Qf LAME EBA Negotiations Begin

[Nassensteins Monster]

Sunfish

Quote:
1) Instead of 2 Mech to 1 Avionic LAME, it will shake out somewhere between 4 and 10 B1 to B2, in line with other operators. Sparkies, prepare your CVs. The majority of you are surplus to requirements.

2) "A" licenses to slowly increase. If "A" licenses can perform a large proportion of the current workload of line LAMEs (ie servicing and minor maintenance functions as described in the QEPM) it stands to reason that they'll eventually make up the majority of future LAMEs. Total "B" licenses to be reduced over time by attrition and redundancy.
Mate, this is where you lose me let alone the Journalists and General public. You need to translate this into plain English, explain the Differences between B1, B2 and the other bananas and tell us why it matters to us that this is happening.

Sunfish, this is a difficult question to answer in a short answer. There is limited scope in this forum for deeper explanations and I seriously think the wider travelling public don't really give a sh!t about the history and intricacies of aircraft maintenance engineer licensing in this country.

The company tells us in the Service Quality presentations that surveys reveal all passengers want is to get where they want, when they want, leave and arrive on time, with a nice in-cabin experience, safely - in that order of priority.

In a nutshell:

Back in the day when senior engineering management actually had an engineering background and gave a sh!t about increasing worker productivity through training and multi-skilling, it was decided to rationalise the multiplicity of trade streams (airframe, engine, electrical, instrument, radio) into Mechanical (consisting of airframe and engine trades) and Avionic (electrical, instrument and radio) and cross-train the disparate but related trade streams, so for example the often-idle "radio morts" were put to more productive use on electrical and instrument defects. Avionics LAMEs operating in Line Maintenance could not certify to release the aircraft for flying after transit maintenance. To overcome this, they were given task-specific mechanical servicing training, and then granted “Transit Authorities”. We had a worlds best practice licensing setup, and like a certain computer company's product "it just worked". No overlap. Clear demarcation of trade responsibilities. Multi-tasking and higher productivity of Avionics LAMEs.

Enter EASA and the increasing systems automation and complication of modern aircraft, with their higher reliance on avionics to control and monitor structural and mechanical systems.

B1 licenses are airframe, engine and electrical. B2 licenses were originally avionics, being instrument and radio, however electrical privileges were sensibly added later. The “B” licensed engineers are licensed to perform, supervise and certify for ALL aircraft systems in their trade. The proposed “A” license LAME requires ONLY 2 YEARS INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE plus some “one-week wonder” task-specific training so he/she can certify for specific servicing and maintenance functions on isolated aircraft systems that they have performed themselves: no supervision privileges.

CASA “Part 66” LAME licensing system seeks to align itself with EASA Part 66:

Category A (Line Maintenance Mechanic): Basic A category License + Task Training (Level depends on Task Complexity) + Company Certification Authorization for specific Tasks ("A category A aircraft maintenance licence permits the holder to issue certificates of release to service following minor scheduled line maintenance and simple defect rectification within the limits of tasks specifically endorsed on the authorisation. The certification privileges shall be restricted to work that the licence holder has personally performed in a Part-145 organisation"),
Category B1 (Mechanical) and/or B2(Avionics) (Line Maintenance Technician): Basic B1/B2 category License + Type Training (i.e. Line and Base Maintenance i.a.w. ATA 104 Level III) + Company Certification Authorization ("A category B1 aircraft maintenance licence shall permit the holder to issue certificates of release to service following maintenance, including aircraft structure, powerplant and mechanical and electrical systems. Replacement of avionic line replaceable units, requiring simple tests to prove their serviceability, shall also be included in the privileges. Category B1 shall automatically include the appropriate A subcategory", "A category B2 aircraft maintenance licence shall permit the holder to issue certificates of release to service following maintenance on avionic and electrical systems").

The introduction of the new licensing system will pose some problems in the Australian context. As with the introduction of any new system, the risk period is at the inception of the new system. Just because you grant a "Mechanical" LAME "Electrical" systems certification privileges when you grant him a “B1” license, it doesn't translate to years and decades of experience on electrical systems, including the hand skills, knowledge and culture to investigate, troubleshoot, repair and test electrical systems in accordance with the aircraft maintenance manual and standard wiring practices manual.

However the company doesn't see it that way. All they see is "B1 = airframe, engine, mechanical and electrical systems" certification privileges. If B1 certification privileges overlap into B2 certification privileges, it can be plausibly*** argued that you need less B2 licenses.

***

plau·si·ble/

ˈplôzəbəl/Adjective:

• (of an argument or statement) Seeming reasonable or probable.
• (of a person) Skilled at producing persuasive arguments, esp. ones intended to deceive.

Mechanical/B1 LAMEs are intelligent people and they'll pick up the systems knowledge eventually, but it will take years - assuming they want to, which many of the older generation of Mechanical LAMEs don't (which Qantas is top-heavy with). They have responsibility for trouble-shooting the electrical system but cannot certify for anything more than replacing a line-replaceable component that only requires a “Built In Test” to determine that the entire system is ok. The B1 LAME has to hand over further troubleshooting of electrical system and electrically controlled mechanical system defects to the B2 (avionics) LAMEs if the line-replaceable component didn’t fix the system. The B1 and B2 engineers must confer on what trouble-shooting and defect rectification has been done. Perhaps work done must be “re-worked”. Time wasted. Inefficient. A typically European convolution of process and needless introduction of inefficient command-style bureaucracy.

The damage caused by the loss of institutional memory as B2 licensed engineers with decades of experience are invited/encouraged to walk out the door through attrition and redundancy will be irreparable. They’ll laugh all the way to the bank and early retirement, Virgin etc. The institutional memory will be lobotomised.

Yes the manufacturers of "Next Generation" aircraft (B737-800, A330, A380) have supposedly designed the aircraft to provide limited self-diagnosis and be easier to maintain. Yes they have provided comprehensive troubleshooting and fault isolation manuals (TSM/FIM). Yes they have improved the reliability of components. Management are of the belief that trained monkeys will be able to maintain Next Gen aircraft, that’s when they’re not fixing themselves and dodging lightning, birds, hail, heavy landings etc. BUT any LAME will tell you that the TSM/FIM often contains errors and sends the unwitting LAME off on a wild goose chase. They are an AID to defect rectification ONLY and are NO REPLACEMENT for line avionics experience.

This is where experience comes in: the A330s for example throw up some faults that avionics LAMEs with 10 years experience on type struggle to rectify, and have only done so on the basis of making a deductive leap based upon either hearing about or experiencing a similar but unrelated defect years prior. Lo and behold, defect rectified. Can the LAME certify for the defect with reference to the Airbus TSM? No. He can certify for it in accordance with the "remove and install" procedure in the aircraft maintenance manual for the defective component. Can the company claim warranty on the defective component because the defect has been certified as having been identified as faulty in accordance with the TSM? No. The LAME has made a value judgement that operationally and financially benefits the company by foregoing warranty income for operational profit. The replaced component’s warranty is void but the system defect is rectified and legally certified and the aircraft is making money again by actually flying.

In Qantas management's belief system however, by not following the TSM and warranty procedure the LAME has operated outside of company procedure, which is a potentially dismissible offense. We’re now "Working to Rule" as per the company belief system and we're accused of a "Go Slow". The gradual reduction in Avionic/B2 LAMEs will mean electrically inexperienced Mechanical/B1 LAMEs will be placed in operational situations where they have no choice but to rely on the TSM or FIM. Wasted man-hours, lost flying time. By the company’s definition, B1 LAMEs will be on a “Go-Slow” for the foreseeable future.

From bitter experience the Boeing FIM is not immune from misdirection. At least it has a qualifying statement in many FIM procedures when confronted with an intermittent defect. It goes something like this: "If the system tests ok then the fault is intermittent and not present at this time. If the fault is intermittent you must use your judgement (my bold) and refer to your company procedures if you wish to rectify the defect."

Judgement comes from experience, which the company is encouraging out the door with its buggery and bastardry campaign and misguided reliance on the introduction of an engineer licensing system inferior to the one we possessed.

The company is spending a fortune on a “fill-the-gaps” training program to address the shortfalls of the new system vs the old system. They have started training selected Mechanical/B1 LAMEs on the 5 Core Avionic and 2 Electrical Basics exams, aka “Avionics Fundamentals”. Sadly the course is based on the CASA syllabus, which is woefully outdated and provides almost no reference to the sophisticated systems and components now in use. This training will take many weeks. Still, it is NO REPLACEMENT for a 4 year avionic apprenticeship where avionics apprentices were taught by experienced instructors in a classroom and workshop environment and by experienced engineers on the job, followed by several years as an unlicensed engineer before finally becoming licensed.


By comparison, many motivated B2 LAMEs have proactively achieved all Mechanical Basics exams required for Group 20 aircraft. These generally younger, motivated individuals could be quickly and easily multi-skilled by providing them with task-specific training and granting them an “A” license. To my knowledge the company has NO PLANS to do so. If they did, they’d increase the productivity of their workforce, they wouldn’t need to employ as many “A” licenses thus keeping head-count down and saving money, they would retain that invaluable institutional memory and virtually eliminate the risks of needless waste and aircraft downtime outlined above.

How does this effect the travelling public?

Qantas prides itself on On-Time Performance and Safety. What do you think will happen to OTP when there are half the number of B2 avionics LAMEs (or even less) and B1 LAMEs have no choice but to rectify some electrical defect with extremely limited experience and with no choice but to have complete faith in a sometimes inaccurate aircraft self-diagnosis system and a deceptive TSM/FIM? “A” licenses running rampant on the tarmac? Inexperienced, under-trained, underpaid, gormless “A” licenses with limited responsibility, Tunnel Vision and a “She’ll be right” “Don’t know, don’t care” attitude. It’s a diffusion and blurring of responsibility. They are an irrefutable decline in the high standards of maintenance in this country. The result? Delay. Compromised safety. Can you imagine the inefficiency of a scenario where an observant pilot spots an electrical fault, consults the “A” license LAME, who determines that he’s not qualified to rectify, who then calls for a B1 LAME, who troubleshoots the fault to the limited extent that his certification allows, then hands over to a B2 LAME? Please! All the while, you the passenger are looking out your window at the unfolding scene of parading engineers. Are you worried yet?

[Gas Bags]

NM that is a very concise and relevant post. I would like to add but sincerely not detract from your post, that I can as a mechanical LAME, go to Aviation Australia in Brisbane, and with a 3 month course become a qualified B1 engineer.

In laymans terms that means instead of the 4 year apprenticeship some people did under the old system to attain their electrical qualification I now gain that in 3 months.

I feel this analogy certainly reinforces your ascertation of experience being discarded.

GB

[sfde]

Mate, this is where you lose me let alone the Journalists and General public. You need to translate this into plain English, explain the Differences between B1, B2 and the other bananas and tell us why it matters to us that this is happening.

Previously (20 yrs ago) there were five aircraft trades. They are Engine, Airframe, Radio, Instrument and Electrical. You did a four year apprenticeship and a bunch of CASA exams and waited for a type couse to become a LAME as 1 of these trades.
Therefore to cover an aircraft for maintenance you essentially needed five LAME,s.

Management came up with an idea to multi skill these lames with like trades to improve productivity. Thereafter a three month course turned an engine lame into an engine/airframe lame and visa versa and an elec lame into a elec/inst lame and visa versa. Therefore enabling half the heads to do the same work. Soon after radio was added to the elec/inst guys to save even more.

This looks all well and good on paper but even now a good ten years down the track most lames will agree that there strong point is their original trade and a lot still struggle with any major issues in their added trades.

Now casa in their infinite wisdom have decided to follow the EASA system and thin the water once again. An eng/airframe lame will become a B1 lae and do a six week course and also cover electrical. They will also pick up the ability to fix all inst and radio systems if the system is tested by an on-board system.

An inst/elec/radio lame will become a B2 lae and will continue covering all that they do at the moment but will be less needed as the B1 lae has most of the same privileges.

Enter the A license. The A license is open to any 18 year old who can pass a six week course. He will be able to certify for Transit checks and component changes deemed appropriate by the company once trained by the company to do so.

So after your 18 yold who still has restrictions on his driving license, comes to work he can change a couple of wheels and a brake on you A380 and then do an Etops check and send you off to LA with out a Lame even looking at the aircraft.

This is why the ALAEA is fighting to retain our jobs and more importantly our job functions . These change are equivelent to letting a high school kid doing biology operate on people because the medical system isn't making enough money. But remember a doctor/biology student only loses one patient at a time.

[fatmike]

I'm confused, I thought that the groundings were occurring because the engineers were not doing overtime, but then Olivia said that Qantas refuse to pay overtime? Or am I missing something here?

The AALEA has volunteered to supply engineers on overtime to cover the stopwork meetings.. This is unacceptable to Qantas as she says.
The groundings are due to the overtime bans which apparently means that there is not enough manpower to all the required maintenance on all the aircraft so by grounding aircraft, supply of labour equals demand for maintenance or so the theory goes.

[hewlett]

From the coalface.There is no substitute for a good "coney" when the s%it hits the fan, in most cases. Carnage ahead,( metaphorically speaking).

[mmciau]

Nassensteins Monster

Ah, the 'watering down' of the 'Craft Trades' is front and foremost with most employers in this day and age.

With over 30 years of experience in the 'Service Sector" trades, I feel this watering down of Standards and loss of company Intellectual Proprietorship will result in a nasty incident.


mike

[sfde]

B2 licenses were originally avionics, being instrument and radio, however electrical privileges were sensibly added later.

NM great response I think however your above statement may end up being a poisoned chalias as when EASA issued the licenses avionics got a restricted B1 giving them some chance of further training in their company in line with the mechanical guys. I have a suspicion this was a Qantas pushed change through CASA to evade this.

[Ngineer]

The damage caused by the loss of institutional memory as B2 licensed engineers with decades of experience are invited/encouraged to walk out the door through attrition and redundancy will be irreparable.

There are alot of people banging the drum that this is a system out to screw the B2 guys. What people fail to highlight is that the B1 fellas will get totally shafted in the advent of type A certifiers. What we have here is a system in place that will basically let an AME certify for an aircraft. No trade, or aircraft for that matter, is safe with this new system of certification (in my honest opinion).

[Nassensteins Monster]

Ngineer

Quote:
The damage caused by the loss of institutional memory as B2 licensed engineers with decades of experience are invited/encouraged to walk out the door through attrition and redundancy will be irreparable.
There are alot of people banging the drum that this is a system out to screw the B2 guys. What people fail to highlight is that the B1 fellas will get totally shafted in the advent of type A certifiers. What we have here is a system in place that will basically let an AME certify for an aircraft. No trade, or aircraft for that matter, is safe with this new system of certification (in my honest opinion).

Excellent point. Sorry I didn't make it clearer myself.

Quote:
The damage caused by the loss of institutional memory as B2 licensed engineers with decades of experience are invited/encouraged to walk out the door through attrition and redundancy will be irreparable.
There are alot of people banging the drum that this is a system out to screw the B2 guys. What people fail to highlight is that the B1 fellas will get totally shafted in the advent of type A certifiers. What we have here is a system in place that will basically let an AME certify for an aircraft. No trade, or aircraft for that matter, is safe with this new system of certification (in my honest opinion).

Excellent point. Sorry I didn't make it clearer myself.

A Licenses will reduce OVERALL B license requirements. Since there are more B1's than B2's, B1's will get smashed too. I stand by the statement that B2's are gonna suffer proportionally worse than B1's though, as a percentage of total B1's vs B2's.

[Long Bay Mauler]

A normal shift of 20 engineers will look something like this:

3 x B1 Engineers(Current Mechanical)

2 x B2 Engineers(Current Avionics)

15 x A Licenced engineers(Mostly made up of engineers pursuing B1 licences)

And this is assuming that the B1/B2 engineers are fully trained on all types that Qantas operate.

The way I see it, as Qantas cannot organise a good time in a brothel, it is unlikely that we will see the above scenario this side of 2020.

[Ngineer]

Wasn't having a go NM, your post was very good and precise. Just adding my 2 bobs worth.

[Nassensteins Monster]

No offense taken Ngineer. Your 2 bobs worth was a welcome addition to the debate.

[aveng]

We had the chance for B744 fleet renewal with the B777-200LRs (first delivered 2006) and B777-300ERs, and we didn't take it. Have we learned nothing from NOT buying B777s? The airline is craving fleet renewal, both Domestic and International. It is an insult to our mainline passengers to continue to shuttle them around in clapped out old aircraft. We risk repeating the mistakes of the past - Domestic at least - by flying clapped out ex-Jet* A330s as replacements for the clapped out B767s. And we'll STILL be flogging around reconfigured B744s burning 30% more fuel than a B777 in 10 years time.

Agree totally with your post re A/C purchases but with respect to 777 over A330 I believe Qantas just needs to jump one way or the other and since we already have A380's and A330 and A320 in the group maybe we should lean towards Airbus. Having too many types will kill off Qantas. The new A330's operating domestically with the Panasonic IFE are for the most part coming and going just nicely. It's really just the A330-300's with Rockwell IFE that are pains.

[airsupport]

Thank you for the posts about the new Licence system, although I think it is a horrid system and IMHO an unacceptable reduction in safety , why on earth Australia had to be dragged down to the lowest level infuriates me, I believe it was forced on CASA by Qantas.

Back in 1963 when I started as an Apprentice it was a 5 year Apprenticeship (not 4 years), and we were groomed by the Company to become LAMEs in one trade, we were paid (very low wages but paid) to attend Technical College one day a week, and another half day a week at the Company Training School, the rest of the time we rotated through all the various departments gaining practical experience. In our 4th year we sat for all the basics after some training at the Company School, then in our 5th year were put on one of the Company run type courses.

After all that we could not of course become an LAME while still an Apprentice and/or under age 21, still further in our Company after finally becoming an LAME with one endorsement the Company paid you as an LAME but would NOT let you certify for another 3 months until you had even more experience.

How times have changed, and for the worse as far as safety.

[Sunfish]

Nassensteins Monster; thank you for your concise and informative post.

[the rim]

Thread Drift

we are have a bit of thread drift.......but my two bobs worth,as I remember about 12 years ago or more a couple of reps who were involed in the regs review were telling all "the sky is falling" but not many would listen,untill it was to late..............all history, now lets get back to the topic.....the rim

[Propstop]

Airsupport, fully agree

Airsupport
I fully agree with you re the training we received from the airlines back in the 60’s. Over the years I have used all the skills taught to us during this apprenticeship, and have taught these skills also to other engineers in the third world at various times.
The system today is simply enough training to tick the boxes, buy the right box of cornflakes, and an instant LAME who, in respect to aircraft maintenance, has enough trouble walking without chewing gum at the same time.
The impression I have with our current licensing system is that it is a sop to QF to enable barely trained people to certify aircraft safe for flight after maintenance. I do wonder though is if they are aware that if that aircraft were to have an accident after their certification they are directly in the firing line for criminal charges to be filed against them. I do wonder how much backing they would get from their employer in such a situation. CASA will pursue them to the end of the earth being the criminals they are, in breach of the criminal provisions in the regulations.
It is sad for me, having been in this industry for nearly 46 years and have seen a lot of the world and worked beside some wonderful and very skilled people, now to see everything being reduced to the lowest common denominator to be able to save a cent or two in the dollar, but forgetting the huge cost when there is a major accident, thereby negating all the cents save previously.
It would be too much to hope that QANTAS may one day be run again by someone who is a true visionary with a dream to enable the airline again to be the standard of excellence all others to be measured against………. Dream on Sunshine!!!!!!!

[Red Baron]

More Threats!

AJ just doesn't know when to quit!

On the day when Qantas are meeting with us this news report gets released:

Qantas strikes 'could cost jobs'

What was that 'Whistle Blowers' hotline number again? I'm feeling threatened and intimidated by the company yet again!

Maintain the rage

[airsupport]

we are have a bit of thread drift.......

Are we, not how I see it.

I have been led to believe that these EBA negotiations (the topic) are not only about money, but about sending work off shore and having LAMEless tarmacs.

Surely the downgrading of our once great LAME Licence, the envy of the World, is part of it, Qantas were the ones that forced CASA to change and downgrade the Licence system, now they are trying to send a lot of the maintenance off shore and not use LAMEs on line at all, except when someone ''thinks'' something may be wrong.

[another superlame]

First Jetstar take some checks away, now Jitconnect follows suit.
If this is going to plan, then that is some funky plan.