5 A&P Engineer Interview Questions and Answers

Introduction

This question gauges your attention to detail, adherence to FAA regulations, and problem-solving process—skills critical for junior A&P mechanics who must catch and correct safety issues before aircraft return to service.

How to answer

• Use the STAR method: Situation, Task, Action, Result
• Specify the aircraft type (e.g., Boeing 737-800) and system affected (hydraulics, flight controls, etc.)
• Reference the exact FAR or maintenance manual chapter you followed
• Explain how you documented the discrepancy and obtained approval for the repair
• Quantify the safety or downtime impact (e.g., 'prevented a potential grounding event')

What not to say

• Vague statements like 'I fixed it' without citing the manual or regulatory steps
• Blaming another technician or shift; focus on the solution, not the fault
• Skipping paperwork or inspection sign-off details
• Exaggerating the severity of the issue without evidence

Example answer

“During a 100-hour inspection on a Cessna 172, I found a 1-inch longitudinal crack on the engine mount bracket. I immediately tagged the aircraft, referenced FAA AC 43.13-1B for acceptable repair limits, and consulted the maintenance manual. After our DER approved a welded reinforcement, I completed the repair, documented it in the logbook, and cleared the grounding. The aircraft returned to service two days ahead of schedule, avoiding an estimated $8,000 in lost rental revenue.”

Introduction

This situational question tests your practical knowledge of aircraft weighing procedures, use of load cells, and data validation—core tasks for a junior A&P ensuring correct weight & balance data.

How to answer

• State the first safety step: chock the wheels and verify the aircraft is level per AMM
• Explain cross-checking scale calibration certificates and zeroing procedures
• Describe swapping load cells between compartments to isolate a faulty cell
• Outline averaging multiple readings and applying the aircraft’s weighing formula in the W&B spreadsheet
• Stress documentation in the weight & balance log and notifying engineering if the discrepancy exceeds allowable limits

What not to say

• Guessing which scale is right without any cross-check
• Ignoring the aircraft leveling requirement
• Forgetting to enter the corrected weight in the aircraft records
• Continuing with the heavier reading 'just to be safe' without analysis

Example answer

“I would first re-level the aircraft and re-zero both scales per Embraer AMM 8-20-00. Next, I’d swap the aft and forward load cells; if the 200 lb offset moves with the cell, the cell is defective and we’ll replace it. If the offset stays with the compartment, I’d check for interference or cable pinch. After three consistent readings within ±5 lb, I’d average them, update the W&B spreadsheet, and file the report. Any deviation beyond ±30 lb would trigger an engineering review per our manual.”

Introduction

This motivational question assesses long-term commitment to aviation maintenance, safety culture fit, and alignment with company growth paths such as specialist, inspector, or engineer roles.

How to answer

• Share a personal story that sparked your passion for aviation (e.g., first flight, family mentor)
• Connect your motivation to safety and precision, not just fixing machines
• Mention specific certifications you plan to earn (IA, NDT, avionics)
• Show you understand the career ladder: A&P → Lead → Inspector → Engineer or Management
• Express willingness to keep learning and mentoring others as you advance

What not to say

• Focusing on paycheck or overtime as the main driver
• Stating you want to leave the hangar floor 'as soon as possible'
• Having no plan or saying 'I’ll see what happens'
• Underestimating the physical demands or shift work of the role

Example answer

“Watching my uncle ferry restored Warbirds inspired me to enroll in A&P school. I’m energized by knowing every torque stripe I sign keeps families safe at 35,000 ft. In five years I aim to hold an Inspection Authorization, lead a narrow-body heavy-check team, and start a part-time degree in aerospace engineering so I can eventually certify major repairs as a DER. I see this junior role at Delta TechOps as the ideal place to build that foundation under seasoned mentors.”

Introduction

This question assesses your ability to handle high-pressure technical setbacks while maintaining certification schedules and airworthiness standards.

How to answer

• Use STAR to describe the fatigue finding, its criticality, and safety implications
• Explain how you led root-cause analysis (e.g., strain-gauge testing, FEM correlation)
• Detail the design modification (material change, doublers, load-path redistribution) and certification justification
• Describe cross-functional coordination with stress, interiors, flutter, and certification teams
• Quantify schedule recovery and any weight/cost impact while keeping the Type Certification baseline

What not to say

• Blaming manufacturing or suppliers without owning the engineering fix
• Vague statements like 'we strengthened it' without technical specifics
• Ignoring FAA interaction or failing to mention compliance to Part 25.571
• Omitting lessons learned or risk-mitigation for future programs

Example answer

“On the Gulfstream G700 program, late full-scale fatigue testing revealed a 12 % life shortfall on the aft pressure bulkhead. I led a tiger team that instrumented the test article, correlated FEM load paths, and traced the issue to a local bending spike from a cutout. We designed a bonded boron-epoxy doubler, validated via coupon and element tests, and negotiated an AMOC with the FAA in six weeks. The fix added only 0.8 lb and allowed certification to remain on schedule.”

Introduction

This evaluates your systems-level thinking, data-driven decision making, and ability to defend material choices that drive program cost and performance.

How to answer

• Define evaluation criteria: weight, manufacturing cost, recurring cost, damage tolerance, maintainability, recyclability, certification risk
• Describe analytical tools: FEM weight trade, NPV cost models, LCA for sustainability, MRB data for repairability
• Present a weighted decision matrix with sensitivity analysis
• Include supply-chain and rate-capacity considerations (e.g., 60 ships/month)
• Close with a clear recommendation, risk-mitigation plan, and next validation gate

What not to say

• Basing the choice solely on academic weight savings without cost context
• Ignoring airline-operating implications (ramp damage, inspection intervals)
• Overlooking producibility at high volumes or long-lead capital equipment needs
• Failing to discuss end-of-life recycling or regulatory trends

Example answer

“I structured a RICE-based trade study for a 180-seat fuselage. Using internal cost models and NASTRAM optimization, Al-Li saved 400 kg versus baseline 2xxx series, while CFRP saved 700 kg but added $1.2 M per shipset in capex. At 60 aircraft/month, NPV over 3,000 units favored Al-Li by $180 M and avoided autoclave bottlenecks. I recommended hybrid Al-Li with composite crown for antenna windows; this balanced weight, cost, and rate, and aligns with Boeing’s 737 successor road-map.”

Introduction

This tests your leadership, change-management, and communication skills when introducing disruptive technology in a unionized environment.

How to answer

• Acknowledge workforce concerns (job security, skill erosion, safety) early and openly
• Present data on ergonomic benefits, quality improvements, and potential upskilling (robot programmer roles)
• Propose a phased pilot with joint evaluation metrics (FOD reduction, repeatability, injury rates)
• Secure union partnership via a tech-implementation committee and training budget
• Close with a feedback loop and clear KPIs that highlight shared gains

What not to say

• Dismissing union worries as 'resistance to change'
• Focusing only on corporate ROI without employee benefits
• Threatening layoffs or mandatory adoption timelines
• Over-promising automation results without pilot validation

Example answer

“At Spirit AeroSystems I introduced a KUKA robotic cell for wing skin fastening. I met IAM local 839 reps, shared ergonomic assessments showing a 70 % reduction in repetitive-strain incidents, and proposed a 90-day pilot where volunteers were trained as robot technicians. By co-authoring success criteria—0.3 mm positional accuracy and 15 % takt-time reduction—we gained union endorsement, expanded from 1 to 6 cells, and redeployed affected mechanics to higher-skill quality roles with a 12 % pay premium.”

Introduction

This question tests your technical judgment and ability to navigate complex airworthiness decisions that affect safety, schedule, and cost.

How to answer

• Start with the safety and airworthiness risks you identified during the heavy check
• Explain how you referenced FAA regulations, OEM documentation, and engineering delegations
• Detail your root-cause analysis and collaboration with structures, systems, and maintenance teams
• Describe the engineering authorization you issued (e.g., Boeing 737-800 RDR, Airbus A320 ECR) and any DER/ODA approval obtained
• Quantify the impact: hours saved, grounding time avoided, cost savings, and continued airworthiness ensured

What not to say

• Saying you simply deferred the issue without engineering substantiation
• Ignoring regulatory and liability implications
• Failing to mention coordination with OEMs or the FAA
• Using acronyms without explaining them

Example answer

“On a Delta 737-900 heavy check we found corrosion on the wing rear spar that exceeded the Structural Repair Manual limits but did not align with the published allowables. I led a cross-functional team to perform a damage-tolerance analysis per FAR 25.571, referencing Boeing’s NDT manual and consulting our DER. We developed a blended repair doubler, gained FAA approval via an ODA structural repair memo, and returned the aircraft 36 hours sooner than a spar replacement would have required, saving $1.2 M while maintaining full airworthiness.”

Introduction

This evaluates your leadership, communication, and process-improvement skills in a high-stakes, unionized maintenance environment.

How to answer

• Describe how you first verify that the instructions are clear, accurate, and compliant with human-factors principles
• Explain your approach to respectful, two-way feedback sessions with mechanics and union reps
• Detail any training aids you create—photos, videos, laminated quick cards—and how you validate them on the floor
• Show how you track leading metrics (first-time quality, AD compliance closure) and adjust the process
• Highlight a specific example where your changes eliminated repeat findings

What not to say

• Blaming mechanics without reviewing your own documentation
• Threatening disciplinary action as the first step
• Ignoring the union or maintenance culture
• Failing to mention continuous-improvement tools like 5 Whys or SMS

Example answer

“At United Airlines we had chronic rework on A320 flap-track fairing installs. I spent two shifts on the floor and discovered the manual mixed imperial and metric torque units. I revised the EO to include color photos, added a single-unit column, and held a 15-minute toolbox talk with IAM reps. First-time quality rose from 72 % to 98 % within a month and no related delays were logged in the subsequent 200 installs.”

Introduction

Senior A&P engineers must drive innovation while proving safety and ROI; this question gauges your change-management and technical advocacy abilities.

How to answer

• Identify the limitation of the legacy process and set measurable goals (time, cost, accuracy)
• Explain the certification path: DER approval, FAA field approval, or OEM service bulletin
• Describe the pilot program scope, controls, and data you collected
• Detail how you secured buy-in from QA, production, and finance
• Close with quantifiable results and next steps for fleet-wide rollout

What not to say

• Pushing technology for its own sake without safety or business justification
• Overlooking regulatory approval requirements
• Failing to mention data that proves equivalency or superiority
• Ignoring cultural resistance or training needs

Example answer

“I led introduction of UV-cured composite patches on American Airlines 787 fuselage dents. After benchmarking GMI Aero’s system, I wrote a comparative test plan, gained DER approval via an FAA field approval, and ran a 10-aircraft pilot. We cut repair time from 14 to 4 hours and saved $250 k annually. I presented data at the MSG-3 Industry Steering Committee, paving the way for fleet-wide adoption and recognition from the airline’s VP of maintenance.”

Introduction

This question assesses your technical depth in airframe structures, adherence to FAA regulations, and leadership in safety-critical situations—core expectations for a Lead A&P Engineer.

How to answer

• Open with the aircraft type (e.g., Boeing 737-800), flight hours, and inspection interval to frame the severity
• Explain the non-destructive inspection (NDI) technique you used (eddy-current, ultrasonic, penetrant) and the exact finding—crack length, location, and proximity to critical joints
• Detail how you referenced the manufacturer’s SRM, consulted FAA AC 43-13, and initiated an Engineering Authorization (EA) or Form 337 if required
• Describe how you coordinated with the DER, quality assurance, and flight ops to establish a grounded aircraft timeline, parts procurement, and work-scope
• Quantify the outcome: hours saved, cost avoided, dispatch reliability improved, and any fleet-wide service bulletin you recommended
• Close with lessons learned and how you updated the airline’s Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System (CASS) program

What not to say

• Vague statements like 'we found a crack and fixed it' without dimensional or regulatory detail
• Claiming you deferred the finding without MEL relief or engineering sign-off
• Omitting team coordination—A&P leads must show cross-functional leadership
• Ignoring paperwork: logbook entries, AD compliance, and traceability are non-negotiable

Example answer

“During a 2,500-hour inspection on a United Airlines 737-800, I detected a 1.2-inch fatigue crack in the left lower wing skin at BS 540 with eddy-current. I immediately grounded the aircraft, opened an EA, and coordinated with our DER to size the repair per Boeing SRM 51-10-01. By sourcing a pre-preg doubler and scheduling two senior A&Ps on overtime, we returned the aircraft to service in 18 hours versus the 36-hour standard, saving $110,000 in lost revenue and prompting a fleet-wide ultrasonic inspection that caught two sister cracks before failure.”

Introduction

This evaluates your ability to develop talent while maintaining strict regulatory standards—an essential leadership competency for a Lead A&P Engineer at a part 121 carrier.

How to answer

• Outline a structured OJT plan aligned with FAA Advisory Circular 65-30B, including task-specific modules and graduated responsibility
• Explain how you would perform the first joint inspection, narrating each step of the 8130-3 / Form 337 package so the technician sees end-to-end traceability
• Describe shadowing rotations through structures, systems, and avionics bays to reinforce systems thinking
• Set measurable milestones: initial 100% inspection overlap, then 50%, then spot checks, with logbook review sessions after each shift
• Address human factors: teach the ‘dirty dozen’, encourage question-asking, and create a no-penalty self-disclosure culture
• Share how you measure success: reduction in non-routine cards, positive FAA audit findings, and the mentee’s first solo major repair sign-off

What not to say

• Handing them the logbook and saying 'just ask if you need help'—mentorship must be active
• Focusing only on technical skills while ignoring regulatory documentation training
• Implying that speed is more important than thoroughness; safety culture is paramount
• Neglecting to mention how you track progress and feedback loops

Example answer

“I pair new A&Ps with a 90-day roadmap. Week 1-2: shadow me on a Boeing 777 flap-pear strap replacement while I verbalize every torque value, safety-wire angle, and 8130-3 entry. Week 3-4: they perform the work while I observe and coach on human factors like complacency. By week 8 they sign off non-critical items; by week 12 a major repair under my signature. At Delta TechOps this cut repeat discrepancies by 30% and boosted first-attempt QA pass rate to 98%.”

Introduction

This situational question tests your real-time decision-making under 14 CFR 121 pressure, balancing safety, compliance, and operational recovery.

How to answer

• Immediately verify the MEL category and expiration time; if relief has lapsed, the aircraft is legally grounded
• Check AMMS / SAP for alternate part numbers, rotable pools, and AOG contacts; call the on-call buyer and contract repair stations within the first 5 minutes
• Simultaneously brief the crew chief, maintenance control center, and flight dispatch to trigger a delay notification and protect the departure slot
• If no part is available, initiate a tow to hangar plan and prepare a cancellation memo with commercial impact estimates for the station manager
• Document everything: update the non-routine log, create an IRB entry, and ensure the outgoing lead’s signature is captured to maintain accountability
• After the event, lead a post-mortem to update the critical spares min-max list and prevent recurrence

What not to say

• Approving a continuation flight under an expired MEL—this is an FAA violation
• Blaming the previous shift without focusing on immediate corrective action
• Ignoring communication with flight ops—passengers and crew must be notified promptly
• Failing to mention documentation; verbal hand-offs are insufficient for traceability

Example answer

“I confirmed the MEL 29-11 relief expired at 0200 and immediately grounded N884DN. I called our Atlanta rotable pool, located a serviceable pump in Memphis, and dispatched a company courier flight arriving at 0430. Meanwhile I coordinated with MCC to issue a 60-minute delay message, re-crewed the flight, and red-lined the logbook. The aircraft departed at 0530 with a 90-minute delay, avoiding a costly cancelation, and the subsequent CASS review led us to stock an additional hydraulic pump at outstations, cutting AOG events by 22%.”

Introduction

This question assesses your mastery of Japanese Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB) Part 43 maintenance rules, safety-critical decision-making, and your ability to balance fleet availability with zero-defect safety standards.

How to answer

• Open with the aircraft type (e.g., Boeing 787-8) and inspection phase (e.g., 6A check) to anchor the story
• State the exact defect (e.g., corrosion exceeding 10% of allowable limit on STA 420 frame) and show familiarity with the relevant Structural Repair Manual (SRM) chapter
• Explain your use of JCAB-approved decision trees (MEL vs. CDL vs. grounding) and any consultation with the aircraft manufacturer or JCAB MIDO office
• Outline the Risk Assessment process: severity, probability, exposure, and how you documented it in the operator’s Continuing Airworthiness Management Organization (CAMO) system
• Quantify the result: aircraft grounded for 38 hours, 17 flights cancelled, but prevented a potential Category 5 unsafe condition
• Close with lessons learned: updated airline’s Reliability Program to add ultrasonic inspection at next 500 FH interval

What not to say

• “I just called Tokyo and they told me to ground it” – shows no personal ownership of the decision
• Mixing FAA or EASA rules without acknowledging JCAB as the State of Registry authority
• Failing to mention the Maintenance Release Certificate (CRS) or how you amended it
• Using vague phrases like “it was bad corrosion” without citing allowable limits

Example answer

“During a 6A check on ANA’s JA823A 787-8, I found a 28 mm crack on the MLG beam fitting—above the 20 mm SRM 53-30-00 limit. After referencing JCAB AC 43-14 and our airline MCM, I initiated a Level 1 Safety Event, grounded the aircraft under JCAB MDR requirement, and opened an Emergency AD review. Working with Boeing AOG and JCAB MIDO, we approved a permanent SRM repair, completed it in 36 hours, and re-issued the CRS. The proactive grounding averted an estimated JPY 1.2 billion hull-loss exposure and led us to add HFEC inspections fleet-wide at 500 FH intervals.”

Introduction

This behavioral question gauges your ability to drive engineering change, use data analytics, and lead cross-functional teams in a high-utilization Japanese airline environment.

How to answer

• Use STAR: Situation (high APU oil-cooler repetitive defects), Task (reduce 400 MH per month), Action (root-cause FTA, SB adoption, tooling redesign)
• Specify data sources: Airbus World, your airline’s MSG-3 analysis, and JCAB reliability reports
• Highlight stakeholder management: buy-in from Line Maintenance, Planning, and Finance for ROI justification
• Quantify savings: 28% drop in non-routine cards, saving JPY 90 million annually and improving fleet dispatch reliability from 98.4% to 99.1%
• Note how you updated the Maintenance Program Document and trained 120 technicians via JAL University e-learning module

What not to say

• Claiming savings without before-and-after KPIs
• Ignoring human-factor or training aspects of the rollout
• Failing to reference Airbus or JCAB documentation
• Overlooking how the change was captured in the Reliability Control Board

Example answer

“While at JAL, APU oil-cooler leaks were driving 400 non-routine MH monthly on our A320neo fleet. I led an ISHIKAWA analysis that traced the issue to a supplier O-ring material change. We adopted Airbus SB 49-1132, designed a custom hydraulic test rig in-house, and updated the AMP to inspect every 800 FH instead of 1,200 FH. Over 12 months, non-routine cards dropped 28%, saving JPY 90 million and lifting dispatch reliability to 99.1%. The JCAB praised the initiative as a best-practice case study in their 2023 annual safety bulletin.”

Introduction

This leadership question tests your vision for safety management systems, mentorship, and generational change in a Japanese regulatory and cultural context.

How to answer

• Propose a 3-tier plan: leadership commitment, employee engagement, and continuous improvement aligned with JCAB SMS 2025 roadmap
• Describe specific rituals: monthly ‘Safety Hansei-kai’ where engineers present near-misses without blame, modeled after JR-East’s pointing-and-calling culture
• Explain metrics: set a KPI of <0.3 EHIR per 1,000 maintenance hours and link it to performance reviews
• Show tech integration: adopt electronic logbook with real-time JCAB reporting and AI anomaly detection that feeds into your Reliability Center
• Address generational gap: pair 20-year veterans with new JCAB-license holders in a ‘Sensei-Kohai’ digital mentoring program using VR cabin inspection simulations

What not to say

• Copy-pasting Western SMS models without acknowledging Japanese consensus-building (nemawashi) practices
• Ignoring the role of labor unions or the Maintenance Workers’ Association in Japan
• Focusing only on punishment rather than just-culture principles
• Omitting how you would measure and report progress to the JCAB

Example answer

“I would implement a JCAB Annex 19-compliant SMS centered on ‘Safety with Wa.’ First, gain union and management consensus through nemawashi sessions to approve a non-punitive hazard reporting policy. Next, launch a bilingual e-SMS portal where technicians can submit GFIs anonymously; AI will cluster issues and trigger ‘Safety Hansei-kai’ every month. We’ll track leading indicators like open hazard reports vs. closed ones and aim for a 20% YoY reduction in EHIR. Finally, create a VR training dojo at Haneda where junior engineers practice cabin fire inspections under senior mentors, blending traditional sensei-kohai respect with modern tech. This approach raised safety-reporting rates by 35% in my previous role and secured JCAB Level-1 SMS certification six months ahead of schedule.”