ICAO Type II

[k1s]

Dear fellow workers

Please can someone explain to me What is a ICAO Type II licence, is it equal to the UK CAA LWTR??? also where can I get some info on the matter.

regards

KS.

[spannersatcx]

Yes, ICAO published annex 1 to the Chicago convention which provides the legal framework for Engineering Licencing. The annex provided for 2 types of License the ICAO Type 1 is for ovehaul the Type 2 is for maintenance, these are provisioned in the Section L of BCAR's.

[Brakeson]

I have an ICAO II licence, which i am about to convert into a JAR66 B1/B2. I can convert it without any additional training and without limitations, as i already have an aircraft with glass-cocpit in my rating.

[aeroguru]

Oh yes?And where did that info come from?
Let me guess.A licensing authority that is not the rip off CAA/uk?

[nilnotedtks]

Told it before on this web site and I will tell it again... Dont think for a minute you can submit a section L licence licence for a JAR 66 licence because you cannot ! The CAA and the UK government have sold your soul to the devil ! all of you that have in the past worked hard for a BCAR section L licence have now been well and forever prostituded down the road for a non valid Euro piece of paper that is worth nothing ! Ask your self. Is it worth sweating behind countless books to keep a type rating you already hold. I think not. Enough CAA, keep your licence, JAA, squat on it, I will find another job delivering newspapers !!!!

[nilnotedtks]

As a post script. I hold a UK airframe/engine CAA LWTR, US FAA A&P, on B727, F 27, B777.200/300, B747/100/200/300/400 DC10/MD11, A300B/300-600/310/330/340/et al. Would you give me a job, I have been doing it now for almost 30 years ?...........

[Penn Doff]

Brakeson, what licence cover did you have (eg A & C) and what a/c types did you hold approval on? As nilnotedtks comments we UK licence holders appear to be getting a rough deal compared to some of our European brothers!!
How many people are trying for the "X" or is doing the JAR modules the easier option??

------------------
"please report further"

[spannerhead]

Penn Doff
I know lots of people who are trying.
Not many who are succeeding.

[DoctorA300]

Penn Doff
Brakeson and I both work for the same company, He has a Swedish Licence, I hold the Danish equivilent, they are identical and freely convertible, but the Danish authorities requires a Elex/Avionic tool training coures (See JAR 66 thread). Our licences don´t have the same restrictions as your British licence does, we are covered for all trades, basically , if it´s in the AMM we are allowed to do it, but most companies limits us in one way or another, Taxying, Heavy maintenance and such, but normally not to a particular trade. Most Bigger companies (read SAS) have Electitians but they hold the same licence as us greas monkeys, they just do mostly electrical/avionics work.
Brgds
Doc

[GotTheTshirt]

Nilnoted,
I could repeat your message many times over the years.
I have a UK A,C & X in the 11,000 numbers!
First licence was all essay - no Multi guess! plus interview ( 2 guys at ARB Chancery Lane!) lasting 3 HOURS.

Then came multi guess, then came approved courses (no need to touch airplanes).

Then approvals. ( we had a guy who had failed a CAA licence but had company approvals ! What does that tell you.And then LWTR

Now JAR. dont talk to me about sold down the river.
I remember when the CAA we trying to brain wash us into letting Private pilots do rectification instead of these beastly licenced engineers.
One of the CAA gurus said to me "we are not talking about the local butcher,baker or candlestick maker" just who does he think private pilots are.
When I first took the licence you had to take a type rating, the company only had 2 sets of manuals for the aircraft (DC3) we had to take a note book in to work and copy the MM into our own books.

I have A&P ( also taken when you had to do a practical including cable splicing and welding!) - and there are no type ratings on an FAA A&P. You can certify any task that you have had instruction or previuos experience on. But it is for life and does not have any annual fee!!

Dont think I will bother about the JAR or ICAO

[DoctorA300]

GotTheTshirt,
I don´t know how old you are or when you got your first licence. But from reading your post, you come across as a bit pretentious. I am obviously not as old as you, about half I guessed from the DC3 refence, I am not even British nor do I work in Britian at the moment. I have however worked with British licenced engineers both old and young, and I don´t think age plays much of a difference, I know just as many brilliant young as old, the only difference I have ever noticed, is that the older the engineer the higher the tendensies there are for the "little black book" syndrome, ei keeping information to oneself to make oneself appear like a guru.
I am not trying to insult you, or anyone else, I am just trying to tell you how a post written the way yours was, is persived by a younger person.
Brgds
Doc

[nilnotedtks]

GotTheTshirt..

If you have a licence down in the 11000's and are still practising as a Licensed Engineer, I take my hat off to you for your staying power ! This industry is now about as low as it has been in the brief 30 years I have been doing it and I believe the changes we are going through now in the licensing regulations could well spell the death knell for the aircraft engineering as it has been up to now. I am not aware of a more fundamental change in the time I have been in aviation.

I do not feel threatened by .." letting Private Piots do rectifiction instead of those beastly licensed engineers "... I do however feel threatened by a totally indifferent and uncaring regulationary authority that seemingly wants to squeeze engineers into a life of delivering newspapers. The industry can ill afford to lose your experience and the experience of thousands of others as the number of licence renewals slowly dwindles as time goes on. I would be interested to hear from anyone who could, with authority, put numbers on the amount of engineers leaving the business or who have simply had enough and let their current qualifications lapse. How can we as senior engineers try and promote our industry to young and eager school leavers ( which it desparately needs I might add ) when we have no confidence in it ourselves. I noted an interesting link from spannersatcx regarding the hourly rates of fixing a home PC, astounding, no wonder the kids want now to fix computers and not aeroplanes ( no licence required ! )

I believe unless the CAA wakes up and wakes up fast, they will find a whacking big void in the reservoir of skilled, experienced and qualified professionals in an industry that is bleeding unnoticed to the outside world and the fare paying public that pays our wages ( and theirs !!! ) When your 11000 or something number AME licence plopped through your letter box, did you then wonder if 30 years down the road, you would have to do all that studying again, just to keep something you already worked hard for. I THINK NOT !

[jetfueldrinker]

Talking to a guy that is leaving the RAF shortly. He tells me that the RAF training is going down the pan fast, and that if you want promotion you will have to self study to ONC/HND level in your own time. So he recons, all the military want are people who can change engines, top up hudraulic systems ect. with no in depth knowlidge of how systems work. So what if there is a fault? Go to the relevant manual, replace the suggested item. Now how many of us out there have done exactly this, only to find that the fault still exists? But with an in depth knowlidge of how a system works, you can then look a little deeper to look at other possibilities. I also hear that there are some questions raised by the CAA into the relavence of the proposed training schemes, and that they may not be recognised by the CAA. So if you do your sentance under the new scheme, how are you going to successfully transfer from military to civil aviation maintenance?

[GotTheTshirt]

DoctorA300,
Sorry if it came over pretentious I can assure you I dont feel that way I just feel sorry for newcomers who have 30 years to look forward to.
I am refering only to UK licences but one can feel a little bitter when one considers the effort it took 35 years ago to get a licence compared with today but as they say "per adua ad astra".
I also dislike "granfather rights" being bestowed like they are doing me some kind of favour.
Apart from airliners ( such as allowed in Notice 10) I have several group 5 and 6 licences and X you would not even believe how many ARB/CAA examinations (all paid for personally) this involved, If you did you may understand why some of us think this whole thing of ICAO/JAR is undervaluing the 'old' system.
Incidentally what do you pay just to renew your Scandinavian Licence ? I dont think anyone one pays more than us in UK.
As regards the "little black book" syndrome this is old habits dying hard. As I mentioned we had to hand copy everything we wanted to reference on the line.

As I mentioned we are only refering to UK licences but if you read the Nilnoted entry you may get some underdstanding of what we in UK are talking about.

Nilnoted,
couldn't agree more with your comments, but as you say enough is enough and I shan't bother with ICAO/JAR !!

[Brakeson]

There is obviously a jungle when it comes to licences and typeratings in different parts of Europe. The LWTR that you have in the UK is not something taht is issued bu the swedish CAA. There are no such things as a licence without typerating in Sweden. The closest we get to anything equivalent is a diploma from the Aviation University College which includes 12 to 15 different subjects depending on if you are going for a helicopter type in the future or not. The subjects are everything from science of engineering and building materials, via avionics and electrics to physics and mathematics. The coarse takes about one year full time study. Before this, there are two years (quite new, before it was one year) of aviation upper secondary school. It is an education which basically includes the same subjects as the earlier mentioned, but is more shallow.
After these three years you can get a typerating coarse on a specific aircraft. This coarse leads to a ICAOII licence and that is not limited to any particular parts of the aircraft but includes everything.
Now, this is the old way to the ICAO certificate but from what i have heard (rumers) the students today who aim for a JAR66 gets off the hook a bit easier.
I am almost sure that there will be some arguments from fellow engineers who will say "no, this is the way i did it" refering to part time studies and different shortcuts, but this is how you usually go from scratch to licence the way i did.
I guess the task to take every licence in Europe and make one big of them is not that easy. There will never be a full satisfactory situation for everyone, but from my point of wiew i think that i come out quite well with the conversion to JAR66. On the other hand, from what i have heard and seen there is just no way in hell that i could measure my skills whith a brittish CAA MultiX regardless of what my JAR66 licence states.
Well, this was a long one but i just had to kill some time.

[Brakeson]

And of coarse, apologies for my bad spelling.
It's not my mother tongue, you know!

[Brakeson]

Of COURSE. Think i am a bit out of it (the course, i mean) hard language this!

[Brakeson]

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 ´Licences`, it´s 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 don´t belive you can compare ex. a A320 generation aircraft system with a ex. Fokker F27 or DC3. T0odays Aircraft are littered with `Black boxes´, and i don´t 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

[DoctorA300]

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 ´Licences`, it´s 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 don´t belive you can compare ex. a A320 generation aircraft system with a ex. Fokker F27 or DC3. T0odays Aircraft are littered with `Black boxes´, and i don´t 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

Sorry about the double entry of this post, I personally blame Bill Gates. It is of course posted by DoctorA300.
Doc

[Brakeson]

Agree Doc, but please use your own f%¤=ing profile and hans off mine!

[GotTheTshirt]

DoctorA300 and Brakeson,
Yes I agree with your sentiments.
You see back in the late 50’s when I started we only knew the British system and did not have any knowledge or interest in other countries systems.
Of course many countries overseas recognised the UK licence so jobs were always available overseas. There were no schools or courses. Everything was practical and the exams were all written essay type with no multi guess questions
The only exception was the FAA A&P. which was always considered “easy” because it did not have a type rating. This was also a worldwide licence so with these 2 you could go anywhere.
In those days there were no “Approved Organisations” everything from line defects to major checks had to be cleared by an LAE, so the LAE was God !
This meant he did not have to respond to Company pressure as he could get a job anywhere.
The Authority in those days was called the ARB (Air Registration Board), a government body ( so no high fees and “self Supporting requirements !)
To be an ARB surveyor you had to have a licence and several years of in service experience. Our local surveyor came round at least once week and you could talk to him about almost anything.
Then came the CAA ( a self financing body) and of course everything became related to cost aircraft and licence fees increased.
Then came Approved Organisations.
Then came Licence without type rating
Then came JAR
The point of all this was that the responsibility of the LAE has constantly been eroded.
Originally he was the only person who was held responsible, he was directly responsible to the Authority, and most of us took the very seriously.

As you know under JAR the responsible person is a board member which is then handed down through various Office holders. The Sign off is someone designated by the company and if they need another signatory they “make” another signatory. If you read some of the other threads on prune you will see many reports of the phantom stampers in action and I could tell you some equally hair raising stories !

It is only with the advent of JAR that LAE’s in all countries are becoming aware of the requirements of other countries. People are, of course trying to analyse how we are all going from different levels to a common level, which so often is coming down to the lowest level so that everyone can qualify.

The other problem I have understanding is that if a JAR Ops company does not have its own maintenance it has to contract it out to a JAR 145 company and that arrangement including the contract has to be approved. Yet the Maintenance responsibility rests with the JAR operator and he has to have another set of
high paid maintenance chiefs. Why?
If there is a contract then TOTAL responsibility should be with the JAR 145.

As you know if you want to contract a JAR 145 organisation in Stockholm you don’t have much of a choice !

Anyway the point of all this is that the changes I have seen over the last 30 years have degraded the LAE and has done very little to improve the maintenance operations.
As I have said before this is not a personal issue because I do not need to have a JAR licence !!(I am too old to learn new tricks!!)

[Blacksheep]

Licences licenses licences, nothing but licences!

We're maintaining aeroplanes here and last time I looked this still meant getting your hands dirty. Something called practical experience. What is needed is a mix of academic knowledge and practical experience and it is this last factor that is continually overlooked. Just because a modern aircraft is full of black boxes doesn't reduce the need for people to be positively trained in how to perform the manual task. And PROVE that they know how to do it! That's the real issue in the equivalence debate. My driving licence proves that I have been examined not only in driving theory and traffic regulations but also in the ability to safely control a moving vehicle on the road. I would expect that a licence to certify that aircraft maintainance has been performed correctly should be no less practical.

Academic knowledge can be demonstrated through BTEC/HND/Degree or whatever; an AME licence ought not to be a substitute for these academic qualifications, it should complement them by providing extra assurance of practical competence. The reason for the modern "academic" licences is that they are simpler for the Airworthiness(?) Authorities to administer, not because they are any more realistic or more suited to current conditions...

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[Ali Crom]

Blacksheep ,
One of the biggest problems for the future I see coming up is exactly what you just mentioned, lack of practical experience . There is much emphasis on training individuals to high academic standard & the JAR66 appears to confirm this but will they make good engineers as well? I'm not so sure.
For example , in BA the route that used to be taken was the apprenticeship followed by several years gaining experience as a fitter/avo & then if the individual chose to , the progression to a licensed engineer.
To my knowledge , last year BA only took on 6 apprentices and they were destined for the workshops anyway. For a company this size with the number of a/c in its fleets is this really the way to go? The PEP ( Professional Engineer Programme )which I believe is designed to replace the apprenticeship is in my mind is just a means for BA to employ more potential managers.
I could be biased towards the apprentice then later progression to LAE route because thats how I did it but I think it's purely because it was a more gradual transition than the PEP route.
There were no guarantees that the route I and many like me took would lead to everyone becoming good engineers but I'm convinced that the fastrack engineer route ( PEP ) will in the long term only make things worse because you can't gain experience out of book.
Ever heard the expression "lighthouse in the desert - very bright but not much use to anyone"?

AC.

[DoctorA300]

I completely agree with the point that we need more practical experience.
My route is a pretty good example of that. I started my appertenship in 1986, I qualified in 1990,january 1st, was on my first licence course 01st march, ok it was the DC9/MD80 on which I spent my entire apprentenship so I had some practical experience on the a/c, completed the course and had licence in hand 01 july. I have ever since envied my fellow apprentenses who got 2-3 years under their belts before they got their licences.

The problem overhere is that the authorities does require 24 months of practical experience, but you can count your apprentenship, and if it is an a/c type new to the country, 40 hours of instructer guided OJT is enough, an even that is being erroded since a JAR147 is self governing ei no authority spot check required.
Brgds
Doc

[Brakeson]

Blacksheep, i remember when my sorely tried driving instructor gave me my driving licence with the words "now remember, this document does not necessarily guarantee your ability to convey the vehicle in a safe manner but is more like a permission to practise on your own". To be honest, this is the way a AME licence works in a way. You can not be an expert on the aircraft after a 2-4 months typerating course without hands-on training or "real-life" snags with troubleshooting (at least i can´t). The licence is a privilege that comes with a responsibility not to overestimate your ability.

[Blacksheep]

Yes BrakesOn,

A new driving licence gives you permission to practice on your own. The point is, you have to pass a practical test of your ability before they give it to you. There was once a time ( I know, I know, the "good old days" so what, bugger off old fart :) yeah, yeah. OK.) when the authorities checked you out on practical matters after examining your academic training. The Oral that investigated your practical experience was a method of checking that your "Schedule of Inspection Work" (Who else remembers that?) was true and that you really did know how to do the job. The new licences are purely academic, although practical experience is required before you can apply, there is no check on your claim to practical experience. You could be one of those who knows all the theory but can't swing a hammer without busting a thumb. There are already enough academic qualifications in the job market, why do we need another one?

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[GotTheTshirt]

Blacksheep, Licences licences !

We have to have licences, to drive a car, or be a doctor or maintain an aircraft.
It is necesary and essential !
This thread (and you seem to be in agreement as do most others on the thread even DoctorA300) is trying to understand why we need to continually lower the standard.
In my 30+ years every change to the legislation has done exacly that!
DoctorA300 menions his 2 years working on aircraft before he started on licences and my experience is the same.
And yes Blacksheep I remember very well the shedule of work !! pages of it!
The thread on this forum headed "Orals dropped" just re-inforces all that is being said here !
I ran an FBO with 20+ guys and as blacksheep says some of these "licence" holders couldn't put the top on a sauce bottle without cross threading it.

Yes guys keep collecting the cornflake box tops or if you want to be really flash get degree in Croatian basket weaving as that is fully interchangable with all ICAO licences