ICAO Type II

[Bus429]

I often see adverts asking for engineers with ICAO Type II licences. The only occurrence of the term "Type II" I can find in ICAO Annexe I related to maintenance licence is with regard to Panama's stipulations for AMEs.

Can someone point me in the right direction?

[Vortechs Jenerator]

It's an international standard that a national license must meet to be included.

Try here (taken from ICAO's site)

Is my AME licence an ICAO Type II licence?
The Type I and Type II Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (AME) licences have been superseded by a single AME licence since November 1998 (see Annex 1, Chapter 4, paragraph 4.2).

[Vortechs Jenerator]

It wasn't a particularly stringent standard (FAA A&P make the grade obviously!:)) and BCAR EASA etc meet and surpass the standard, it was just a level that international employers asked for to weed out bananna republic aplicants with comedic licenses.

Don't see it that much now, most ask for EASA or A&P now.

[Bus429]

I have to be honest: I was playing Devil's Advocate. I just wondered why Type II is specified by organisations or those placing adverts when it was superseded as Vortechs says.

[Vortechs Jenerator]

I just wondered why Type II is specified by organisations

because job ads' are written by uneducated office dawdlers with less wit than they were born with:)

Unfortunately lots of decent engineer are overlooked for positions by these miscreants because they haven't submitted this weeks vogue CV template or turned up for an interview in sub designer suits.

HR pedants!

[fqis]

Hi,
holding an ICAO TYPE II license means you have your National aviation authority license with type rating to level III.
the appelation is no longer valid but companies still refer to it for job vacancies ....:)

[plasticmerc]

It wasn't a particularly stringent standard ??

I guess an easa engineer is supreme
ICAO type 2 license covers Australia, New Zealand as well! just for your info!

I don't think the guys down under really appreciate being called an inferior engineer.

[Bus429]

I don't think the guys down under really appreciate being called an inferior engineer.

Nobody inferring that...in any case, I've got a CASA ticket too.:ok:

[Vortechs Jenerator]

Plasticmerc quoted

I guess an easa engineer is supreme


You are joking right? It's a ****e standard...... Everyone knows BCAR was the supreme standard:ok::)

[itwilldoatrip]

I have both IACAO Type 2 and EASA 66. Basically only differrence is training. There is more electrical content in the training for an EASA licence. For ICAO Type 2 it's an ATA 104 level 3 course for EASA JAR/EASA 147 course. Also done a CASA licence as well. Had a BCAR Licence as well got the T shirt done the time. How one minute you can have approval/Licences and the next taken off you I cannot understand, progress 'sxxte' unless you're a 'Real' European and got you're EASA licence with you're box of Muesli.
Nice to see your still around Bus will need a HF course soon.

[Bus429]

itwilldoatrip,

Drop us a mail about HF. I'm busy doing Part 145, Part M (mostly SP G & I) and some other consultancy stuff but I'm sure we'll find someone to do HF for you.

PS - send me a PM to remind me who you are!:ok:

Cheers!

[laejonathan]

The actual meaning of ICAO Type II is .....
TYPE I . for overhaul and workshop function.
TYPE II . aircraft maintenance excluding workshop/ overhauling.

[BAe146s make me cry]

laejonathan

Please provide accurate details of your ICAO type I/II interpretations.

>10 years ago, ICAO altered the definitions of all AME licences
into a single AME licence 'Type' - as Vortechs mentioned in Post #2.
Refer to the link below, it is clearly stated at the bottom of the page.

ICAO | FLS | FAQs (http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#40)

The continued use of the ICAO type II licence definition is surely
a sign that certain ICAO states, MRO QA Dept's and recruiting agencies need an initial or refresher course on Current Air legislation?

Just be greatful these clowns mostly don't perform actual maintenance tasks :eek:


BAe146???:{:{:{

[Blacksheep]

Everyone knows BCAR was the supreme standardSo, why did EASA want to give me more exams to qualify, leading me to ditch the whole sorry mess and become a real Engineer?

[Bus429]

Blacksheep,
Email through website or PM.

Bus429

[yasir8095]

wonder where that puts me........
I'm ICAO type ii but did an EASA 147 type course to be eligible for it..
:confused:

[Miles Gustaph]

Yasir8095
I would suggest that it leaves you in dire need to read up on the fact that there is no such thing as an ICAO Type II anymore, it only changed 10 years ago, and wondering about your 147 really does question where you did it if you don't know were it stands in the scheme of things.

[yasir8095]

well lets put it this way....... I did read the entire thread pretty well.. And to your utter shock and surprise, my AME License says on its fist page that this is in conformation to ICAO type II standards....... thats one
For the 147, well, I did a A320 family T1 course at Airbus training India... and the certificate is EASA 147.. I hope you get what I'm trying to say now..

[mono]

Well then, that would seem to suggest that the Indian authorities (I assume your licence is an indian one?) are NOT aware that there is no such thing as an ICAO type II licence.

My licence (EASA-UK) states that it meets the intent of ICAO annex I when endorsed with a type rating. No mention of ICAO type II at all.

[superliner]

Well then, that would seem to suggest that the Indian authorities (I assume your licence is an indian one?) are NOT aware that there is no such thing as an ICAO type II licence.

You'd be dumbfounded.... but yes looks like it! Here is Sub-rule 3, Rule 61 of the Indian Aircraft Rules of 1937:
(3) The categories in respect of which licences for Aircraft Maintenance Engineers may be granted shall be as follows:- (a) licences applicable to aircraft but excluding engines (conforming to International Civil Aviation Organisation Type II licences)- Category A;

(b) licences applicable to overhaul of aircraft having maximum all up weight below 5700 kgs. but excluding engines (conforming to International Civil Aviation Organisation Type I licences)-Category B;
(c) licences applicable to engines (conforming to International Civil Aviation Organisation Type II licences)- Category C;
(d) licences applicable to overhaul of pistons, engines with the power rating not exceeding 500 BHP (conforming to International Civil Aviation Organisation Type I licences)- Category D;
(e) licences applicable to electrical systems (conforming to International Civil Aviation Organisation Type II licences)- Category E;
(f) licences applicable to instruments systems including autopilots (conforming to International Civil Aviation Organisation Type II licences)- Category I;
(g) licences applicable to radio communication navigation and radar system (conforming to International Civil Aviation Organisation Type II licences)- Category R;
(h) licences applicable to avionics systems or aircraft where electrical instruments and radio systems are integrated with the use of advanced computer system and the operation of flying controls is based on fly by wire technology (conforming to International Civil Aviation Organisation Type II licences)- Category V;
(i) licences applicable to overhaul of instruments electrical equipment, radio equipment, V.P. propellers and autopilots as installed on aircraft with all-up-weight below 5700 Kgs. (conforming to International Civil Aviation Organisation Type I licences)- Category X.
It clearly states ICAO Type I and II for various categories of licenses doesn't it? I know that the ICAO website says that Type I and II licenses haven't been in existence since '98 but it still finds a mention here, I'm totally floored. And the last 'edit' to this rule (NOT the sub-rule quoted here) was in Nov'08, shouldn't they have at least... er... took notice of this "flaw" (for want of a better term). Does this have anything to do with the fact that the DGCA would be implementing Part 66 licenses in the near future, maybe they'd make the necessary changes if and when they do that. Just my two cents.

Superliner.

[yasir8095]

good work boy!!

[Miles Gustaph]

Good work Superliner, a nice bit of research that shows our Indian brothers are still stuck in the 1990's, bodes well for safety standards....

[Engineer]

Indian Aircraft Rules of 1937

Hope you made a typo because ICAO only came into being after the second World War :O

[yasir8095]

Hope you made a typo because ICAO only came into being after the second World War http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/embarass.gif well buddy... no typo... its just that Indian Aircraft rules were formulated in 1937 and even though amendments are made to the rules, the publication still retains the name...

[superliner]

Just like yasir pointed out that's the way it is.

Although all other rules have been amended from time to time to keep them in alignment with the relevant ICAO annexes, wonder why this particular one had been left out for so long.

Just for the curious, a draft of the amended rule can be had, here (http://dgca.nic.in/misc/draft%20rules/Rule61(draft).pdf). And the corresponding Part 66, here (http://dgca.nic.in/misc/draft%20cars/CAR66(draft).pdf). These are yet to be enforced, though.

Now that really leaves me confused as to where I'm heading, once the drafts are implemented.