IS THE ETF EXTRACTING THE URINE!

[keel beam]

The ETF (European Transport Workers Federation) are canvassing for support of the cabin crew licensing system. I would have thought that with the alleged new requirements of EASA, to get rid of the Licensed Aircraft Engineer, that the ETF would consider it more important for Engineers to retain licences. Lets face it, the Licensed Engineer have high responsibilities in the job that they do. The licensing system is a way of giving flight crews the comfort in knowledge that the Engineer signing for the aircraft is appropriately experienced and trained for the job in hand. But of course many of the European airlines do not want the additional cost of training and maintaining licensed engineers, hence their push (through EASA) to dispose of the licensed Engineer.
See also http://www.airmech.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=5770

[ABird747]

And why exactly shouldn't cabin crew have a standard level of training across Europe? Although you may only see us when we sling a cup of pissy coffee at you through the flightdeck door while you do your crossword we are actually there to do a little bit more...

[OzzieO]

Abird747.....oh dear what have you started! You should know better! Don't take the bait!

[ABird747]

:} A 1/4 bottle of wine post-flight and I couldn't resist it!!!! :}

[OzzieO]

LOL Well I guess your only saying what a lot of us are thinking! ;)

[Hand Solo]

Does that mean next time you cock up your SEP you'll be grounded instead of having a casual debrief in the 737 cabin simulator. Best get hiring some more cabin crew then!

On a more serious note, Ryanair (courtesy of the rather shoddy Dispatches program) have shown you can do all the essential safety training necessary to be cabin crew in 3 weeks. In fact I seem to recall BA do it in about 2 weeks, with the remaining 4 weeks of their course dedicated to customer service training and fairly useless psycho-babble about 'The Circle Of Influence' and other such nonsense. Are people really trying to state that a 2-3 week safety training course warrants a Europe-wide licensing scheme with all the regulatory oversight that brings?

[tired]

a Europe-wide licensing scheme with all the regulatory oversight that brings?
I think you answered the question there, HS - more troughs for the Eurocrats to snuffle in.
Paid for by you and me, naturally..........

[DFC]

Lets face it, the Licensed Engineer have high responsibilities in the job that they do. The licensing system is a way of giving flight crews the comfort in knowledge that the Engineer signing for the aircraft is appropriately experienced and trained for the job in hand.

How often have you asked to see the engineer's licence when they signed the tech log?

Having a licence or the approval issued from an Authority through an approved organisation makes little difference in CAT ops.

Any European wide licence or approval makes moving employment easier throughout Europe. That would be one big part of the idea. Of course if one is limited to speaking English then perhaps one's language limitations could make any pan-European qualification meaningless and hence something to be derided.

Regards,

DFC

[apaddyinuk]

Well without letting this turn into another classic them versus us (pilots V cabin crew) I must admit I do think the Licence thing is a bit of a waste.

As crew myself I do not see the point of it. Yes I do think there should be a standard level of training throughout Europe if not the iworld but standards are already set down by national aviation agencies such as the FAA and CAA so they simply need to be introduced throughout Europe. I do feel however that we need some sort of system to monitor our hours more with direct links to the authorities so no airlines can do quick ones. I know my airline wouldnt try it but many do, such as Qatar where I used to work.

Mind you in Qatar we had a form of licence known as a Competency Card which had to be updated eachtime we were trained for a new aircraft!

[TRIM-RUN]

Boys and Girls,

As a type-rated eng married with a company approved SCCM I would like to add one small comment, recently I (with investors) have purchased an Airbus for part out. Now here is my little input, I with my associates can tear this aircraft down and re-sell the spares in an as-removed condition without lisence or worry about anybodys interference and I mean anyone. I have been working on this little project for years and am the well trained in the field. I wrote to EASA(Y) asking how should a supplier of aircraft spares conduct their buisness in a correct and honourable manner and was told that guide lines would be issued in 2009. So I can sell what ever takes my fancy to who ever the hell I want, when I want.

So lets get together and get real about our industry FULL STOP.

007:suspect:

[matkat]

How often have you asked to see the engineer's licence when they signed the tech log?
Having a licence or the approval issued from an Authority through an approved organisation makes little difference in CAT ops.
Any European wide licence or approval makes moving employment easier throughout Europe. That would be one big part of the idea. Of course if one is limited to speaking English then perhaps one's language limitations could make any pan-European qualification meaningless and hence something to be derided.
Regards,
DFC
The only People that can ask to see an Engineers licence is "the appropriate People" Being a CAA/EASA surveyor or the appropriate Person of an NAA if You happen to be working outwith the EASA area of authority i.e. USA, Australia etc.

[woptb]

How often have you asked to see the engineer's licence when they signed the tech log?
Having a licence or the approval issued from an Authority through an approved organisation makes little difference in CAT ops.
Any European wide licence or approval makes moving employment easier throughout Europe. That would be one big part of the idea. Of course if one is limited to speaking English then perhaps one's language limitations could make any pan-European qualification meaningless and hence something to be derided.
Regards,
DFC

The avowed intention of a pan European standard of engineer licencing was to increase standards,unfortunately & inevitably some NAA's standards have been diluted in implementing the 'level playing field'
The new part 66 licence 'is' portable within Europe & English is already the language of maintenance (if not love).
The new authorised signatory scheme (ie unlicensed!) will further degrade flight safety & is purely a commercial expedient to head off the forecast shortage of licenced engineers.