Retained Rights

[Diablo]

There is a letter in the current ALAE "Techlog" about two engineers that traded a BCAR license (A&C only) for a restricted JAR66 B1. All the avionic extensions that they held as company approvals were lost as the B1 is based on type rated entries on the B1 license itself.

I read in another post that B.A. say you will have 10 years in which to get your Electrics for A&C or Radio/Radar for avionics, surely the maximum anyone will still hold a BCAR licence is until May 2006, the normal 5 yearly renewal.

Am I missing something here, is the 10 year thing a load of crap, or are avionics extensions going to start disapearing along with the next license renewal ???????

[spannersatcx]

Here is that letter.....
ALAE website (http://www.lae.mcmail.com)
JAR 66 - Do you Need to Convert Now
Submitted by Mike Newman, Vice Chairman ALAE

The answer to the question is, it's up to you, but you do need to look at all sides of the picture before you take the plunge and spend out your hard earned money on something that may not equate to what you thought it would.

Your should know by now what happens when you convert a Section 'L' Licence to a JAR 66 Licence - you get precisely what you presently hold, but with restrictions. A JAR 66 B1 or B2 Licence does not exactly match up to a Section 'L' Licence. The B1 in particular can and does limit the amount of work you could cover in Airworthiness Notice No 3. You have a B1 JAR 66 Licence and you can cover all the mechanical parts but electric’s, you cannot, unless you have the 'X' conversion.

One of our members telephoned me recently with the following tale of woe, you should heed it. He and an 'A' & 'C' colleague decided to change to a JAR 66 Licence, although the reporter of this tale had still got some time to run on his Section 'L' Licence. They duly completed the required forms and these were accepted by the CAA. They received their JAR 66 Licences with the restrictions but to their horror and their Company's, they found that electrical and instrument work allowed under Notice No 3 had gone. Therefore the work they were able to sign out on the line had now diminished considerably. They now needed an Avionics man to sign for the defects that they could have signed out, quite legally, pre JAR 66.

Now whether it is correct that you should be robbed of something you were able to do and have done for years without problems, because of JAR 66 activities, is a point we might need to argue with our Authority. It does seem unfair both to the Licence holder and their employer that this has been done. What you could legally do yesterday, but cannot do today, does no one any favours.

The moral 'of this story, if indeed there is one, is do not change over until you have to. The CAA will tell you when you need to convert to JAR 66, so use the AWN 3 privileges whilst you may. Unless you take the 'X' conversion they are certainly going to go away.

Another thought for you to ponder on. Once you have converted to JAR 66, the only way you can get the privileges you now hold are via the JAR 66 examination. Not the easiest of routes. The CAA will be pleased to inform you of the modules you will need for a full B1 JAR 66 Licence.

The reason for this article is to inform you that when you convert to a JAR 66 Licence in category B1 or B2 you might not get what you think you ought to. Remember the CAA will convert your Licence when your present Section 'L' Licence runs out. The first conversions will happen in June this year, then pro rata, until all are completed.

Reply from Jim McKenna of the CAA
To A Letter in Tech Log Issue 265

Dear Sir
I refer to Mr Newman's letter on the issue of the transfer of BCAR Section L licence privileges to JAR-66. I would seek to correct some of his observations in order that any confusion be removed. Since these are generic issues I have written the following so that you can include it in your magazine for the benefit of your members.

Mr Newman held, as he states, a BCAR section L licence in Categories A, C and X (Electrical). He had also held avionic extensions under the principles of limited authorisations schemes promulgated initially through BCAR A8-13 and latterly CAA Airworthiness Notice No 14 (AWN 14). The avionic extensions held were deemed to satisfy the basic licence elements for the corresponding JAR-66 Category B I privileges. These licences/authorisations were all transferred upon application to a full unrestricted JAR-66 Category B I basic licence. At the time Mr Newman applied however he was no longer employed by the airline with which he had held these avionic extensions on type. This meant that the limited avionic extensions he had held were no longer current. They were also not directly transferable between organisations contrary to his claims.

It is also arguable as to whether they could be considered as 'protected rights' in advance of the 1 June 2001 deadline. He may have been entitled to 'protected rights' on such type authorisations had he held them on that date but such protection does not necessarily apply in advance of that date. As such it was deemed they could not be transferred to his JAR-66 licence as a 'protected right'. This was the CAA policy at the time that Mr Newman applied. The CAA has always stated this in its guidance and information leaflets although applications for a licence transfer before I June 2001 would always be considered at the request of an individual. Since the entitlement to 'protected right' clearly does not commence until I June 2001, we advised that applicants carefully consider applying too early for transfer. This advice still holds true. This also fully accorded with the authorisation practice currently outlined under AWN 14.

Contrary to the belief of many licensed engineers company authorisations, whether full or limited authorisations, were not transferable between approved organisations. The training that had been accomplished in one Organisation could be taken into account by any new employer and if deemed appropriate could be accepted in part towards satisfying the requirement for issue of any authorisation in that new company. It should be noted that such recognition should not be regarded as an automatic entitlement. The recognition had to be justified. it should take into account different operational factors such as varying equipment fit and company authorisation policies rather that just saying that the previous training could suffice. There is often doubt as to how much assessment is actually made by companies in such cases. The situation regarding avionic extension is no different. One company's policy for avionic components which qualify under an avionic extension may be different to another organisation's. Mr Newman was simply caught out by applying for his licence after he left the employment of his previous employer, it would not have arisen had his avionic extensions still been current.

Many of the problems that we have been faced with during the initial stages arise from the lack of consistency in the training and qualification standards adopted by many of the maintenance organisations. Some Organisation have issued authorisations in clear contravention of the existing rules and requirements. Avionic training in particular is often reduced in some organisations to a quick physical demonstration of the functions of the built in test equipment (BITE) facility for a particular avionic LRU. Others adopt a more rigorous approach to training their staff, as has always been expected, and provide a course of overview training on the avionic systems (ATA 104 level 1 and 2) along with the replacement procedures and testing for the specific components that may be eligible for changing as part of the authorisation (ATA 104 level 3).
Even where such training is provided we are not always given a copy of the relevant training certificates by the applicant. This obviously creates problems in validating the adequacy of the training and/or qualification. We are however continually reviewing our policies regarding the transfer of licence/authorisation privileges from an existing system to JAR-66, even since Mr Newman last wrote to us in September, I have again reviewed Mr Newman's application against our latest policy and notwithstanding the fact that his authorisations were not current and therefore fell outside of the principles of the transfer policy, I am prepared to review the adequacy of the training certificates that were also submitted as part of his application to see if any compromise position can be reached.

I would however like to point out that, irrespective of the policies of other JAA Member States, the UK CAA is bound to ensure that there is legal justification by way of evidence of the appropriate skill, knowledge and experience before it issues a licence or any endorsement to it. Whilst we do not seek to penalise an individual when applying for a JAR-66 licence we are certainly not going to ignore the requirements for licence issue or just give them away. The JAR-66 licence is issued under the provisions of article 12 of the Air Navigation Order, in a manner similar to that which Section L licences have always been issued. We are therefore justifiably being cautious in cases where the applicants fail to provide adequate information, substantiating evidence or where the current requirements have not been properly met. There is therefore every opportunity to assist us by getting the application and all the supporting evidence correct first time.

Jim McKenna
Head of Engineer Licensing

--------------------------------------------
When you next renew your licence afet 31 May you will get a restricted JAA 66, as far as I am aware you retain Grandfather rites if you stay at your present co, for life.

[reboot]

The 10 year bit in BA is for people with a BA RMA if they have RMA on 2 a/c then they get 10 year grandfather rights on that cover this is not the case for full CRS. BA say if you dont get your AV extension they will take your cover away completley, this is just a company requirement not a JAR66 one so if your not BA dont worry.