See.HEY.HEY
Guest
Posts: n/a
Engineer or Technician does it really matter? I don't think it does. What does matter is that by the systematic lowering of engineer's / technician's profiles within the industry we are now being faced with an ever growing shortage of engineers. Maybe the CAA and companies should be looking at ways to overcome this problem rather than using the much favoured bucket of sand method! If a solution is not found it will become all our problems. But at the end of the day I still feel all the work was worth it, just!
Move over my turn in the sand now.
Move over my turn in the sand now.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yo Silverfish, The CAA and industry have given us an answer in the form of JAR 66.
Make all current engineers pay lots of money to convert current Section L licences (including doing the X exam for A & C guys) & lower the standard for new entrants (no orals). I for one have met a lot of complete donkeys who have passed multi choice and written exams but have failed the oral as the surveyer spotted the lack of knowledge.
I find the situation a bit worrying really.
------------------
"Noted With Thanks"
Make all current engineers pay lots of money to convert current Section L licences (including doing the X exam for A & C guys) & lower the standard for new entrants (no orals). I for one have met a lot of complete donkeys who have passed multi choice and written exams but have failed the oral as the surveyer spotted the lack of knowledge.
I find the situation a bit worrying really.
------------------
"Noted With Thanks"
Cunning Artificer
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,125
Likes: 7
From: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Ghengis,
The CAA are lackeys of the capitalist conspiracy that profits from exploitation of the masses.
Or to put it another way, the people who own the old aircraft have more political clout than those who have to hold licences to earn their daily crust
As the French say "C'est la vie, chum"
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
The CAA are lackeys of the capitalist conspiracy that profits from exploitation of the masses.
Or to put it another way, the people who own the old aircraft have more political clout than those who have to hold licences to earn their daily crust
As the French say "C'est la vie, chum"
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by Genghis the Engineer:
I'd love to see both terms being restricted by law (in the same way as
Doctors, Osteopaths, Accountants and other lesser professions) do - with a
fine or prison sentence for calling yourself an Engineer or Technician
without being properly qualified.
For lower forms of life below either we have the terms "Mechanic", "Fitter",
"Apprentice" or "Manager" depending upon preference.
I'd love to see both terms being restricted by law (in the same way as
Doctors, Osteopaths, Accountants and other lesser professions) do - with a
fine or prison sentence for calling yourself an Engineer or Technician
without being properly qualified.
For lower forms of life below either we have the terms "Mechanic", "Fitter",
"Apprentice" or "Manager" depending upon preference.
------------------
I'll just go and get my coat....
Cunning Artificer
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,125
Likes: 7
From: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
We got off the original post a bit here, it started with a complaint about licence fees.
The existing licences will be replaced by a new JAR66 licence soon. This will end our description as Licenced Aircraft Engineers and turn us into Licenced Technicians. Big deal. The problem is, we will still need to pay the same (or higher) fees for the new licence. What privileges does the new licence confer? The answer is none if you work in the hangar. In fact, if you work on Major Maintenance then you won't certify anything unless you rise to be in charge of the whole section.
Why are the regulatory body removing the need for certification of scheduled maintenance? For international standardisation? Why would anyone employed in Major Maintenance bother to go through the licencing process for no particular benefit? We shall see, but I don't believe that airworthiness will benefit.
As to terminology, different names are used in different places. In the USA what we call LAEs are called "Mechanics" and in America it is a privilege to be known as a Mechanic. Again in USA a railway locomotive driver is called an "Engineer" although I don't suppose many of them have degrees in engineering
Then there is the question of protecting professional qualifications through legal means. There ARE no professional engineering qualifications in UK. The Engineers Registration Board simply registers people who meet its qualification levels but they do not CONTROL the Profession. That is actually the problem.
For Chartered Accountants, Doctors, Lawyers and so on their Professional Body controls standards, they don't merely register people. In fact, getting a degree is only the first step. There are further full-time post-graduate courses to be completed and a strictly supervised training period. In short, if there really were such a thing as a Professional Engineer in UK, he or she would have at least a Masters Degree and three years closely supervised and monitored development training with an employer approved to conduct the training.
When such a system is in place under the control of a proper Professional Body for engineering, then it will be reasonable to protect the title and credentials of Engineers by legal means. Until then, the real qualifications are the degrees you hold, not fancy titles issued by a body with no powers.
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
The existing licences will be replaced by a new JAR66 licence soon. This will end our description as Licenced Aircraft Engineers and turn us into Licenced Technicians. Big deal. The problem is, we will still need to pay the same (or higher) fees for the new licence. What privileges does the new licence confer? The answer is none if you work in the hangar. In fact, if you work on Major Maintenance then you won't certify anything unless you rise to be in charge of the whole section.
Why are the regulatory body removing the need for certification of scheduled maintenance? For international standardisation? Why would anyone employed in Major Maintenance bother to go through the licencing process for no particular benefit? We shall see, but I don't believe that airworthiness will benefit.
As to terminology, different names are used in different places. In the USA what we call LAEs are called "Mechanics" and in America it is a privilege to be known as a Mechanic. Again in USA a railway locomotive driver is called an "Engineer" although I don't suppose many of them have degrees in engineering
Then there is the question of protecting professional qualifications through legal means. There ARE no professional engineering qualifications in UK. The Engineers Registration Board simply registers people who meet its qualification levels but they do not CONTROL the Profession. That is actually the problem.
For Chartered Accountants, Doctors, Lawyers and so on their Professional Body controls standards, they don't merely register people. In fact, getting a degree is only the first step. There are further full-time post-graduate courses to be completed and a strictly supervised training period. In short, if there really were such a thing as a Professional Engineer in UK, he or she would have at least a Masters Degree and three years closely supervised and monitored development training with an employer approved to conduct the training.
When such a system is in place under the control of a proper Professional Body for engineering, then it will be reasonable to protect the title and credentials of Engineers by legal means. Until then, the real qualifications are the degrees you hold, not fancy titles issued by a body with no powers.
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Guest
Posts: n/a
Had to shove my threpence hapenny in to this. The Numpty that is supposedly in charge of me recently got chartered by IMechE.
Shortly afterwards I found myself having to explain to him why, when you mesh two gears together you have to leave a little gap! The problem is that he's done all the project, programme & finance management courses which are now apparently vital to an engineers career plan but the only Mechanic's he's done is number crunching on a PC. There are an awful lot of now supposedly qualified people out there who have no practical experience of the world and it shows. At the lab where I currently fester one department tried to do away with tradesmen and just have graduates to do all the installation and maintenance as befits an establishment of international standing -------- and as you've probably guessed it was a bloody disaster! What we need to have are the right people in the right places, a blend of people with practical experience and theoretical skills. This used to be achieved by allowing experienced people from the shop floor to migrate upwards if they had the ability. Nowadays the emphasis is on academic qualifications and a gulf between the sharp end and the top is growing. At the end of the day it's not the bit of paper that counts it's you and how you carry out your responsibilities. However there's one good thing that's come of my Numpty becoming an "Engineer" if he'd gone into accountancy which he's far more suited to he'd be making a lot more people miserable than just the few he affects round here!
Shortly afterwards I found myself having to explain to him why, when you mesh two gears together you have to leave a little gap! The problem is that he's done all the project, programme & finance management courses which are now apparently vital to an engineers career plan but the only Mechanic's he's done is number crunching on a PC. There are an awful lot of now supposedly qualified people out there who have no practical experience of the world and it shows. At the lab where I currently fester one department tried to do away with tradesmen and just have graduates to do all the installation and maintenance as befits an establishment of international standing -------- and as you've probably guessed it was a bloody disaster! What we need to have are the right people in the right places, a blend of people with practical experience and theoretical skills. This used to be achieved by allowing experienced people from the shop floor to migrate upwards if they had the ability. Nowadays the emphasis is on academic qualifications and a gulf between the sharp end and the top is growing. At the end of the day it's not the bit of paper that counts it's you and how you carry out your responsibilities. However there's one good thing that's come of my Numpty becoming an "Engineer" if he'd gone into accountancy which he's far more suited to he'd be making a lot more people miserable than just the few he affects round here!
Guest
Posts: n/a
The CEng route in the UK is now a 4-year Master of Engineering Degree (it was a 3 year BEng when I did it), plus 2 years additional training, plus 2 years on the job. This is hardly the minimalist approach that Blacksheep describes, I certainly spent a lot of time with my hands dirty before reaching the heady heights I'm at now.
Certainly the amount of work I had to do to get my CEng through the RAeS was anything but minimal, and I had to do even more work a couple years later to get membership of the IMechE.
The problem is however not that system isn't strict - it is, although Windy's boss seems to have slipped through the net somewhere. The problems are (a) that this isn't a license to practice, and (b) the Engineering Council does bugger all then to ensure that people continue to maintain the required standards.
The Eng.Tech / IEng / CEng system would be a good one if anybody (including the EC / RAeS / IMEchE) actually took it seriously by making it a license to practice and actually requiring Engineers to prove that they keep meeting the standards to keep it.
The only CEng I've ever heard of being "struck-off" was done so for selling government secrets to the Russians. If to be in charge of a project / hangar / whatever, you had to be at the right standard, and if you had a really big cock-up (BAC1-11 windscreen?, Dover pier?) were subject to a formal Inquiry by your peers at risk of losing your qualifications the world would be a better place.
This is what the medics do after all.
G
Certainly the amount of work I had to do to get my CEng through the RAeS was anything but minimal, and I had to do even more work a couple years later to get membership of the IMechE.
The problem is however not that system isn't strict - it is, although Windy's boss seems to have slipped through the net somewhere. The problems are (a) that this isn't a license to practice, and (b) the Engineering Council does bugger all then to ensure that people continue to maintain the required standards.
The Eng.Tech / IEng / CEng system would be a good one if anybody (including the EC / RAeS / IMEchE) actually took it seriously by making it a license to practice and actually requiring Engineers to prove that they keep meeting the standards to keep it.
The only CEng I've ever heard of being "struck-off" was done so for selling government secrets to the Russians. If to be in charge of a project / hangar / whatever, you had to be at the right standard, and if you had a really big cock-up (BAC1-11 windscreen?, Dover pier?) were subject to a formal Inquiry by your peers at risk of losing your qualifications the world would be a better place.
This is what the medics do after all.
G
Cunning Artificer
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,125
Likes: 7
From: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Aah Ghengis,
Just what I've been trying to lead this up to
A proper route upwards, available to all who are willing to put in the effort, that leads to a "Licence to Practice." Legally protected, and independently controlled by the practitioners themselves. I go further and propose a seperate Institute for Maintenance Engineering as a distinct discipline. We would then be Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers in a true sense!
In fact, a true profession. The Licence that I got from the ARB in nineteen-canteen was mine. It didn't belong to my employer and I exercised the privileges using my own discretion. Employers such as BOAC and BEA didn't like that, it was expensive and increased their labour costs. As aircraft fleet sizes increased in the sixties the increased demand for LAEs would inevitably drive up the wages needed to get the right people. To better control the certifiers the corproations used their political muscle to force the new CAA into publishing A8-13 and the company approval system; reducing the cost of certification through the invention of the "Certifying Tradesman." Since then we have descended further to JAR 145 and will soon take another step down to JAR 66. Standards are falling, simply to reduce costs without concern about the possible effects on airworthiness.
By the way, although I note the references to "bean counters" and agree upon the dangers that they unwittingly sponsor, my own opinion of them is based on knowledge not emotion. I have a degree in Accounting and Finance and I'm not just a "union man" trying to fight for higher pay. I feel that the downward pressure on standards has gone far enough. There will be an inevitable cost penalty if we continue down this road, and peoples' safety is put in jeopardy. Accountants work on historic costs and will only react once the bills come in. By then it will be too late.
*********************************
Just what I've been trying to lead this up to
A proper route upwards, available to all who are willing to put in the effort, that leads to a "Licence to Practice." Legally protected, and independently controlled by the practitioners themselves. I go further and propose a seperate Institute for Maintenance Engineering as a distinct discipline. We would then be Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers in a true sense!
In fact, a true profession. The Licence that I got from the ARB in nineteen-canteen was mine. It didn't belong to my employer and I exercised the privileges using my own discretion. Employers such as BOAC and BEA didn't like that, it was expensive and increased their labour costs. As aircraft fleet sizes increased in the sixties the increased demand for LAEs would inevitably drive up the wages needed to get the right people. To better control the certifiers the corproations used their political muscle to force the new CAA into publishing A8-13 and the company approval system; reducing the cost of certification through the invention of the "Certifying Tradesman." Since then we have descended further to JAR 145 and will soon take another step down to JAR 66. Standards are falling, simply to reduce costs without concern about the possible effects on airworthiness.
By the way, although I note the references to "bean counters" and agree upon the dangers that they unwittingly sponsor, my own opinion of them is based on knowledge not emotion. I have a degree in Accounting and Finance and I'm not just a "union man" trying to fight for higher pay. I feel that the downward pressure on standards has gone far enough. There will be an inevitable cost penalty if we continue down this road, and peoples' safety is put in jeopardy. Accountants work on historic costs and will only react once the bills come in. By then it will be too late.
*********************************
Guest
Posts: n/a
Come on chaps,
the system has changed that much that now we might as well be known as "Book readers with Tools"
The days of real type tickets where orals lasted 4 to 5 hours are gone, the depth of knowlege into every nut,bolt, relay and sub-system I am afraid have long past.
Look at aircraft like the Airbus, It tells you when its gone wrong (most of the time),It even gives you codes to look up to direct you on fault finding. where is the Brain work in that, all you need is to understand how to use the manuals properly.
Many moons ago I used to spend hours trying to understand how systems worked,(and the CAA used to ask me on vists or on orals).but now whats the point, my company states I must read and quote all AMM references for work I carry out and certify, Ive even had my knuckles rapped for not following the TSM (trouble shooting manual) para by para.
I am sorry to say that we have had the power or right to think removed from us. The CAA and companies have gone along with this, exams/legislation are gearing up for work forces that are controlled by manufactures manuals.
Maybe the only real Engineers will be the structure repair guys that aurthories airframe repairs?
PRACTICAL skill does not come into this area, maybe this is the true part of the job that we should sell to companies?
the system has changed that much that now we might as well be known as "Book readers with Tools"
The days of real type tickets where orals lasted 4 to 5 hours are gone, the depth of knowlege into every nut,bolt, relay and sub-system I am afraid have long past.
Look at aircraft like the Airbus, It tells you when its gone wrong (most of the time),It even gives you codes to look up to direct you on fault finding. where is the Brain work in that, all you need is to understand how to use the manuals properly.
Many moons ago I used to spend hours trying to understand how systems worked,(and the CAA used to ask me on vists or on orals).but now whats the point, my company states I must read and quote all AMM references for work I carry out and certify, Ive even had my knuckles rapped for not following the TSM (trouble shooting manual) para by para.
I am sorry to say that we have had the power or right to think removed from us. The CAA and companies have gone along with this, exams/legislation are gearing up for work forces that are controlled by manufactures manuals.
Maybe the only real Engineers will be the structure repair guys that aurthories airframe repairs?
PRACTICAL skill does not come into this area, maybe this is the true part of the job that we should sell to companies?
Cunning Artificer
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,125
Likes: 7
From: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Hi hippy,
So, when you reach the last block in the FIM and there's nothing in the MM, BITE says all is well and the bl**dy thing STILL doesn't work, where do you go? Again, what happens when the FIM says change the 'PFM Module' and it comes back from repair for the fourth time as NFF with a repair invoice of US$2500 what do you do then? No, there is no replacement for a trained laterally thinking human being. The day when the first maintenance free aircraft takes to the air is the same day that we achieve the zero crew cockpit. By then I'll be retired but I think I'll go on holiday by ship
------------------
Info noted. Plse report further.
So, when you reach the last block in the FIM and there's nothing in the MM, BITE says all is well and the bl**dy thing STILL doesn't work, where do you go? Again, what happens when the FIM says change the 'PFM Module' and it comes back from repair for the fourth time as NFF with a repair invoice of US$2500 what do you do then? No, there is no replacement for a trained laterally thinking human being. The day when the first maintenance free aircraft takes to the air is the same day that we achieve the zero crew cockpit. By then I'll be retired but I think I'll go on holiday by ship
------------------
Info noted. Plse report further.
