the end of the licensed engineer?? [Archive]

camlobe

15th Mar 2006, 12:58

Haven't seen the article, but have been having long, theoretical discussions with my CAA surveyor regarding the rapidly approaching shortfall of Certifying Licenced Engineers.

My observation of 'if we don't have a re-introduction of the Approved Un-Licenced Certifying Engineer - those people who overnight in the mid '90's were put on the scrapheap by the then newly introduced Airworthiness 14 (remember that one?) - what is the Authority going to do?'

The honest answer ' I really don't know what EASA are going to do'.

Maybe this is where the basis of Tech Log's article is from??

Blacksheep

16th Mar 2006, 04:51

The retention and recruitment problem arises from poor pay and conditions for licensed staff. The root of that problem is de-regulation and government capitulation to ever increasing public pressure for cheap flights. The proper answer is of course to improve salaries and conditions, which in turn would probably result in higher air fares. The EU and EASA seem determined to keep down the cost of flying by reducing the qualification levels of certifying staff. No doubt we'll then see even more mechanical guys switching to motor car repairs and avionics guys moving into IT - where they'll all get an immediate pay hike and face half the hassle.

Another interesting point. ICAO requires signatory states to issue licences to certify aircraft maintenance. It is important to note that it is the state that must issue the basic licence, not the operators. Apart from France, none of the EU member states lodged a difference to this rule and are committed to continue issuing licences. The EU isn't an ICAO signatory or national government. So it will be interesting to see how EASA and the EU might go about replacing B1 and B2 licensed staff with "appropriately authorised" people. Presumably they propose to have just a few C licence holders issue a group CRS covering any rectification accomplished during whole transits and other maintenance visits. That may technically satisfy the individual EU member states' obligation to ICAO, but what will be the reaction of other signatory states? Or the general public for that matter, once they cotton on to the implications...

whiskeyflyer

16th Mar 2006, 05:19

reminds me of the old Dilbert sketch where every company in the world out sources their requirements until one person is doing all the work.
So looks like we'll have one guy in Stansted with a licence and all the others with approvals (limited of coarse to certain systems, to avoid moving jobs, wouldn't want somebody knowing the complete aircraft would we) :E

NWT

16th Mar 2006, 08:13

Blacksheep says 'when the general public cotton on'....the standards of the aircraft engineers qualifications etc has been slowly lowered over the years....the general public don't give a monkeys....as long as they have a cheap flight. If there is an accident the blame will end up on an engineer (assuming its a maintenance issue) and some poor unlucky person will be shafted. As long as you the LAE know what you are doing and only act within your approval then you should be alright. Going back to the original article, I agree the role of the LAE is to be even further diminished, and as we don't have any strong union, politica etc backing, we are fighting a losing cause. Being 'one' with Europe hasn't helped in the slightest. It has made things worse with regards to standards I believe......

Blacksheep

16th Mar 2006, 08:32

As I said - when the general public cotton on.

But they never will, will they. :(

BAe146s make me cry

20th Mar 2006, 09:47

I really hope that this isn't true... I'm studying for my B1/B2 at present with 7 modules completed, I really don't want it to be a waste of time!

But should new legislation be pushed through again, I'm certain no
one making the decision will give two hoots about the implications.

BAe146? :{

smudgethecat

20th Mar 2006, 12:32

I would suggest anyone reading this who is concerned should join (if they have not done so already) the ALEA, they appear to be the only group who are fighting the LAE,s corner, and will im sure fight this issue on our behalf to the bitter end, we should remember if these people had not fought for the engineers licence in the seventies the LAE would be long gone.http://www.alae.org/site1/view_content.php?page=2

BAe146s make me cry

20th Mar 2006, 16:40

I've only just read up a comment on Airmech regarding the issuance of restricted Part 66 B1 licences through holding an ICAO type I licence - ie the FAA A&P. The NAA involved being Malta? I was certain the only occurence of this was upon JAR66 implementation circa 2001?

The FAA A&P is a great licence to have (I myself have it) and despite the varied criticism it receives, could it not outlive the Part 66?? As it did JAR 66 and good old BCAR??

Its a dreadful mess, if only our lads and ladies up the front knew...

BAe146s make me cry

27th Mar 2006, 07:45

Confirmed! The Malta CAA has definetly converted FAR Part 65 A&P licence to EASA Part 66 B1 ( with restrictions) :eek: :eek: :eek:

I have a real distaste for EASA now, more than ever...
See you all at the ALAE AGM next month, I'm really :mad: off now.

BAe146 + EASA???:{

146fixer

28th Mar 2006, 15:39

This has only been a matter of time.We are not wanted by anyone in the aviation industry.We are seen as an expensive pain in the a##e.Just think of the money that could be saved if no more licences were need to work on aircraft any more.Thats all the aviation industry see's at present.Safty has a price.People arent willing to pay for it,they just want cheaper fares and increased profits.I dont think most people would care if the odd 737 piled in every other year if they could still get to Dublin for £20 or where ever.
So what do we do next?We can all get behind the ALAE.Or do we start doing our own bit.What do you think.

Blacksheep

29th Mar 2006, 00:11

What do you think.Its not what I think, its what I know - engineers in general and LAEs in particular are and have always been their own worst enemies. Its not our "go for it" or "can do" attitude, its our lack of mutual cooperation and our tendency to grumble about poor conditions rather than act.

In 1977 BA maintenance staff went on strike over pay and conditions. One 'minor' issue lying un-noticed deep in the agenda, was the introduction of the LWTR and the end of type ratings. After three weeks of management signing off aeroplanes, everyone crept back to work grumbling about running out of spare cash. Six weeks of overtime clearing the backlog soon replenished everyone's cash balances. Other than clearing out a few left wing shop stewards, nothing was achieved. The way was open for the decline and removal of that thorn in the airlines' side, the type-rated LAE.

The pilots on the other hand, faced with the introduction of the B747, demanded a share in the benefits from their improved productivity. They refused to fly the B747s until their demands were met. The brand new aircraft sat on the ground for many, many months until the pilots got their way.

Notice any difference between these two approaches?

BAe146s make me cry

29th Mar 2006, 10:30

I don't beleive for one minute this rumour is unfounded. EASA are having
fantastic problems at so many levels, so the people that actually work
in this profession in the UK need to act now.

It may be on a smaller scale to start with but what will the end result be?
Hopefully retention of responsibilities, status and continued enhanced
safety to all those that fly.

We could ALL sit back and do nothing. Allowing ill-qualified EASA people to decide not just the fate of the L.A.E. but a big chunk of how airworthiness is controlled too - this would be most unwise.

When the ALAE formed, the threat to the L.A.E. was purely national right?
This threat is different because it is EASA led - although it will certainly suit some NAAs, no doubt about that! But, would the UK CAA give up their
scheme of charges to us THAT EASILY??!!£££££££:confused:

If ammendments to 2042/2003 are only at proposal stage then we
may have a chance to influence thinking. The worst any of us can do
now is nothing. I'll see anyone who cares on the 8th April.

BAe146? + EASA :{ :{

Golden Rivet

29th Mar 2006, 11:49

Join the ALAE and make your voice heard.

I have.

PhilM

29th Mar 2006, 12:30

It's a shame the ALAE is not "open" for us unlicensed people to show our support for our licensed colleages.

There are many of us unlicensed people who are at various points along the way to a license (I have only a few modules remaining), so these issues will affect me and other unlicensed guys aswell.

Let's just hope we can get licensed before EASA decide to bin them or the last 2 years of study (and several thousand pounds) have all been a waste!

146fixer

29th Mar 2006, 12:56

PhilM,just had a look on the ALAE's web site and as I thought you can join.It is now open to everyone involved in aircraft maintenance.As it should be.There's a link on smudgethecat post if your intrested.

matkat

1st Apr 2006, 10:31

BAe146s make me cry

4th Apr 2006, 07:12

Well maybe this Saturday will just be a listening exercise.

It would be interesting if Singapore's CAAS or Aussie's CASA
decide to alter their plans for their own SAR66 and CASR66
respectively.

Could EASA really be that good an example of international
co-operation & success???:eek:

I'll just offer my skills, effort & qualifications to a more worthy
NAA should I not like what is spelt out come Saturday PM.

BAa146 + EASA + maybe December??? :{ :{ :{

matkat

4th Apr 2006, 11:29

It's a shame the ALAE is not "open" for us unlicensed people to show our support for our licensed colleages.
There are many of us unlicensed people who are at various points along the way to a license (I have only a few modules remaining), so these issues will affect me and other unlicensed guys aswell.
Let's just hope we can get licensed before EASA decide to bin them or the last 2 years of study (and several thousand pounds) have all been a waste!
Phil I am sure You can indeed join the only difference would be that You would be a non-voting Member.

The hippy

6th Apr 2006, 23:16

Gents in the years I have been in aviation I have found many standards in engineering, in fact I remember the old A8-3 system, where engineers could certify aircraft in the UK without a licence.
Are we not returning back to the old system that is similar to other European countries?
Ask your self this

Does a licence mean that we make fewer mistakes? Or is it how we train staff in our own organisation that makes fewer errors.

The new processes that are being used on the next generation aircraft B787's will they be covered by the B1 licence, or will it be a composite workshop licence?

B2 licence engineers on the line working A320, B777 and A330 aircraft when was the last time you put a pitot static test set on an aircraft. Or tuned a H F antenna.

I am not saying we can’t do the tasks but hand on heart how many tasks did we used to do, do we still do now.
Aviation technology is accelerating so fast that we are now only being trained to change modules. The tests we do are software programs, and the design of skin repairs are only issued by manufactures and design offices.
The hand skills will not go, but do we need a licence to change a box/ module? Maybe we will be come specialists in areas such as boroscoping engines, NDT, hangar inspection, and damage assessments.

Just so no one jumps down my throat I am looking at the whole thing from on the fence,
I have been a licensed Engineer for 23 years (type rated) and hold B1,B2 and C Licence, and am disappointed to think that all that hard work may becoming to an end, but 707's 1-11's and 757's are not A350's,/B787's and A380's:rolleyes: ?

BAe146s make me cry

7th Apr 2006, 08:19

Hippy

Comments noted and taken on board.

Its true about A/C technology and its various advances.

Even when newer A/C are in service, older ones will still be about.
I'd still like to think that upon a maintenance task being completed,
ALL A/C are subjected to an inspection, function check, a dupe with critical items and certified by a qualified, examined and approved Licensed Aircraft Engineer, such as yourself.

In the early 70's the ARB changed to CAA, proposals to remove the AME licence appeared then because of this new large difficult A/C - the B747! Only the efforts of the ALAE and people motivated to retain a fully qualified, examined and approved certifier working base and line A/C saved us (and certainly you) then.

It seems that a proposal is afoot to 'do away' with our positive inputs.
I'm forward thinking and quite open to reasonable ideas but as I'm sure you are aware, there is an amazing shortage of type rated EASA Part 66
Type rated L.A.E.s + importantly, PLENTY OF EXPERIENCE ON TYPE!
Refer below and see for yourself...

www.aviationjobsearch.com (http://www.aviationjobsearch.com)

I don't want to see a quick legislative fix for personnel shortages
for a long term problem. Airworthiness has to come first despite
the demands of our beloved management who I respect but keep
at arms length.

I may not get to post again before tomorrow, so if anyone is interested
in the future of the UK Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, come along tomorrow (8th) to the ALAE Annual General Meeting (Inc Hippy) at
1300hrs, Stansted's Radisson Hotel, Essex, UK. See link below for details...

www.alae.org (http://www.alae.org)

The worst thing you can do is nothing.

BAe146? + EASA + My missus???:confused: :confused: :confused:

keel beam

10th Apr 2006, 08:47

Gents in the years I have been in aviation I have found many standards in engineering, in fact I remember the old A8-3 system, where engineers could certify aircraft in the UK without a licence.
?
In the old days of type licences course were very long. When I did the B707 airframe and PWJT3D courses they lasted for 18 weeks. As costs tightened my company reduced the length of courses (for signing under BCAR 8-13?) so for a B747 the course lasted 9 weeks for engine/airframe AND avionics extension. The only reason companies want company authorisations is down to cost. Safety comes after that. The rumour that EASA are going back to company authorisations is because the European airlines do not want the extra costs of type licensing.

Perhaps another thing to think of is that 30 years ago there were not many "type licence" holders, today there are many, so that means more type courses.

Bus429

11th Apr 2006, 07:50

Make your voices heard! I attended the ALAE AGM on April 8th; total number of attendees - 16! Speakers included Eric Sivel from EASA who spoke of the proposed changes to technical log certification. What conclusion would he draw when considering such poor attendance?
I was fortunate to be elected - or rather, since there were vacancies and too few nominations - placed on the Executive Council. I used to be rather complacent about EASA, generally welcoming the idea of European integration. However, complacent no longer! Over the last year or so, I have been made aware of the intentions of some "competent" authorities and realise the dire future for the licensed engineer.
So, ladies and gents, join the ALAE. They are fighting your case with EASA, with no renumeration other than expenses and, almost without exception, in their own time - support them by joining. Visit www.alae.org

BAe146s make me cry

12th Apr 2006, 11:47

http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/forums/report.php?p=2511265) I was one of those 16 too. I found it amazing when Mr Sivel considered the duties of an LAE as those of an almost unrequired middleman.

A lot of facts and figures were shown to us on Saturday.
I can appreciate there are shortages of manpower but resorting to
using 'Appropriately Approved Personnel' is asking for serious trouble.

I'll be doing all I can to legally oppose these planned proposals.
Join the ALAE 1981 and make your voice heard, this is a very real
threat to how airworthiness is protected and enhanced.

BAe146?:{

JamesA

12th Apr 2006, 21:59

I have been looking on the EASA site for information on the 'replacement' of licensed engineers, without success. Could anybody give me the location of this proposal, please?
Contrary to popular belief in Britain, there are a lot of JAR 66/ EASA part 66 engineers on the European mainland who have also spent a lot of time and money obtaining relevant ratings. I think it shameful of all the governments who approve this 'bowing to commercial pressure' to enable airlines to cut corners/ reduce costs in order to entice customers to a cheaper seat. Far better to employ properly trained and qualified personnel and instill in the passenger (and the crew for thar matter), he/she is paying a little extra for peace of mind when they fly.

From the tone of the correspondents, it would appear this is the thin end of the wedge - does this mean when this legislation has been pushed through the next move will be for ATPs to be replaced by PPLs? Where does the master plan end? The old jokes about the monkey and the dog spring to mind.
Unfortunately, there are not many engineers who can afford to stop working as the BOAC pilots did with the B747 introduction. I don't see any union support and protection for the skilled tradesman any longer, the original objective of the TRADE union. Anybody who withdraws their labour will soon be replaced viz the situation with Nortwest. (agreed there were some different issues at stake there). I think this situation needs wider publicity than using this forum, hence my request for the EASA announcement.

b737engineer

13th Apr 2006, 12:44

HI JAMESA,

IF YOU WANT INFO ABOU THIS PROPOSAL GO TO EASA, CLICK ON TERMS OF REFERENCE, AND OPEN ToR 145-012. THERE ARE NO DETAILS ABOUT THE NPA, JUST THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE AND THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP. THE NPA WILL BE PUBLISHED ON DECEMBER.

REGARDS,
b737engineer

JamesA

13th Apr 2006, 16:54

Hi b737engineer,

Many thanks for the location. As always a very vague introduction to something very damaging to many livliehoods. Posed as it is, I can almost see the rubber stamp hovering now.
I will be forwarding the page to my colleagues. Thanks again
James

Tako Yaki

15th Apr 2006, 12:33

If you haven't already, go over to Air Mech and have a read of the ALAE threads, interesting stuff about the EASA proposals/ALAE, etc.
When it comes to our licenses it seems the biggest danger the LAE population have is themselves! We are an apathetic bunch when it comes to the very thing that is our livelyhood, our license.
Contact/join the ALAE or contact AEI(Aircraft Engineers International) if you are a European LAE. Make some noise, whether it is to your local surveyor, to EASA themselves or the politicians.
Talk to your colleagues, encourage them to join, for ALAE it less than 2 pounds a week!, think of it as an investment in your future.
OK, I will get off the soap box now.

Blacksheep

18th Apr 2006, 06:59

in fact I remember the old A8-3 system, where engineers could certify aircraft in the UK without a licence.
So do I - such people did however need to hold an "Aeronautical Engineering Certificate". In fact several of our supervisors were "approved" AEC holders and could sign a C of C, but not the Certificate Of Maintenance. Under A8-3 you needed a type rated licence to do that. So we had the anomaly by which a Lead Tradesman might sign off a C of M that his supervisor was not qualified to sign.

ICAO requires that unless they register a "difference", signatory states are responsible for licensing individuals to certify aircraft maintenance. Until now, with the exception only of France, all signatory states have done so. Note that the Civil Aviation Act ratified the Chicago Convention, using the ANO to state the requirements and regulations by which the ratification is made effective. Under the ANO BCAR A8 then set out the detailed licensing requirements.

The EC is not a state and EASA's position and authority under ICAO - which is concerned only with individual signatory states - remains unclear.The ALEA could perhaps make itself useful by raising the necessary cash and challenging either EASA's or at least the UK government's position on licensing, under international aviation law. Although individual states do have the right to register differences, EASA seems to be acting contrary to the intentions of ICAO in this matter.

Consider that other EASA fiasco where, wishing to do away with "Permits to Fly" EASA required all aircraft to be maintained by approved organizations. They apparently failed to realize that the overwhelming majority of aircraft in Europe - more than 77,000 - are PTF aircraft. There are not enough approved organizations to undertake the work and even if there were, there could never be enough EASA people to regulate them.

With all this blundering about, one is driven to wonder if EASA actually have any idea what they are doing?

Bus429

18th Apr 2006, 07:31

Blacksheep,
EASA justification for changing the method for release after line maintenance is set out in TOR 145.12. Their reasons relate to several near accidents; one example cited by Eric Sivel (EASA) at the ALAE AGM was that of an aircraft that attempted take-off with one of its mainwheels partially installed. This was apparently attributed to a failure by the engineer to record the defect in the tech log- it was not a PIREP - prior to accomplishing the mainwheel replacement.
I fail to see how changing the method of release would prevent incidents such as this. The thrust of human factors training - certainly in my courses - is that we can only reduce incidents and accidents through application of HF and other principles; the fact that we are involved in every facet of aviation except the weather makes the eradication of human error impossible.
EASA's suggestions amount to throwing out the baby with the bath water; the example cited would best be mitigated by RCA resulting - dare I say it - in a bit of HF training (perhaps!).

berkens

18th Apr 2006, 19:10

Hi All,

Isn't this going about the single & multiple release (of a component)?

To release a component from shop (Part-145) you need a Form-1.

On that form-1 you can have a single (one organisation like EASA, FAA or Japan) release or a multiple release (for example EASA + FAA).

The release to service of the component is given by Certifying Staff, in this case a CAT-D (Part-66) working in a shop of a Part-145 organisation.

Greetings, Ben...

(CAT-A, limited-B1 & B2)

Bus429

19th Apr 2006, 07:13

Berkens,

Form 1 is a different issue. Have a look at TOR 145.12 on www.easa.eu.int

Blacksheep

20th Apr 2006, 08:44

Hi Bus, how're you doing these days?

I do agree that licenses doesn't necessarily equate directly to safety. Human factors affect everyone, licensed or not and human factors are the ultimate determinant of safety - reliability too, although the two are often confused.

Having not bothered to renew any of mine, I'm no longer licensed, but I could still be relied upon to safely accomplish many aircraft maintenance tasks if necessary - and to know where the limits of my ability lie. The danger in eliminating licenses is that it opens the door to people who are not steeped in our aircraft maintenance safety culture to perform work on aircraft. Questions that immediately spring to mind are: How are we to ascertain competence? Why haven't they got a license? What basic training have they had? The reason ICAO insists that signatory states - and only signatory states - issue licenses to certify aircraft maintenance is to ensure that certifiers demonstrate knowledge and competence. That is what licenses are all about and doing away with state licensing removes that assurance. Can you imagine the EC ordering EU member states to do away with driving licenses and hand control of driver competence to the driving schools?

ICAO deals with individual signatory states. The EU is not a state, the EC is a legislative body but it has no sovereignty and EASA is using powers granted under one international treaty to oblige sovereign states to abrogate terms of another international treaty that they have ratified. If this is in the interests of safety then I'm a Dutchman's uncle. EASA's case seems very flimsy to the most casual glance and it is certainly possible to challenge their position under international law. What we need is an interested party with the will and the funds to take the matter to court.

yamaha

20th Apr 2006, 08:51

you do not have to issue licences under ICAO regulations so legal proceedings will get you nowhere.

France should tell you that. It would appear to me as an outsider reading between the lines that our good ole buddy France is having trouble leaving its old system behind.

So as happens in many walks of European life, if France wont abide then get the rest to do as France does.

Bus429

20th Apr 2006, 17:28

Yamaha - you are correct, France has an exemption to paragraph 4.2 of ICAO Annexe 1

Blacksheep

21st Apr 2006, 07:46

Yes, as I mentioned in my earlier post, France registered a difference when they originally signed up. They were the only state to do so. Other EU member states would have to register differences to abrogate their original ratification and then stop issuing at least some licences.

This is, as I also mentioned earlier, contrary to the spirit of ICAO Annexe One's intention that certifiers demonstrate competence under state supervision. France does indeed seem to have difficulty with leaving its old system behind.

As to legal measures, anything can be challenged at state level. Its what sovereignty is all about. EU law normally takes precedence and states are obliged to incorporate EU law into their own legal systems. However, EU states retain the right not to adopt mere agency rulings, unless they are ratified by the European Parliament.

This issue concerns an EU agency ruling that would overturn a clause of an international treaty already ratified by sovereign states and it is a moot question if EASA - or even the EU itself - has authority to do such a thing. The EU is not a sovereign state and has no power to sign or ratify an international treaty.

Flying Mech

1st May 2006, 15:34

Hi Guys

This is the most important issue to affect engineers in a very long time. If we do nothing & let this NPRM by EASA through we will all be earning the same as the guy driving the honey kart or on the Drive Thru at Burger King. Contracting will be dead. The Beancounters & Managment of all Maintenance orgranisations will have won. Doyou think that IALPA/BALPA would allow a similar proposal to replace ATPL holders with PPL's as already said in a previous post. This has to be nipped in the Bud NOW. I have been looking at the easa website & am unable to find the link to this NPRM. Can anybody provide a direct link pls? pass the word to all freinds & Colleagues.Inform the Contract agencys that they will be going bust next year & get them to object as well through the NAA's & EASA. This is a european wide problem which will hit us all in the hardest place - The Pocket. Everyone has to lodge a formal objection to this with your NAA & EASA individually at least by email for individals but as many written letters as possible. Contact your NAA & Get their views on thisas well.

Mr.Brown

1st May 2006, 16:58

There's only a TOR at the moment, I think this is it!(http://www.easa.eu.int/doc/Rulemaking/TORs1/EASA_ToR_145_012.pdf)
NPA scheduled for December 06

Rigga

1st May 2006, 18:01

Yep! Thats the one.

It clearly states there are two methods of release at the moment (caused by the ambiguity of EASA "Rules" which are then left to NAA interpretation for methods of compliance).

It is also quite obvious that many airlines would like to reduce the amount of well paid engineers and mechanics they have. If they could employ more lower paid, locally trained, personnel to become "Appropriately Approved Personnel" they would save a fortune.

My understanding of this method is that many personnel could carry out tasks without supervision leaving an "Engineer" to release the aircraft as the "Approved Personnel" state/sign they have completed their tasks. (Honest Guv'nor)

IMO many wheels have fallen off due to lack of supervision.

I have no doubt that, if left without argument, EASA will once more opt for the lower standard.

Where is my DeLorean

1st May 2006, 22:54

The harsh reality for people and organsiations who wish to lower the standards of certification via a company approval or authorsiation, is that Engineers who have an Authorisation endorsed by an NAA, have a broader range of knowledge and experience, due in no small part in having to go through a truely independant approval system with no commercial axe to grind. Without an independant internationally recognised qualification, company approved people do not have the experience to fully withstand the wide variance of commercial standards and pressures encountered in the normal aviation workplace.
They will be making decisions that will ultimatly destroy familys, aircraft, companys, and the general publics hard-won confidence in Aviation.
This is not the Brave New World of aviation that we wish to see unfold now or at any time in the future. I have been shocked to the core with this news of the proposed EASA TOR.

Blacksheep

2nd May 2006, 00:33

Its not the TOR that's the problem - taken by itself the terms of reference are completely inoccuous and no-one could argue with the content. Its TGL 41 thats the problem. You can get a copy if you have a subscription to IHS. but that's hardly in the public domain.

Golden Rivet

2nd May 2006, 09:43

Whats the document reference on IHS. I cant seem to find it ?

Bus429

2nd May 2006, 10:55

Neither can I. Have you a copy you can email, Blacksheep?

Golden Rivet

2nd May 2006, 12:37

Trying to find a copy, so I can host it for all to see.

Bolty McBolt

3rd May 2006, 04:50

I have followed this thread for some time.

I fully understand why you would be up in arms with your regulators decision to water down the qualifications you have worked all you working life to attain.
I too agree on this point.

BUT

With JAA/EASA system in place there is no mechanism to transfer my qualifications gained outside of Europe to be used in Europe on European registered aircraft. As every inquiry I have made has been met with go back the beginning do the basics and then redo my type training on the grounds that it is inferior. I have completed an Airbus VACBI course to the highest level (5) and found it complete rubbish compared to other type training I have received I was amazed that this could pass for type training. I hope you understand I felt fairly insulted when told my other type training was inferior.

Perhaps with the changing of the rules a person such as my self with over 20 years experience may seek employment in Europe as I have been well and truly shut out up to now.

Just a different perspective :ok:

Tako Yaki

3rd May 2006, 07:39

Bolty,
Fair point, CASA are pretty much the same though aren't they?, but the EASA/JAA system does allow an amount of freedom of movement betweeen the contracting European states. There is also a certain amount of protectionism built into any system to keep at least some of the jobs in-country.

But more to the point of this thread - Do away with a licensing system in Europe, and sure enough the non-US aligned countries will follow suit eventually. I seem to remember there was a big hurragh in Oz just about LAE's not signing for a transit on the LCC 737's coz the flight crew were doing it only a year or so back......where this is going would be no licensed staff anywhere near the aircraft!

And totally off topic, I think VACBI is universally regarded as the biggest load of sh1t going cunningly disguised as a type course. I too spent my 9 weeks in VACBI hell.

Bus429

3rd May 2006, 09:05

Bolty,
It is a great shame that the CASA licence is not accepted by EASA on the basis of a multi-choice exam covering air legislation and any other major differences (as was the case in the UK a few years ago). I think I've mentioned before that I got a CASA Group 20 based on CTC, my BCAR Section L (this was 1996) and company authorisations.
I have in front of me a leaflet from CASA outlining their Maintenance Regulation project. Believe it or not, CASA intends to model its system - for the large part - on EASA! I think it should be the other way around!:ok:

Rigga

4th May 2006, 12:21

Any progress in finding Draft TGL 41?

Its not even listed as a draft in my access to IHS.

Blacksheep

8th May 2006, 05:16

Ah! I see we are beginning to get a grip on my comment concerning the rules being "in the public domain." :hmm:

Even if you pay for a subscrpition to IHS you still have a problem finding our what the rules actually are. Even EASA don't know.

Anybody else been having fun with EASA'a latest Airworthiness Directive? The one that we were told about through Airbus Industries two days after it became effective and which still isn't shown on the EASA website... :confused: