ICAO Type II
ICAO Type II
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes, ICAO published annex 1 to the Chicago convention which provides the legal framework for Engineering Licencing. The annex provided for 2 types of License the ICAO Type 1 is for ovehaul the Type 2 is for maintenance, these are provisioned in the Section L of BCAR's.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Told it before on this web site and I will tell it again... Dont think for a minute you can submit a section L licence licence for a JAR 66 licence because you cannot ! The CAA and the UK government have sold your soul to the devil ! all of you that have in the past worked hard for a BCAR section L licence have now been well and forever prostituded down the road for a non valid Euro piece of paper that is worth nothing ! Ask your self. Is it worth sweating behind countless books to keep a type rating you already hold. I think not. Enough CAA, keep your licence, JAA, squat on it, I will find another job delivering newspapers !!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Brakeson, what licence cover did you have (eg A & C) and what a/c types did you hold approval on? As nilnotedtks comments we UK licence holders appear to be getting a rough deal compared to some of our European brothers!!
How many people are trying for the "X" or is doing the JAR modules the easier option??
------------------
"please report further"
How many people are trying for the "X" or is doing the JAR modules the easier option??
------------------
"please report further"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Penn Doff
Brakeson and I both work for the same company, He has a Swedish Licence, I hold the Danish equivilent, they are identical and freely convertible, but the Danish authorities requires a Elex/Avionic tool training coures (See JAR 66 thread). Our licences donīt have the same restrictions as your British licence does, we are covered for all trades, basically , if itīs in the AMM we are allowed to do it, but most companies limits us in one way or another, Taxying, Heavy maintenance and such, but normally not to a particular trade. Most Bigger companies (read SAS) have Electitians but they hold the same licence as us greas monkeys, they just do mostly electrical/avionics work.
Brgds
Doc
Brakeson and I both work for the same company, He has a Swedish Licence, I hold the Danish equivilent, they are identical and freely convertible, but the Danish authorities requires a Elex/Avionic tool training coures (See JAR 66 thread). Our licences donīt have the same restrictions as your British licence does, we are covered for all trades, basically , if itīs in the AMM we are allowed to do it, but most companies limits us in one way or another, Taxying, Heavy maintenance and such, but normally not to a particular trade. Most Bigger companies (read SAS) have Electitians but they hold the same licence as us greas monkeys, they just do mostly electrical/avionics work.
Brgds
Doc
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nilnoted,
I could repeat your message many times over the years.
I have a UK A,C & X in the 11,000 numbers!
First licence was all essay - no Multi guess! plus interview ( 2 guys at ARB Chancery Lane!) lasting 3 HOURS.
Then came multi guess, then came approved courses (no need to touch airplanes).
Then approvals. ( we had a guy who had failed a CAA licence but had company approvals ! What does that tell you.And then LWTR
Now JAR. dont talk to me about sold down the river.
I remember when the CAA we trying to brain wash us into letting Private pilots do rectification instead of these beastly licenced engineers.
One of the CAA gurus said to me "we are not talking about the local butcher,baker or candlestick maker" just who does he think private pilots are.
When I first took the licence you had to take a type rating, the company only had 2 sets of manuals for the aircraft (DC3) we had to take a note book in to work and copy the MM into our own books.
I have A&P ( also taken when you had to do a practical including cable splicing and welding!) - and there are no type ratings on an FAA A&P. You can certify any task that you have had instruction or previuos experience on. But it is for life and does not have any annual fee!!
Dont think I will bother about the JAR or ICAO
I could repeat your message many times over the years.
I have a UK A,C & X in the 11,000 numbers!
First licence was all essay - no Multi guess! plus interview ( 2 guys at ARB Chancery Lane!) lasting 3 HOURS.
Then came multi guess, then came approved courses (no need to touch airplanes).
Then approvals. ( we had a guy who had failed a CAA licence but had company approvals ! What does that tell you.And then LWTR
Now JAR. dont talk to me about sold down the river.
I remember when the CAA we trying to brain wash us into letting Private pilots do rectification instead of these beastly licenced engineers.
One of the CAA gurus said to me "we are not talking about the local butcher,baker or candlestick maker" just who does he think private pilots are.
When I first took the licence you had to take a type rating, the company only had 2 sets of manuals for the aircraft (DC3) we had to take a note book in to work and copy the MM into our own books.
I have A&P ( also taken when you had to do a practical including cable splicing and welding!) - and there are no type ratings on an FAA A&P. You can certify any task that you have had instruction or previuos experience on. But it is for life and does not have any annual fee!!
Dont think I will bother about the JAR or ICAO
Guest
Posts: n/a
GotTheTshirt,
I donīt know how old you are or when you got your first licence. But from reading your post, you come across as a bit pretentious. I am obviously not as old as you, about half I guessed from the DC3 refence, I am not even British nor do I work in Britian at the moment. I have however worked with British licenced engineers both old and young, and I donīt think age plays much of a difference, I know just as many brilliant young as old, the only difference I have ever noticed, is that the older the engineer the higher the tendensies there are for the "little black book" syndrome, ei keeping information to oneself to make oneself appear like a guru.
I am not trying to insult you, or anyone else, I am just trying to tell you how a post written the way yours was, is persived by a younger person.
Brgds
Doc
I donīt know how old you are or when you got your first licence. But from reading your post, you come across as a bit pretentious. I am obviously not as old as you, about half I guessed from the DC3 refence, I am not even British nor do I work in Britian at the moment. I have however worked with British licenced engineers both old and young, and I donīt think age plays much of a difference, I know just as many brilliant young as old, the only difference I have ever noticed, is that the older the engineer the higher the tendensies there are for the "little black book" syndrome, ei keeping information to oneself to make oneself appear like a guru.
I am not trying to insult you, or anyone else, I am just trying to tell you how a post written the way yours was, is persived by a younger person.
Brgds
Doc
Guest
Posts: n/a
GotTheTshirt..
If you have a licence down in the 11000's and are still practising as a Licensed Engineer, I take my hat off to you for your staying power ! This industry is now about as low as it has been in the brief 30 years I have been doing it and I believe the changes we are going through now in the licensing regulations could well spell the death knell for the aircraft engineering as it has been up to now. I am not aware of a more fundamental change in the time I have been in aviation.
I do not feel threatened by .." letting Private Piots do rectifiction instead of those beastly licensed engineers "... I do however feel threatened by a totally indifferent and uncaring regulationary authority that seemingly wants to squeeze engineers into a life of delivering newspapers. The industry can ill afford to lose your experience and the experience of thousands of others as the number of licence renewals slowly dwindles as time goes on. I would be interested to hear from anyone who could, with authority, put numbers on the amount of engineers leaving the business or who have simply had enough and let their current qualifications lapse. How can we as senior engineers try and promote our industry to young and eager school leavers ( which it desparately needs I might add ) when we have no confidence in it ourselves. I noted an interesting link from spannersatcx regarding the hourly rates of fixing a home PC, astounding, no wonder the kids want now to fix computers and not aeroplanes ( no licence required ! )
I believe unless the CAA wakes up and wakes up fast, they will find a whacking big void in the reservoir of skilled, experienced and qualified professionals in an industry that is bleeding unnoticed to the outside world and the fare paying public that pays our wages ( and theirs !!! ) When your 11000 or something number AME licence plopped through your letter box, did you then wonder if 30 years down the road, you would have to do all that studying again, just to keep something you already worked hard for. I THINK NOT !
If you have a licence down in the 11000's and are still practising as a Licensed Engineer, I take my hat off to you for your staying power ! This industry is now about as low as it has been in the brief 30 years I have been doing it and I believe the changes we are going through now in the licensing regulations could well spell the death knell for the aircraft engineering as it has been up to now. I am not aware of a more fundamental change in the time I have been in aviation.
I do not feel threatened by .." letting Private Piots do rectifiction instead of those beastly licensed engineers "... I do however feel threatened by a totally indifferent and uncaring regulationary authority that seemingly wants to squeeze engineers into a life of delivering newspapers. The industry can ill afford to lose your experience and the experience of thousands of others as the number of licence renewals slowly dwindles as time goes on. I would be interested to hear from anyone who could, with authority, put numbers on the amount of engineers leaving the business or who have simply had enough and let their current qualifications lapse. How can we as senior engineers try and promote our industry to young and eager school leavers ( which it desparately needs I might add ) when we have no confidence in it ourselves. I noted an interesting link from spannersatcx regarding the hourly rates of fixing a home PC, astounding, no wonder the kids want now to fix computers and not aeroplanes ( no licence required ! )
I believe unless the CAA wakes up and wakes up fast, they will find a whacking big void in the reservoir of skilled, experienced and qualified professionals in an industry that is bleeding unnoticed to the outside world and the fare paying public that pays our wages ( and theirs !!! ) When your 11000 or something number AME licence plopped through your letter box, did you then wonder if 30 years down the road, you would have to do all that studying again, just to keep something you already worked hard for. I THINK NOT !
Guest
Posts: n/a
Talking to a guy that is leaving the RAF shortly. He tells me that the RAF training is going down the pan fast, and that if you want promotion you will have to self study to ONC/HND level in your own time. So he recons, all the military want are people who can change engines, top up hudraulic systems ect. with no in depth knowlidge of how systems work. So what if there is a fault? Go to the relevant manual, replace the suggested item. Now how many of us out there have done exactly this, only to find that the fault still exists? But with an in depth knowlidge of how a system works, you can then look a little deeper to look at other possibilities. I also hear that there are some questions raised by the CAA into the relavence of the proposed training schemes, and that they may not be recognised by the CAA. So if you do your sentance under the new scheme, how are you going to successfully transfer from military to civil aviation maintenance?
Guest
Posts: n/a
DoctorA300,
Sorry if it came over pretentious I can assure you I dont feel that way I just feel sorry for newcomers who have 30 years to look forward to.
I am refering only to UK licences but one can feel a little bitter when one considers the effort it took 35 years ago to get a licence compared with today but as they say "per adua ad astra".
I also dislike "granfather rights" being bestowed like they are doing me some kind of favour.
Apart from airliners ( such as allowed in Notice 10) I have several group 5 and 6 licences and X you would not even believe how many ARB/CAA examinations (all paid for personally) this involved, If you did you may understand why some of us think this whole thing of ICAO/JAR is undervaluing the 'old' system.
Incidentally what do you pay just to renew your Scandinavian Licence ? I dont think anyone one pays more than us in UK.
As regards the "little black book" syndrome this is old habits dying hard. As I mentioned we had to hand copy everything we wanted to reference on the line.
As I mentioned we are only refering to UK licences but if you read the Nilnoted entry you may get some underdstanding of what we in UK are talking about.
Nilnoted,
couldn't agree more with your comments, but as you say enough is enough and I shan't bother with ICAO/JAR !!
Sorry if it came over pretentious I can assure you I dont feel that way I just feel sorry for newcomers who have 30 years to look forward to.
I am refering only to UK licences but one can feel a little bitter when one considers the effort it took 35 years ago to get a licence compared with today but as they say "per adua ad astra".
I also dislike "granfather rights" being bestowed like they are doing me some kind of favour.
Apart from airliners ( such as allowed in Notice 10) I have several group 5 and 6 licences and X you would not even believe how many ARB/CAA examinations (all paid for personally) this involved, If you did you may understand why some of us think this whole thing of ICAO/JAR is undervaluing the 'old' system.
Incidentally what do you pay just to renew your Scandinavian Licence ? I dont think anyone one pays more than us in UK.
As regards the "little black book" syndrome this is old habits dying hard. As I mentioned we had to hand copy everything we wanted to reference on the line.
As I mentioned we are only refering to UK licences but if you read the Nilnoted entry you may get some underdstanding of what we in UK are talking about.
Nilnoted,
couldn't agree more with your comments, but as you say enough is enough and I shan't bother with ICAO/JAR !!
Guest
Posts: n/a
There is obviously a jungle when it comes to licences and typeratings in different parts of Europe. The LWTR that you have in the UK is not something taht is issued bu the swedish CAA. There are no such things as a licence without typerating in Sweden. The closest we get to anything equivalent is a diploma from the Aviation University College which includes 12 to 15 different subjects depending on if you are going for a helicopter type in the future or not. The subjects are everything from science of engineering and building materials, via avionics and electrics to physics and mathematics. The coarse takes about one year full time study. Before this, there are two years (quite new, before it was one year) of aviation upper secondary school. It is an education which basically includes the same subjects as the earlier mentioned, but is more shallow.
After these three years you can get a typerating coarse on a specific aircraft. This coarse leads to a ICAOII licence and that is not limited to any particular parts of the aircraft but includes everything.
Now, this is the old way to the ICAO certificate but from what i have heard (rumers) the students today who aim for a JAR66 gets off the hook a bit easier.
I am almost sure that there will be some arguments from fellow engineers who will say "no, this is the way i did it" refering to part time studies and different shortcuts, but this is how you usually go from scratch to licence the way i did.
I guess the task to take every licence in Europe and make one big of them is not that easy. There will never be a full satisfactory situation for everyone, but from my point of wiew i think that i come out quite well with the conversion to JAR66. On the other hand, from what i have heard and seen there is just no way in hell that i could measure my skills whith a brittish CAA MultiX regardless of what my JAR66 licence states.
Well, this was a long one but i just had to kill some time.
After these three years you can get a typerating coarse on a specific aircraft. This coarse leads to a ICAOII licence and that is not limited to any particular parts of the aircraft but includes everything.
Now, this is the old way to the ICAO certificate but from what i have heard (rumers) the students today who aim for a JAR66 gets off the hook a bit easier.
I am almost sure that there will be some arguments from fellow engineers who will say "no, this is the way i did it" refering to part time studies and different shortcuts, but this is how you usually go from scratch to licence the way i did.
I guess the task to take every licence in Europe and make one big of them is not that easy. There will never be a full satisfactory situation for everyone, but from my point of wiew i think that i come out quite well with the conversion to JAR66. On the other hand, from what i have heard and seen there is just no way in hell that i could measure my skills whith a brittish CAA MultiX regardless of what my JAR66 licence states.
Well, this was a long one but i just had to kill some time.
Guest
Posts: n/a
GotTheTshirt,
I get your point about studying harder 35 years ago, and I would never insinuate that you did not have to work hard for it, infact much harder than todays īLicences`, itīs just that I feel that the exam system that was in operation 35 years ago, refelected the standards/requirements of the maintenance programs in operation 35 years ago, and that in turn was based on the utilization of the aircraft at that period. I donīt belive you can compare ex. a A320 generation aircraft system with a ex. Fokker F27 or DC3. T0odays Aircraft are littered with `Black boxesī, and i donīt mean only in electrical systems, but also in mechanical systems (B737 spoilermixer ei.), therefor there is less requirement on a LICENCE course/exam to go into detail on these bits, as it is something you can do nothing about bar replacement, a desciption and the principals of how it does what it does is sufficient. I do however beliver that your basic licence (LWTR) should cover such things in depth, which leads me on to my next point Jar66.
I honestly belive that a raise in the standard of licences and approvals are needed, espacially in mainland europe, but I belive that until ALL engineers in europe are licenced to the same standard, and therefor able to freely move across borders, and thereby gain knowledge and experience from eachother, only then will we able to raise the standards. There is unfurtunately a lot of hidden nationalism and false pride among engineers when it comes to our licences. I know a lot of british engineers think that the scandinavian licence is a carte blanc because it covers all aircraft systems, and likewise a lot of scandinavians have this false image that just because our courses include all systems that we automatically know more than the rest of the world, in my opion, iregardless of your licence, there is no substitute for common sense and experience.
I could of course be wrong, and if anyone thinks I am, hey why not write an answer.
Brgds
Doc
I get your point about studying harder 35 years ago, and I would never insinuate that you did not have to work hard for it, infact much harder than todays īLicences`, itīs just that I feel that the exam system that was in operation 35 years ago, refelected the standards/requirements of the maintenance programs in operation 35 years ago, and that in turn was based on the utilization of the aircraft at that period. I donīt belive you can compare ex. a A320 generation aircraft system with a ex. Fokker F27 or DC3. T0odays Aircraft are littered with `Black boxesī, and i donīt mean only in electrical systems, but also in mechanical systems (B737 spoilermixer ei.), therefor there is less requirement on a LICENCE course/exam to go into detail on these bits, as it is something you can do nothing about bar replacement, a desciption and the principals of how it does what it does is sufficient. I do however beliver that your basic licence (LWTR) should cover such things in depth, which leads me on to my next point Jar66.
I honestly belive that a raise in the standard of licences and approvals are needed, espacially in mainland europe, but I belive that until ALL engineers in europe are licenced to the same standard, and therefor able to freely move across borders, and thereby gain knowledge and experience from eachother, only then will we able to raise the standards. There is unfurtunately a lot of hidden nationalism and false pride among engineers when it comes to our licences. I know a lot of british engineers think that the scandinavian licence is a carte blanc because it covers all aircraft systems, and likewise a lot of scandinavians have this false image that just because our courses include all systems that we automatically know more than the rest of the world, in my opion, iregardless of your licence, there is no substitute for common sense and experience.
I could of course be wrong, and if anyone thinks I am, hey why not write an answer.
Brgds
Doc
Guest
Posts: n/a
GotTheTshirt,
I get your point about studying harder 35 years ago, and I would never insinuate that you did not have to work hard for it, infact much harder than todays īLicences`, itīs just that I feel that the exam system that was in operation 35 years ago, refelected the standards/requirements of the maintenance programs in operation 35 years ago, and that in turn was based on the utilization of the aircraft at that period. I donīt belive you can compare ex. a A320 generation aircraft system with a ex. Fokker F27 or DC3. T0odays Aircraft are littered with `Black boxesī, and i donīt mean only in electrical systems, but also in mechanical systems (B737 spoilermixer ei.), therefor there is less requirement on a LICENCE course/exam to go into detail on these bits, as it is something you can do nothing about bar replacement, a desciption and the principals of how it does what it does is sufficient. I do however beliver that your basic licence (LWTR) should cover such things in depth, which leads me on to my next point Jar66.
I honestly belive that a raise in the standard of licences and approvals are needed, espacially in mainland europe, but I belive that until ALL engineers in europe are licenced to the same standard, and therefor able to freely move across borders, and thereby gain knowledge and experience from eachother, only then will we able to raise the standards. There is unfurtunately a lot of hidden nationalism and false pride among engineers when it comes to our licences. I know a lot of british engineers think that the scandinavian licence is a carte blanc because it covers all aircraft systems, and likewise a lot of scandinavians have this false image that just because our courses include all systems that we automatically know more than the rest of the world, in my opion, iregardless of your licence, there is no substitute for common sense and experience.
I could of course be wrong, and if anyone thinks I am, hey why not write an answer.
Brgds
Doc
Sorry about the double entry of this post, I personally blame Bill Gates. It is of course posted by DoctorA300.
Doc
I get your point about studying harder 35 years ago, and I would never insinuate that you did not have to work hard for it, infact much harder than todays īLicences`, itīs just that I feel that the exam system that was in operation 35 years ago, refelected the standards/requirements of the maintenance programs in operation 35 years ago, and that in turn was based on the utilization of the aircraft at that period. I donīt belive you can compare ex. a A320 generation aircraft system with a ex. Fokker F27 or DC3. T0odays Aircraft are littered with `Black boxesī, and i donīt mean only in electrical systems, but also in mechanical systems (B737 spoilermixer ei.), therefor there is less requirement on a LICENCE course/exam to go into detail on these bits, as it is something you can do nothing about bar replacement, a desciption and the principals of how it does what it does is sufficient. I do however beliver that your basic licence (LWTR) should cover such things in depth, which leads me on to my next point Jar66.
I honestly belive that a raise in the standard of licences and approvals are needed, espacially in mainland europe, but I belive that until ALL engineers in europe are licenced to the same standard, and therefor able to freely move across borders, and thereby gain knowledge and experience from eachother, only then will we able to raise the standards. There is unfurtunately a lot of hidden nationalism and false pride among engineers when it comes to our licences. I know a lot of british engineers think that the scandinavian licence is a carte blanc because it covers all aircraft systems, and likewise a lot of scandinavians have this false image that just because our courses include all systems that we automatically know more than the rest of the world, in my opion, iregardless of your licence, there is no substitute for common sense and experience.
I could of course be wrong, and if anyone thinks I am, hey why not write an answer.
Brgds
Doc
Sorry about the double entry of this post, I personally blame Bill Gates. It is of course posted by DoctorA300.
Doc