Maintenance Authorities

[F.B.Eye]

I am having some difficulty in interpreting a recent proposed CASA decree. I have held an AME licence for a good many years and I like to think I am of average intelligence but the 122 pages of CAO100.66 and the 35 pages of AAC 9-66 has me confused. (I’m probably leaving myself open here!) Does any LAME out there have a logical or simplified explanation of what this legalistic gobbledegook is all about? What will current ratings be equivalent to – eg. a group 1 airframe?

[LeadSled]

F.B.Eye,

It's a daunting task, but you must wade through it, and don't rely on anybody else's interpretations. Please read it with an open mind, and do not read it looking for exact equivalents, it is not "the same old thing under a different name".

Just thank your lucky starts that it has come out as a CAO, and not as A-G regulations in the current "preferred style", otherwise you would have a real problem of comprehension.

The licensing is different, and largely compatible with EASA licenses.

Have fun??

Tootle pip!!

[SPARGO]

Well that certainly clears that up.

SPARGO Craic

[Hasherucf]

Here's my understanding of it.

B1.1 Fixed wing with turbine engine
B1.2 Fixed wing with piston engine
B1.3 Helicopter with turbine engine
B1.4 Helicopter with piston engine

B2 is Electrical, Instrument and Radio

B3 is a stop gap for the GA market as EASA doesnt have a current license for this. It seems a bit of nonsense

"Note: The joint team is considering the need for a maintenance licence specifically forthe general aviation sector not appropriately catered for by the EASA licence ratings.Such a licence (proposed ‘B3’) would be restricted to aeroplanes below 5,700kg and helicopters below 3,175kg MTOW. The scope of this licence is not yet confirmed but is likely to be variable and would be dependant on the training undertaken to support a
specific licence result. The team will be further exploring this issue with industry."

The licensing is different, and largely compatible with EASA licenses.

Well not really the Australian EASA licenses are not valid in Europe and anyone coming here needs to get there European licenses converted ......for a fee :ok:.Its a big money grab as far as I see it.


I guess the question is should AME's now be doing exams like E.I and R as they are going to wipe out 28 CASA basics and replace them with :
Module 3 – Electrical Fundamentals
Module 4 – Electronic Fundamentals
Module 5 – Digital Techniques / Electronic Instrument Systems


Dont tell me that there not dumbing down the industry.

[F.B.Eye]

I’ve probably been a little critical of CASA but surely important regulations like AME licencing could be written in more easily understood language. The Americans seem to be able to write theirs in normal English and not in legalise.
What is wrong with the present system that needs changing? It has worked well for a long time.
From my observations it looks like CASA is outsourcing their responsibilities regarding licencing to the industry. This may be current business management behaviour but I feel it would be desirable to have a regulator that is strong, credible and knows what is going on in the fields. By outsourcing they lose control and respect.

[LeadSled]

The Americans seem to be able to write theirs in normal English and not in legalise. F.B Eye,
And the New Zealanders, and the Canadians, and most of Asia, and I don't have too much of a problem with the new EASA "rules", but as always, "Australia is the only soldier in the battalion in step".

As a former senior lawyer in CASA said: "Aviation law is for lawyer sand judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers".

Making your job easier and more certain, ie: not becoming an "inadvertent criminal"**, because you are not a lawyer, just a LAME trying to do an honest job, is not a consideration for a legal drafter.

Tootle pip!!
** "Lane" report, about 1986, this is not a new problem. "Lane" also coined the phrase: "The mystique of air safety" as a technique for bureaucrats to bamboozle pollies into the idea that they, the bureaucrats, were the exclusive custodian of the secret bureaucrat's business that caused aviation to be "safe".

PS: One of the intended outcomes was to be that the new license format would make the licenses acceptable on EASAland, likewise EASA licenses would be automatically acceptable for work on Australian aircraft. Whether that will be achieved is something for the future.

[Hasherucf]

What is wrong with the present system that needs changing? It has worked well for a long time.

Your right the system is fine as it is . Only thing that needs changing is to update the exams to something that reflects the current industry.

I think they are changing to EASA so CASA can further remove themselves from responsibilty . Seems in europe that B1/B2 licenses are more company approvals than government regulator issued.

Would love for someone in CASA to come out and answer questions on this or other forums about the intended EASA change over

[Ngineer]

I guess the question is should AME's now be doing exams like E.I and R as they are going to wipe out 28 CASA basics and replace them with :
Module 3 – Electrical Fundamentals
Module 4 – Electronic Fundamentals
Module 5 – Digital Techniques / Electronic Instrument Systems




Definately not EIR, I think that major Australian airlines will be trying to cut costs over the coming years by running all ops with B1's. There is very little that a B1 cannot sign.

Any Avionic apprentice or young lad has , unfortunately, very little future ahead. An eng/airframe guy can go from never having worked Avionics in his life, to signing practically the whole aircraft in next to no time. (with the old Avionic LAME being sidelined).

Don't shoot the msngr, this is the law. And one that will no doubt be used and abused.

[Hasherucf]

Nice concept on CASA's part . Less training = Greater safety :ok:

[tail wheel]

F.B.Eye:
I’ve probably been a little critical of CASA but surely important regulations like AME licencing could be written in more easily understood language. The Americans seem to be able to write theirs in normal English and not in legalise.
What is wrong with the present system that needs changing? It has worked well for a long time.
From my observations it looks like CASA is outsourcing their responsibilities regarding licencing to the industry. This may be current business management behaviour but I feel it would be desirable to have a regulator that is strong, credible and knows what is going on in the fields. By outsourcing they lose control and respect.

We'll have none of that simple, logical, common sense here, thanks! :=

Leadsled:
As a former senior lawyer in CASA....

If that is who I think it is, I heard he'd returned to CASA? True?

[satmstr]

hey Ngineer, thats the funniest thing i have heard all day that "Any Avionic apprentice or young lad has , unfortunately, very little future ahead" ..... if you go and have a look at Europe at the moment they are always advertising for B2 Lic personnel ... so can you explain to me how it will be any different here?? Also B1 are not allowed to use any specialized equipment and that is how i interpret the current EASA Regs and the proposed CASA 100.66..so i dont think the avionics side is going to die out anytime soon:ok:

[LeadSled]

Tailwheel,
The answers are yes and "sort of" --- lurking in the background like some malevolent Svengali --- mentoring the current generation --- said to be working for the A-G's OLDP.
Tootle pip!!

[Arnold E]

satmstr
Please tell me ( because I am obviously not switched on) how a 5 CAT engineer is not being undermined by a B1 & a B2 engineer:confused::confused:

Or can anyone else, tell me, for that matter

[Hasherucf]

How is radio training dealt with . As far as I was told there is only 1 topic concerning radio theory . Is it more company based training ?


Alan Siegel: Let's simplify legal jargon! | Video on TED.com (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/alan_siegel_let_s_simplify_legal_jargon.html)

BTW here's a good talk on simplify legal jargon