EASA Part 66 related question and would appreciate a mean of contacting EASA
I've tried to contact EASA on their general inquires email but it's either gonna take forever OR they just weren't interested into replying me, therefore obviously if you have a mean of contacting them please help.
I'm an EASA TB1.1 graduate.My question is regarding the 6 weeks OJT requirement.
1.Can I complete my OJT in any 145 AMO or does it have to be approved by my previous 147 MTO.
Question 2 is only in the case where answer to Q1 came negative. 2.Between the 6 weeks experience requirement and the 2 years experience licensing requirement, do I have to them in this order? or could I start logging experience for my license and postpone my OJT until a more convenient timing.
I'd appreciate any help or clues.
Last edited by rookieaviator; 17th Dec 2011 at 17:12.
Reason: The previous was written in a hurry and wasn't clear enough
The peroration below was written in answer to the first post by the OP!
You are not alone in having this stunt (perhaps "criminal fraud") pulled on you by Part 147-approved Maintenance Training Organisations (MTO)......at least one British College was doing the same up to last year to my knowledge, on its own courses and ones it facilitated in another College, and perhaps still is.
The position is that if the EASA Part 147-approved MTO provides a fully-approved B1.1 course (see below), you should receive an EASA Basic Training Certificate (assuming you pass all the exams and assessments). The work experience then needed before you can apply for a licence is 2 years (apart from exceptions such a ex-military). Your BTC and log-book are what's needed.
Otherwise it's 5 years work experience, plus passing all the Module exams without any Practical training or assessments, or OJT. Your Module Examination Pass Certificates and log-book are what's needed.
To be fully-approved, a B1.1 course MUST be 2,400 hours minimum instruction, including 1200 hours Module subject teaching and exams, 800 hours of Practical Skills training in an approved training workshop, and 400 hours On-the-Job Training. The OJT must be structured and supervised, and cover all areas of the aircraft. It must be done under the Part 147 school's general management and supervision, under a contract between it and the Part 145 MRO to facilitate the OJT.
The difference in work experience requirements is because the extra 3 years is in lieu of the Practical and OJT that the fully-approved course includes.
It appears that the course provided by AA was not fully approved, because it did not include the OJT, quite apart from any other failings that you hint at. If that is so, then to be able to apply for a licence you will now have to carry out 5 years work experience. And in that case, not only is doing any OJT pointless now, but so was the Practical you probably did. (Pointless only from the rule-book point of view; probably very useful to learn the skills!)
If AA sold you a fully-approved B1.1 course, you did not get what you paid for. You should demand recovery of all the fees paid, plus compensation for the waste of time and effort. Do not accept a reduction just for the OJT; the rest of your money was also wasted on a course that was useless to you, and you now have to do 5 years work experience. You could have passed the Module exams during the 5-years by home study and just sitting the exams.
AA is regulated by EASA, I believe, not by any NAA as it is outside Europe. You should write formally to them (There is a Director of Training, or some such, Marcel Kompare last time I was there), but don't expect any coherent or prompt reply. Your best friend is a good lawyer in Australia to recover your money and get compensation as well.
PS Start logging your work NOW, get every entry signed off properly, and try and compile a log as far back as you can, if you can get it signed off by the right people. You are going to need this, whatever happens..
@Capot I did not see the "original" message. Anyway, as far I know, the school in Australia has been approved by the DGAC of France. In this case it would be the DGAC/OSAC should be addressed and not the EASA! Cheers easaman
Hmmm, not sure about that. The French DGAC cannot, if I have it right, issue an EASA approval outside France (unless contracted by EASA to do so on its behalf, which would be unlikely in Australia as opposed to a Francophone country), and as far as I know there is no such thing as a purely French approval (for a Basic Training School at least) in the sense that there once was before the French signed up to EASA along with everyone else.
Or is France operating 2 parallel regulatory systems? Anything's possible.
I was told that they were approved by the DGAC, maybe they were only audited by the DGAC. http://easa.europa.eu/approvals-and-...A_Part_147.pdf As you can see, there are a lot of different countries being approved by the DGAC! Delta Air Lines USA, Embraer Brazil, Israel, Jordan, Russia .... Cheers easaman
The legal responsibility for approving organisations is split between EASA and the Member States. Except for design organisations, which are all approved by EASA, the Member States are responsible for issuing approvals to organisations located within their territory. EASA is responsible for issuing approvals to all foreign organisations not located in the EC. EASA contracts the oversight of many of the organisations under their responsibility to the Member State competent authorities. EASA will always issue the approval certificate for the organisations that they are legally responsible for. EASA can also take responsibility for the approval of production organisations located in a Member State if requested to do so by that Member State. Basic Regulation (EC) No 218/2008 Article 20 refers.