Originally Posted by
morton
What is an Aircraft Engineer for that matter? Whether Service or Civilian, the word ‘Engineer’ has been the subject of much debate within Aviation. On the Civilian side we seemed to be OK holding an Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Licence under CAA legislation. Then JAA came along and muddied the water before EASA decreed that we had to be called Certifying Technicians for the Authorisations we held. Their rationale was that the position did not require a Degree and only someone holding a Degree could be called an Engineer.
If I remember correctly, some very experienced and capable people in the CAA who were on the JAA Board were denied similar positions on the EASA board because they did not have Degrees. It would be unfair to brand everybody on the EASA Board with the epithet of ‘has the knowledge to work out the cubic capacity of a tin of beans but lacks the ability to open it’. However, including someone who had got their hands dirty having done what others were theorising would have made a lot of sense and brought a more balanced discussion when introducing legislation.
I think the answer is that we are aligning ourselves with mainland Europe and tyre-kicker trades are mechanics or technicians whilst Engineering Officers remain as Engineers. However, the general public see those that do Engineering ‘stuff’ as Engineers and that is where the confusion lies.
I wasn’t that fussed about what I was called. As long as pay accounts got it right I was happy.
Morton – RAF Aircraft Fitter that changed to Technician; Civilian Aircraft Engineer that changed to Technician.
Ah yes, I remember well when the RAF, in its wisdom, introduced graduate Engineering Officers in the '60's, replacing, in the main, vastly experienced ex RAF Apprentice Engineering Officers, most of whom had spent years at the coalface learning their trade. For us Flight Engineers, it was not altogether a happy experience.