The CAA

[The hippy]

If any of you guys have read the new notices you will have you seen that the oral exam is now going to be axed when you do a JAR licence.
Long gone are the three hour orals for one basic ticket, young eng`s are coming out of college as it is with the full spread of licences after passing exams and a two hour oral.
The question has to be asked,Is this a very clever plan by the companies especialy the very big one! that seem to have the ear of the CAA, to lower the standard of the aircraft engineer , so allowing more people into the industry and so keeping the wages down.
Since I took my first licence 16 years ago the CAA seem to have become more intersted in making money for themselves rather than over seeing a good engineering base for the airlines of the UK. Our licences had a mark of respect above most, but will it have this when it becomes compareable with some of the rest of the european licences is this not what a JAR Licence will do?

where will it stop??????

[greaseytech]

I got my first ticked in 1993 and the second in 1996. I can tell you that the CAA don't give them away with cornflake packet tops. The oral has always been seen as the survayor testing your knowlidge in the trade you are applying for, and also a survay of you the bloke (or blokess as the case may be)as fit and proper to hold a license. But the license is only the first hurdle. You then have to sit an approval board with the company who employ you before you can hold approvals, and in my case, I found the approval board more stressful than the CAA oral. One thing that I have noticed is that the CAA seem to fail more candidates at the oral stage now than I ever remember. Is this just bad luck on behalf of the candidates, or have the CAA tightened up the rules? I feel that at least one oral is necessary, just to make sure that the candidate is up to the job.

[Blacksheep]

greasytech,

Report to "The Panel" over at Jet Blast. They will give you an oral test to make sure that you are up to the job :) :) :)

------------------

Info noted. Plse report further.


[This message has been edited by Blacksheep (edited 27 November 1999).]

[The hippy]

To Greasytech
Your comments noted but what I am saying is that the oral is being removed.That means that those people you mentioned that failed the oral would now be qualified, now I have no complaints with the CAA and in my expereince the oral was a final technical test of professonalism and knowlege,and they did a very good job of it.
(was your company board are about company procedures or technical basics.I Know all of mine have been about company procures.)
Do you not agree that the higher the standard the better the Engineer!! And so in the Long run a situation of a few good engineers rather than a lot of reasanable engininers forces the companies to Realise that we are worth the money they pay us (if not more?).

Any of you other guys out there disagree or agree ?

------------------

[rnobson]

it seems the only people who think the "Brit" licence ia a "mark above" are those who paid and arm and leg to get it

Many consider it to be only an attempt to keep the "rifraf" out of aviation

[TwoDeadDogs]

Hi,there,Rnobson,
good point about the "quality" of licenses.Over here,the IAA make you sweat for it.They detest US a&p ratings,which is not fair,to say the least,considering that the US Feds make you carry out a practical test.Imagine the red tape over this side of the pond to do that!?
Cheers
TDD

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

[The hippy]

TDD
doesn`t the practical test for the A+P include oral questions with the examiner?

[This message has been edited by The hippy (edited 28 November 1999).]

[Blacksheep]

My first CAA oral (in nineteen-canteen) made me sweat. The worst bit was when the surveyor said "OK, we'll take a break for lunch now. Be back at 1.15 prompt" After that lot I wondered what the written was for, before I realised it was just a filter to spare the examiner from time-wasting on un-prepared candidates.

The syllabus has changed a lot since then, taking account of aircraft that were built to MSG3 and designed for "On condition" maintenance. Those who remember what a maintenance manual looked like in "the good old days" know why the CAA had to grill us so hard. An entire B707 check pack fitted on one desk and you could make a good job of the Certificate of Maintenance in half a night shift. By yourself. Including MAMIS and everything. The licence today is much simpler, but the signatory to a CRS doesn't take on the same responsibility that the signatory to a C of M did. (I'm only referring to Heavy Transport aircraft here) The C of M is now replaced by the CMR and issuing the CMR is a continuous process, not restricted to the latest check pack.

On the whole, I think the current licence fits well into current maintenance practice. The quality of the engineering staff, (from apprentices, through technicians, supervisors and quality assurance) remains as good as it ever was. People only get the credit they deserve from how they do things. The licence you carry is just an authority to do those things in the first place.

Always bear in mind that today will be tomorrows "Good old days" :) :)

------------------

Info noted. Plse report further.