Rigga
I think the UKCAA are the best at disguising when they DON'T play by the rules. The BA FAA AML/approvals-to-EASA Part 66 conversions in 2006 is just one example. EASA have findings directly linked to these conversions. These remain unresolved. Far too many EASA findings from all NAAs remain unresolved yet still the list gets bigger
....
I hope to obtain a letter soon that shows Sir Roy McNulty (UKCAA Chaiman) actually lying to a UK MP on the UKTSC about the existence of ANY conversions. For a level playing field and higher standards we supposedly promote, how can this be acceptable?
I remain absolutely unconvinced about EASA. I have learnt EASA has recently been 'forced' into taking action against a certain Airline/NAA - the outcome I'm sure we'll see in <6 weeks. Its hideous that it was 'FORCED' into action. EASA should have taken action Automatically.
Also, the practice of NAA's pre-warning of audit for any EASA Part 145 MRO has to end. We had one recently, passed with flying colours. Well done all. However, in reality, there are too many fundamental errors being made by our LAEs, namely practical task supervision and involvement. It is costing many extra manhours to disassemble, rectify & rebuild cabins, FADEC & NLG harnesses per EMM/AMM/CMM. I won't insult any of you fellow Techs with the serious airworthiness implications.
EASA NAA's - Make your visiting plans as usual, DON'T prewarn any QA &
then just turn up. You need to see the
actual MRO day to
day operations. Not prepared facilities, conditions and
personnel performances. Then standards will improve.
EASA is not fit for purpose to the industry. Hopefully it'll be wound down
in the next 36 months and the EC will file it under 'Failed expensive tests'.
What a large EC file that is already.
BAe146???
