As I understand it, the Cat A can do a wheel and brake change amongst other things. Most larger aircraft would require two people to this. If an apprentice or another AME was assigned to help would the Cat A not be supervising? This then raises the question as to how the second person signs the paperwork as he/she was involved in the job but the Cat A cannot certify for such actions.

Refuelling
 

QF94

(1) a refueller cannot begin fuelling without an LAMEs permission to start which involves said engineers confirming the serviceability of the fuelling system.
Therefore a LAME must supervise refuelling also he signs off on a preflight which includes refuelling.

(2) supervision can be defined as overseeing the aurcraft operations, direct supervision is .
standing with the refueller.

(3) refuelling was always carried by the LAME it was rationalised to allow one man transit

Okay, from what is posted here the Old Guy is getting confused again. :confused:

IF what has been posted here IS true, it seems to me that this new CASA Issued A Licence is in place of the old CASA issued MA (Maintenance Authority) which enabled you to sign for certain things you were NOT actually Licenced on.

Over the decades I had a few of those, one for example for FDRs and even one for an Engine Type, however I had a FULL Licence on those Aircraft, and I had to do the work could NOT just certify for someone else.

Oh Me Oh My,

Having been a LAME that used to physically carry out the refuelling at the aircraft fuel panel, I'm very aware that was our job and still sign off on it.

One man transits, at this stage ( and has been for some time) will be for domestics. That's still a sticking point on the international side of things.

You make an observation about two types of observation. Yes there is direct and yes there is supervision of the overall operation. You can have direct supervision and prevent something happening, or supervise something from a distance and see it go pear shaped. Either way you have supervised the operation.

The term supervision was/has been used very loosely on this thread.

Yes it would seem there is - the AWU and AMWU..... :)

And this seems to be one of the key issues in dispute and may well require some form of legal ruling/precedent to resolve it once and for all.

Can it be successfully argued that completion of a task is also the supervision of that very same task?

"The CASR Dictionary contains the following meaning of supervising:

A person (the supervisor) is supervising the carrying out of maintenance done by another person if the supervisor:

• is physically present at the place that the maintenance is being carried out; and
• is observing the maintenance being carried out to the extent necessary to enable the supervisor to form an opinion as to whether the maintenance is being carried out properly; and
• is available to give advice to, and answer questions about the maintenance from, the person carrying it out. "

I believe I mentioned something along these lines earlier, but not in the same words. The above definition was taken from the CASA website in the FAQ section for Part 66 Civil Aviation Safety Authority - CASR Part 66 questions & answers

Getting back to the point about fuelling, the refueller signs no paperwork for the task of refuelling an aeroplane, other than he/she has supplied the fuel as required. The engineer signs the receipt saying all is well together with the check sheets for the transit.

When the task is signed off, the LAME in charge is verifying that all the work has been carried out. The LAME hasn't necessarily supervised the task or even been at the aeroplane. The LAME signing off on each individual task takes the responsibility for ensuring each task is completed IAW the applicable AMM's.

ACT Crusader:

You've hit the nail the head ACT Crusader. The AWU/AMWU/CEPU is exactly and appropriately where unlicensed aircraft engineers (aka AMEs) are covered.

In my very humble opinion, the key fact of the issue is that the holder of a Category A Licence is a Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME) and therefore, the appropriate union to cover them is the ALAEA.

I believe this fact will, in the end, be the key determinant in the resolution of this case. I see any other arguments as diversionary to this basic fact.

A lame signing for a fuel uplift is a Qantas process, not a regulatory requirement. Wake up.

Lames dont sign for a fuel uplift, the pilots do.

Ames or Lames,the bloke down the street or pilots can carry out the discrepancy calculations, the pilot in command or designate has to accept it. Just because sometimes there is no effective means of communications to the refueler it falls to the person doing the transit check of the aircraft to pass it on. Sometimes the lame needs to inform the refueler

There is nothing stopping qantas replacing the term 'LAME' in the policy and procedures to 'Appropriately Trained Person' like they have done with the towing, to any procedure, so at the end of the day unless it's written in law, it's their train set.

But this isn't the argument, who does what, it's an introduction by CASA of a restricted licence and qantas doing deals with the AWU,AMWU and ETU to devise a way to cover this new employee.

Seems cut and dry to a common sense point of view. Seeing as they will be issued with a licence from CASA what case do the unlicenced engineers have. If the privilege were extended by virtue of having an AME trade certificate then different story.

Okay, Steve (the FedSec) has taken the time to explain it all to me, for which I thank him. :ok:

It is obvious when you know how it works that the CASA issued A Licence IS a genuine Licence and anyone that holds it should be in the ALAEA if they want to. :ok:

Correct me if things have changed since I was on the tarmac. I know that as a LAME I was required to sign a transit check sheet certifying that the fuel was uplifted IAW the aircraft fuelling manual and Qantas procedures. This was for 744, 767 and A330. Some of the actual tasks were performed by others but I took responsibility by signing the check sheet.

@Fedsec

This is still the case. The flight crew sign for accepting the fuel on the fuel distribution sheet of which they keep the original, and we sign on our check sheets that we have done the fuelling IAW the Fuelling manual, QF procedures etc.

A380 can be included in that list also

While we're talking about the AWU, this from their website today.

--------------------------------------
Skilled defence jobs must be retained

9 May 2012

The Federal Government's decision to retire the RAAF's fleet of C-130H Hercules aircraft early, as part of the Budget defence cuts, has put the long-term future of 250 workers at the RAAF Richmond base at risk.

AWU National Secretary Paul Howes today said the union was concerned for the working future of the highly-trained employees and contractors of Qantas Defence Services who maintain the C-130H Hercules aircraft.

"The union has spoken to the Federal Government and Qantas today to find out exactly what the Government's budget announcement means for the aircraft maintenance workforce at Richmond.

"We have been assured that no immediate jobs will be lost as a result of the announcement.

"We will now work closely with the Department of Defence and Qantas Defence Services to ensure minimum disruption to workers at the Richmond base as the aircraft are phased out of operation."

Mr Howes said Australia's skilled workforce was essential to our national defence capabilities.

"The Department of Defence must find alternative aircraft maintenance work for the Richmond base so that Australia does not lose access to the highly-trained workforce that has been developed at Richmond over many years."

"The skilled workers at RAAF Base Richmond need to have regular work, otherwise they will be lost to other industries.

"The AWU will not stand by and see the jobs sacrificed, and these capabilities lost."
---------------------------------------

Australia, epidemic loss for our aviation skills base
 

Its becoming an epidemic loss for our skills base in Australian aviation....




.

ALAEA Fed. Sec., I have something to share with you.

I know its off topic, but do you have any idea of the damage Craig Thompson and his mate Williamson have done to the Labor movement?

People everywhere are asking these questions:

How many more turds are there who formerly or currently manage unions?

How many former union turds have made it into State and Federal Parliament?

Just how corrupt is the Labor Party, both at State and Federal level?

Who knew, and when did they know it?

Why are ALL Labor politicians former union apparatchicks or lawyers who have never worked on the tools even for a day?

Do you understand that the Labor party is going to be wiped out at the next Federal Election?

Do you understand that Abbot is then going to take a blunt and rusty knife to the management of unions and permanently castrate them?

Do you understand that the Labor party is going to be unelectable until it gets rid of the corrupt branch stacking ethnically driven, tribal behaviour it is currently displaying, especially in the NSW cesspool?

Do you understand that all your good work on behalf of LAME's is now totally and comprehensively in vain? Qantas is going to get exactly what it wants.

I'd welcome your comments.

sunny , despite some of the loopier policies the greens are the only party with any ticker and consistency of policy. if it means voting for them to protect my living / job and pay rates I will do it. they wont win many in the lower house but senate has the last say. So they cant create much legislation but can vet and modify the more draconian stuff Abbott will have free reign to do soon. I would love to see an aviation based senate ticket run next time. Run on protection of the local industry, skilled jobs, sewing the balls back onto CASA, getting rid of the ticket clippers making big bucks while the industry suffers, upgrading infrastructure and nav aids etc.

Firstly I ask our good moderators for some leniency here. This will move a little political but the thread is a debate about the unions that represent aviation workers and how they are controlled and this does reach to the party system and will affect us all.

They have broken it to a point that it will take years to rebuild.

I know at least one.

Who knows. Maybe about the same amount of former corporate turds that infect the Liberal party. They come out of the same mould.

I think not corrupt but it seems that unethical practices have become accepted, its not just Labor though it is society in general. Take a look at News Limited and the phone tapping scandal.

The problems with the HSU were known some time ago by lots of people but the exact details were unknown. Really, they still are. Who knows who recieved the services of prostitutes on the credit card, we can all suspect but the bloke is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That is a fundemental right in our society.

I think you will find that Doug Cameron worked for many years so this isn't entirely correct.

Sure do. It appears that there are only about 72 people who can't see it coming.

Yep. It will be carnage.

Yep and it will be a long time. I occassionally sit with these young Labor upstarts and they have no comprehension of what the ordinary person thinks. It is as if there is a fantasy world that has been created for them where they have been given a birthright to absolute power. It disgusts me.


It won't all be for nothing. If we can save one Australian job that would have otherwise been lost if there were no barriers, we are better off. The work our union has done in the last 6 years has saved jobs, extended careers, provided better remuneration and rosters. The future will be tough battling the airline, the Monk and the destruction to the Labor movement caused by the selfish few.

I guess my job would be boring if it had no challenges. At least you know I will be working for my pay cheque.

As usual, well put FedSec. Appreciate your efforts. Steve and Goliath comes to mind.