ICAO Type II
Guest
Posts: n/a
DoctorA300 and Brakeson,
Yes I agree with your sentiments.
You see back in the late 50’s when I started we only knew the British system and did not have any knowledge or interest in other countries systems.
Of course many countries overseas recognised the UK licence so jobs were always available overseas. There were no schools or courses. Everything was practical and the exams were all written essay type with no multi guess questions
The only exception was the FAA A&P. which was always considered “easy” because it did not have a type rating. This was also a worldwide licence so with these 2 you could go anywhere.
In those days there were no “Approved Organisations” everything from line defects to major checks had to be cleared by an LAE, so the LAE was God !
This meant he did not have to respond to Company pressure as he could get a job anywhere.
The Authority in those days was called the ARB (Air Registration Board), a government body ( so no high fees and “self Supporting requirements !)
To be an ARB surveyor you had to have a licence and several years of in service experience. Our local surveyor came round at least once week and you could talk to him about almost anything.
Then came the CAA ( a self financing body) and of course everything became related to cost aircraft and licence fees increased.
Then came Approved Organisations.
Then came Licence without type rating
Then came JAR
The point of all this was that the responsibility of the LAE has constantly been eroded.
Originally he was the only person who was held responsible, he was directly responsible to the Authority, and most of us took the very seriously.
As you know under JAR the responsible person is a board member which is then handed down through various Office holders. The Sign off is someone designated by the company and if they need another signatory they “make” another signatory. If you read some of the other threads on prune you will see many reports of the phantom stampers in action and I could tell you some equally hair raising stories !
It is only with the advent of JAR that LAE’s in all countries are becoming aware of the requirements of other countries. People are, of course trying to analyse how we are all going from different levels to a common level, which so often is coming down to the lowest level so that everyone can qualify.
The other problem I have understanding is that if a JAR Ops company does not have its own maintenance it has to contract it out to a JAR 145 company and that arrangement including the contract has to be approved. Yet the Maintenance responsibility rests with the JAR operator and he has to have another set of
high paid maintenance chiefs. Why?
If there is a contract then TOTAL responsibility should be with the JAR 145.
As you know if you want to contract a JAR 145 organisation in Stockholm you don’t have much of a choice !
Anyway the point of all this is that the changes I have seen over the last 30 years have degraded the LAE and has done very little to improve the maintenance operations.
As I have said before this is not a personal issue because I do not need to have a JAR licence !!(I am too old to learn new tricks!!)
Yes I agree with your sentiments.
You see back in the late 50’s when I started we only knew the British system and did not have any knowledge or interest in other countries systems.
Of course many countries overseas recognised the UK licence so jobs were always available overseas. There were no schools or courses. Everything was practical and the exams were all written essay type with no multi guess questions
The only exception was the FAA A&P. which was always considered “easy” because it did not have a type rating. This was also a worldwide licence so with these 2 you could go anywhere.
In those days there were no “Approved Organisations” everything from line defects to major checks had to be cleared by an LAE, so the LAE was God !
This meant he did not have to respond to Company pressure as he could get a job anywhere.
The Authority in those days was called the ARB (Air Registration Board), a government body ( so no high fees and “self Supporting requirements !)
To be an ARB surveyor you had to have a licence and several years of in service experience. Our local surveyor came round at least once week and you could talk to him about almost anything.
Then came the CAA ( a self financing body) and of course everything became related to cost aircraft and licence fees increased.
Then came Approved Organisations.
Then came Licence without type rating
Then came JAR
The point of all this was that the responsibility of the LAE has constantly been eroded.
Originally he was the only person who was held responsible, he was directly responsible to the Authority, and most of us took the very seriously.
As you know under JAR the responsible person is a board member which is then handed down through various Office holders. The Sign off is someone designated by the company and if they need another signatory they “make” another signatory. If you read some of the other threads on prune you will see many reports of the phantom stampers in action and I could tell you some equally hair raising stories !
It is only with the advent of JAR that LAE’s in all countries are becoming aware of the requirements of other countries. People are, of course trying to analyse how we are all going from different levels to a common level, which so often is coming down to the lowest level so that everyone can qualify.
The other problem I have understanding is that if a JAR Ops company does not have its own maintenance it has to contract it out to a JAR 145 company and that arrangement including the contract has to be approved. Yet the Maintenance responsibility rests with the JAR operator and he has to have another set of
high paid maintenance chiefs. Why?
If there is a contract then TOTAL responsibility should be with the JAR 145.
As you know if you want to contract a JAR 145 organisation in Stockholm you don’t have much of a choice !
Anyway the point of all this is that the changes I have seen over the last 30 years have degraded the LAE and has done very little to improve the maintenance operations.
As I have said before this is not a personal issue because I do not need to have a JAR licence !!(I am too old to learn new tricks!!)
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Licences licenses licences, nothing but licences!
We're maintaining aeroplanes here and last time I looked this still meant getting your hands dirty. Something called practical experience. What is needed is a mix of academic knowledge and practical experience and it is this last factor that is continually overlooked. Just because a modern aircraft is full of black boxes doesn't reduce the need for people to be positively trained in how to perform the manual task. And PROVE that they know how to do it! That's the real issue in the equivalence debate. My driving licence proves that I have been examined not only in driving theory and traffic regulations but also in the ability to safely control a moving vehicle on the road. I would expect that a licence to certify that aircraft maintainance has been performed correctly should be no less practical.
Academic knowledge can be demonstrated through BTEC/HND/Degree or whatever; an AME licence ought not to be a substitute for these academic qualifications, it should complement them by providing extra assurance of practical competence. The reason for the modern "academic" licences is that they are simpler for the Airworthiness(?) Authorities to administer, not because they are any more realistic or more suited to current conditions...
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
We're maintaining aeroplanes here and last time I looked this still meant getting your hands dirty. Something called practical experience. What is needed is a mix of academic knowledge and practical experience and it is this last factor that is continually overlooked. Just because a modern aircraft is full of black boxes doesn't reduce the need for people to be positively trained in how to perform the manual task. And PROVE that they know how to do it! That's the real issue in the equivalence debate. My driving licence proves that I have been examined not only in driving theory and traffic regulations but also in the ability to safely control a moving vehicle on the road. I would expect that a licence to certify that aircraft maintainance has been performed correctly should be no less practical.
Academic knowledge can be demonstrated through BTEC/HND/Degree or whatever; an AME licence ought not to be a substitute for these academic qualifications, it should complement them by providing extra assurance of practical competence. The reason for the modern "academic" licences is that they are simpler for the Airworthiness(?) Authorities to administer, not because they are any more realistic or more suited to current conditions...
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Guest
Posts: n/a
Blacksheep ,
One of the biggest problems for the future I see coming up is exactly what you just mentioned, lack of practical experience . There is much emphasis on training individuals to high academic standard & the JAR66 appears to confirm this but will they make good engineers as well? I'm not so sure.
For example , in BA the route that used to be taken was the apprenticeship followed by several years gaining experience as a fitter/avo & then if the individual chose to , the progression to a licensed engineer.
To my knowledge , last year BA only took on 6 apprentices and they were destined for the workshops anyway. For a company this size with the number of a/c in its fleets is this really the way to go? The PEP ( Professional Engineer Programme )which I believe is designed to replace the apprenticeship is in my mind is just a means for BA to employ more potential managers.
I could be biased towards the apprentice then later progression to LAE route because thats how I did it but I think it's purely because it was a more gradual transition than the PEP route.
There were no guarantees that the route I and many like me took would lead to everyone becoming good engineers but I'm convinced that the fastrack engineer route ( PEP ) will in the long term only make things worse because you can't gain experience out of book.
Ever heard the expression "lighthouse in the desert - very bright but not much use to anyone"?
AC.
One of the biggest problems for the future I see coming up is exactly what you just mentioned, lack of practical experience . There is much emphasis on training individuals to high academic standard & the JAR66 appears to confirm this but will they make good engineers as well? I'm not so sure.
For example , in BA the route that used to be taken was the apprenticeship followed by several years gaining experience as a fitter/avo & then if the individual chose to , the progression to a licensed engineer.
To my knowledge , last year BA only took on 6 apprentices and they were destined for the workshops anyway. For a company this size with the number of a/c in its fleets is this really the way to go? The PEP ( Professional Engineer Programme )which I believe is designed to replace the apprenticeship is in my mind is just a means for BA to employ more potential managers.
I could be biased towards the apprentice then later progression to LAE route because thats how I did it but I think it's purely because it was a more gradual transition than the PEP route.
There were no guarantees that the route I and many like me took would lead to everyone becoming good engineers but I'm convinced that the fastrack engineer route ( PEP ) will in the long term only make things worse because you can't gain experience out of book.
Ever heard the expression "lighthouse in the desert - very bright but not much use to anyone"?
AC.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I completely agree with the point that we need more practical experience.
My route is a pretty good example of that. I started my appertenship in 1986, I qualified in 1990,january 1st, was on my first licence course 01st march, ok it was the DC9/MD80 on which I spent my entire apprentenship so I had some practical experience on the a/c, completed the course and had licence in hand 01 july. I have ever since envied my fellow apprentenses who got 2-3 years under their belts before they got their licences.
The problem overhere is that the authorities does require 24 months of practical experience, but you can count your apprentenship, and if it is an a/c type new to the country, 40 hours of instructer guided OJT is enough, an even that is being erroded since a JAR147 is self governing ei no authority spot check required.
Brgds
Doc
My route is a pretty good example of that. I started my appertenship in 1986, I qualified in 1990,january 1st, was on my first licence course 01st march, ok it was the DC9/MD80 on which I spent my entire apprentenship so I had some practical experience on the a/c, completed the course and had licence in hand 01 july. I have ever since envied my fellow apprentenses who got 2-3 years under their belts before they got their licences.
The problem overhere is that the authorities does require 24 months of practical experience, but you can count your apprentenship, and if it is an a/c type new to the country, 40 hours of instructer guided OJT is enough, an even that is being erroded since a JAR147 is self governing ei no authority spot check required.
Brgds
Doc
Guest
Posts: n/a
Blacksheep, i remember when my sorely tried driving instructor gave me my driving licence with the words "now remember, this document does not necessarily guarantee your ability to convey the vehicle in a safe manner but is more like a permission to practise on your own". To be honest, this is the way a AME licence works in a way. You can not be an expert on the aircraft after a 2-4 months typerating course without hands-on training or "real-life" snags with troubleshooting (at least i canīt). The licence is a privilege that comes with a responsibility not to overestimate your ability.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes BrakesOn,
A new driving licence gives you permission to practice on your own. The point is, you have to pass a practical test of your ability before they give it to you. There was once a time ( I know, I know, the "good old days" so what, bugger off old fart
yeah, yeah. OK.) when the authorities checked you out on practical matters after examining your academic training. The Oral that investigated your practical experience was a method of checking that your "Schedule of Inspection Work" (Who else remembers that?) was true and that you really did know how to do the job. The new licences are purely academic, although practical experience is required before you can apply, there is no check on your claim to practical experience. You could be one of those who knows all the theory but can't swing a hammer without busting a thumb. There are already enough academic qualifications in the job market, why do we need another one?
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
A new driving licence gives you permission to practice on your own. The point is, you have to pass a practical test of your ability before they give it to you. There was once a time ( I know, I know, the "good old days" so what, bugger off old fart
yeah, yeah. OK.) when the authorities checked you out on practical matters after examining your academic training. The Oral that investigated your practical experience was a method of checking that your "Schedule of Inspection Work" (Who else remembers that?) was true and that you really did know how to do the job. The new licences are purely academic, although practical experience is required before you can apply, there is no check on your claim to practical experience. You could be one of those who knows all the theory but can't swing a hammer without busting a thumb. There are already enough academic qualifications in the job market, why do we need another one?**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Guest
Posts: n/a
Blacksheep, Licences licences !
We have to have licences, to drive a car, or be a doctor or maintain an aircraft.
It is necesary and essential !
This thread (and you seem to be in agreement as do most others on the thread even DoctorA300) is trying to understand why we need to continually lower the standard.
In my 30+ years every change to the legislation has done exacly that!
DoctorA300 menions his 2 years working on aircraft before he started on licences and my experience is the same.
And yes Blacksheep I remember very well the shedule of work !! pages of it!
The thread on this forum headed "Orals dropped" just re-inforces all that is being said here !
I ran an FBO with 20+ guys and as blacksheep says some of these "licence" holders couldn't put the top on a sauce bottle without cross threading it.
Yes guys keep collecting the cornflake box tops or if you want to be really flash get degree in Croatian basket weaving as that is fully interchangable with all ICAO licences
We have to have licences, to drive a car, or be a doctor or maintain an aircraft.
It is necesary and essential !
This thread (and you seem to be in agreement as do most others on the thread even DoctorA300) is trying to understand why we need to continually lower the standard.
In my 30+ years every change to the legislation has done exacly that!
DoctorA300 menions his 2 years working on aircraft before he started on licences and my experience is the same.
And yes Blacksheep I remember very well the shedule of work !! pages of it!
The thread on this forum headed "Orals dropped" just re-inforces all that is being said here !
I ran an FBO with 20+ guys and as blacksheep says some of these "licence" holders couldn't put the top on a sauce bottle without cross threading it.
Yes guys keep collecting the cornflake box tops or if you want to be really flash get degree in Croatian basket weaving as that is fully interchangable with all ICAO licences
