JAR 66 TYPES

[aeroguru]

Is it true that types cannot go on to a JAR66 license unless they were done at level(2 or 3?) at a JAR147 approved training facility? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[HeliEng]

As far as I understand it all types ratings are done on company approval.

Please correct me if I am wrong!!

Yours "in between nervous breakdowns" HeliEng

[Inspector Gadget]

I have recently encountered this problem. I attended an aircraft type course at the manufacturer over in the states. Unfortunatly the manufacturer is'nt JAR147 so when I applied to the CAA for a type rating on my JAR66 licence, I was refused.
The CAA kindly informed me that all I have to do is obtain the course sylabus, and with the aid of my companies quality dept demonstrate to the CAA how this meets the requirments of JAR147.
If that did'nt pi55 me off enough, the b*****s charged me £81 for the privilege!
Sometimes I wonder if its worth the effort to get yourself licenced.
I knew I should have been a postman.

[Noted]

Quoting Mr. A. Wells, CAA Engineering Licensing Department, letter dated 09. November 1999: " The submitted certificates were not correctly certified by your referee, in that some of the certificates need proof from the respective training schools that the training was carried out to ATA 104 Level III specification standard and the certificates need endorsing to that effect. The required evidence may be in the form of a detailed letter from your quality department giving the rquired information."

All my certificates have been reissued by the respective training departments, upon my request, with the required information.

It is a very time consuming matter, all in all, it took approximately 15 months for the last reissued certificate to return. In 1999 I paid £192 for the JAR66 CAA AML conversion and every time I received a reissued certificate I applied for the type rating endorsment ( Stupid me ). The CAA hit me for every application with £75 each. To date, I have 13 type ratings on my CAA AML ( 13 x £75 = £975 ) Total cost so far, including the conversion fee £1167 and I did not even get something to put the AML into.
:eek: :eek:

[ 04 August 2001: Message edited by: Noted ]

[Orly one mike]

Hello colleagues, your problem with licence is just with UK CAA.
We have new licence here in France and it came very fast. It is all new here for me because before now we are with company authority for France only, now we can apply in all JAR countries, it is very good for all.
Please can somebody advice on jobs in europe with airlines for avionic system specialists and how much money we bring.
Thank you.

[rigdoc145]

There are a couple of answers to this question.
Firstly, you can have 'protected rights' on authorisations held prior to June 1st. These can be added to a JAR 66 licence but there may be restrictions (say if you were only a & c under section L), then your JAR 66 licence would show limitations on the types on your licence. This is providing, on your licence conversion, your QA dept submitted the standard letter format the CAA have requested. All QA depts should be aware of this.
Second part: For new 66 type ratings (on your 66 licence) the course must have been presented by a JAR 147 organisation that is approved to teach the requisite course. You can only apply for a 66 type rating against a manufacturers course (manufacturers cannot apply for JAR 147 at this time!) if the course has been audited by a JAR 145 organisation and that 145 organisation verifies the course content is appropriate to the 66 licence requirements. (This has serious implications for organisations such as 'flightsafety international' who do training on behalf of manufacturers but are not JAR 147 approved.)Only when the type rating is endorsed on your 66 licence can the QA dept of a JAR 145 grant company authorisation on the aircraft type they wish you to work on.
Hope this helps, I believe it to be the current situation but Roy Burdon at CAA Gatwick is the man with all the answers !!

[Cyclic Hotline]

Could someone please explain how ANY of this benefits safety, performance or capability? :confused:

This is typical governmental b@ll@cks. There is only one thing worse than one government agency trying to run a show, and that is dozens of them!

If an Operator or Repair Station created a new Operations or Inspection programme along the lines of any of this ill considered JAR nonsense - they would be shut-down and their certificates REVOKED (by the same agency creating this disaster)!

The people involved have no concept of the real world of Aviation, and sit, removed from the Aviation business, in offices, and attending meetings, surrounded by others of their kind!

I can't believe the total disaster that every part of this regulatory change has become. Every month some equally surprising (alarming?) revelation is gleaned. When is it all going to end?

There appears to be no consideration given to the value of a system that was proven to work. Instead some new layer of beauraucracy is rolled out to replace the proven and competent existing systems that are in use.

In the creation of any new system, considerable attention must be given to the intricacies of the interaction between the various rules, systems and methods. In any new system, there will always be some areas of conflict, and a little time and consideration will need to be taken to realign the necessary components.

It appears though, that the creation and implementation of the JAR system and mechanism has revealed unparalleled and unrivalled levels of incompetence by the parties concerned. I would further suggest that the JAR system would be unable to pass ISO 9002 qualification due to about every conceivable problem that has been observed in every facet of their operation; (tell me they haven't achived ISO certification?) :eek:

I can state confidently, that I now understand less about the JAR system now, than a year ago. It is never ending disaster.

Note: This is not a reflection of the people on the receiving (working) end of the regulatory authorities. The systemic failure of this system lies at the very TOP of the organisation, that allowed a system so inherently flawed, to be adopted and implemented. :mad:

[cooltool]

Cyclic welcolme to Europe. Perhaps Gilles can tell us how to obtain a french JAR 66 Licence ie what, and how many exams are needed before a French engineer is given a JAR 66 B1. I would be very interested Gilles. :rolleyes:

[Orly one mike]

For the licence we do not do an exam. It is just a piece of paper to prove that we already have company authorization for the aeroplanes we have worked on. We already have done exam each time when we make the course before we get issued authorization for the aeroplane. It is just a JAR requiremnt to give us B2 licence to make it standard across all of Europe. Some people have B1 and B2 but most avionics just get B2.

[aeroguru]

The requirements of JAR 147 for a training school are so high that there are not going to be many around.With money for training given extremely grudgingly, even the large carriers will have problems meeting this standard.
Also with the recurrent training requirement you can see now why anyone recruiting is only interested in people who are absolutely current or even newly qualified guys. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Pen it off!]

GILLES HAS PROVED WHAT A COMPLETE FARCE OUR INDUSTRY IS TURNING INTO.

WHEN I FIRST LEFT THE RAF I GOT A JOB AT FIELDS AIRCRAFT SERVICES. A CHAP WHO HAD BEEN A MILKMAN ONLY 4 YEARS BEFORE GOT PROMOTED TO A INSPECTOR IN THE ENGINE SHOP, THIS REALLY PISSED ME OFF CONSIDERING THE TRAINING I HAD DONE AND HE HAD NOT.

THIS EUROPE THING AND THE MILKMAN SOND LIKE SIMILAR SCENARIOS. HERE WE GO AGAIN!

[Techman]

What is your problem Pen It Off! ??.

How Gilles got his licence convertet, is the same way I got mine convertet.

As Gilles said, he has already done the necessary tests and exams for his national licence and ratings, so why should he have to go thru that again, "just" because it gets convertet to a JAR 66 ?.

[Pengineer]

With respect to Gilles, the problem is...
While the French had no licenensing system it was not a problem as the French could only work in France, now with the advent of JAR 66, they could not be expected to start from scratch and gain a license, so they got given the full whack.
Now the problem is they can work anywhere.
A friend of mine with CAA licenses recently got turned down for a job as he did not have a full JAR66 licence, the job went to a Scandanavian who got 'given' a full JAR66 license by his authorities, meanwhile my friend is still studying for his JAR modules,
this is the part thats unfair.
I could take this JAR lark if it was a level playing field and everybody had to do the same to obtain an equivalent qualification.
http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/Gif/magg.gif

[Orly one mike]

This is not correct, when we make the course,every week we have one examination about the aeroplane subject. After the end when we apply for authorization we make an interview with QC. This is more serious than the JAR examination. In England you make one examination at the start of your career then with authorization after this and no examination, why must we begin again?

[HiSpeedTape]

Well Gilles, every type course that I have been on has involved examinations after every module and a final examination covering the whole aircraft and engines. This is then followed by an examination by the company Q/A department before any type authorisation is given. BUT, before one can attend type courses one has to hold at least a licence without type for which we have to sit examinations both written and oral that are set and adjudicated upon by the CAA. We are not just given a licence as it would seem that you and your other European counterparts have been. This is clearly NOT a level playing field.

[ 05 August 2001: Message edited by: HiSpeedTape ]

[Techman]

The channel certainly seems very wide.

I am really getting sick of this pissing and moaning from you British.

Nobody on this side of the ocean is just "given" a licence.

I was a fully licenced and qualified airframe/powerplant/avionics before JAR and I now have a JAR66 B1/B2.

So I have nothing more and nothing less than before JAR.

Except perhaps now my licence is recognized around Europe, and maybe even in Britain too.

But I wouldnt be too worried about us Europeans taking your jobs. Who in their right minds would hire us under-qualified guys with licences from a vending machine, when their have all of these superior local boys.

Techman http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/angel3.gif

[Pengineer]

As high speed tape said, all the courses I did involved exams but as we were already fully licensed they were of a lower standard than the license exams. In fact they were mostly open book or 'heavily subsidised' exams because of the fact that we were already qualified. Presumably your exams were also weighted in favour of the company providing them.
The license exams were however beyond reproach.

[rightstuff]

I totally agree with everything that has been said about this JAR 66 fiasco.Once again the Brits get stitched up as always when it comes to anything to do with Europe.Techman you havn't mentioned how you converted your licence.The current system that appears to have been adopted by other European Authorities is totally differant from the CAA and that is why the Brits are pissing and moaning.The playing field is definately not level and seems to be gradually getting steeper the further it stretches across Europe with the lowest point in the UK. :mad:

[ 06 August 2001: Message edited by: rightstuff ]

[aeroguru]

Don't think we can blame our JAR colleagues for being ready for this and having a smooth transition.Most of them have been compliant for years and their companies and airlines have had teams to handle licensing issues and have made it very easy for their people to convert and have absorbed charges.
As usual, U.K. companies have done nothing and our CAA are trying to extract every penny they can out of it. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :confused:

[Bus429]

Rightstuff - stop whingeing. You have plenty of time to study and you've done the course.
Personally, aside from the cost, I'm happy with my converted JAR 66 B2+C.

BTW, rightstuff - can I borrow your copy of book 1 of your electrical course notes? Someone out here needs to copy it. Will be returned asap. :D :p

[Blacksheep]

It's easy to see how the Brits are wound up and the Continentals aren't. The UK CAA failed to prepare properly for JAA implementation while the various European regulatory bodies did their homework. Indeed, the UK CAA are still unable to give a straight answer to any question on JARs and seem to be as confused about it as we practitioners.

As one chap has already indicated, he had to spend well over a thousand pounds converting to JAR 66 and needed to personally organise the recognition of his training courses at his own expense. Its all right saying that your company QA department will do the business but in reality many people no longer work for the company that gave them the type training. And what about contractors?

No, JAR 66 has been very badly handled by the UK CAA, but I believe the relevant phrase is "Who guards the guards?" Personally I've no intention of wasting my time converting. When my current section L licence expires I'll flush it down the toilet and get a job in some other industry. Unfortunately, for the majority in our business, that's not an option. The government and regulators destroyed the once proud British aircraft manufacturing industry through mind boggling incompetence and now they're busy destroying the aircraft maintenance business as well. Sad,sad,sad...

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

[ 06 August 2001: Message edited by: Blacksheep ]

[Ali Crom]

Blacksheep I have to agree with your comments regarding the way the industry is going.
After many years I still consider myself to be privileged to have completed an apprenticeship & to have worked whilst employed by one of the few remaining British aircraft manufacturers. Sadly & surely enough, one by one the factories closed & although the job was excellent, the ending of the Cold War mean't that prospects were pretty bleak. Unfortunately I found myself in a position where I had to get out before being yet another victim of the 'British Officespace Plc' redundancy program.
Although I've no regrets about moving from manufacture to maintenance ( the salary was certainly higher )it's been a hard slog to attain the LWTRs & the subsequent type authorisations.
Whilst I don't pretend to know much about the various European licenses or what extra JAR66 modules ( if any ) our colleagues in the other JAA member states have had to attain, the numerous posts & letters I've read on this subject certainly paint a picture of doom & gloom with respect to the UK licensed Engineers.
On the face of it, IMHO we are being let down by the CAA who are only succeeding in accelerating & worsening the current trend of a ever shrinking workforce of skilled & qualified Engineers in this country.
Personally I feel there is a genuine fear that we could be heading down the same creek as the teaching & nursing professions whereby a reliance on foreign labour is becoming the cheaper & easier option.

[Pen it off!]

Techman, with all respect it apperars that it's not just my problem is it, look at the last replies.

HiSpeedTape,thanks for your back there mate, at least we appear to be on a level playing field, even if the license regulators aren't.

[Pen it off!]

By the way Techman, i work along side a French engineer A,C & X licensed and you could ask for a better work colleauge. However, i had to sign of an engine cowl scab repair patch with 20 cherry rivets. Why? because although he was licensed he had never done any skin work before and did not know what cherry rivets were. now what does that tell you?

[Cyclic Hotline]

Blacksheep has hit the nail on the head....

Where is the accountability for this balls-up?

Ths most significant missed opportunity during this time, was to totally restructure this from an authority to an administration.

It is time that some sort of accountable external review body was created to sift through this disaster and sort it all out.

Can think of any company that would allow you to keep your job in the event of the various screw-ups that are being made here?

A good analogy might be to compare this situation with the problems Ansett had with the 767's earlier this year. They got shut-down and suffered continuing consequences, not only regulatory but commercially.

Government agencies on the other hand just plug along, like nothing happened. No-one is holding them accountable for their actions - because a public (transparent) mechanism for review does not exist! One thing the FAA has going for them, run into some beauracratic bull**** with them, and turn your Senator or Congressman on them - you'll see results immediately. They learned a long time ago, that by creating and empowering an administration, they provided the mechanism to administer the law created and approved by elected individuals on behalf of the people - not some entity that becomes a law unto itself and answers to no-one.

:mad:

One final comment. Pen it off; I have worked with people certified by just about every licensing body worldwide. I could not tell you that any particular licence holder is intrinsically better, or worse, than any other. There are a variety of factors that produce the finished porduct. I do know however, a certain number of (good) CAA LAE's who would be unable to perform a sheet-metal repair that would be accepteable to even the most lax Inspector.

For that matter I know a few people who simply must have bribed the CAA in order to obtain their licence (or have been circulating the same set of goat-shagging photo's of the individuals involved.) :eek:

[Techman]

Well Pen It Off!, it tells me that you dont think much of the French.

Perhaps you should direct your fire at the CAA, instead of sniping at the continentals.

[Ali Crom]

Pen it off , I think Techman's latest post sounds vaguely familiar......

"I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"
Remember which classic that came from you "English Pig".

[aeroguru]

Ali Crom I don't think everyone on the forum will be familiar with Monty Python as we are now in pursuit of the Holy Grail that is the JAR66 license!I urinate in your general direction!
Anyway getting back to the original topic; I now understand that the CAA/JAA will consider previous courses if that school will testify that they were in accordance to ATA 104 LEVEL 3.Now if I could only find out what that means!
Also, I don't know if that applies to type licences on your section L licence? Anyone info please? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :eek:

[Techman]

Ali Crom you can take it any way you like.

Pointing fingers and putting other people or licences down, so that I can feel that I or my licence are superior, is not something that I need to do.
Somehow my skills dont seem to improve by pointing out other peoples lack off.

As Cyclic said, we can't all be master of all parts of the trade.
That is the case on the mainland atleast.

[Diablo]

Firstly, I am a multi X, six licensed, coneheaded product of good old BCAR section L orals and all. Not to mention proud of it.

I am in no way saying my skills are in any way shape or form "better" than our colleuges at Air France.

My question is, now that the first of June has come and gone, are NEW French (for example) engineers now going to have to get B1 or B2 licenses before they can have a type course, or will they be able to be granted a B1/2 by there company on completion of an aircraft course.

JAR66 is not a million miles removed from the process of section L. As in modular, multi choice and a few essays. Yes no oral is a big difference, but having to go to the French CAA (or 147 firms) and sit exams will be a real culture shock for some.

Also Gilles what percentage of engineers in France are licensed and also what percentage hold both B1 and B2 qualifications. I have only ever come across 3 people who can do the whole aircraft in the 20 years I have been in this game. Jack of all trades..... as we say in blighty. :D

[Le Fat Jock]

Hi all, I have been reading prune for a while and feel I have something to contribute to this chat.

I have worked in France for a few years as A C and X certifier and think I have learned a few things.

I agree that it is not a level playing field, the CAA have got on with JAR 66 in my opinion but as usual taken it to the extreme. I have heard on more than one occassion that a manufacturers course will not be accepted. Also the fees we are paying are disgusting.

A colegue with a Scandanavian Licence just did a staight conversion. No fees no bull just handed his licence in for the first of June and got the new one back. I understand that this licence was fairly well aligned to the current JAA set up though.

With regard to the French system I dont know where Giles got his licence but my French colegues cant get one and are livid with the DGAC over it. These guys have got the French equivilent of ALEA involved but are still waiting on the outcome.
Their opinion is that the DGAC has been stalling for years due to pressure from AF.Also there is no exam proccess set up yet for new engineers.

Would be gratefull to Giles if he would coment on this as its not eurobashing just saying what I understand

[rightstuff]

Bus.
You can borrow book 1 with pleasure,I'm not using it at the moment,my time is being spent on studying European history and culture in preparation for my European licence conversion.
Let me know how I can get the book to you.
Regards as always.

[Aerosexual]

Ok I am really confused here, I am only a oz lame so we are really removed from all the stuff you are talking about. First question is, 1) Is the JAR66 a licence that you can carry with you from job to job, or is it a authority that is only active while you are working with a company?

2) What is this B1 and B2 that you go on about. Once you have a JAR66 does that not entitle you to perform the CRS on your rating?

3) How do I go about getting my OZ licence converted to JAR66. If possible??
Lets face it, to think that it wont be applicable here is to stick your head in the sand.
Cheers :D

[ 10 August 2001: Message edited by: Aerosexual ]

[Noted]

Aerosexual, please refer to the CAA Website www.caa.co.uk (http://www.caa.co.uk) and find an answer to your questions. :)

[ 10 August 2001: Message edited by: Noted ]

[ 10 August 2001: Message edited by: Noted ]

[get a bigger hammer]

JAR 66 is the Millennium Dome of the aviation industry.

Its expensive. Not needed and an embarassment.

All the time the rail network occupies more column inches than the collapse of aviation. The faceless buerocrats who change systems for change sake purely to justify their own positions are happy.

This is why JAR66 is becoming such a Hydra. Cut one head off by satisfying a requirement and another two grow to replace it. All the time securing more agency jobs. The authority claim "allegedly" that the regulations are open to interpretation? B#ll#cks!!!! Since when has aircraft maintenance been open to interpretation? The regulations need to be concise and transparent.

Of course all the time this is happening the CAA hold onto ever increasing amounts of money while ever increasing numbers of engineers wait for exam dates or renewals.

Perhaps the only way to defeat this is to ignore the requirements (as most of the other member states are)and end up being given one because everything grinds to a halt?
:eek: :rolleyes:

[balti king]

[ 12 August 2001: Message edited by: balti king ]