'X' 500 Annotation?
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: UK
'X' 500 Annotation?
Has anybody heard of the 'X' 500 annotation? This is what the RAF is giving its now dual trade aircraft techs. I have been told that this has something to do with the JAR66.
Another question, would this be recocnised in any way what-so-ever with the FAA A&P Licenses? In other words, would I be wasting my time chasing the 'X' 500 if I am aiming for the FAA A&P license?
Another question, would this be recocnised in any way what-so-ever with the FAA A&P Licenses? In other words, would I be wasting my time chasing the 'X' 500 if I am aiming for the FAA A&P license?
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
From: RAF Kinloss
At last check mate, nothing the RAF ever did techie wise was ever accepted in any way as part of a civilian license, so I don't think dual-trade will change that in any way. Would be good if it did though.....
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
From: oop north
is that right?, what about the full exemeptions you were granted pre jar 66, on modules 2,3,4,5 leaving only four essay questions to do on the strength of doing a micky mouse" fitters course" lasting a few weeks, where as guys who had compleated a five year real apprenticeship with say ba, monarch, etc got jack sh1t
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: UK
Older style mechs worked on jets for an average of 4 years before they were offered a "Mickey Mouse" Fitters course, which is a year of full time. Many mechs waited up to 8 years before getting a fitters course - a bit of experience if you ask me - before gaining technician status. The reason for this long wait is because the RAF decided to train Mech Techs (rubber techies), who were guaranteed a fitters course after just 18 months! Not much experience, some never even worked on aircraft. This being so, there were no slots available for the old mechs.
So don't think that we all have had an easy ride, many of us feel let down by the RAF, so don't tar us all with the same brush.
So don't think that we all have had an easy ride, many of us feel let down by the RAF, so don't tar us all with the same brush.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: birmingham
yes, i agree with you, i could never understand why the fitters were exempted the multi choice modules in the bcar days the level of training of a fitter was no where approaching what a civilian apprenticeship offered, however the halton apprenticeship was a different animal, and on a par with any civvy scheme iimho ,however, as you say the field is now level which is fairer to all i feel
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
From: various bits of UK
Rig-pig,
I pondered over this subject for a while and have been doing some digging on the inside. (A bit wordy but here goes)
It isn’t hard to find the references about the JAR66 (Certification of Maintenance Staff) in connection with the X-500 annotation. The latest edition of Tradewise (Mar 05 – check that out for military timing!) refers you to AP100-B01 Ord 4.3 & 4.4, AP3392 Vol 2 Lft 2 but the initial rational (and eye-opener) is given in DCI(RAF)13/03 – Reorganisation of TG1&2 to provide multiskilling. You can get most of these on the Intranet, in your sections admin office or in the case of the latter your WO’s In / Pending tray = Waist bin!
Joking aside the DCI opens by saying;
“…improvements in technology will offer the potential to reduce the number of personnel requiring a deep knowledge of systems, Down-Skill some elements…and allow some engineering personnel to work across a broader range of skills with fewer trades.”
It goes on to say;
“..the new trade structure could define Tri-service convergence work…” A term for what I ask? That is a step away from a single coloured uniform force!
It then moves on to suggest that this will improve your prospects for transition to civilian maintenance organisations – oh really! This, it seems, is an assumption based upon the next paragraph entitled;
“Benefits of JAR Alignment.”
…the RAF must ensure there are objective reasons for NOT adopting civilian BEST PRACTICE…” these being in line with JAR66! (Not licensing programmes).
It then explains the lament of many an RAF and indeed RN & Army aircraft Engineer,
“…RAF engineers trying to get into civilian aviation will find the route more difficult: this is because current RAF aircraft engineering trade structures differ markedly from the civil sector…alignment with the civil sector will make transition smoother.”
From here there is no further explanation as to how your transition is to be simplified.
As I understand it the transition is in no way painless or simple. You will still have to pay the thousand of pounds to study the modules and more to take the exams. This then leaves you with the year to serve in civi-street before your licence is recognised. There is a time span to achieve all this. (Five years from starting the first module to the end of your first civilian year). Then assuming you can get a job you will have to prove your self before your new employer will pay to put you through a type rating course, after which (if you pass) not only will they want to exact the cost back through bonding you to the company but, as understand it, there will be a period of proving your knowledge before your type rating takes effect. Through this time your wages will have taken a bit of a dive but the “glory wage” packet should start to come in after you get type rated - depending upon who you work for.
It sounds a bit gloomy but I now plenty of people who are going down that route at present so it must be worth it.
Let’s face it if the approximately (before redundancies) 10000 aircraft engineers in the RAF were trained by a CAA 147 approved organisation and given licences, what percentage would remain after qualifying? – Hence the spin! They made it sound like a good thing but who benefits in the end? – You with an increase in your “work experience portfolio” or the mandarin in the ivory tower with their reduce costs and two for the price of one training scheme. – You decide!
Good luck
PB
I pondered over this subject for a while and have been doing some digging on the inside. (A bit wordy but here goes)
It isn’t hard to find the references about the JAR66 (Certification of Maintenance Staff) in connection with the X-500 annotation. The latest edition of Tradewise (Mar 05 – check that out for military timing!) refers you to AP100-B01 Ord 4.3 & 4.4, AP3392 Vol 2 Lft 2 but the initial rational (and eye-opener) is given in DCI(RAF)13/03 – Reorganisation of TG1&2 to provide multiskilling. You can get most of these on the Intranet, in your sections admin office or in the case of the latter your WO’s In / Pending tray = Waist bin!
Joking aside the DCI opens by saying;
“…improvements in technology will offer the potential to reduce the number of personnel requiring a deep knowledge of systems, Down-Skill some elements…and allow some engineering personnel to work across a broader range of skills with fewer trades.”
It goes on to say;
“..the new trade structure could define Tri-service convergence work…” A term for what I ask? That is a step away from a single coloured uniform force!
It then moves on to suggest that this will improve your prospects for transition to civilian maintenance organisations – oh really! This, it seems, is an assumption based upon the next paragraph entitled;
“Benefits of JAR Alignment.”
…the RAF must ensure there are objective reasons for NOT adopting civilian BEST PRACTICE…” these being in line with JAR66! (Not licensing programmes).
It then explains the lament of many an RAF and indeed RN & Army aircraft Engineer,
“…RAF engineers trying to get into civilian aviation will find the route more difficult: this is because current RAF aircraft engineering trade structures differ markedly from the civil sector…alignment with the civil sector will make transition smoother.”
From here there is no further explanation as to how your transition is to be simplified.
As I understand it the transition is in no way painless or simple. You will still have to pay the thousand of pounds to study the modules and more to take the exams. This then leaves you with the year to serve in civi-street before your licence is recognised. There is a time span to achieve all this. (Five years from starting the first module to the end of your first civilian year). Then assuming you can get a job you will have to prove your self before your new employer will pay to put you through a type rating course, after which (if you pass) not only will they want to exact the cost back through bonding you to the company but, as understand it, there will be a period of proving your knowledge before your type rating takes effect. Through this time your wages will have taken a bit of a dive but the “glory wage” packet should start to come in after you get type rated - depending upon who you work for.
It sounds a bit gloomy but I now plenty of people who are going down that route at present so it must be worth it.
Let’s face it if the approximately (before redundancies) 10000 aircraft engineers in the RAF were trained by a CAA 147 approved organisation and given licences, what percentage would remain after qualifying? – Hence the spin! They made it sound like a good thing but who benefits in the end? – You with an increase in your “work experience portfolio” or the mandarin in the ivory tower with their reduce costs and two for the price of one training scheme. – You decide!
Good luck
PB
