EASA Licence

[Diellur]

Hello all,

I've heard that there is a maintenance licence coming from EASA which requires 60 hours hands-on experience on an aircraft as well as an exam to achieve. I've been Googling this, but haven't come across anything conclusive. Is there anyone here who could shed some light on this?

Thanks. :)

[Exup]

I really hope this is wrong as it makes everyone who served 4 years as an apprentice gained the relevant experience, passed all 13 modules & the essays look a bit erelevant if all it needs now is 60 hrs which equates to 1 & 1\2 weeks work and an exam to acheive a licence. But who knows with EASA

[BAe146s make me cry]

Diellur

There is a proposal for the Part 66 B3 / ELA AML - is this the one?

PowerPoint Presentation (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:vyHf5r1YTFIJ:www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/g/doc/Events/2008/july/NPA%25202008-03%2520Task%252066.022%2520-%2520B3%2520licence.ppt+easa+ela+b3+licence&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk)

Send an update enquiry to this chap at EASA: [email protected]

Post his reply here...

Regards

BAe146???:{:{:{

[WOTME?]

I think I'll go on holiday by boat in future.:eek:

[nodrama]

Are you sure this isn't being confused with a type rating for an EASA licence.

Some EASA approved manufacturers offer courses incorporating the classroom theory with two week hands-on the aircraft (your mentioned 60 hrs), and then NAA's issue a type rating on the strength of this.

Not saying it's right, but it happens in Continental Europe.

[WOTME?]

2 weeks hands on then a type rating?:eek:
I'll stick to the boat.

[Capot]

I rather think that under EASA at least it's the NAA that issues the Type Rating, not a manufacturer, but I could be wrong.


So far as experience requiorements go...with due credit to ELGD..........................


Part-66 requires that a satisfactory amount of
experience is required for an aircraft rating, in addition
to the training. As a guide, 4 months is considered to be
acceptable although the experience required will
largely depend on the licence(s) and rating(s) already
held. Where a similar aircraft type is held to that which
is being applied for, experience can be reduced
however, the experience should not be less than two
weeks.
For each application, the CAA will need to satisfy itself
that the practical training is of sufficient duration before
adding a type rating.


There are also the tasks that must be signed off before a rating can be applied for. Fewer for those with proven relevant experience.

So it's not quite as bad as it might seem. And you can get dreadfully seasick on a ferry.

None of the above applies to the B3 AMEL, as far as I know, if such a thing actually exists yet.

[BISH-BASH-BOSH]

Simple really, as the ALAE have been stateing for months, EASA are on a mission to dumb down the licence till it is in effect worthless.
They are well on thier way to achieving this task. Those of us who went through 4 years of a recognised apprentiship scheme, then sat the CAA licence, underwent an oral exam with a survayer, and then were given the privilage of holding a licence, are all ageing, and will eventually retire,

Why not just dumb down the system from the bottom, and EASA will eventually reach the goal they want, ie no licence of any value, for European licensed engineers.

It makes me sick really, when you are forced to work with EASA licenced engineers, who have gained thier licence through the new system, and cannot even tell the diffrence between type 2 de-icing fluid and Fluid 4, and these guys are on thier own making potential life or death desisions as to weather to dispatch an aircraft or not..:bored:

[Capot]

Part of the problem is, guess who, good ole Tony Blair. He decreed that 50% of school-leavers had the Right to go a get a degree, no matter how Mickey Mouse. So all the funding assistance for training was diverted into that ridiculous aspiration, producing a generation of degree-holders who can barely write a sentence but know all there is to know about flipping burgers.

As a direct consequence, apprenticeship schemes died out all over the UK, especially in aircraft maintenance.

If we were now reliant on apprentice schemes (including the excellent Service ones) to produce the new generation of engineers we would have very few qualified ones in a few years time.

As the extract from ELGD says, it's up to the CAA to decide if someone has the experience needed for a Licence. If they get that wrong then it's the CAA, not the system, at fault. My experience of the CAA at present is that they get nearly everything wrong apart from extracting huge fees for sod-all work.

Delay, procrastination and incompetence rule at Aviation House, and that applies just as much to engineer licensing and Airworthiness as to all their other functions.

Perhaps the new management can change things. But I doubt it.