the end of the licensed engineer??
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 57
From: Anglia
Yep! Thats the one.
It clearly states there are two methods of release at the moment (caused by the ambiguity of EASA "Rules" which are then left to NAA interpretation for methods of compliance).
It is also quite obvious that many airlines would like to reduce the amount of well paid engineers and mechanics they have. If they could employ more lower paid, locally trained, personnel to become "Appropriately Approved Personnel" they would save a fortune.
My understanding of this method is that many personnel could carry out tasks without supervision leaving an "Engineer" to release the aircraft as the "Approved Personnel" state/sign they have completed their tasks. (Honest Guv'nor)
IMO many wheels have fallen off due to lack of supervision.
I have no doubt that, if left without argument, EASA will once more opt for the lower standard.
It clearly states there are two methods of release at the moment (caused by the ambiguity of EASA "Rules" which are then left to NAA interpretation for methods of compliance).
It is also quite obvious that many airlines would like to reduce the amount of well paid engineers and mechanics they have. If they could employ more lower paid, locally trained, personnel to become "Appropriately Approved Personnel" they would save a fortune.
My understanding of this method is that many personnel could carry out tasks without supervision leaving an "Engineer" to release the aircraft as the "Approved Personnel" state/sign they have completed their tasks. (Honest Guv'nor)
IMO many wheels have fallen off due to lack of supervision.
I have no doubt that, if left without argument, EASA will once more opt for the lower standard.
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: Where ever I lay my hat..
This is the end, my friend.
The harsh reality for people and organsiations who wish to lower the standards of certification via a company approval or authorsiation, is that Engineers who have an Authorisation endorsed by an NAA, have a broader range of knowledge and experience, due in no small part in having to go through a truely independant approval system with no commercial axe to grind. Without an independant internationally recognised qualification, company approved people do not have the experience to fully withstand the wide variance of commercial standards and pressures encountered in the normal aviation workplace.
They will be making decisions that will ultimatly destroy familys, aircraft, companys, and the general publics hard-won confidence in Aviation.
This is not the Brave New World of aviation that we wish to see unfold now or at any time in the future. I have been shocked to the core with this news of the proposed EASA TOR.
They will be making decisions that will ultimatly destroy familys, aircraft, companys, and the general publics hard-won confidence in Aviation.
This is not the Brave New World of aviation that we wish to see unfold now or at any time in the future. I have been shocked to the core with this news of the proposed EASA TOR.
Cunning Artificer
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,125
Likes: 7
From: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Its not the TOR that's the problem - taken by itself the terms of reference are completely inoccuous and no-one could argue with the content. Its TGL 41 thats the problem. You can get a copy if you have a subscription to IHS. but that's hardly in the public domain.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
From: OZ
I have followed this thread for some time.
I fully understand why you would be up in arms with your regulators decision to water down the qualifications you have worked all you working life to attain.
I too agree on this point.
BUT
With JAA/EASA system in place there is no mechanism to transfer my qualifications gained outside of Europe to be used in Europe on European registered aircraft. As every inquiry I have made has been met with go back the beginning do the basics and then redo my type training on the grounds that it is inferior. I have completed an Airbus VACBI course to the highest level (5) and found it complete rubbish compared to other type training I have received I was amazed that this could pass for type training. I hope you understand I felt fairly insulted when told my other type training was inferior.
Perhaps with the changing of the rules a person such as my self with over 20 years experience may seek employment in Europe as I have been well and truly shut out up to now.
Just a different perspective
I fully understand why you would be up in arms with your regulators decision to water down the qualifications you have worked all you working life to attain.
I too agree on this point.
BUT
With JAA/EASA system in place there is no mechanism to transfer my qualifications gained outside of Europe to be used in Europe on European registered aircraft. As every inquiry I have made has been met with go back the beginning do the basics and then redo my type training on the grounds that it is inferior. I have completed an Airbus VACBI course to the highest level (5) and found it complete rubbish compared to other type training I have received I was amazed that this could pass for type training. I hope you understand I felt fairly insulted when told my other type training was inferior.
Perhaps with the changing of the rules a person such as my self with over 20 years experience may seek employment in Europe as I have been well and truly shut out up to now.
Just a different perspective
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
From: Far East
Bolty,
Fair point, CASA are pretty much the same though aren't they?, but the EASA/JAA system does allow an amount of freedom of movement betweeen the contracting European states. There is also a certain amount of protectionism built into any system to keep at least some of the jobs in-country.
But more to the point of this thread - Do away with a licensing system in Europe, and sure enough the non-US aligned countries will follow suit eventually. I seem to remember there was a big hurragh in Oz just about LAE's not signing for a transit on the LCC 737's coz the flight crew were doing it only a year or so back......where this is going would be no licensed staff anywhere near the aircraft!
And totally off topic, I think VACBI is universally regarded as the biggest load of sh1t going cunningly disguised as a type course. I too spent my 9 weeks in VACBI hell.
Fair point, CASA are pretty much the same though aren't they?, but the EASA/JAA system does allow an amount of freedom of movement betweeen the contracting European states. There is also a certain amount of protectionism built into any system to keep at least some of the jobs in-country.
But more to the point of this thread - Do away with a licensing system in Europe, and sure enough the non-US aligned countries will follow suit eventually. I seem to remember there was a big hurragh in Oz just about LAE's not signing for a transit on the LCC 737's coz the flight crew were doing it only a year or so back......where this is going would be no licensed staff anywhere near the aircraft!
And totally off topic, I think VACBI is universally regarded as the biggest load of sh1t going cunningly disguised as a type course. I too spent my 9 weeks in VACBI hell.
Pilots' Pal
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
From: USA
Bolty,
It is a great shame that the CASA licence is not accepted by EASA on the basis of a multi-choice exam covering air legislation and any other major differences (as was the case in the UK a few years ago). I think I've mentioned before that I got a CASA Group 20 based on CTC, my BCAR Section L (this was 1996) and company authorisations.
I have in front of me a leaflet from CASA outlining their Maintenance Regulation project. Believe it or not, CASA intends to model its system - for the large part - on EASA! I think it should be the other way around!
It is a great shame that the CASA licence is not accepted by EASA on the basis of a multi-choice exam covering air legislation and any other major differences (as was the case in the UK a few years ago). I think I've mentioned before that I got a CASA Group 20 based on CTC, my BCAR Section L (this was 1996) and company authorisations.
I have in front of me a leaflet from CASA outlining their Maintenance Regulation project. Believe it or not, CASA intends to model its system - for the large part - on EASA! I think it should be the other way around!
Cunning Artificer
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,125
Likes: 7
From: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Ah! I see we are beginning to get a grip on my comment concerning the rules being "in the public domain." 
Even if you pay for a subscrpition to IHS you still have a problem finding our what the rules actually are. Even EASA don't know.
Anybody else been having fun with EASA'a latest Airworthiness Directive? The one that we were told about through Airbus Industries two days after it became effective and which still isn't shown on the EASA website...
Even if you pay for a subscrpition to IHS you still have a problem finding our what the rules actually are. Even EASA don't know.
Anybody else been having fun with EASA'a latest Airworthiness Directive? The one that we were told about through Airbus Industries two days after it became effective and which still isn't shown on the EASA website...
