Do LAMEs think that the ones who have not been trained for a long period of time should have an advantage or is it better that they have to lobby for a course along with those who have had ample training?
Have any of you ever missed out on a course in the past because you weren't in "the club"?
FedSec,
I disagree with the logic that ‘no course for a long period = insufficient training’: Looking-around my section, the vast majority of those who will benefit from the 25% will be triple-licensed already (mainly 747, 744, 767).
In this respect, the points system will benefit those who are, in a way, “in the club”.
Most might not mow the manager’s lawn (although they exist), but when there was training, they were often either lucky (right section, right crew) or sufficiently well-connected to be put on course in front of others, who had waited their turn.
For the younger crowd, there are plenty of guys with 20 years’ service who are triple-licensed, versus plenty of guys who, at around 15 years’ service, have a single type. A bit of a skewed distribution, don’t you think? And if the the lucky ones managed to get all their training in first, then they'll be getting a first look-in this time as well.
I well remember some blokes going straight from one course to the next, leapfrogging over either a LAME who was waiting their turn, or an AME that was eligible for their first type. These licensed-up blokes then went on to get a great many lurks and perqs at a time when the number of licenses held was the determining factor in everything. Sure, they deserve more training, but there are others who need it more, and have waited. “Time since last course” simply doesn’t measure this.
IF the time since last course criteria had been applied all these years, it would work fantastically now: But it hasn’t been, so you are keeping the playing field uneven. I agree that if we could get to a stage where the time-since-last was the only criteria, that’d be great, but in the meantime you have to somehow compensate for previous inequitable distribution.
Suggestion: A percentage score, for example 25%, could have been included
in addition to the score for time since last training – but instead, base it on courses/years of service.
Most in QF deserve training, but if you’re going to target the training to the least advantaged, then this would be the way to do it. I reckon, unfortunately, that >1 course per 10 years’ service in QF indicates a (
relatively) lucky individual.
Even more accurate would be counting only those years of service where you were eligible for a type course (all basics held). Disadvantage: Another dip into eQ; Advantage: It would not skew the benefits to those who hadn’t bothered to get their basics for many years.