Bogus engineer convicted [Archive]

BrissySparkyCoit

19th Nov 2008, 12:11

Yes, good to see the law catching up with talk it up tim (I've been told that was his nickname during his apprenticeship). I think its going a bit far to say peoples "lives were in Jeopardy" though. Never worked with him, but I have come across some LAME's who are very scary in action! Who's to say Tim was not a good engineer? A fraud, yes, a bad engineer? Who knows.

Strudders

19th Nov 2008, 13:18

Why is there no central clearing house for these types of professions.

We all have to go through CRB, should there not be the same professional checks for FC, Engineers and CC. Once you have passed your exams and been certified, then you get put on the list by the accrediting body. At the time of taking a new post, then a certificate is required from the clearing house in the same manner.

If there is then I stand corrected, if there is not then why not.

green granite

19th Nov 2008, 13:33

Why is there no central clearing house for these types of professions.

Cost?..................

smudgethecat

19th Nov 2008, 13:37

There certainly are rigorous procedures in place, quite how this airline allowed this to happen is quite amazing, their QA people need a serious looking at imo

Tmbstory

19th Nov 2008, 14:16

Good Engineers are worth their weight in gold. As a pilot I was always fortunate in this regard. Thanks.

Tmb

Farmer 1

19th Nov 2008, 14:22

matkat

19th Nov 2008, 15:36

Worked with a guy (Brit) several years ago who to be honest was useless I questioned his qualifications with my boss several times only to be told all was okay, He moved onto another company and was tasked to go to ZUR or GEV to inspect a tail strike on a B747-200F he signed it of as within AMM limits the A/C returned to MUC where it was inspected by the Feds he was then checked out as the damage was way beyond limits, subsequently busted but no prosecution (WTF???) last I heard He was running a pub in Kent for those of you who have an idea who I am talking about his initials are GH top bloke but a fraudster with no technical training never the less and I was glad he was caught.

BrissySparkyCoit

20th Nov 2008, 05:39

Quite agree. Who needs a licence? Same should apply to pilots, ATC and the rest. Think of the money saved.

That was not my point!

The point is that just because someone is licenced, doesn't mean they are a good engineer. Likewise, just because someone is not licenced, doesn't mean they are a bad engineer.

TM has been proven a fraud, but have we proven that he was incompetent? Two very different things. I'm not defending him. He has been dealt with appropriately and got what he deserved. Just find it a bit over the top that people carry on as though he was trying to cause a crash.

Blacksheep

20th Nov 2008, 07:12

...but have we proven that he was incompetent? It is for the individual to prove their competence, not the other way round. The reason for having licences is proof of competence. The standard by which any particular licence is issued may be questioned and that is a matter for those who appoint the regulators to consider, but a person without a licence is by definition, incompetent.

smudgethecat

20th Nov 2008, 08:53

seems he has not learnt his lesson yet
Fake Qantas engineer offered false references - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/20/2425126.htm?section=justin)

Engineer

20th Nov 2008, 10:52

Well as they say in for a penny in for a pound :suspect: way to go Tim :} is it true he has started the EASA conversion process :{

ericferret

20th Nov 2008, 12:25

To quote a UK CAA surveyor "a licence is an instrument for certifying aircraft it is not a qualification".

Levels of skill and competance have never been examined, although the oral examination was a good tool for guaging an individual.

The airlines continue to put pressure on the airworthiness authorities to dump the licensed engineers who are seen as too expensive and having too much autonomy.

BrissySparkyCoit

20th Nov 2008, 13:25

Quote:
The reason for having licences is proof of competence
Unfortunately nowadays a licence only proves competence in memorising a few hundred questions and answers that you found on the internet

Bingo! Just because you have the licence, doesn't mean you are competent.

Engineer

20th Nov 2008, 14:50

Unfortunately nowadays a licence only proves competence in memorising a few hundred questions and answers that you found on the internet

Nowadays passing the exam get you the basic licence which does take a lot of dedication study and not to mention cost. Remember before you can certify you must have passed yet more exams for the various type ratings. But like most things experience comes not only with time but also exposure

happybiker

20th Nov 2008, 14:50

Part 145.30(e) Personnel Requirements
The organisation shall establish and control the competence of personnel involved in any maintenance, management and/or quality audits in accordance with a procedure and to a standard agreed by the competent authority.

AMC 145.A.30(e) Personnel requirements
1. The referenced procedure requires amongst others that planners, mechanics, specialised services staff, supervisors and certifying staff are assessed for competence by 'on the job' evaluation and/or by examination relevant to their particular job role within the organisation before unsupervised work is permitted. A record of the qualification and competence assessment should be kept.

Competence should be continually assessed in an approved organisation as the relevant Regs point out and this includes certifying staff. I wonder just how many organistions would stand close scrutiny on this subject?

smudgethecat

20th Nov 2008, 15:09

You dont happen to be a unlicensed mech by any chance do you brissy?, seems you have a bit of a chip about the subject

BrissySparkyCoit

21st Nov 2008, 10:20

I am unlicenced but my "chip" is not because of this. It is through my own lack of effort that I am not licenced yet. I have, however, completed all relevant CASA examinations and have collected SOE for a few aircraft types. With any luck, I will be licenced within the next 12 months. (Luck, as we do not even know if there will be any type training in the near future... these days, moving forward, raising the bar, whats good for the business = many AME's and very few LAME's).

Yes, I have a "chip" on my shoulder if you would like to put it that way. I have seen over the years, several LAME's that are nothing short of dangerous. (I haven't necessarily worked with them, but I have seen them). Unfortuately, these individuals are often "carried" by the rest of us, (LAME's and even AME's).

Pass the exams, collect the SOE, become a LAME. If you are adapt to parrot learning, you pass the exams quickly. SOE? Just because you are involved in the task, does not mean you fully understand it! In the end, it's up to the LAME certifying to ensure that the AME understands the task before signing his SOE book.

So how is this relevant to Talk it up Timmy? The ultimate question is why was it not so bloody obvious to the LAME's he worked with, that he was not licenced?

Could it be that incompetent LAME's are that common, nobody suspected him?
Could it be that as an AME, he was competent enough to pass as a LAME?

I think the basic issue is that he is a fraud. Competence is not the issue.

WOTME?

22nd Nov 2008, 11:06

All a licence can possibly be is a yardstick of an individuals ability to learn and retain information.In the Section L days in the UK we had the oral exam as a sort of safety net,but inevitably some plonkers slipped through even that.I'm a licenced conny & generally speaking in my world if you're incompetent you don't hold a job down for very long.Permie is a whole different ball game.

dieseldo

22nd Nov 2008, 11:49

There has been another case recently with a guy working for two major operators certifying with a number that turned out to be based on a PPL number. Obviously neither operator checked him out properly.Apparently the guy was quietly asked to leave and no action was taken against him as both quality departments had screwed up big style.Wonder where he's working now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BAe146s make me cry

22nd Nov 2008, 12:20

There was a link to G-INFO on the UKCAA website.
He owned (or did own) a little GA a/c. So, its not like the
'Competent Authority' couldn't contact him and regulate
as required..:ugh: Or Anyone else for that matter!

Its clearly indicative of just how incompetent certain UKCAA
Part 145 QA depts are.

Below is a link to the FAA Airmen Registry... Any Nigel/Tech fraud
can be confirmed within hours... Not weeks, like the greased money extracting machine that occupies Aviation House.

https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/

BAe146??? :{:{:{

CY333

25th Nov 2008, 09:47

I happen to work with guys that are not lisenced and are good mechanics/fitters.
An engineer is a lisenced person that holds the authorisation to decide which action is needed to be taken according to the manuals for keeping the ac airworthy.
These individuals i have been working with are good mechanics and stressing again the word mechanics, but they do not understand the function of the components they are changing and most of them tried to pass the exams many times but failed.
So yes to be a good engineer you need to have passed all your exams.
The hand skills will get better as time goes by but you will not get any smarter.
So you underrstand the concept or not,there is no between.
Even if this guy that got gaught was good enough with his hands to work on ac, it does not mean he understood what he was actually doing.

CY333

25th Nov 2008, 10:22

Quote:
So yes to be a good engineer you need to have passed all your exams.
If you say so....

EASA states that a lisenced engineer must have the EASA Part 66 passed with a minimum of 75%.

LISENCED engineers signes the ac your family travels with NOT mechanics.
That is why grand father rights do not apply above Cat A.

Quote:
The hand skills will get better as time goes by but you will not get any smarter.
So you underrstand the concept or not,there is no between.
The beauty of the new European system is that you no longer have to understand the concept to get a licence, you simply have to memorise the correct answer (see above), its easy, any fool can do it.....http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/evil.gif

Then i guess there are quite a few foolish people working in aviation....
I know these kind of engineers that learned the bank and passed.
Result?
Most of the times they are given tasks but are unable to finish them.
I wonder why...........

BeeBopp

25th Nov 2008, 23:39

There has been another case recently with a guy working for two major operators certifying with a number that turned out to be based on a PPL number

If you hold a UK flight crew licence this number will appear on your UK engineering licence so this is not abnormal though I do remember that particular story and there were other issues if I recall it right.

ericferret

26th Nov 2008, 16:53

Except that you actually have to have an engineers licence for it to appear on!!!!!!!!!

I suspect that you might be right in that the CAA are now using a number to identify the individual and not the licence. Maybe someone who holds both can confirm that.

I understand that in a least one UK case a licence was never produced, with various excuses e.g it's with the CAA, lost in the post, eaten by the dog e.t.c.

Without sight of the document or confirming it's existence with the CAA no approval should have been issued.

ballyctid

27th Nov 2008, 08:40

Ericferret,

I can confirm that the number on the licence is indeed the same, I hold a UK NPPL pilots licence and a UK CAA Engineering licence. The 7 digit number on each one is the same preceded by UK/NP for the pilots licence and CAA/AML for the engineering licence.

Bill Boeing

17th Dec 2008, 23:07

In answer to the licence documents:

In Australia, when you first register with CASA for any exam (Pilot or AME), they issue you with an ARN (Aviation Reference Number) that will be your tracking number with them for the rest of your career.

Back in the old days, Australian LAMEs were issued a separate "Licence Number". If you were dealing with CASA in NSW, your licence number started with N. In Victoria, it started with V, etc.

For many years now, they have just added an "L" to the beginning of your ARN when they issue you an AME licence. Pilot Licences just use the ARN itself.

The licences, however, are completely different documents that look nothing alike.

Splitpin44

19th Dec 2008, 12:30

I agree with Brissy......What this guy Tim did was wrong but don't be fooled into thinking that just cos someone is licenced they are good at what they do. Anyone can pass a few exams and get a bit of soe its really not rocket science. But to be a good engineer is much harder to master.

smudgethecat

19th Dec 2008, 12:34

"anyone can pass a few exams" well actually split pin ive known a fair few who cannot ,which is why there still earning peanuts as mechanics

Splitpin44

19th Dec 2008, 13:06

True, you are right, the exams are good for weeding out people who find it hard to remember how to breathe but for the vast majority of people the text can be learnt on the bus, on the way to the exam.

smudgethecat

19th Dec 2008, 13:38

i think youve said enough to suggest you dont actually hold a CASA ticket splitipin

Splitpin44

19th Dec 2008, 15:10

Well you would be wrong in assuming such things my smudgey friend as I am an Avionics LAME who is half way through finishing his A&P exams just for fun :). Where did I say anything that would make you think otherwise?

smudgethecat

19th Dec 2008, 15:54

course you are mate ;)

forget

19th Dec 2008, 16:40

splitpin, Show'em one of these, but something a little more current.:hmm:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/Untitled-2-2.jpg

mootyman

20th Dec 2008, 00:25

Nope can verify Splitpin is Licensed,

Smudge did we find the basics a little tough did we mate?

The only engineer that I have seen put in a serious effort over 20 yrs and not able to pass enough exams (having failing some over 5 times) Is an absolute retard and I would not trust him as bowser boy to fuel up my car and inflate my tyres, As it would surely end in tears.

I understand this is bench mark but guys if you got out in the world and saw what apparently a Certified LAME in some cases is, you would think twice about flying on the aircraft that they have certified fit for flight.

Splitpin44

20th Dec 2008, 02:12

Smudge I'm sorry if I tarnished your sence of acheivement in saying that anyone can pass a few exams and get SOE, but its all true:sad:.

Anyone can read a few text books and anwser questions about what they have only read a few days ago. I read my 2 year old niece "Thomas the Tank engine" and she can name all the characters in the book the next day by more than 75% lets give her a licence for being cute.:D

And as for SOE thats just going to happen due to the fact that you are performing jobs on an aircraft to make money. WoW you wrote what you did at work down in a pretty pink (showing my age) soe book, well done ,have a trophy:D

So to get back on topic and try and get my piont across again. Yes what this Tim Fellow did was completely wrong but, you can't honestly think that just because someone has all the correct qualifications they are good at their job? If this was the case why would employers bother having interviews? They would just say "Bring us another LAME they are all equal".

It should not come as a surprise that a fully qualified person could be bad at their chosen profession:

Ever had a bad haircut from a qualified hairdesser? YES!
Ever been mis-diagnosed by a qualified doctor? YES!
Ever been unhappy with a qualified builders work? YES!

So to end my rant. Doing exams and getting SOE are the easiest part of becoming a LAME. Being aware of what you are doing and knowing the difference between being a good engineer and a crap one is the hard part. End of story.

patkinson

21st Dec 2008, 08:04

I have seen many engineers over the years licensed and unlicensed who have been excellent engineers, only once ever heard of someone who had forged credentials, but even so a phonecall usually gave credence to whether a person was the'real deal'...in the old days that was !!
This guy's work only lasted until the turnround ,minor inspection or whatever.. usually an idea of someones competency is without question.. Qantas QA has to be taken to task as also anyone who cited the guys qualifications ..course certs etc .
I am retired..happily and it really worries me these days of what I read on this and other similar websites that there is a lot of guys who submit material here that confirms my suspicions
they should be in some other profession.
The bogus engineer fortunately did not cause any
loss of life or damage and am really glad about that ,however he also did not do anything like the ddamage and injury caused by bogus ddoctors ,vets , pilots and unlicensed car drivers so although I worked very hard over the 40 odd years in my career I am very jealous of all the hard work that I and others have put in ..3.5 years is a bit over the top!:=

Loose rivets

23rd Dec 2008, 06:41

I've only glossed through, so hope it's not been covered.

About 1970, I was working for what E Gann would have called a steam-ship company's airline. All our licenses had to be double checked cos we were in trouble and were being checked down the route every few days.

A flight engineer had never had a license, and had been flying for years. It seems he was good at his job, and well liked. He got caught on a routine check at some distant destination.

Don't know what happened to him - apart from a lifestyle change. :(