Component replacement by flight crew and JAR 66
Torque,
A surgeon once said to me that he could teach me to take somebody's kidney stones out in a couple of hours. But it would then take him another 5 years to teach me how to deal with everything else that might go wrong whilst you were doing so.
I think this principle probably applies to Engineering and it's various licenses, or to flying and an ATPL. I certainly find regularly, particularly in tracking down problems, I'm using all sorts of apparently unrelated Engineering theory.
G
[ 19 January 2002: Message edited by: Genghis the Engineer ]</p>
A surgeon once said to me that he could teach me to take somebody's kidney stones out in a couple of hours. But it would then take him another 5 years to teach me how to deal with everything else that might go wrong whilst you were doing so.
I think this principle probably applies to Engineering and it's various licenses, or to flying and an ATPL. I certainly find regularly, particularly in tracking down problems, I'm using all sorts of apparently unrelated Engineering theory.
G
[ 19 January 2002: Message edited by: Genghis the Engineer ]</p>
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,619
Received 489 Likes
on
261 Posts
Bus,
I understand what you are saying, or at least I think I do. You see it as unfair that a pilot can be allowed to carry out any engineering task without jumping through all the hoops that are required of an engineer. Please correct me if I am wrong. To a greater degree I agree with you.
However, as I said before, the authorisation (at least my own authorisation was quite specific) only allows for a pilot to carry out specific minor tasks that he has been specifically trained to do. His competence must be confirmed and signed off by an authorised engineer on an annual basis.
Genghis, a pilot is NOT allowed to carry out any troubleshooting or rectification of any defect other than carrying out those relatively minor things in his authorisation.
For example: Defect - starboard nav light not working. Pilot is authorised to replace the bulb. If replacing the bulb with a known serviceable one doesn't cure the fault, he isn't allowed to troubleshoot or touch the wiring. An engineer must then carry out any further work.
Although I do see myself as quite competent for more than the tasks required of me, I didn't particularly like carrying them out. I did it because it was quite normal with that employer, where there was no engineering support on site because of the way the contract had been made. In an ideal world, of course, I would much rather have an engineer drive 120 miles to change a lightbulb for me, especially at midnight...
The tyre changing wasn't applicable as our aircraft had skids!
As already mentioned, some pilots might not be skilled enough to carry out certain tasks. I think that is an individual problem that should be caught if the training is carried out correctly. If the pilot can't be trusted to do the task, then he shouldn't be signed off as competent. I have to say that I have known some pretty ham-fisted engineers in my time, too; I have worked with good and bad and occasionally knew I could have done a neater job myself.
I have to ask the question: Are any of you worried about pilots making engineers jobs less secure? I don't think you need to worry on that score. At present, a pilot's auth. ceases as soon as he moves to a new employer or fails to be annually re-auth'ed for any other reason. If, as Bus 429 would seem to prefer, pilots were to be given an engineering licence/qualification as it seems you are suggesting, it might be another matter. An organisation could then make it a requirement for a pilot to hold an "A" licence or engineering "type rating" as a pre-condition of employment and use it as an excuse to reduce their engineering establishment.
In any event, it would be totally impractical to put a pilot off-line for a year in order for him to satisfy the terms of an "A" licence.
I think it better all round that the situation is left as it is. If not, aviation is suddenly going to become even more expensive than it is now, which will be worse for all of us <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
(My edit is due to spelling mistakes, which only got noticed after posting).
[ 19 January 2002: Message edited by: ShyTorque ]</p>
I understand what you are saying, or at least I think I do. You see it as unfair that a pilot can be allowed to carry out any engineering task without jumping through all the hoops that are required of an engineer. Please correct me if I am wrong. To a greater degree I agree with you.
However, as I said before, the authorisation (at least my own authorisation was quite specific) only allows for a pilot to carry out specific minor tasks that he has been specifically trained to do. His competence must be confirmed and signed off by an authorised engineer on an annual basis.
Genghis, a pilot is NOT allowed to carry out any troubleshooting or rectification of any defect other than carrying out those relatively minor things in his authorisation.
For example: Defect - starboard nav light not working. Pilot is authorised to replace the bulb. If replacing the bulb with a known serviceable one doesn't cure the fault, he isn't allowed to troubleshoot or touch the wiring. An engineer must then carry out any further work.
Although I do see myself as quite competent for more than the tasks required of me, I didn't particularly like carrying them out. I did it because it was quite normal with that employer, where there was no engineering support on site because of the way the contract had been made. In an ideal world, of course, I would much rather have an engineer drive 120 miles to change a lightbulb for me, especially at midnight...
The tyre changing wasn't applicable as our aircraft had skids!
As already mentioned, some pilots might not be skilled enough to carry out certain tasks. I think that is an individual problem that should be caught if the training is carried out correctly. If the pilot can't be trusted to do the task, then he shouldn't be signed off as competent. I have to say that I have known some pretty ham-fisted engineers in my time, too; I have worked with good and bad and occasionally knew I could have done a neater job myself.
I have to ask the question: Are any of you worried about pilots making engineers jobs less secure? I don't think you need to worry on that score. At present, a pilot's auth. ceases as soon as he moves to a new employer or fails to be annually re-auth'ed for any other reason. If, as Bus 429 would seem to prefer, pilots were to be given an engineering licence/qualification as it seems you are suggesting, it might be another matter. An organisation could then make it a requirement for a pilot to hold an "A" licence or engineering "type rating" as a pre-condition of employment and use it as an excuse to reduce their engineering establishment.
In any event, it would be totally impractical to put a pilot off-line for a year in order for him to satisfy the terms of an "A" licence.
I think it better all round that the situation is left as it is. If not, aviation is suddenly going to become even more expensive than it is now, which will be worse for all of us <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
(My edit is due to spelling mistakes, which only got noticed after posting).
[ 19 January 2002: Message edited by: ShyTorque ]</p>
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bus thankx for the info.
Shy Torque, Valid points, but you are missing exactly what Bus is trying to say.
Basically it's because you don't understand how difficult and how much time and work is required to achieve a JAR 66 'A' Licence, just to carry out those simple task as you say!
Just a few weeks ago I was going over the exam requirements and required knowledge standard thats needed for the 'A' licence with a fellow workmate, this bloke(unlicence) is a top mechanic with excellant knowledge and long history of A/Craft Maint. And I tell you he was honest enough to admit he will strugle to pass it all...
I myself (Licenced) thinks it is over the top for what will be achieved after.
Basically what I am trying to say is that I will put anything that there is NOT ONE pilot around that can take those exams now and PASS without the correct training and experience!!!!!!
But the point is the "CAA" (w@nkers) are GIVING the jockeys a free pass to what others will be trying and working really hard for!
"Pisses me off I say"
best regards
SLAVE...........
Shy Torque, Valid points, but you are missing exactly what Bus is trying to say.
Basically it's because you don't understand how difficult and how much time and work is required to achieve a JAR 66 'A' Licence, just to carry out those simple task as you say!
Just a few weeks ago I was going over the exam requirements and required knowledge standard thats needed for the 'A' licence with a fellow workmate, this bloke(unlicence) is a top mechanic with excellant knowledge and long history of A/Craft Maint. And I tell you he was honest enough to admit he will strugle to pass it all...
I myself (Licenced) thinks it is over the top for what will be achieved after.
Basically what I am trying to say is that I will put anything that there is NOT ONE pilot around that can take those exams now and PASS without the correct training and experience!!!!!!
But the point is the "CAA" (w@nkers) are GIVING the jockeys a free pass to what others will be trying and working really hard for!
"Pisses me off I say"
best regards
SLAVE...........
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,619
Received 489 Likes
on
261 Posts
Slave,
I don't think I am missing the point but sympathise that maybe the CAA have made the licensing jumping hoops too tight; I can't comment further on that.
I am quite sure that a pilot would not pass these exams, any more than an engineer would pass a pilot's meteorology, navigation or aircraft tech exam without the required training.
I am only trying to put forward the view of a pilot with some experience of what the thread is about. I was prompted by a couple of respondents putting forward that pilots are a bunch of prima donnas who will do anything to avoid breaking a fingernail. Some of us don't mind too much getting our hands dirty and have proved ourselves to be competent to carry out certain engineering tasks. In doing so we have allowed an engineer to get a good night's sleep. I think that is what the dispensations were designed for.
I repeat my view that pilots have no intention to take bread out of your mouths BUT if a formal qualification WERE to be required for pilots, then that is a possible consequence.
I'll say no more now unless invited.
I don't think I am missing the point but sympathise that maybe the CAA have made the licensing jumping hoops too tight; I can't comment further on that.
I am quite sure that a pilot would not pass these exams, any more than an engineer would pass a pilot's meteorology, navigation or aircraft tech exam without the required training.
I am only trying to put forward the view of a pilot with some experience of what the thread is about. I was prompted by a couple of respondents putting forward that pilots are a bunch of prima donnas who will do anything to avoid breaking a fingernail. Some of us don't mind too much getting our hands dirty and have proved ourselves to be competent to carry out certain engineering tasks. In doing so we have allowed an engineer to get a good night's sleep. I think that is what the dispensations were designed for.
I repeat my view that pilots have no intention to take bread out of your mouths BUT if a formal qualification WERE to be required for pilots, then that is a possible consequence.
I'll say no more now unless invited.
Pilots' Pal
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's not get into the "pilots are prima donnas" argument (I have, on many occasions, but in different forum), most are OK. Let me iterate (means the same as re-iterate, according to Bill Bryson), any pilot could perform these task-trained...tasks (if they should want to). My problem, simply put, is the JAA/NAA have two different standards in this regard.
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
ShyTorque,
It isn't a case of pilots not being capable of carrying out limited tasks and certifying them. Provided they have received specific training, Pilots ARE quite capable and both the previous and the present rules allowed it. As an avionics LAE I was also trained to do transit inspections and perform and certify specific airframe tasks, such as wheel and brake unit changes for example. I haven't converted to a JAR 66 licence and probably never will, but if I did I would be required to meet the experience requirements and pass the JAR66 examinations for an A rated licence as well as receive task specific training before I would be allowed to continue to do that for which I was previously qualified. It is that situation concerning limited authorizations, and which makes no sense, that Bus429 is trying to highlight.
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
It isn't a case of pilots not being capable of carrying out limited tasks and certifying them. Provided they have received specific training, Pilots ARE quite capable and both the previous and the present rules allowed it. As an avionics LAE I was also trained to do transit inspections and perform and certify specific airframe tasks, such as wheel and brake unit changes for example. I haven't converted to a JAR 66 licence and probably never will, but if I did I would be required to meet the experience requirements and pass the JAR66 examinations for an A rated licence as well as receive task specific training before I would be allowed to continue to do that for which I was previously qualified. It is that situation concerning limited authorizations, and which makes no sense, that Bus429 is trying to highlight.
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,619
Received 489 Likes
on
261 Posts
Blacksheep,
I take your point; I hadn't quite grasped the correct nettle leaf. So under the old regs you were allowed to do more than under the new, despite you now having more experience than the first time you carried out those inspections...yes, that's ridiculous.
This affects the industry as a whole, so why are employers not claiming "grandfather rights" on your behalf?
I take your point; I hadn't quite grasped the correct nettle leaf. So under the old regs you were allowed to do more than under the new, despite you now having more experience than the first time you carried out those inspections...yes, that's ridiculous.
This affects the industry as a whole, so why are employers not claiming "grandfather rights" on your behalf?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well stated 'blacksheep'.
Shy Torque I was not trying to **** on pilots at all, it's just that I, like many of us in the Maint trade are really fed up now with the 'CAA' shafting of us.
I think the biggest problem is the lack of communication between the CAA and Maint. personnel as there is NOT a proper body to work with the CAA on our behalf and have a view on our impact and inputs.
The CAA have come out with this new system of Licencing which is grey and patchy in some areas, but try to call or write or whatever to clear anything with them is an absoult waste of time, seems they are making it up as they go along!
Pissed off again!!!!!!!!!
Best regards
SLAVE
Shy Torque I was not trying to **** on pilots at all, it's just that I, like many of us in the Maint trade are really fed up now with the 'CAA' shafting of us.
I think the biggest problem is the lack of communication between the CAA and Maint. personnel as there is NOT a proper body to work with the CAA on our behalf and have a view on our impact and inputs.
The CAA have come out with this new system of Licencing which is grey and patchy in some areas, but try to call or write or whatever to clear anything with them is an absoult waste of time, seems they are making it up as they go along!
Pissed off again!!!!!!!!!
Best regards
SLAVE
My dear chap, that's exactly what the CAA have been doing to pilots since the introduction of JAR-FCL. The treatment, if nothing else, is entirely equal and impartial.
G
G
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents, . .after reading two pages of this, I have no objection to pilots doing any of the work mentioned.. .However, it is the signing of a CRS that I have an objection to, on safety grounds.
Yes, let the crew do the work if needed (within the scope of their approvals), but then it should be inspected by an appropriate, qualified LAE the first available station for completion of a CRS methinks. It can operate on some form of permission till that time (within certain time constraints no doubt).
Yes, let the crew do the work if needed (within the scope of their approvals), but then it should be inspected by an appropriate, qualified LAE the first available station for completion of a CRS methinks. It can operate on some form of permission till that time (within certain time constraints no doubt).
