the end of the licensed engineer??

[matkat]

Originally Posted by PhilM

It's a shame the ALAE is not "open" for us unlicensed people to show our support for our licensed colleages.
There are many of us unlicensed people who are at various points along the way to a license (I have only a few modules remaining), so these issues will affect me and other unlicensed guys aswell.
Let's just hope we can get licensed before EASA decide to bin them or the last 2 years of study (and several thousand pounds) have all been a waste!

Phil I am sure You can indeed join the only difference would be that You would be a non-voting Member.

[The hippy]

are you really surprised

Gents in the years I have been in aviation I have found many standards in engineering, in fact I remember the old A8-3 system, where engineers could certify aircraft in the UK without a licence.
Are we not returning back to the old system that is similar to other European countries?
Ask your self this

Does a licence mean that we make fewer mistakes? Or is it how we train staff in our own organisation that makes fewer errors.

The new processes that are being used on the next generation aircraft B787's will they be covered by the B1 licence, or will it be a composite workshop licence?

B2 licence engineers on the line working A320, B777 and A330 aircraft when was the last time you put a pitot static test set on an aircraft. Or tuned a H F antenna.

I am not saying we can’t do the tasks but hand on heart how many tasks did we used to do, do we still do now.
Aviation technology is accelerating so fast that we are now only being trained to change modules. The tests we do are software programs, and the design of skin repairs are only issued by manufactures and design offices.
The hand skills will not go, but do we need a licence to change a box/ module? Maybe we will be come specialists in areas such as boroscoping engines, NDT, hangar inspection, and damage assessments.

Just so no one jumps down my throat I am looking at the whole thing from on the fence,
I have been a licensed Engineer for 23 years (type rated) and hold B1,B2 and C Licence, and am disappointed to think that all that hard work may becoming to an end, but 707's 1-11's and 757's are not A350's,/B787's and A380's ?

[BAe146s make me cry]

Hippy

Comments noted and taken on board.

Its true about A/C technology and its various advances.

Even when newer A/C are in service, older ones will still be about.
I'd still like to think that upon a maintenance task being completed,
ALL A/C are subjected to an inspection, function check, a dupe with critical items and certified by a qualified, examined and approved Licensed Aircraft Engineer, such as yourself.

In the early 70's the ARB changed to CAA, proposals to remove the AME licence appeared then because of this new large difficult A/C - the B747! Only the efforts of the ALAE and people motivated to retain a fully qualified, examined and approved certifier working base and line A/C saved us (and certainly you) then.

It seems that a proposal is afoot to 'do away' with our positive inputs.
I'm forward thinking and quite open to reasonable ideas but as I'm sure you are aware, there is an amazing shortage of type rated EASA Part 66
Type rated L.A.E.s + importantly, PLENTY OF EXPERIENCE ON TYPE!
Refer below and see for yourself...

www.aviationjobsearch.com

I don't want to see a quick legislative fix for personnel shortages
for a long term problem. Airworthiness has to come first despite
the demands of our beloved management who I respect but keep
at arms length.

I may not get to post again before tomorrow, so if anyone is interested
in the future of the UK Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, come along tomorrow (8th) to the ALAE Annual General Meeting (Inc Hippy) at
1300hrs, Stansted's Radisson Hotel, Essex, UK. See link below for details...

www.alae.org

The worst thing you can do is nothing.

BAe146? + EASA + My missus???

[keel beam]

Originally Posted by The hippy

Gents in the years I have been in aviation I have found many standards in engineering, in fact I remember the old A8-3 system, where engineers could certify aircraft in the UK without a licence.
?

In the old days of type licences course were very long. When I did the B707 airframe and PWJT3D courses they lasted for 18 weeks. As costs tightened my company reduced the length of courses (for signing under BCAR 8-13?) so for a B747 the course lasted 9 weeks for engine/airframe AND avionics extension. The only reason companies want company authorisations is down to cost. Safety comes after that. The rumour that EASA are going back to company authorisations is because the European airlines do not want the extra costs of type licensing.

Perhaps another thing to think of is that 30 years ago there were not many "type licence" holders, today there are many, so that means more type courses.

[Bus429]

Make your voices heard! I attended the ALAE AGM on April 8th; total number of attendees - 16! Speakers included Eric Sivel from EASA who spoke of the proposed changes to technical log certification. What conclusion would he draw when considering such poor attendance?
I was fortunate to be elected - or rather, since there were vacancies and too few nominations - placed on the Executive Council. I used to be rather complacent about EASA, generally welcoming the idea of European integration. However, complacent no longer! Over the last year or so, I have been made aware of the intentions of some "competent" authorities and realise the dire future for the licensed engineer.
So, ladies and gents, join the ALAE. They are fighting your case with EASA, with no renumeration other than expenses and, almost without exception, in their own time - support them by joining. Visit www.alae.org

[BAe146s make me cry]

I was one of those 16 too. I found it amazing when Mr Sivel considered the duties of an LAE as those of an almost unrequired middleman.

A lot of facts and figures were shown to us on Saturday.
I can appreciate there are shortages of manpower but resorting to
using 'Appropriately Approved Personnel' is asking for serious trouble.

I'll be doing all I can to legally oppose these planned proposals.
Join the ALAE 1981 and make your voice heard, this is a very real
threat to how airworthiness is protected and enhanced.

BAe146?

[JamesA]

I have been looking on the EASA site for information on the 'replacement' of licensed engineers, without success. Could anybody give me the location of this proposal, please?
Contrary to popular belief in Britain, there are a lot of JAR 66/ EASA part 66 engineers on the European mainland who have also spent a lot of time and money obtaining relevant ratings. I think it shameful of all the governments who approve this 'bowing to commercial pressure' to enable airlines to cut corners/ reduce costs in order to entice customers to a cheaper seat. Far better to employ properly trained and qualified personnel and instill in the passenger (and the crew for thar matter), he/she is paying a little extra for peace of mind when they fly.

From the tone of the correspondents, it would appear this is the thin end of the wedge - does this mean when this legislation has been pushed through the next move will be for ATPs to be replaced by PPLs? Where does the master plan end? The old jokes about the monkey and the dog spring to mind.
Unfortunately, there are not many engineers who can afford to stop working as the BOAC pilots did with the B747 introduction. I don't see any union support and protection for the skilled tradesman any longer, the original objective of the TRADE union. Anybody who withdraws their labour will soon be replaced viz the situation with Nortwest. (agreed there were some different issues at stake there). I think this situation needs wider publicity than using this forum, hence my request for the EASA announcement.

[b737engineer]

HI JAMESA,

IF YOU WANT INFO ABOU THIS PROPOSAL GO TO EASA, CLICK ON TERMS OF REFERENCE, AND OPEN ToR 145-012. THERE ARE NO DETAILS ABOUT THE NPA, JUST THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE AND THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP. THE NPA WILL BE PUBLISHED ON DECEMBER.

REGARDS,
b737engineer

[JamesA]

End of licensed engineer?????????????

Hi b737engineer,

Many thanks for the location. As always a very vague introduction to something very damaging to many livliehoods. Posed as it is, I can almost see the rubber stamp hovering now.
I will be forwarding the page to my colleagues. Thanks again
James

[Tako Yaki]

If you haven't already, go over to Air Mech and have a read of the ALAE threads, interesting stuff about the EASA proposals/ALAE, etc.
When it comes to our licenses it seems the biggest danger the LAE population have is themselves! We are an apathetic bunch when it comes to the very thing that is our livelyhood, our license.
Contact/join the ALAE or contact AEI(Aircraft Engineers International) if you are a European LAE. Make some noise, whether it is to your local surveyor, to EASA themselves or the politicians.
Talk to your colleagues, encourage them to join, for ALAE it less than 2 pounds a week!, think of it as an investment in your future.
OK, I will get off the soap box now.

[Blacksheep]

Does EASA Actually Know What They Are Doing?? Are They Properly Qualified To Act??

in fact I remember the old A8-3 system, where engineers could certify aircraft in the UK without a licence.

So do I - such people did however need to hold an "Aeronautical Engineering Certificate". In fact several of our supervisors were "approved" AEC holders and could sign a C of C, but not the Certificate Of Maintenance. Under A8-3 you needed a type rated licence to do that. So we had the anomaly by which a Lead Tradesman might sign off a C of M that his supervisor was not qualified to sign.

ICAO requires that unless they register a "difference", signatory states are responsible for licensing individuals to certify aircraft maintenance. Until now, with the exception only of France, all signatory states have done so. Note that the Civil Aviation Act ratified the Chicago Convention, using the ANO to state the requirements and regulations by which the ratification is made effective. Under the ANO BCAR A8 then set out the detailed licensing requirements.

The EC is not a state and EASA's position and authority under ICAO - which is concerned only with individual signatory states - remains unclear.The ALEA could perhaps make itself useful by raising the necessary cash and challenging either EASA's or at least the UK government's position on licensing, under international aviation law. Although individual states do have the right to register differences, EASA seems to be acting contrary to the intentions of ICAO in this matter.

Consider that other EASA fiasco where, wishing to do away with "Permits to Fly" EASA required all aircraft to be maintained by approved organizations. They apparently failed to realize that the overwhelming majority of aircraft in Europe - more than 77,000 - are PTF aircraft. There are not enough approved organizations to undertake the work and even if there were, there could never be enough EASA people to regulate them.

With all this blundering about, one is driven to wonder if EASA actually have any idea what they are doing?

[Bus429]

Blacksheep,
EASA justification for changing the method for release after line maintenance is set out in TOR 145.12. Their reasons relate to several near accidents; one example cited by Eric Sivel (EASA) at the ALAE AGM was that of an aircraft that attempted take-off with one of its mainwheels partially installed. This was apparently attributed to a failure by the engineer to record the defect in the tech log- it was not a PIREP - prior to accomplishing the mainwheel replacement.
I fail to see how changing the method of release would prevent incidents such as this. The thrust of human factors training - certainly in my courses - is that we can only reduce incidents and accidents through application of HF and other principles; the fact that we are involved in every facet of aviation except the weather makes the eradication of human error impossible.
EASA's suggestions amount to throwing out the baby with the bath water; the example cited would best be mitigated by RCA resulting - dare I say it - in a bit of HF training (perhaps!).

[berkens]

Hi All,

Isn't this going about the single & multiple release (of a component)?


To release a component from shop (Part-145) you need a Form-1.

On that form-1 you can have a single (one organisation like EASA, FAA or Japan) release or a multiple release (for example EASA + FAA).

The release to service of the component is given by Certifying Staff, in this case a CAT-D (Part-66) working in a shop of a Part-145 organisation.

Greetings, Ben...

(CAT-A, limited-B1 & B2)

[Bus429]

Berkens,

Form 1 is a different issue. Have a look at TOR 145.12 on www.easa.eu.int

[Blacksheep]

Hi Bus, how're you doing these days?

I do agree that licenses doesn't necessarily equate directly to safety. Human factors affect everyone, licensed or not and human factors are the ultimate determinant of safety - reliability too, although the two are often confused.

Having not bothered to renew any of mine, I'm no longer licensed, but I could still be relied upon to safely accomplish many aircraft maintenance tasks if necessary - and to know where the limits of my ability lie. The danger in eliminating licenses is that it opens the door to people who are not steeped in our aircraft maintenance safety culture to perform work on aircraft. Questions that immediately spring to mind are: How are we to ascertain competence? Why haven't they got a license? What basic training have they had? The reason ICAO insists that signatory states - and only signatory states - issue licenses to certify aircraft maintenance is to ensure that certifiers demonstrate knowledge and competence. That is what licenses are all about and doing away with state licensing removes that assurance. Can you imagine the EC ordering EU member states to do away with driving licenses and hand control of driver competence to the driving schools?

ICAO deals with individual signatory states. The EU is not a state, the EC is a legislative body but it has no sovereignty and EASA is using powers granted under one international treaty to oblige sovereign states to abrogate terms of another international treaty that they have ratified. If this is in the interests of safety then I'm a Dutchman's uncle. EASA's case seems very flimsy to the most casual glance and it is certainly possible to challenge their position under international law. What we need is an interested party with the will and the funds to take the matter to court.

[yamaha]

you do not have to issue licences under ICAO regulations so legal proceedings will get you nowhere.

France should tell you that. It would appear to me as an outsider reading between the lines that our good ole buddy France is having trouble leaving its old system behind.

So as happens in many walks of European life, if France wont abide then get the rest to do as France does.

[Bus429]

Yamaha - you are correct, France has an exemption to paragraph 4.2 of ICAO Annexe 1

[Blacksheep]

Yes, as I mentioned in my earlier post, France registered a difference when they originally signed up. They were the only state to do so. Other EU member states would have to register differences to abrogate their original ratification and then stop issuing at least some licences.

This is, as I also mentioned earlier, contrary to the spirit of ICAO Annexe One's intention that certifiers demonstrate competence under state supervision. France does indeed seem to have difficulty with leaving its old system behind.

As to legal measures, anything can be challenged at state level. Its what sovereignty is all about. EU law normally takes precedence and states are obliged to incorporate EU law into their own legal systems. However, EU states retain the right not to adopt mere agency rulings, unless they are ratified by the European Parliament.

This issue concerns an EU agency ruling that would overturn a clause of an international treaty already ratified by sovereign states and it is a moot question if EASA - or even the EU itself - has authority to do such a thing. The EU is not a sovereign state and has no power to sign or ratify an international treaty.

[Flying Mech]

Hi Guys

This is the most important issue to affect engineers in a very long time. If we do nothing & let this NPRM by EASA through we will all be earning the same as the guy driving the honey kart or on the Drive Thru at Burger King. Contracting will be dead. The Beancounters & Managment of all Maintenance orgranisations will have won. Doyou think that IALPA/BALPA would allow a similar proposal to replace ATPL holders with PPL's as already said in a previous post. This has to be nipped in the Bud NOW. I have been looking at the easa website & am unable to find the link to this NPRM. Can anybody provide a direct link pls? pass the word to all freinds & Colleagues.Inform the Contract agencys that they will be going bust next year & get them to object as well through the NAA's & EASA. This is a european wide problem which will hit us all in the hardest place - The Pocket. Everyone has to lodge a formal objection to this with your NAA & EASA individually at least by email for individals but as many written letters as possible. Contact your NAA & Get their views on thisas well.

[Mr.Brown]

There's only a TOR at the moment, I think this is it!(http://www.easa.eu.int/doc/Rulemakin...oR_145_012.pdf)
NPA scheduled for December 06