The reporter has raised a safety concern in relation to unqualified aircraft maintenance engineers at the operator's hangar in [Location], [State].
The reporter is concerned the operator has employed apprentice aircraft maintenance engineers (AMEs) from other countries, who are performing maintenance work on Australian-registered aircraft with no formally recognised Australian qualifications.
The reporter is further concerned that [Operator] does not currently have a full-time licenced aircraft maintenance engineer (LAME) working in [Location]. The reporter advised, [Operator] is currently flying in their two other LAMEs from other areas within Australia on a fly-in-fly-out (FIFO) two-week rotation.
The reporter queries the safety of both inconsistent supervision of the unqualified AMEs along with the general inconsistency of line maintenance being conducted by FIFO LAMEs.
Thank you for your correspondence dated 22/12/25 and for allowing sufficient time for a response.
In relation to this REPCON report, I have reviewed the matter and, as part of the assessment, spoke with the company [maintenance management personnel]. Based on this review, [Operator] can assure the ATSB that the allegations made by the reporter are not factual. We provide the information below to clarify the situation.
- At present, [Operator] ([Location]) employs 4 LAMEs, 3 AMEs, and 2 apprentices (with a further 2 apprentices to commence shortly) in the hangar on a full-time basis. In addition, there are 3 full-time line maintenance LAMEs based in [Location] who are available to support hangar operations when required.
- Two of the AMEs were recruited from overseas, where they were [foreign regulator]-qualified LAMEs, and are currently in the process of converting to Australian licences through an approved pathway and training organisation. At present, they act as AMEs under appropriate LAME supervision and do not certify maintenance.
- To meet surge maintenance demand, [Operator] engages two contract LAMEs who work back-to-back three-week FIFO rosters, as required to meet organisational needs. This is common practice in Australia. These individuals are fully inducted and are required to meet the same engineering training and approval standards as full-time employees. It is also worth noting that they have worked with [Operator] for many years and are a consistent part of the workforce.
As a CASA-approved Part 145 organisation, [Operator] ensures it is appropriately resourced and that maintenance activities are planned in detail to maintain safety and regulatory compliance.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the REPCON and the operator response. CASA notes that the concern raised in the REPCON is refuted by the operator in their response, however CASA will review the operator’s manpower planning in an upcoming oversight event with the identified operator.