GotTheTshirt,
I get your point about studying harder 35 years ago, and I would never insinuate that you did not have to work hard for it, infact much harder than todays īLicences`, itīs just that I feel that the exam system that was in operation 35 years ago, refelected the standards/requirements of the maintenance programs in operation 35 years ago, and that in turn was based on the utilization of the aircraft at that period. I donīt belive you can compare ex. a A320 generation aircraft system with a ex. Fokker F27 or DC3. T0odays Aircraft are littered with `Black boxesī, and i donīt mean only in electrical systems, but also in mechanical systems (B737 spoilermixer ei.), therefor there is less requirement on a LICENCE course/exam to go into detail on these bits, as it is something you can do nothing about bar replacement, a desciption and the principals of how it does what it does is sufficient. I do however beliver that your basic licence (LWTR) should cover such things in depth, which leads me on to my next point Jar66.
I honestly belive that a raise in the standard of licences and approvals are needed, espacially in mainland europe, but I belive that until ALL engineers in europe are licenced to the same standard, and therefor able to freely move across borders, and thereby gain knowledge and experience from eachother, only then will we able to raise the standards. There is unfurtunately a lot of hidden nationalism and false pride among engineers when it comes to our licences. I know a lot of british engineers think that the scandinavian licence is a carte blanc because it covers all aircraft systems, and likewise a lot of scandinavians have this false image that just because our courses include all systems that we automatically know more than the rest of the world, in my opion, iregardless of your licence, there is no substitute for common sense and experience.
I could of course be wrong, and if anyone thinks I am, hey why not write an answer.
Brgds
Doc