic are synonymous, so one lower-case article is sufficient to cover all of them. But the nationally-based professional qualifications and accompanying titles of the capitalised Aircraft Maintenance Technician, Aircraft Maintenance Engineer and so on differ, just as the roles and responsibilities of the qualified AME differ between Canada and most other Commonwealth nations. To take just one example, the Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (Canada) is qualified to carry out the tasks of the aircraft maintenance engineer, technician or mechanic, but may or may not do so; the Canadian AME's principal responsibility is to approve such works as airworthy, on behalf of the relevant government minister. By contrast the American AMT carries out exactly the same work but must defer to a Designated Airworthiness Representative – Maintenance (DAR-T) or other delegated appointee for certification. Capitalisation is how the professional world maintains these distinctions in text when it needs to, which is not that often - hence the misleading stats gathered by the OP. Subjective rhetoric over "needing" to "correct" endless articles sadly displays an editorial PoV bias which fails to respect the very guidelines it cites. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
So why doesn't Transport Canada capitalize? Or here? Or the other cited sources? Dicklyon (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
On this encyclopedia MOS:JOBTITLES, MOS:DOCTCAPS and WP:NCCAPS take precedence over Transport Canada's editorial style from 19 years ago. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I presume that edition is still current. Steelpillow, if you want the title to refer to the certification, the article title will need to express this directly; e.g., "Aircraft Maintenance Engineer Certificate". But your case is further disadvantaged in that there's no single, international certificate. The term is generic. Tony (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC) Also, please note MOS: no hyphen after "-ly" adverbs. You have a bet each way just above. Tony (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The Aviation Wikiproject has been notified of this discussion on its talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Support per cited sources and more. The first, most-cited ref, on the Canadian one that defines this license, says "The standards set out in this Division apply in respect of aircraft maintenance engineer (AME) licenses issued pursuant to CAR 403.03." The capitalized form is found there only in title-case headings. Similarly, in the main article this ref says "An aircraft maintenance engineer (AME) is a licensed person who carries out and certifies aircraft maintenance." and "A licensed aircraft maintenance engineer (L-AME) is an AME with an inspection authorization." Wikipedia uses sentence case for titles, per WP:NCCAPS. The cited sources clearly show that capitalization is not necessary. Dicklyon (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:NCCAPS, "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name" (my bold). MOS:JOBTITLES and MOS:DOCTCAPS give examples of such proper names, as I already pointed out above. Cherry-picking from our MOS to support an editorial PoV is not acceptable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
These job titles / certification titles are clearly not proper names. It's important to understand the linguistic definition of a proper name. I also don't see support for capping these titles in MOS:JOBTITLES or MOS:DOCTCAPS. The "formal title" part of MOS:JOBTITLES is for "a specific entity", i.e. a title held by only one person at a time, such as the president or prime minister or secretary of state of a specific country or the pope (i.e. office-holder as pre-eminent leader of a specific religion), the governor of a specific place or the mayor of a specific city, not a job title or certification concurrently held by thousands of people. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Requested move of associated dab. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support (see my reasons above). Tony (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per MOS:JOBTITLES, which is clear on this point. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - per JOBTITLES. Primergrey (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support – MOS:JOBTITLES does not say to uppercase these, and the sources do not do so consistently in practice per Dicklyon. Since we have Wikipedia style policies & guidelines, we should either follow them or change them, not decide not to follow them without any coherent and convincing rationale for doing so. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - per JOBTITLES. This is a category of engineers and therefore intrinsically not a proper name (proper noun). Cinderella157 (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment To expand on my previous comments, treating all these titles as synonyms is unhelpful. The International Civil Aircraft Authority notes that (lower-case) terms such as aircraft maintenance engineer, aircraft maintenance technician and aircraft mechanic are all synonymous. It leaves individual nations to call them what they will. Nobody is arguing against that. But the roles and responsibilities of some licensed engineers are wider than others. For example the Canadian AME combines the roles of the American AMT (technician) and DAR-T (appointed inspector). We need some way to disambiguate these article titles, and capitalisation is one simple option. Meanwhile, the Transport Canada example given above is no overly helpful. The professional association of Aircraft Maintenance Engineers of Canada (AMEC) does capitalise the licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. There is an ongoing issue between TC and AMEC over the status of their AMEs, mostly unpublished but here is a useful background document. In short, all these one-liner opinions here which fail to discuss, or even acknowledge, such issues are not helpful in reaching a balanced conclusion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the lack of capitalization indicates "treating all these titles as synonyms". Any ambiguity is going to be inherent in the terms themselves, regardless of whether they are capitalized or not on Wikipedia, and any necessary disambiguation would need to be accomplished within the article or in parentheticals. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
You are right it doesn't. But what does is the ICAO standard treating them explicitly as synonyms. See for example the ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices, Annex 1 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation: Personnel Licensing, Chapter 4. Licenses and Ratings for Personnel Other than Flight Crew Members.[2]: "4.2 Aircraft maintenance (technician/engineer/mechanic) Note.— The terms in brackets are given as acceptable additions to the title of the licence. Each Contracting State is expected to use in its own regulations the one it prefers." — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
The case where someone is trying to use capitalization to indicate some kind of "officialness" or special meaning is a common controversy around here, and it is not hard to find examples of article titles that use such capitalizations. But I think there is basically no support for that in the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, at least unless it can be shown that a term is consistently capitalized in independent reliable sources. Declarations by authorities, such as governments or certifying institutions, are usually not persuasive. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. No good reason whatsoever to capitalise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Canadian Aviation Regulations

The Aircraft Maintenance Engineers qualification and license were instituted in Canada in 1920 when the Canadian Air Regulations introduced Air Engineers and Air Engineer certificates into Canadian Aeronautics law Canadian Air Regulations 1920 see https://archive.org/details/AirRegulationsCanada1920/page/n9/mode/1up 50.99.209.171 (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aircraft_maintenance_engineer/Archive_2&oldid=1178590249"