See.HEY.HEY

[inky]

Please Please, some one restore my faith in the caa ,, i have just paid £180 to renue my licence, or at least my company will have,what do we get for the money ??
in my opinion not much ?? how do they look after their licenced engineers...
how do they enhance our proffesion... i have seen lots of wanna be letters ,, most of them are answered with the dont do it statement... in 20 odd years of a/c certification i have seen how many changes in licencing policy???
i have just watched a freind struggle with his licence studying . only to be asked a load of irrelevant questions by some surveyor
who either has little hands on experience, or it occoured so long ago as to be out of date....what gives these people the deep insight and understanding of aviation that they claim to have...most have not worked a live a/c in years.. probably couldnt certify a thing by there own guidelines (a la office staff/managers certifying work.......has any one ever been asked by the caa about the problems of being a certifiying engineer..face to face as it were
with a chap from the local office..??
or do they only come round at audit time??
ok thats it.....got it off my chest...put me straight boys it was a long difficult night shift.........
..................................
have a safe one

[oh_ring]

Concentrate on your spelling and punctuation!

[spannersatcx]

Perhaps that's why the Oral exam is being withdrawn! Oh and we won't be engineers for much longer we will be TECHNICIANS. http://www.lae.mcmail.com for the Association of Licensed Aircraft Engineers, who are trying to fight against the removal of the oral and to maintain our position as professionals.

[aeroguru]

Well you have renewed it ,so you must have had a battle to get it,and you must have had it at least five years.
Are you a member of A.L.A.E.?
I suggest that you complain to them as they are our voice and have some formal say with the C.A.A. airworthiness department.

[Denzil]

With that amount of mistakes you should not have a licence (no "O" Level English!). I hope you are better with the spanners than the keyboard.

------------------
"Noted With Thanks"

[Blacksheep]

Aw come on Denzil, you don't need to be good at spelling to be an engineer :) The meaning is loud and clear enough and I agree with almost every word. (See my post about JAR 66)

One thing though. Surveyors aren't bogeymen and all licence holders should go out of their way to get to know their local surveyor. I get on very well with ours and always found those I've dealt with to be reasonable chaps when you get to know them. Remember, we are both on the same side.

LAEs aren't really Aircraft Engineers, we are AIRWORTHINESS Engineers, dedicated to keeping the aircraft flying SAFELY.

Perhaps one of the failings that has led to our decline is that we often regarded surveyors as "The Enemy" You'd be surprised what some of them have to say about the CAA itself when you get them on their own. And they do have some extraordinarily nice things to say about us as well!

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

[greaseytech]

Anyone out there done any Human Factors training? One of the aspects covered was 'What is a typical Engineer?' And surprisingly, typical engineers do make spelling mistakes. Regularly. I could go into all the psycho analasys, but haven't got the time right now. So please, all of you non-typical engineering typs out there who have perfect spelling, please go easy on our typical engineer who, after all, did have a very stressful night shift before he typed his bullitin.

By the way, my spelling has improved somewhat as my wife is a teacher and she has been known to look over my sholder and correct any bad spelling she may find. V.V. annoying I can tell you!

[Rusty Nail]

In reply to spannersatcx remarks about us being termed TECHNICIANS by the CAA, will this not bring us in line with the rest of the world, (bar those countries where the British CAA have an input), in that all we are, are certifying technicians. In certain european countries this is what there workers are called, and they are held with greater esteem. An engineer is seen as somebody who has achieved at least a degree in an engineering subject.
I do also agree that the system that is now being implemented, does appear to be downgrading the qualifications required for our job, so it may seem appropriate to also alter our job title.
Following, is the meanings of engineer and technician taken from The Chambers Dictionary so as to make your own mind up as to how we should be titled.

Engineer-someone who designs or makes, or puts to practical use, engines or machinery of any type.

Technician-a person skilled in a practical or mechanical art.

Hopefully all this euro-bureaucracy will not affect the washingmachine engineer or the gas appliance engineer, or the British housewife will not know who she has to telephone in an emergency.

Ingenieur oder Techniker - Wer sorgt?
Rusty Nail

[JET SET SPARKY]

Maybe i'm a little glib about this,but i don't care if you call me ENG or TECH ,so long as my pay doesn't get the DUMBING-DOWN treatment! If that happened to us thickie grafter type blokes,i'd like to see university-boy-super-dogs-dangly-engineer sort three tech aircraft out on his jack jones.
Anyways i need rotorcraft autopilot for my B2 ....can anyone tell me what a rotorcraft is? i've seen windmills in the sky with no wings..is that one of them?
Genghis is a clever bloke,i'm sure he'll know

----------------------------------------
oops that's buggered it!

[Snigs]

An emotive argument this one.

I'm a degree educated engineer (cone-head) and I thoroughly object to a plumber being able to be labelled as a "heating engineer" or a telephone fitter being called a "telecom engineer". :mad:

However, if the "engineer" is educated or trained to a certain level (which most contributors to this forum are) then they should be respected as such, and called Professional Engineers. To me, a technician is the person between the fitter and the engineer. I guess that fits in with Rusty's comments.

God, that's a load of waffle... :)

Oh and Jet Set, I'd like to see university-boy-super-dogs-dangly-engineer sort three tech aircraft out on his jack jones.

Reinforces the stereotype don't you think... if we didn't design them then you'd have no planes to go tech!!!

;)

[Blacksheep]

CAA Form 1237, now then, what does it say here? Ah yes, I thought so, "Aircraft Maintenance Engineer's Licence" That's it then, argument over. I'm an engineer, its official. At least for the time being anyway :) :)

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

[spannersatcx]

AWN 3 Aircraft Maintenance Licence issued under JAR 66 as from 2001
para 13 JAR 66 Category A Aircraft Maintenance Licence (Line maintenance certifying mechanic)
Para 14 JAR 66 Category B1 Aircraft Maintenance Licence (Line maintenance certifying TECHNICIAN)
Para 15 JAR 66 Category B2 Aircraft maintenance Licence (Line maintenance certifying TECHNICIAN)
Para 16 JAR 66 Category C Aircraft Maintenance Licence (Base Maintenance Certifying ENGINEER)

So unless you are in the hangar issueing the final release of an aircraft off of a check you are now (or son will be) a TECHNICIAN.
From June 2001 no further BCAR section L LWTR's will be issued, on renewal you will hold a partial JAR 66 licence with grandfarther rights. There is a conversion document issued by the CAA telling you what you need. There is a document on the srg website http://www.caa.co.uk/

So until June 2001 enjoy your Engineer status (unless Cat C) whence you will be known as a certifying TECHNICIAN.

The ALAE fought for a very long time to keep the Title Engineer, but it fell on stoney ground. Http://www.lae.mcmail.com

[Bitter and Twisted]

Do you not find that when explaining the job you do, that you have to call yourself an engineer, so that the non technicals at least have an understanding of what we do.I have had to be very diplomatic when asked if my job involves topping up the oil, or if we remove the carpets to do our inspections.
In reply to Rusty Nails question,

ICH SORGE!!!!!

[JET SET SPARKY]

Hey snigs me old kipper,you didn't design the A320 toilet system did you? Some 'professional engineer' deserves 'a higher level of RE-education' for that little pearler! P.s i've just fixed the toilet at home ,does this make me a sanitation 'engineer'or do i need an input into the design stages of the ball-cock to qualify?
;) stereotype ? I can only manage with one finger at a time.........

My brain hurts boss...d'oh!

[Denzil]

Engineer or Technician? To be honest it doesn't really matter which, as I don't think we will ever really get the recognition that we deserve for the responsibility we take on a day to day basis.
At the end of the day most of us have worked hard to pass licence exams etc and would like to be paid a decent basic salary without the need to do overtime. As it is a new starter F/O is on more money than a Licenced Engineer (or Technician) in the company I work for. Recognition for the job you do is always good, in this industry it is sadly lacking, with all the glory going to the boy's in the front seats.




------------------
"Noted With Thanks"

[aeroguru]

Bingo.Absolutely right on the nail.See letter in Flight inter re abilities of current F/O's!

[Snigs]

Originally posted by Denzil:
Engineer or Technician? To be honest it doesn't really matter which, as I don't think we will ever really get the recognition that we deserve for the responsibility we take on a day to day basis.
At the end of the day most of us have worked hard to pass licence exams etc and would like to be paid a decent basic salary without the need to do overtime.

I couldn't agree more. This discussion has been going on and on and on in the dark and dusty corridors at the IMechE, and still nothing is done. I despair! :mad:

Jetty old bean, fortunately I didn't get my hands dirty in the A320 bogs, I'm mostly involved in making sure that the spinning metal bits in the engine keep on pushing the air backwards without falling off. Maybe it was a technician who designed the bogs !!! ;)

------------------
I'll just go and get my coat....

[Genghis the Engineer]

I have no particular problem with this - I've got qualifications as an
Engineer and as a Technician - they are very different roles.

The Engineering Council, which deals with a lot more than just aerospace
uses the term Technician and Engineer. To call yourself either in their
eyes takes a lot of training and qualification. But in general I wouldn't
trust a maintenance Technician to design an aeroplane, any more than I'd
trust a design Engineer to maintain one. As it happens at a working level
Licensed Technicians are probably better paid than a just-qualified Graduate
Engineer anyway. It's just a shame that we are so out of step with the drivers (to make yourself feel good however, look how much a QFI gets!)

I'd love to see both terms being restricted by law (in the same way as
Doctors, Osteopaths, Accountants and other lesser professions) do - with a
fine or prison sentence for calling yourself an Engineer or Technician
without being properly qualified.

For lower forms of life below either we have the terms "Mechanic", "Fitter",
"Apprentice" or "Manager" depending upon preference.

Genghis CEng

N.B. JSS, I think you'll find that Rotorcraft defined in law asaircraft so ugly that they don't need wings to fly - the Earth just repels them.

[Cornish Jack]

"The Knack"
While I appreciate that you spanner wielders don't normally have time to visit sites of non-technical content, :) if you manage to grab a few spare seconds, try this for an explanation of your condition ;) ;) rickleephoto.com (http://www.rickleephoto.com/rlfunny.htm) :) :)

[This message has been edited by Cornish Jack (edited 22 February 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Cornish Jack (edited 23 February 2000).]

[Denzil]

Well that worked well, NOT!!!

The bottom line is "Show Us The Money" not the name.

------------------
"Noted With Thanks"

[silverfish]

Engineer or Technician does it really matter? I don't think it does. What does matter is that by the systematic lowering of engineer's / technician's profiles within the industry we are now being faced with an ever growing shortage of engineers. Maybe the CAA and companies should be looking at ways to overcome this problem rather than using the much favoured bucket of sand method! If a solution is not found it will become all our problems. But at the end of the day I still feel all the work was worth it, just!

Move over my turn in the sand now.

[Denzil]

Yo Silverfish, The CAA and industry have given us an answer in the form of JAR 66.
Make all current engineers pay lots of money to convert current Section L licences (including doing the X exam for A & C guys) & lower the standard for new entrants (no orals). I for one have met a lot of complete donkeys who have passed multi choice and written exams but have failed the oral as the surveyer spotted the lack of knowledge.
I find the situation a bit worrying really.


------------------
"Noted With Thanks"

[Genghis the Engineer]

Isn't it interesting that CAA as a matter of policy doesn't apply new standards to old aeroplanes, but has no such compulsion where people are concerned.

[Blacksheep]

Ghengis,

The CAA are lackeys of the capitalist conspiracy that profits from exploitation of the masses.

Or to put it another way, the people who own the old aircraft have more political clout than those who have to hold licences to earn their daily crust :)

As the French say "C'est la vie, chum" ;)

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

[Snigs]

Originally posted by Genghis the Engineer:
I'd love to see both terms being restricted by law (in the same way as
Doctors, Osteopaths, Accountants and other lesser professions) do - with a
fine or prison sentence for calling yourself an Engineer or Technician
without being properly qualified.

For lower forms of life below either we have the terms "Mechanic", "Fitter",
"Apprentice" or "Manager" depending upon preference.

Absolutely, Genghis


------------------
I'll just go and get my coat....

[Blacksheep]

We got off the original post a bit here, it started with a complaint about licence fees.

The existing licences will be replaced by a new JAR66 licence soon. This will end our description as Licenced Aircraft Engineers and turn us into Licenced Technicians. Big deal. The problem is, we will still need to pay the same (or higher) fees for the new licence. What privileges does the new licence confer? The answer is none if you work in the hangar. In fact, if you work on Major Maintenance then you won't certify anything unless you rise to be in charge of the whole section.

Why are the regulatory body removing the need for certification of scheduled maintenance? For international standardisation? Why would anyone employed in Major Maintenance bother to go through the licencing process for no particular benefit? We shall see, but I don't believe that airworthiness will benefit.

As to terminology, different names are used in different places. In the USA what we call LAEs are called "Mechanics" and in America it is a privilege to be known as a Mechanic. Again in USA a railway locomotive driver is called an "Engineer" although I don't suppose many of them have degrees in engineering :)

Then there is the question of protecting professional qualifications through legal means. There ARE no professional engineering qualifications in UK. The Engineers Registration Board simply registers people who meet its qualification levels but they do not CONTROL the Profession. That is actually the problem.

For Chartered Accountants, Doctors, Lawyers and so on their Professional Body controls standards, they don't merely register people. In fact, getting a degree is only the first step. There are further full-time post-graduate courses to be completed and a strictly supervised training period. In short, if there really were such a thing as a Professional Engineer in UK, he or she would have at least a Masters Degree and three years closely supervised and monitored development training with an employer approved to conduct the training.

When such a system is in place under the control of a proper Professional Body for engineering, then it will be reasonable to protect the title and credentials of Engineers by legal means. Until then, the real qualifications are the degrees you hold, not fancy titles issued by a body with no powers.

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

[Windy Militant]

Had to shove my threpence hapenny in to this. The Numpty that is supposedly in charge of me recently got chartered by IMechE.
Shortly afterwards I found myself having to explain to him why, when you mesh two gears together you have to leave a little gap! The problem is that he's done all the project, programme & finance management courses which are now apparently vital to an engineers career plan but the only Mechanic's he's done is number crunching on a PC. There are an awful lot of now supposedly qualified people out there who have no practical experience of the world and it shows. At the lab where I currently fester one department tried to do away with tradesmen and just have graduates to do all the installation and maintenance as befits an establishment of international standing -------- and as you've probably guessed it was a bloody disaster! What we need to have are the right people in the right places, a blend of people with practical experience and theoretical skills. This used to be achieved by allowing experienced people from the shop floor to migrate upwards if they had the ability. Nowadays the emphasis is on academic qualifications and a gulf between the sharp end and the top is growing. At the end of the day it's not the bit of paper that counts it's you and how you carry out your responsibilities. However there's one good thing that's come of my Numpty becoming an "Engineer" if he'd gone into accountancy which he's far more suited to he'd be making a lot more people miserable than just the few he affects round here!

[Genghis the Engineer]

The CEng route in the UK is now a 4-year Master of Engineering Degree (it was a 3 year BEng when I did it), plus 2 years additional training, plus 2 years on the job. This is hardly the minimalist approach that Blacksheep describes, I certainly spent a lot of time with my hands dirty before reaching the heady heights I'm at now.

Certainly the amount of work I had to do to get my CEng through the RAeS was anything but minimal, and I had to do even more work a couple years later to get membership of the IMechE.

The problem is however not that system isn't strict - it is, although Windy's boss seems to have slipped through the net somewhere. The problems are (a) that this isn't a license to practice, and (b) the Engineering Council does bugger all then to ensure that people continue to maintain the required standards.

The Eng.Tech / IEng / CEng system would be a good one if anybody (including the EC / RAeS / IMEchE) actually took it seriously by making it a license to practice and actually requiring Engineers to prove that they keep meeting the standards to keep it.

The only CEng I've ever heard of being "struck-off" was done so for selling government secrets to the Russians. If to be in charge of a project / hangar / whatever, you had to be at the right standard, and if you had a really big cock-up (BAC1-11 windscreen?, Dover pier?) were subject to a formal Inquiry by your peers at risk of losing your qualifications the world would be a better place.

This is what the medics do after all.

G

[Blacksheep]

Aah Ghengis,

Just what I've been trying to lead this up to :)

A proper route upwards, available to all who are willing to put in the effort, that leads to a "Licence to Practice." Legally protected, and independently controlled by the practitioners themselves. I go further and propose a seperate Institute for Maintenance Engineering as a distinct discipline. We would then be Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers in a true sense!

In fact, a true profession. The Licence that I got from the ARB in nineteen-canteen was mine. It didn't belong to my employer and I exercised the privileges using my own discretion. Employers such as BOAC and BEA didn't like that, it was expensive and increased their labour costs. As aircraft fleet sizes increased in the sixties the increased demand for LAEs would inevitably drive up the wages needed to get the right people. To better control the certifiers the corproations used their political muscle to force the new CAA into publishing A8-13 and the company approval system; reducing the cost of certification through the invention of the "Certifying Tradesman." Since then we have descended further to JAR 145 and will soon take another step down to JAR 66. Standards are falling, simply to reduce costs without concern about the possible effects on airworthiness.

By the way, although I note the references to "bean counters" and agree upon the dangers that they unwittingly sponsor, my own opinion of them is based on knowledge not emotion. I have a degree in Accounting and Finance and I'm not just a "union man" trying to fight for higher pay. I feel that the downward pressure on standards has gone far enough. There will be an inevitable cost penalty if we continue down this road, and peoples' safety is put in jeopardy. Accountants work on historic costs and will only react once the bills come in. By then it will be too late.

*********************************

[The hippy]

Come on chaps,
the system has changed that much that now we might as well be known as "Book readers with Tools"

The days of real type tickets where orals lasted 4 to 5 hours are gone, the depth of knowlege into every nut,bolt, relay and sub-system I am afraid have long past.

Look at aircraft like the Airbus, It tells you when its gone wrong (most of the time),It even gives you codes to look up to direct you on fault finding. where is the Brain work in that, all you need is to understand how to use the manuals properly.
Many moons ago I used to spend hours trying to understand how systems worked,(and the CAA used to ask me on vists or on orals).but now whats the point, my company states I must read and quote all AMM references for work I carry out and certify, Ive even had my knuckles rapped for not following the TSM (trouble shooting manual) para by para.
I am sorry to say that we have had the power or right to think removed from us. The CAA and companies have gone along with this, exams/legislation are gearing up for work forces that are controlled by manufactures manuals.
Maybe the only real Engineers will be the structure repair guys that aurthories airframe repairs?

PRACTICAL skill does not come into this area, maybe this is the true part of the job that we should sell to companies?

[Blacksheep]

Hi hippy,

So, when you reach the last block in the FIM and there's nothing in the MM, BITE says all is well and the bl**dy thing STILL doesn't work, where do you go? Again, what happens when the FIM says change the 'PFM Module' and it comes back from repair for the fourth time as NFF with a repair invoice of US$2500 what do you do then? No, there is no replacement for a trained laterally thinking human being. The day when the first maintenance free aircraft takes to the air is the same day that we achieve the zero crew cockpit. By then I'll be retired but I think I'll go on holiday by ship :) :)

------------------
Info noted. Plse report further.

[The hippy]

black sheep

I agree but is not that the practical side?

This is where the old boys will shine over the new for the new are only being trainned as book readers.

[spannersatcx]

What happens when we've all gone though?

[The hippy]

Good point but will you REALLY care?

I wont!