Bus,
I understand what you are saying, or at least I think I do. You see it as unfair that a pilot can be allowed to carry out any engineering task without jumping through all the hoops that are required of an engineer. Please correct me if I am wrong. To a greater degree I agree with you.
However, as I said before, the authorisation (at least my own authorisation was quite specific) only allows for a pilot to carry out specific minor tasks that he has been specifically trained to do. His competence must be confirmed and signed off by an authorised engineer on an annual basis.
Genghis, a pilot is NOT allowed to carry out any troubleshooting or rectification of any defect other than carrying out those relatively minor things in his authorisation.
For example: Defect - starboard nav light not working. Pilot is authorised to replace the bulb. If replacing the bulb with a known serviceable one doesn't cure the fault, he isn't allowed to troubleshoot or touch the wiring. An engineer must then carry out any further work.
Although I do see myself as quite competent for more than the tasks required of me, I didn't particularly like carrying them out. I did it because it was quite normal with that employer, where there was no engineering support on site because of the way the contract had been made. In an ideal world, of course, I would much rather have an engineer drive 120 miles to change a lightbulb for me, especially at midnight...
The tyre changing wasn't applicable as our aircraft had skids!
As already mentioned, some pilots might not be skilled enough to carry out certain tasks. I think that is an individual problem that should be caught if the training is carried out correctly. If the pilot can't be trusted to do the task, then he shouldn't be signed off as competent. I have to say that I have known some pretty ham-fisted engineers in my time, too; I have worked with good and bad and occasionally knew I could have done a neater job myself.
I have to ask the question: Are any of you worried about pilots making engineers jobs less secure? I don't think you need to worry on that score. At present, a pilot's auth. ceases as soon as he moves to a new employer or fails to be annually re-auth'ed for any other reason. If, as Bus 429 would seem to prefer, pilots were to be given an engineering licence/qualification as it seems you are suggesting, it might be another matter. An organisation could then make it a requirement for a pilot to hold an "A" licence or engineering "type rating" as a pre-condition of employment and use it as an excuse to reduce their engineering establishment.
In any event, it would be totally impractical to put a pilot off-line for a year in order for him to satisfy the terms of an "A" licence.
I think it better all round that the situation is left as it is. If not, aviation is suddenly going to become even more expensive than it is now, which will be worse for all of us <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
(My edit is due to spelling mistakes, which only got noticed after posting).
[ 19 January 2002: Message edited by: ShyTorque ]</p>