31st MAY/JAR66 draws close

[Diablo]

My firm are still scrabbling round trying to get people to a state where they can hold "Grandfather Rights" with only 8 days to go. I think they have just about managed it and next week I don't think we will notice any great changes.

Does anyone think that it is going to effect there place of work to any great degree ????

[Ali Crom]

The only difference in that I can see as far as my firm's concerned is that, due to the haste at which they have had to get as many people to qualify for 'Grandfather rights', there is now a sh*t load of people who are 'authorised' to certfy but many of whom couldn't even be trusted to service a lawn mower!

Thanks to the CAA the standards get lowered further as a response to the growing shortage of hands-on skilled engineers.
Next thing will be the JAR 147 approved training organisations with 'guaranteed pass' JAR 66 licenses . It'll be interesting to see how the current licence exam failure rate reduces once the CAA give away yet another one of their reponsibilities to the companies they supposedly regulate.

[The Weasel]

Ali Crom, That's funny...I thought Lawnmower servicing was what most of them are submitting as experience to claim their 'A' licences, after all who's checking? Oh no, You did'nt fall for it and let one of em sharpen your mower did ya?

[Ali Crom]

Fortunately my mower's 100% BMA proof (if there is such a thing!) . Although I wonder just how many would use a bench grinder to sharpen a plasic blade.
It's a pity some of them can't use their time spent on their mobile phones or checking flight details on the only servicable p.c. in the hangar for entries in the master PER book of lies,deceit & pure fiction.
Ah, but hang on . Isn't it purely the fault of the LAE's for stamping these literary works of the imagination?
Of course it is but they still have to act in a professional manner regardless of the fact that with work,tea breaks & social events some spend more time with these guys than they do with their own families. So lets not forget who the real culprits are who are to blame for this situation we find ourselves in. Ever since the grade of 'SAE' was removed as a punishment for the strike 10 years ago or so, the outcome is better than the management could have ever wished for.

[aeroguru]

Certain JAR countries are going to give a JAR66 license and grandfather rights for a non JAR(faa a&p).
I guess UK will too once they have bled us for all the money they can get and want to get more from non CAA lic techs.

[spannersatcx]

Not according to a letter in the latest ALAE tech log from Mr. McKenna (head of CAA Engineering)they won't.

A number of engineers have lodged reports raising concerns on the manner in which other States are implementing the requirements in JAR-66. Lacking clear evidence to support these we cannot comment directly on these claims. There are undoubtedly difficulties
associated with the adoption of JAR-66 in all States arising from the variety of National practices that were previously in place. This does not mean that the
practices being adopted are giving any person an edge over another.

It is wrong to compare the practice of one State directly with that in another. There are many reasons for saying this. Some countries have a well established and comprehensive licensing system. Other States rely heavily upon approved maintenance organisations to determine the knowledge and experience standard, for their staff. You are well aware that the 'JK itself uses a complex mix of both these systems. On top of this, there are varying levels of support for maintenance training through State education systems with formal apprenticeships and academic
qualifications being readily available to individuals.

Each State has agreed its implementation policy with the JAA through the JAR-66 Review Board process. This sets the standard for examination questions and the basis upon which the existing qualifications can be transferred to a JAR-66 licence. An important part of this process is how the prevailing mixture of qualifications compare against the JAR-66 syllabus and experience requirements. The latter, maintenance experience, is easy to reconcile against the three or five years set by the JAR's. It is far more difficult to judge from the outside how each authority has analysed the syllabus, made its comparisons and
demonstrated its intended policy to the JAA. The key issue that we have been trying to reinforce all along is that until all States have largely transferred the existing population to the new JAR scheme there will be an element of variability.

To your specific points. Holland uses a company authorisation system for large aircraft qualifications. Licences are only available for light aircraft. As such,
individual companies were responsible for determining the competence of individuals. The manner in which this was done is subject to oversight of the RLD (Dutch Authority) as part of the monitoring of the company approval. This is exactly the same as the BCAR A8-13 principles used in the UK. UK practice was however to base such authorisations on the Section L LWTR. We cannot state what policy the Dutch put in place to cater for foreign i.e. non Dutch Nationals, seeking employment and authorisation in Holland. It is unlikely that the applicant you highlight in your letter declared his failure at the CAA exams to the company or the RLD. This is the critical issue and can really only be answered by the RLD.

You are wrong in assuming that just because someone holds a licence he or she has an automatic entitlement to be authorised. JAR 145.30 clearly requires that the individual must be determined as competent by the company. The licence is an additional element to the qualification process for authorisations issue. You may be correct that below minimum standards ay be being adopted by certain organisations or JAA-NAAs. The system adopted by the JAA will however gradually eliminate these anomalies in the longer term. The JAR-66 Review Board process determines the intended policy of the relevant JAA-NAA. The Maintenance
Approval Standardisation Team visits to the JAA-NAA and sample organisations determines how well the JAA-NAA is implementing and adhering to that policy. We must assume that the system works and will detect any shortfalls until proven otherwise.

If you have firm evidence, from your members, that some JAA-NAAs have adopted questionable standards or individuals are being authorised or licensed without meeting the requirements, please bring it to our
attention and that of the JAA. You have access to the JAA Maintenance Sectorial Team meetings through AEI and if you feel there is cause for concern in a particular case you should raise the matter with Mr Bruggemann as a potential agenda item.

The CAA alone cannot manage Europe, that is a function for the JAA to look at collectively. You should however remember that each State has its own sovereign responsibility and legislative system. One State cannot interfere in the activities of another.
Accordingly, not withstanding your concerns, the CAA must look to its own standards and this means that we will continue to set and implement appropriate standards that mean a UK licence holder can be proud of the licence they have worked hard to obtain. We will not compromise our standards and fail to discharge our responsibilities to UK Government and ICAO.



[This message has been edited by spannersatcx (edited 24 May 2001).]

[aeroguru]

Yes, a CAA man would never win any awards for plain English but I interpret it as 'we will do as we wish, and will not comment on other States version of implementing".
Question is when a UK airline or maint org.
apply for any form of approval from JAA where will the monies go to?

[Diablo]

What if any is the relationship between FAR-66 and JAR-66? Also are our Stateside comrades having to learn new subjects?

In case any of the US crowd are unaware the UK A&C (engines/airframe) need to take an electrical license in the next few years and the avionics people have to hold all 5 licenses (electrics, instruments, autopilot, radio & radar)

[PHANTOMPHIXER]

Oh yea , lets get another European law and Gold plate it . Harder to get , longer, more difficult, does not make a better engineer,
TIME ON TYPE and actually working on the aircraft does.

------------------
YOU BREAK UM !
WE FIX UM !

[Pengineer]

While those of us with LWTR and without a JAR licence are being forced to study these new disciplines, all the jobs are being taken by people from some of the more dubious JAR countries whose local authorities simply 'gave' them the JAR licence. Look at some of the nationalities of the people who have started flooding the contracting scene, fully armed with their new B1s and B2s.

[spannersatcx]

Has any UK licenced person applied to a member state for a JAA 66 licence? Could it be a way around the beurocracy (I'm pretty sure that's not how you spell it so no slagging off please word thought it should be pluracy!) and the rip off prices of the UK CAA. If you were contracting in Germany say and you are certifying then surely you should be able to get a 66 issued by the German authority?

Any thoughts?

[Penn Doff]

Good point spanners, the other bonus is that you would not have to hand in your CAA LWTR (and the threat of loss of current cover).

The next question is, has anyone got any e-mail addresses for any JAR authority's who are worth approaching?

This has got to be worth a try!!!!

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

[The Weasel]

Spanners, Re your 24th May response above, where you state that the CAA will not compromise our standards: Surely the fact that maintenance orgs will be able to examine JAR66 licence candidates in house under JAR147 is in itself a massive compromise. You only have to consider the intense level of maintenance violations of varying severity going on all around to realize that JAR66/147 is going to be equally abused by the corrupt managers & their supporting A & B licenced yes men. As Ali has pointed out, there is a frenzy of authorisations being falsly acheived to beat the June 01 deadline for GF rights. PER book signatories are mostly people who could not care less what they sign, and have only taken this responsibility because it has been forced as part of a pay deal. I have seen people who have 5+ years experience recently being shown their responsibilities in company procedures...not to enable them to do their job correctly, as they should have been all this time, but simply to get them through the oral exam which forms part of their limited CRS authorisation neccessary for GF rights as a potential A licence holder. The whole system is already a proven farce before the deadline has passed. As for bringing firm evidence to the attn of the CAA, in the usual tradition 99% of the violations go unreported because of fear of losing our jobs, promotion prospects, overtime etc. The same goes for your assumption that the system works and will detect any shortfalls...if it had our company would have been closed down long ago. Additionally there is little encouragement to report such matters as the violaters get let off with a slapped wrist. (Ref the CAA newsletter issue 3 where an engineer who issued a CRS by FAX without ever seeing the job nearly lost his licence). Why was he not made an example of for god sake? I cannot beleive that the CAA, who tell us their job is to improve flight safety, are allowing JAR66 to shape up this way. It does seem they are doing it to offset the current worldwide shortage of engineers. Basically we pay the CAA fees to hold a licence and up to now have had little support in upholding standards. Now we are being stitched up by them and left at the mercy of the maintenance orgs dodgy managers.

[spannersatcx]

The weasal, not my statement but from the Head of Engineering at the CAA.
And you're not wrong either