Do you trust your Engineer

[m.e.l king]

Hi Just trying to get a feeling about how much you pilots trust the your engineer.
Did you you know there is currently a issue with respect to the new EASA license. Your friendly CAA issued licensed engineer has been throughly educated and trained with a minimum of 5 years structured training. On the continent your not so educated Licensed Engineer will in some countries be given the power to sign by just doing an Aircraft Type course with no previous structured training like an apprenticeship .
NO problem you think they work for the foreign airlines not mine. Well under EASA 66 these engineers are allowed to work anywhere in europe no restriction. What is happening is some cases are that people who are failing to meet the standards of the CAA issued License and are unable to pass the Modules to obtain a basic B license without type are going to the continent to have there licenses issued and then coming over here to work. These same people are not asking for the standard wage and therefore some maintenance companies are employing them. So next time you think your engineer does not know what he is talking about, maybe he just does'nt. As a Caa issued EASA B1-1 engineer I would like to see some support from the all and mighty Balpa and their members its in your interest.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Where did you get the 5 years from?

[Fargoo]

Similar thing is happening in the Uk, students cramming multi guess questions passing the exams. Then do a bit of OJT and bingo - fully licenced engineer.
Long gone are the days of a long apprentiship, years of experience then licence route.
I'm not particularly happy about it but that's the way it is.

[m.e.l king]

5 years.

3 years apprenticeship / Ab initio course.
2 years OJT befrore type approval issued by the CAA.
unless you know any different.

[unwiseowl]

1. Sadly BALPA is not "mighty"

2. I think most pilots would be pleased to see BALPA supporting our engineers. I think we have more respect for you guys than you sometimes realise.

3. Why don't you engineers get your own "mighty" union?

[m.e.l king]

Our own "mighty" union the ALAE are doing their best to highlight the issue with letters detailing their worries to EASA in cologne. The options are either the CAA lower their requirements in line with the rest of europe or we just put up and shut up.

ultimately its is all down to safety and an engineer will sign to say the aircraft is safe to fly then get off the aircraft leaving you to fly the aircraft believing he knows what he is talking about.

[JW411]

Do You Trust Your Engineer?

Yes.

[Loose rivets]

Yes, gone are the good old days when the master craftsman would slap the hand of the apprentice…right onto the sharp ends of the locking wire, shoud he have wrapped it the wrong way.
:{

[Techman]

Ahh yes. The usual rant from a British LAE.

Beauties like "The options are either the CAA lower their requirements in line with the rest of europe or we just put up and shut up." just reinforces the impression that either Brits have a inflated view of their licence or they have no idea how it is done in other European countries. Or a bit of both.

I have worked with Swedish, Norwegian, American, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Philipino, Malaysian, Indonesian, Irish, Danish, Dutch, Belgian, Brazilian, Canadian, Iranian, Indian, Pakistani and Sri Lankan ground engineers. And more I have forgotten where came from. I have even worked with Brits.

And let me tell you that on average those with a UK CAA issued licence were no better or worse than anybody else.

[UTRF]

I quite agree with you Techman. I have worked with many foreign licence holding engineers and have nothing but the upmost respect for them. I do, to some extent, agree that some UK LAE's have an elevated opinion of themselves but you cant blame them when they see the ease that european nationals obtain their EASA licence, not that it is a prefered alternative in many UK maintenance organisations. I dont think we should judge a book by its cover, so to speak, as there are some foreign engineers I rate higher than some of the UK engineers I come into contact with.
What we should be saying to the crews we serve is, be confident of the engineers you meet as they have you and your crew and passengers safety paramount in their minds.....not some OTR or TDR statistic.

UTRF

[GotTheTshirt]

Techman for some of us who had our licences in the 60's (with the ARB) the rant is about how we had to jump through hoops to get the licence and then see others come into the system by collecting box tops.
Most of us are not as you put it it ranting about how good we are but about the fact that anybody can do the same function ( ie sign off!) with less effort.

Most of us had to do many licence exams to get the same cover that today they do with a couple.
If you do not believe that the standards are lowered then I suggest you try an ARB LAE exam ( Not multi guess!)

I would say in mitigation that the aircraft have become far more self testing and forgiving.
You have training courses which were not available 40 years ago
Plus you have CD manuals instead of the ex USAAF manuals we had on DC3 ! and of course all regs on Internet.
Have you ever filed a set of FAA AD paper Bi-Weeklys?


From your post you were obviously of the WTR brigade ( or is it just Approval !)

[TURIN]

Your friendly CAA issued licensed engineer has been throughly educated and trained......

But probably not in spelling and punctuation eh, melking?:p





Back to the point of the thread,

The issue is not that others are more/less well trained but that for a Brit to get a B1 license takes a lot of work whereas in other parts of (EASA) Europe it is somewhat easier.

With the cost of living in UK being what it is the smart move for any employer is to give the job to the chap who got his license 'on approval' through the post and will work for minimum wage! :mad:

[DFC]

Obvously this would have nothing to do with protectionism.

I don't care if the engineer had his qualifications issued on the back of a fag packet provided that they can complete the required tasks to the requird standard.

No one here has any evidence of sub-standard work and until they do, they can not argue about any lowering of standards.

Regards,

DFC

[GotTheTshirt]

DFC

You dont get out much then ?

Eastern L1011 MCD
Alaskan MD Stab trim
Concorde wheel assy
Beech 1900 trim cables
LH A300 trim switch

:rolleyes:

[lethalweapon]

NO ! My question to you WHY ?

[spannersatcx]

Eastern L1011 MCD
Alaskan MD Stab trim
Concorde wheel assy
Beech 1900 trim cables
LH A300 trim switch


DFC Not forgetting the BMI oil caps or mcd's or whatever it was that was left off, or the fls 320 spoilers that were locked out of course!

Whilst none of us are perfect, we are not all conquering either.

In years gone by the UK qualified engineer has been held in high regard, because as previously stated, there was no "easy" route for the UK CAA LWTR, and it was a lot harder to get the basics. If I had the choice I know which route I would take, like most things, the easy route!

Whilst the principal of the "european" licence is a good one, unfortunately there is not a level playing field, and as far as I know there is no legislation to make it so, the fact that the UK CAA see's it as a money making exercise it's never going to change.

There are a lot of interesting letters and articles at the ALAE website (www.lae.mcmail.com) should you require further reading. So far there has been no concrete evidence to support what the starter of this thread suggests, until such time as there is you will have to use the system as it is, rightly or wrongly.:(

[cribble]

:confused: Got The Shirt,

IIRC the Alaskan MD stab screw seizure was a result of the company (abetted by FAA) changing the tasks on the maintanence schedule.

It is late, perhaps that's why I can't see the connection between line maintainers' qualifications and your example.

I stand to be corrected, of course.

[Mr.Brown]

I had to go through more or less the same system as the CAA's to get my IAA AMEL pre-JAR66. I'm sick of this CAA is the best! Alot of people have their heads stuck up their own ****.
NOW, the Examination and experience requirements are the very same for each member state, The only problem was with grandfather rights, as there was so many different Licenceing systems to come together as one, there was alot of issues and differences.
Under the new system however, "everyone" has to pass all the required modules as laid done by EASA PART66 and have a minimum of 5 years experience. This minimum experience level can be reduced dependant on your background.
A CAA issued PART66 Licence now is the same as any other, Older licnece holders who converted theirs might have had a harder path, but things have changed. HOW many PART66 "A" licensed engineers who's Licensed are issued by the CAA under protected rights have done CAA exams? Who cares!!! There is a system in place and when all us older chaps leave the game, everyone will have the very same and everyone will forget about this "MY LICENCE IS BETTER THAN YOUR LICENCE"
Oh and one last punch, 5 years to become an engineer thats what about 4 1/2 years longer than a pilot.

DO YOU TRUST YOUR PILOT????

[spannersatcx]

A CAA issued PART66 Licence now is the same as any other

That may be, however a lot, if not all, contract agencies and airlines ask for UK CAA Part 66 licence holders! Perhaps there is a reason for that, who knows!:ooh:

[Krystal n chips]

Mr Brown --to answer your question-----I would trust a newly trained pilot in the same way I would a new engineer.

We all have to learn do we not ?--- and we all make mistakes do we not ? --human beings being fallible I believe?---so I think the answer to your question is yes--until proven otherwise.

[DFC]

spannersatcx,

Those incidents you quote as far as I am aware happened after maintenance was carried out by engineers licensed by the appropriate country's authority.

There is no evidence that work carried out by a qualified engineer from the UK is any better than that carried out by an engienner anywhere else in Europe.

-------

That may be, however a lot, if not all, contract agencies and airlines ask for UK CAA Part 66 licence holders! Perhaps there is a reason for that, who knows!

Protectionism? Not being aware of the law? Not being aware of the fact that other EU citizens holding the appropriate EASA qualifications are equally entitled to apply for whatever position they are advertising?

--------

Quite ironic a situation really that the old UK keep Europe out brigade falls flat on it's face at every turn!

If one spends even a small amount of time looking into the matter one will see that there are a number of organisations providing the appropriate training for engineers in European countries which are UK owned and UK based. Of course, these European engineers will receive their piece of paper from whatever country they are in but the poor standards claimed here (if they are true) will have been a direct result of poor UK standards in training them.

Regards,

DFC

[Lite Bulb]

This is like going from 200hrs approved course to rhs commercial jet. With the approved training it is perfectly acceptable nowdays and flogging around building 700 hours in a C152 is no longer necessary or appropriate. One could argue that the same should apply to Engineering today. I myself served a 4 year apprenticeship and most of my training is unnecessary in todays operations. A systems and type course with problem solving logic is all that is required today. If someone has the basic aptitude for the job then all that is required is sound understanding and being able to follow steps in a manual.

Provided the courses are approved and standards are met, I see no problem. I trust them.

[woptb]

DFC what Spanners was (i believe )referring to is employers based outside Europe such as the Middle East & Singapore.
I have myself seen many advertisements with a similar rider.
I must admit to seeing few advertisements for jobs outside Europe, calling for engineers (from within Europe) with qualifications issued by NAA's other than the UK CAA. I would not care to speculate as to the reasoning behind this.

[spannersatcx]

DFC the quote from gottheshirt was pointing to incidentson a/c not from the UK, I was merely pointing out even those in the UK can and do make mistakes, as someone else said we are after all human, I think!:ok:

A systems and type course with problem solving logic is all that is required today Really! A type course doesn't teach you the basics, of such things like banging rivets in, pitch, land etc, which you would of course need when someone drives a truck into an engine cowl, as that doesn't show up on EICAS, ECAM or in the CMC, so you still need a foundation in basic engineering processes etc.

I was recently in a maintrol and they took a call, asking for a fix, I couldn't believe what was being asked as to me it was 'basic stuff' a quick look in the SRM would of given them the fix, speaking to the controller and he said it was getting more and more like that these days, the guys do the training etc but don't have the background of basics! Anything out of the ordinary and they are stuck, whether that's the ability to think on your feet or basic grounding that's lacking, or lack of experience I don't know.

Once the old gits (like me) start retiring or leaving the industry makes you wonder what state it will be in!:(

[Lite Bulb]

Spannersatcx, I appreciate your point on basics but as I said, if you follow the manual and there is an "old git" to oversee then that is where we are today.
Comparing the 200 hour approved course pilot is exactly the same. He/She will rely on the "old Gits" like us in the left seat .

Problem comes when we are not there any more and the are looking to someone with the same background only around longer. It is happening with flight crew now, it will happen in Engineering soon.

What can we do? We have to trust them.
They can point to the boy in the right seat with 300 hours. If you are not happy, then don't take the aircraft and explain it to your boss.

[yamaha]

Good evening all
and thank god the reports coming in are that the Air France passengers and crew are ok.

Ok isn't this whole argument more about a common standard rather than who makes the mistakes. It seems to be typically European that we trumpet a common goal, a common market, working in unity etc. etc., yet when all is said and done, everyone goes back home and does whatever it is in their own way.

There have been many discussions on this topic all over the place and I have to ask is it worth worrying about?

Whether pro or anti European the fact is, that there is too much history and Europe will never be at one common level. Probably better that way.

I would like to think however that the UK CAA guys are not sounding off about being better but rather just highlighting things are not as equal as all the propaganda suggested it would be.

[SeldomFixit]

Thus far, 1 reply in the affirmative from all the responses, the rest being squabblers argueing the toss over standards that by the very nature of our industry WILL evolve ( read that as change - from magamps to LCD displays if you will ).
Does this tend to indicate that Engineers generally aren't trusted by their customers ? or is it perhaps that in the main, Pilots really couldn't care less about their Engineers ?
Not a slag at either camp but an observation drawn from over 40 years industry experience.

[Tempsford]

The question was 'do you trust your Engineer?'
Why has this thread degraded into yet another 'willy waving' contest regarding which authority or which country produces the best or worst engineers? Some Engineers really do themselves no favours when they behave in such a way.

I have worked in aircraft maintenance for a fair few operators in various roles worldwide for a number of years and I for one would like to see exactly what the concensus of opinion from the flying fraternity is to the question that has been asked.

Temps.

[yamaha]

Come on guys, dont you think you are being a bit harsh.

Yes there was a one sentence question but then a whole bunch more about differing standards.

Perhaps the original poster knows more than he has posted, perhaps not. But sniping at every comment wont achieve anything.

Do I trust engineers? depends on the individual.
Nothing to do with authorities or nationalities or anything else.
I would hope though that the company employing the engineer has done their homework on him.

As to differing standards, many misconceptions often arise due to a lack of understanding of the local language and culture.
If there really is an issue out there it should be dealt with. However at the moment no evidence has been posted here.

[techboy]

Good Day all

An enginner can self study the modules for a B Licence, gain a type course through an approved training organisation but unless that engineer is fully competent/qualified in the companys eyes he would never be given a company approval/stamp.

In which case he he would not be certyfying anything.

I would agree that the apprenticeships and licence route before JAR/EASA was much more thourough, the old A+C, X, R Licences were sometimes thought as being more difficult than any degrees out there especially with the negative marking.

I still belive though that the engineers nowadays who certify those aircraft flying above us at the moment do it with nothing other than safety of a/c pax and crew in mind at all times.

[Bus429]

I've been fortunate to have worked around the world with a variety of LAEs of different nationalities. By and large, we are all similar in nature. We are also all exposed to commercial pressures and some of us do not respond as we should.
(BTW, with regard to aviation incidents/accidents, most have an element of management failing as a factor. Think of Britt Air, Alaska 261, American 191, BMI oil loss etc).

We put up with poor facilities, poor equipment/tooling, lack of spares, the old sweats who "have always done it this way and have never had an accident" (must be about due, then)etc. We also appreciate Human Factors training but, along with many managers, we ignore it.

Despite my previous carping about pilots (;)), I firmly believe safety is a joint effort.

I have reservations about EASA, JAR/Part 66 and other regs. EASA believes the UK CAA over-regulates but our accident rate is very low; that said, so too is that of ECAC and EU states. 2004 was one of the best years for the accident rate: 475 fatalities from 26 accidents. However, irrefutably, maintenance error is on the increase and the fact that the statistics are not worse could be a function of inherently reliable aircraft with redundant systems.

[MaxBlow]

YES I do - IF they come and fly with us!
:hmm: := ;)

[Ignition Override]

Yes: 100%, and my company looks down upon them as if they were low life, wanting to furlough at least half of them-permanently. They want most of our own "engineers/mechanics" to go the way of the hairy mammoth, and relish the idea of treating them as such, by figuratively pushing them with long spears until they fall into a pit or over a cliff .:E

They plan to do this whether they give up a big chunk of salary or not. Stone-age attitude, stone-age resolve in response (our mgmt. makes the Belgae look tame).

[Bus429]

Good points, Ignition.
I believe our American maintenance colleagues are classified as "semi-skilled"; a gross travesty. I also learn that all is not sweetness and light with the maintenance teams at United and NWA.