Certificates and Terminology

[redtail]

How are CAA certificates for working on aircraft different from the FAA A&P etc.? The great unwashed over here have a million theories/stories, but I'd rather get my info from people who work in a CAA environment. I am expecting the snide with the serious. Is the CAA technician/mechanic/engineer/whatever certificate better or worse than an A&P? This isn't intended to start a fight over which system is better or worse, just to compare the differences between them.

Personally, I'm an A&P R&E in the land of marginal beer. I like being able to be assigned to anything on anything, but sometimes it seems it would be nice to really good on one or two airplanes, instead of being a jerk of all trades.

And could some tell me what a fitter is/does?

[growler]

I was brought up on tales that the UK licence is the best in the world and that a US A+P comes free with a packet of corn flakes. Hearing stories about the FAA practical exam being held in groups of 2 in an office sitting around a case of beer with the examiner bear this out in my mind.Although, I would admit that the A+P seems to open as many, if not more, doors.

[redtail]

Yes, we do have “paper mills” over here. I can’t defend that practice in any way. Ex-military guys use them, and they get a lot of business when management suddenly has to have their tickets to keep their positions. Some of these “paper mills” have recently been caught by the FAA, and their customers have been asked to re-test. I expect that would be a sphincter tightening experience for those involved.

I went through a two year technical school, my examiners were my instructors, and still the practicals and orals were stern. After that it was working on small planes to see if I could actually handle the trade and to build time until the airlines would talk to me. Back then the airlines wanted five years experience, preferably on jets. I should mention that a class before mine in school was so rowdy and disrespectful that the instructors told them to find their own examiners, which will almost guarantee tough testing since the examiner has no idea of who you are or what you can do, so they start from point zero.

I’m not sure I care for the certificates being good for life. I think occasional re-testing would separate the posers from the actual wrench turners. But that would raise costs for the employers, thinning the available qualified labor pool, so we will probably never see that. Employers are a lot better at lobbying the FAA than labor is.

What is the process for getting a UK license? Two corn flake proof of purchase coupons? Just kidding, keep the gloves on, no need to go to bare knuckles yet. Is there re-testing/re-qualification? Is it hard to move from company to company with a UK license? Is there a shop or hangar hierarchy?

[rerackit]

redtail,
I personally don`t have A&P, so i cant speak from experience, but speaking with those who do, it would appear that it is not considered too difficult to get when compared to the CAA licences. Our licences are specific to a trade. They are as follows;
`A` - airframe. `C` - propulsion. `X`elect - `X` instruments. `X` Autopilot. `X` Combined Category (for autoland, FMC. autothrottle, FADEC etc), `R` radio comms and nav. and `R` radar.
The licencing process is currently undergoing changes to bring it line with europe, so whereas we used to have to do multi choice and written exams in order to qualify for the oral exam, we now do just the multi choice. That hasnt made it any easier though as the examiner can ask any question he likes at the oral exam.
Once the engineer has gained his licences, he would then have to undergo an aircraft type course, gain experience on type and sit a company quality oral exam.
So, in the case of avionics,(my trade), I have had to sit six licence written and oral exams and attended type courses, some of which go on for between four and ten weeks. (B737 electrical systems alone is a four week course!).
Please note, this is for wide bodied aircraft only. Light aircraft is a slightly different setup.
As for changing companies. As you can imagine, once all this experience and qualifications is gained, an engineer in this country has a good future in the job market. Unfortunately, we wear overalls in a country that thinks suit wearing is worth more, so pay can be a bit of an issue with some employers.
Is there a shop or hangar hierachy? Yes. The licencing system is only for those engineers working on aircraft. Workshops use a different system.
Hope this helps.

[redtail]

Thanks for the reply. I take it that the individual goes to school, takes the licensing exams, then builds time at a company and takes the aircraft specific exams? Did you get all of the licensing qualifications (Instruments, Autopilot, Combined Category, Radios, and Radar) on your own, before hiring on with a company? Most airlines in the US spend maybe two days on Chapter 24 in their system training courses, which are usually four weeks long. Four weeks of one aircraft’s electrical system (like you said you had) and I would be able to call all of the relays by their first names!
Over here, qualified mechanics are very much in demand, but if you leave one airline for another you start again at the bottom of the pay scales. So I have no incentive to leave a $25/hr position to start at $16/hr at the beginning of a five to ten year climb back to top wages unless the whole airline is sinking. Kind of a monkey trap with wages and seniority. Hopefully this will change soon. I think companies will start cherry picking and headhunting soon.
Mechanics without certificates often get hired for the shops. The company will then request a repairman certificate for the mechanic to work under and sign items off with, but it is restricted to local tasks and the mechanic cannot take it with him to another employer.

How many types of aircraft can you work on? As an example, I have nine different maintenance releases and can taxi the same nine aircraft. Does this seem a little ridiculous? (Yes, I have a real interest in using the check lists) What is the advantage to having a type endorsement? Is it just for maintenance releases?

[LME (GOD)]

As a dual licenced engineer under the FAA and IAA, there is a world of difference between the two systems. The IAA is nearly identical to the CAA exam, (we don't have multi-guess). When i decided to get my A&P, I was sent to a school for 10 days to sit in front of a PC to learn the answers to a bank of questions. These questions are geared to GA aircraft. There was nothing on modern nav systems, radios, autopilots etc. After completing this, with a 40hr fam course, i could sign off anything that flies (fixed or rotary). Frankly it scared the hell out of me the amount of truck mechanics who decide it would be cool to work on airyplanes. I think the A&P system is long overdue for an overhaul. Anybody need a compression check?

------------------
It flew in, it'll fly out

[Mice]

Redtail,
I have recently returned from the states, and have worked under the UK CAA system, but am an Australian Licenced Engineer. While the feelings expressed by the others are common with myself, they have not actually addressed your questions, so I shall give it a try.

1. In the UK system (not the Jar66, the BCAR)engineers have to do a detailed company course on an aircraft type, which explains the length of time for one trade. A 5 week course on a modern Airframe alone is not uncommon, but the depth of knowledge required is vastly superior to the requirements of the US operators. They then have to compile a practical work experience schedule on that type, requirements of which may vary from company to company generally, and takes into account the other licences/Authorities already held. They can then apply to the company QA department for issue of a company Authority, which allows them to certify for that type of aircraft and may generally do an oral examination to confirm they know what they are talking about. (I shall not go into detail on limitations to this licence).

The requirements of the A&P can only be judged against the UK LWTR based on relative experience. EG, the LWTR man must sit a number of system based exams, which go into depth on detail (and with exam questions) before he can apply for the Licence Without Type Rating (LWTR), he must also serve a minimum time in the trade for this issue (cannot remember exactly, but think it is 4 years??). Compare that with your FAA requirements. The FAA system requires a company to train the engineer prior to allowing him to sign for the aircraft. I think AA do a 4 week course on the 767, for example, which covers all. While it is much more difficult to get the UK endorsement, with much deeper levels of knowledge required, I have worked with guys in NY that can hold their own anywhere, because they have had many years experience with a particular type. This makes a direct comparison dificult, but generally, the A&P level of knowledge is far below that required for the LWTR. I know people from our system that have passed the A&P, with no study or course, because of our stricter requirements initially. It is only of review level to us.

A fitter is an engineer who does not have a licence and is thus unable to certify for the work of others, or release of the work on the aircraft. Probably akin to someone in the states who works on aeroplanes but does not have an A&P. (EG Overhaul)

As for the schooling side, the engineer can choose to study himself, and sit the basic examinations (LWTR), or if in an airline, when he does his apprenticeship the company may give him training in these fields, but he then has to do the CAA exams himself. However there are approved training schools that offer courses in the specific basic examinations and even run the exams. Most I know in the industry have gone via the airlines or military. I do not know much of the miltaries training system in this regard.

As for the transportability of these company licences (Authorities), most UK airlines recognise other UK airline training, and it is mostly a formality to get the new company authority based on that. However, you can work on any aircraft, but can only sign for work done (by yourself or fitters) on the ones you have the company licence on.

Personally, here in Aus, I have A&C&E&I licences, and it took me some years to get them all, (cannot get interested in Radio) as I sat for the C&E&I myself. I had to do about 35 basic examinations to be able to hold licences in those categories. The depth of knowledge required is the same as the UK.

While I rely on memory for some of this info, hope this is of some help.

------------------
When all else fails, read the manual!

[Techman]

To get my licence I went thru 4 years of theoretical and practical training, just to get the basic knowledge. After those 4 years, I was then qualified to apply for the licence. I might add that those 4 years consistet of airframe/powerplant and elec/avionics.
To be qualified to sign for anything, I then had to do a 6 month type specific course, 3 months theoretical and 3 months hands on, after that I could the release just that specific type only.
I have a ICAO type II licence.

[redtail]

Thanks for the info, and if anyone else has more to add, feel free to. I wouldn't mind the same system over here, as it would winnow out the pikers.

Does all of this training mean you work with better trouble shooters and more competent people? That seems to be our biggest problem over here. Very few mechanics can progress beyond changing components. It has gotten so bad that there are maintenance control positions for people to give troubleshooting advise to line mechanics. Give me a break! The line mechanic should be able to do that.

I also have a link for mechanic wages, most of which are based on 160 hrs a month. http://www.amfanow.org/AMT-Wage_Scales.htm

[redtail]

How many hours a week is the schooling? Is it like a college, or like a trade school? In my case, it was twenty one months of seven hours a day, five days a week to meet the FAA requirements for testing. Missed time had to be made up.

At the end of it all, having received my certificates, it was still just a licence to learn. I was too green to do anything on my own. Luckily I had some good mechanics to show me the ropes.

[jetmech757]

Redtail-
I agree with your thoughts exactly. I also agree with the fellow who said that you can get an A&P with a CrackerJack purchase. The truth hurts, don't it? Frankly, it's getting scary over here, with even 10-year mechanics that can't read a wiring diagram, and new mechanics walking around the ramp with a flashlight making the call on whether an airplane is good or not. You know there's a problem when even the big airline guys like Redtail work in an environment of ineptitude.
I'll admit, the UK licensing procedure sounds much better, but if the FAA aligned its process with that model, we'd experience even more of a mechanic shortage than we are now. Then again, it's nice to know that I'll have a job for a while!

[Mice]

Jetmech, your sentiments are correct, however, there is a serious shortage of GOOD engineers in the UK (and Europe) as well as the states right now. No doubt for the same reasons, poor money, long hours, inhospitable conditions versus the time required to get to the point of a licence issue.
In our trade, the return is no where near the effort put in. Is it any wonder people go into computers, or some such area.
A comparable pilot in a major airline does much less work (actual flying time) and is paid between three to five times more. This is to say nothing of the treatment of engineering staff versus pilots by the airlines.
Engineers are always treated like crap. Is it any wonder we cannot attract good people into our trade. I would never advise my children to go into the trade!

------------------
When all else fails, read the manual!

[CONES R US]

I did an armed forces apprenticeship (3 Years)and worked in a hangar and on the line. On leaving the RAF, I somehow got a job with an airline with no licences. I self studied for the first two, then the company I worked for sent me on a 4 week radio/radar course. I still have exams to do for rotary autopilots and combined autopilots. If I'd stayed with my previous company I might have been given courses, but I was attracted by the lure of a half decent wage and decided to go contracting. Now I feel a bit stuck for studying. It's very hard to motivate yourself to study working long shifts, and if I take time off to attend a course, then I lose out on money as I don't get paid if I don't work.
Once I get my full JAR66 B2ticket (avionics) I would probably prefer to attempt an A+P before attempting the CAA exams as the A+P carries more weight in the world market.

[Multi-X]

The A&P gives a basic level of knowledge as we would expect a mechanic in the UK to have after completing an apprenticeship ( used to be 4 years not 10 days). Once an A&P goes on to take his IA authorisation ( afetr 3 years) he has had more experience & is about level with the CAA license.

It is the FAA who do not allow A&P mechanics to get a start because of the training requirements. In the UK courses are 6-8 weeks, have a exam at the end & the applicant is required to have some work experience before being given a company apporval. In the US all one has to do is records 40 hours of OJT & he then has authorisation, less RII ( Dup insp). The FAA beleive that all the mechanic has to do is read the MM & follow the instructions. Great in theory but when there are tight schedules & commercial pressure, not a great way to ensure airworthiness. The FAA will fine a mechanic if he does not have the MM with him during a job but will not check if he can read English or understand the instructions.

Either way the safety records of both countries are similar & the only problem we face is the increasing shortage of engineers, how to attract new blood into the industry etc.

Simple solution - Pay more money.

Only one draw back is that engineers have never stuck together. Some often slag off pilots for their hours worked & pay but they get what they deserve, we should be getting the same but we need to stick together.

[redtail]

Part of the reason pilots do well is that their requirements weed out the inept. Pilots are constantly being evaluated on their job performance. At major US airlines, being hired on as a mechanic is a job for life, like welfare with a timeclock. It is becoming a joke. We have baggage handlers and cleaners getting their A&P’s from schools just for a pay raise when they can upgrade to mechanics, not because of any mechanical calling. Many mechanics at major airlines feel no need to improve their job skills after being hired on. Why bother? Being in the breakroom pays the same as fixing something. Part of the problem is the unions. The pilot’s unions offer a professional image and product. Pilots that threaten the image and professionalism are coached by the union to straighten up. What do the unions that represent mechanics do to promote professionalism?
Sorry about venting here, but the best tool everyone has is between their ears. Why let it rust?
Thanks all for your comments and contributions. Let’s try to make tomorrow better. Why not?



[This message has been edited by redtail (edited 29 May 2000).]

[TwoDeadDogs]

Hi,Folks
Once upon a time,I worked in Texas,in a company that overhauled industrial turbines.Because one element of the process was also used on aero-engine fan blades, the factory was an FAA repair station.The company required every mech on the shop floor to possess an A&P.Virtually all of them were ex-Navy/Marines.They had all recieved their tickets after leaving the Military by going to an A&P school,which assessed their Military qualifications and experience and increased or reduced the training accordingly.I think the absolute minimum was six weeks.The GI Bill paid for it all.
A few had worked in regular civil aviation but gave up for an indoor job.Two of them left to go to work for Disneyland,who had set the A&P as the minimum requirement to get a job.Putting hydraulic fluid up Mickey Mouse's rear end paid more than overhauling million-dollar turbines.
By and by, the companies that service/install/overhaul industrial turbines are always on the look for bodies,especially electrical/electronic coneheads.The pay isn't bad,but you have to be prepared to travel and work in dubious places.Plenty of aero engines are used in ground installations,such as the Trent core,the old RR Avon,the PT-6 series and lots of the older American engines(Orenda J-47).
regards
TDD

------------------
Drink,gurls,****,arse...